Why the false representation?
Mark Hines
I have not received a responsible reply to the following previously
posted question: Why is it respectful of the LDS "church" to represent
God with Min (Menu-ka-mut-f), a pagan Egyptian god (Figure 7 of
Facsimile 2 in the Book of Abraham) who has an erect penis? The question
merits repetition until there is a responsible reply from an official
"church" representative. In Figure 7, Mormons also represent the Holy
Ghost with the ithyphallic (with erect penis) god Nehebkau, and in
Figure 3, Mormons represent God with the Egyptian sun god Re (Ra), even
though God finds all Egyptian gods abhorrent in His sight (see Ezekiel
20:7-8, Jeremiah 43:12-13 et al.). God calls the gods of Egypt "idols"
(Ezekiel 20:8) and He says that idolaters will not inherit the kingdom
of God (1 Cor. 6:9). How can Mormons represent God with that which He
utterly detests? Do they think it a small matter to anger God? When LDS
die, how can they anticipate anything other than what God promised
idolaters?
----- snip -----
To Mormons, the Pearl of Great Price is one of four books accepted as
scripture, on equal holiness and authority with the Bible. To informed
Christians, it is pornographic, idolatrous filth that honors pagan idols
and disrespects God. One can prove very easily that the Book of Abraham,
a part of the Pearl of Great Price, is of Satan. Facsimile 2 of the Book
of Abraham is known to Egyptologists as a hypocephalus, an Egyptian
funerary amulet. As a part of pagan burial ritual, the hypocephalus was
placed under (hypo) the deceased's head (cephalus) to provide magical
light and warmth. The hypocephalus, as a part of pagan burial
superstition, has no business representing anything claiming to be
"Christian."
For comparison purposes, here is a picture of a hypocephalus that was
made for Lady Takhred-Khonsu, daughter of Khonsu-ir-dis. It is similar
to Joe Smith's Facsimile 2 hypocephalus that was made for a man named
Sheshonq:
Mormons should open a copy of the Book of Abraham to the Facsimile 2
picture, and should compare this picture of a hypocephalus with the one
at the above link. It may help them to print out the Takhred-Khonsu
hypocephalus. Various similar features in the two hypocephali include
the sun god Ra (Fig. 3) on his solar bark; Amon-Re (Fig. 2), the
two-headed god with jackal's heads on his shoulders; Thoth's baboons
(Figs. 22-23) who have disks on their heads and who stand in the posture
of adoration; Khnum (Fig. 1), a ram headed god; the hawk (Fig. 4) with
outstretched wings; the four sons of Horus (Fig. 6); the cow goddess
Hathor (Fig. 5); Min and Nehebkau (Fig. 7). Notice that the figures are
drawn in a similar way.
In both hypocephali, Min has an erect penis. In the Takhred-Khonsu
hypocephalus, both Min and Nehebkau, whom Smith says represents "God"
and the "Holy Ghost," face each other with stiff penises. In both
hypocephali, Min has his characteristic hawk's tail, beard and
lightening bolt flail (in the form of a crooked arrow). In both
hypocephali, Nehebkau presents Min with the udjat eye (All-Seeing Eye of
Horus). Mormons should look carefully at the two pagan gods facing each
other with erect penises, and should decide for themselves if the Figure
7 personages whom Joe Smith says represent the LDS "God" and the "Holy
Ghost" are the God and Holy Ghost of the Bible, or whether they are a
different God and Holy Ghost. If after this examination, people remain
in Mormonism, they will not have even the slightest grounds to complain
about their eternal fate in hell. They will have to admit that their
eternal punishment in hell is completely fair and just.
The introduction of Joe Smith's Book of Abraham reads: "A Translation of
some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs
of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book
of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."
In official Mormon writings, Smith claimed not only to translate the
papyri, but to give a "correct translation" of them (History of the
Church, vol. 2, pp. 348, 350-51).
The papyri Smith claimed to translate from Biblical patriarch Abraham's
hand into the Book of Abraham have been shown by top Egyptologists to be
the Book of Breathings, a shortened and later version of the Book of the
Dead. The text has nothing to do with Abraham or his religion.
After examining the Joseph Smith papyri, Dr. John A. Wilson, professor
emeritus of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, said that they made
up a "mortuary text" known as the "Book of Breathings " (Shait en
Sensen) (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968, p.68).
Dr. Klaus Baer, associate professor of Egyptology at the University of
Chicago's Oriental Institute, also found the papyri to be the Book of
the Dead. Dr. Baer's translation of the papyri and his explanations
of the Facsimiles had nothing in common with Smith's (Dialogue, Autumn
1968, p.119-20).
Professor Richard A. Parker, chairman of the department of Egyptology at
Brown University, translated Smith's holograph of "Abraham" into about
eighty-seven words as follows:
1. [.....] this great pool of Khonsu
2. [Osiris Hor, justified], born of Taykhebyt, a man likewise.
3. After (his) two arms are [fast]ened to his breast, one wraps the Book
of Breathings, which is
4. with writing both inside and outside of it, with royal linen, it
being placed (at) his left arm
5. near his heart, this having been done at his
6. wrapping and outside it. If this book be recited for him, then
7. he will breath like the soul[s of the gods] for ever and
8. ever (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968, p.98).
The papyri are no more than pagan myths related to Egyptian idolatry.
Additionally, Egyptologists date the papyri to about the first century
(Charles Larson, By his own hand upon papyrus, 1992, p. 62.). Since
Abraham lived at least 1,500 years earlier, he could not have hand
written the papyri as Joe Smith had claimed.
In 1842, Joe Smith published Facsimile 2 in the Mormon periodical Times
and Seasons. He published it as a serial of the Book of Abraham.
Claiming that he could explain and translate sections of the picture,
he numbered Figures to facilitate his explanations. So that there is
no suspicion that I have altered Facsimile 2, here is the site of BYU
professor Michael Rhodes:
<http://home.att.net/~michael.rhodes/jshypo.htm>
Here is Joe Smith's explanation of Figure 7 in Facsimile 2:
"Fig. 7. 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."
Professor Rhodes has an article accompanying the hypocephalus graphic.
In his article, Professor Rhodes repeats Smith's explanation. If one
goes to BYU professor Michael Rhodes' link above, one will find Figure 7
in the lower right quadrant of the hypocephalus. Christians will be
aghast to see that Figure 7 is a man with an erect penis. Under Joe
Smith's directions, Reuben Hedlock made woodcuts for the original
facsimiles printed in the Times and Seasons. The Figure 7 man with the
erect penis was in this early 1842 edition. Ashamed and embarrassed,
Mormon officials expunged the erect penis from the 1966 edition of the
Pearl of Great Price, but they returned Min's penis in the 1981 edition.
Their alternately removing and returning it called attention to their
guilt. They were guilty, and they knew it in their hearts.
Even in Smith's day, a moderately retarded person could identify the
sitting person as having an erect penis. Anybody with high school level
reading comprehension skills can read Joe Smith's explanation. Sanity,
common sense, basic decency, etc., tells one that this "prophet" Smith
and his obscene representation of God are of Satan.
Professor Rhodes and professional Egyptologists identify the figure as
Min, an Egyptian fertility god. At his Website, Rhodes identifies the
Figure 7 person as Min, an ithyphallic god. The word "ithyphallic" is
from the Greek word meaning "with erect penis." Min's full Egyptian name
is "Menu-ka-mut-f." The name literally means "Min, Bull of his Mother."
Min, as one might guess from his name, was incestuous with his own
mother. He is usually represented as having an erect penis. In some
hypocephali, Min holds his stiff dick with one hand.
When Klaus Baer, Associate Professor of Egyptology at the University of
Chicago's Oriental Institute, translated the original papyrus (P. JS I)
from which Joe Smith copied the Facsimile 1 vignette of the Book of
Abraham, he found the term "Min Bull-of-his-Mother." (Dialogue: A
Journal of Mormon thought, Autumn 1968, page 116)
Even the Mormon "church" admits that Joe Smith copied the Facsimile 1
vignette from P. JS I: "Only for Facsimile 1 is the original document
known to be extant" (Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism,
New York: MacMillan, 1992, Vol. 1).
Dr. Baer translates columns on the papyrus from which Smith copied
Facsimile 1:
"Lines 1-3 give the titles, name, and parentage of the man for whose
benefit the Breathing Permit was written:
" . . . the prophet of Amonrasonter, prophet [?] of Min
Bull-of-his-Mother, prophet [?] of Khons the Governor . . . Hor,
justified son the holder of the same titles, master of secrets, and
purifier of the gods Osorwer, justified [?] . . . Tikhebyt, justified.
May your ba live among them, and may you be buried in the West. . . .
"Too little is left of line 4 to permit even a guess at what it said.
Insofar as I can make it out, line 5 reads: 'May you give him a good,
splendid burial on the West of just like. . . .'" (Dialogue: A Journal
of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, pp. 116-17).
The epithet "Min Bull-of-his-Mother" refers to the ithyphallic god Min,
whom Egyptologists also find in Smith's Facsimile 2. Min, then, is an
irrefutable tie between Joe Smith's Facsimile 1 and Facsimile 2. Since
even the apologetic Encyclopedia of Mormonism admits that Smith copied
the Facsimile 1 vignette from P. JS I, Mormons are forced to acknowledge
that Min is in their "scripture" of the Book of Abraham, a part of the
Pearl of Great Price.
Anybody who can read Egyptian hieratics can find Min in the writing
around the perimeter of the round hypocephalus. Joe Smith copied
characters from the Sensen (P. JS XI) papyrus to fill in the perimeter
of the hypocephalus. Knowing nothing of hieroglyphic and hieratic
writing, Smith copied some characters upside down in relation to others
(Charles Larson, By his own hand upon papyrus. Institute for Religious
Research, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1992). Since LDS "church" members also
didn't know much about Egyptology, Smith was relatively safe in conning
them.
Joe Smith numbered the writing "Figure 18" and said about the writing:
"will be given in the own due time of the Lord. The above translation is
given as far as we have any right to give at the present time."
Smith's comment "as far as we have any right to give at the present
time" suggests that the writing is holy. Well, let us look at the
writing and see how holy it is. BYU professor and Mormon apologist
Michael Rhodes has translated writing around the perimeter as:
"I am Djabty in the house of Benben in Heliopolis, so exalted and
glorious. [I am] copulating bull without equal. [I am] that mighty god
in the house of Benben of Heliopolis. . . ." (BYU Studies, Spring 1977,
p. 265)
The filth is in both the Egyptian writing and, in case somebody can't
read the Egyptian writing, the sitting Egyptian god with an erection,
whom Joe Smith explains as "God sitting upon His throne." In Facsimile
2, then, Min is identified by both text and a graphic.
To the right of Min in Figure 7 is a slender personage Joe Smith
identifies as the "Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove." What
Smith identifies as the "Holy Ghost" Egyptologists identify as the snake
god Nehebkau, who has arms and legs, but a serpent's body. As an
ithyphallic god, Nehebkau often has an erect penis. In his article,
professor Rhodes also identifies the snake god to the right of Min. The
depiction of Nehebkau at this link was taken from a hypocephalus
designated Leyden AMS 62, a hypocephalus that is similar to Smith's:
Mormons should download and study this picture because in the picture
are the exact personages whom Egyptologists identify as Menu-ka-mut-f
and Nehebkau, and whom Joe Smith identifies as the Mormon "God" and the
"Holy Ghost." What Mormons identify as Holy Scripture, Christians
identify as Satanic.
Dr. Samuel Mercer was one of the eight Egyptian antiquities experts who
were quoted in Franklin S. Spalding's booklet Joseph Smith, Jr., as a
Translator (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Arrow Press, 1912). Dr. Mercer was
distinguished as the custodian of the Hibbard Collection of Egyptian
reproductions, the most complete collection in the United States (The
Utah Survey, vol. 1, no. 1, September, 1913, p. 3). Dr. Mercer agreed
that the ithyphallic god Min and the ithyphallic snake god Nehebkau are
in Figure 7 of Facsimile 2.
Dr. Mercer wrote, "Fig. 7 represents Nehebka, the serpent-god,
presenting an uzat-eye to Horus-Min who is seated. Horus-Min was
formerly sometimes called Horammon. Joseph Smith calls Horus-Min 'God
sitting upon his throne,' and Nehebka, the Holy Ghost 'in the form of a
dove,' the last expression being, of course, an anachronism." (The Utah
Survey, p. 24)
Dr. Mercer wrote, "No one can fail to see that the eight scholars are
unanimous in their conclusions. Joseph Smith has been shown by an
eminently competent jury of scholars to have failed completely in his
attempt or pretense to interpret and translate Egyptian figures and
hieroglyphics." (Ibid., p. 10).
Dr. Mercer observed, "Any pupil of mine who would show such absolute
ignorance of Egyptian as Smith does, could not possibly expect to get
more than zero in an examination in Egyptology." (Improvement Era, vol.
16, p 615.)
One of the earliest Egyptian antiquities experts to find Smith's
explanation of Facsimiles in the Book of Abraham completely false and to
find "An ithyphallic serpent, with human legs" in Figure 7 of Facsimile
2 was M. Theodule Deveria (Journey to Great Salt Lake City, 1861). Here
are his findings: <www.ortk.org/deveria.htm>
Egyptologist Emily Teeter, associate curator of the Oriental Institute
Museum, University of Chicago, also recently agreed that the seated
figure in Figure 7 "could certainly be Min-ka-mut.f, per the suggestion
of the late Prof. Klaus Baer." (Emily Teeter, letter to Mark Hines, 16
September 1999.)
According to Egyptologists, the two personages in Figure 7 are the
ithyphallic Egyptian gods Min (Menu-ka-mut-f) and Nehebkau. Recently
Dr. James P. Allen, curator of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Department of Egyptian Art, identified both Min and Nehebkau in Figure
7.
In his expert opinion, Egyptologist James Allen sees "no reason to
question the identification of them as a form of Min and Nehebkau,
respectively, since that is what the parallels indicate they are."
(James P. Allen, letter to Mark Hines, 8 September 1999)
This is Smith's explanation of Figure 3 in Facsimile 2:
"Fig. 3. Is made to represent God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with
power and authority; with a crown of eternal light upon his head;
representing also the grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood, as
revealed to Adam in the Garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah,
Melchizedek, Abraham, and all to whom the Priesthood was revealed."
In Figure 3 of Facsimile 2, Egyptologists immediately recognize the
well-known scene of the hawk-headed god Ra (or Re) with a sun disk on
his head. A sun god, Ra is sitting in his solar bark. In Egyptian
idolatry, the sun was thought to die and be reborn each day. Ra
represents the sun in its daily journey across the firmament, a death,
rebirth and resurrection cycle. Mormon apologist and BYU professor
Michael Rhodes also identifies Ra in Figure 3.
In the Bible, God finds Egyptian gods detestable in His sight. Having
anything to do with these gods is a sure way to anger God and bring down
His fury. Only LDS and other Satanic religions represent God with that
which is an abomination to Him. Do Joe Smith and Mormons think it a
small matter to anger God? In the below NASB Jeremiah 43:13 verse, the
city of heliopolis was a main center for worshipping Ra. The Obelisks
God resolves to shatter are solar symbols. One can count at least
fifteen pagan gods being honored and prayed to in Smith's Facsimiles.
Any attempted justification by LDS "scholars" contradicts specific
teachings in the Bible. God does not want His name mixed or associated
with that of any pagan deities. God repeatedly punished Hebrews for
worshipping Baal or other gods (Judges 2:2-3, 11-15), and God commanded
Hebrews to break off any association with foreign gods.
Joshua 24:14 says: "Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in
sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served
on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord."
So, given God's specific commands, it is unreasonable and illogical to
say that God would use pagan documents containing honorings of the false
gods of Egypt as a way to communicate truth about Himself.
-----Jeremiah 43:
13 He will also shatter the obelisks of heliopolis, which is in the land
of Egypt; and the temples of the gods of Egypt he will burn with fire.
-----Jeremiah 44:
8 In that ye provoke me unto wrath with the works of your hands,
burning incense unto other gods in the land of Egypt, whither ye be gone
to dwell, that ye might cut yourselves off, and that ye might be a curse
and a reproach among all the nations of the earth?
-----Ezekiel 20:
7 Then said I unto them, Cast ye away every man the abominations of his
eyes, and defile not yourselves with the idols of Egypt: I am the LORD
your God.
8 But they rebelled against me, and would not hearken unto me: they did
not every man cast away the abominations of their eyes, neither did they
forsake the idols of Egypt: then I said, I will pour out my fury upon
them, to accomplish my anger against them in the midst of the land of
Egypt.
-----Exodus 20:
2. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
-----Deuteronomy 8:19
If you ever forget the Lord your God and follow other gods and worship
and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely
be destroyed."
-----Deuteronomy 11:16
Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods
and bow down to them. Then the Lord's anger will burn against you. . . .
.
God has tremendous love for those LDS who read all of the articles at
the links below and who leave the Satanic LDS "church." If they don't
leave the LDS "church," even though they know better in their hearts,
they show utter disrespect for God and His awesome holiness. How can
Mormons represent God with Min, a pagan god who has an erect penis? A
pagan idol who, according to Egyptian mythology, had sex with his own
mother and who represents beastly sexual lust? The Bible tells us that
people worship demons when they worship gods made with their hands.
Being away from God in blackness and eternal burn pain is going to be
unbearable for those who read this and who choose not to act. God
describes hell as a place where there are a lake of fire (Revelation
20:15), a furnace of fire (Matthew 13:50), everlasting fire (Matthew
25:41), everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46), eternal damnation (Mark
3:29), wailing and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13:42), outer darkness and
weeping (Matthew 25:30) torments in flames (Luke 16:24).
________________________
Mark Hines
<http://pweb.netcom.com/~mjhines/m.htm>
R. L. Measures
(Mark Hines) wrote:
> I have not received a responsible reply to the .
€ Mark-- You gotta come with a new opener. This one is getting lame.
cheers
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
Ray Jackson
>
>I have not received a responsible reply to the following previously
>posted question: Why is it respectful of the LDS "church" to represent
>God with Min (Menu-ka-mut-f), a pagan Egyptian god (Figure 7 of
>Facsimile 2 in the Book of Abraham) who has an erect penis? The question
>merits repetition until there is a responsible reply from an official
>"church" representative. In Figure 7, Mormons also represent the Holy
>Ghost with the ithyphallic (with erect penis) god Nehebkau, and in
Why would an official church rep be in here in the first place, and why should
he respond to your warped question?
The chruch does not represent what you insist it does. Don't you think that
the Egyptians knew where men keep their penis's? Sticking out of the middle of
the thorax is not where I keep mine.
I checked out a few pieces of Egyptian art I have access to,
(National Geo, some books pick up at museums, ect.) I found one picture that
could be said to maybe show a penis, and it was in the right place. I did find
several that had a projection in the same place as fig 7, and guess what? It
was a hand! You know how those old artist where, people almost always shown
walking to show two legs, both hands showing, ect.
Fig 7 is a drawing done by someone trying to give a general idea of
what was in the orginal, not a photo copy. Some detail was lost, but I'd say
what you are calling a penis is a hand. I am half thinking of putting up a web
site to show these thinks side by side, but am resisting the impulse because I
know it will not make any difference to you.
.
.
.
.
.........................................2 Nephi 33:6:...
I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus,for he has
redeemed my soul from Hell.
Ray Jackson..................................... Milwaukee. Wi
cont...@my-deja.com
mjh...@ix.netcom.com (Mark Hines) wrote:
>
>
> I have not received a responsible reply to the following previously
> posted question: Why is it respectful of the LDS "church" to
represent
> God with Min (Menu-ka-mut-f), a pagan Egyptian god (Figure 7 of
> Facsimile 2 in the Book of Abraham) who has an erect penis?
Boy, Howdy! I responded to your post and pointed out that you are not
too keen on anatomy nor context. Nor are you keen on interpolation nor
comparison.
However, if you continue to assert that an arm and hand is a penis, I
may have to inject that you have a butt on your shoulders instead of a
head.
Form follows function.
The question
> merits repetition until there is a responsible reply from an official
> "church" representative.
I don't represent the Church, and
I gave quite a responsible reply to an irresponsible attempt at
"scholarship", if I were to torture the word so in describing your
humble effort.
-Red Davis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
R. L. Measures
> In article <3853e2a6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> mjh...@ix.netcom.com (Mark Hines) wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have not received a responsible reply to the following previously
> > posted question: Why is it respectful of the LDS "church" to
> represent
> > God with Min (Menu-ka-mut-f), a pagan Egyptian god (Figure 7 of
> > Facsimile 2 in the Book of Abraham) who has an erect penis?
>
> Boy, Howdy! I responded to your post and pointed out that you are not
> too keen on anatomy nor context. Nor are you keen on interpolation nor
> comparison.
€ Yo, Red. I compared mine with Min the Bull's. I came up more than a
bit short. Almost to the knee is pretty hard to beat.
>
> However, if you continue to assert that an arm and hand is a penis, I
> may have to inject that you have a butt on your shoulders instead of a
> head.
€ That thang ain't no arm, Red. I have yet to see a hand that resembles
a glans-penis. Check if out for yourself at:
http://www.vcnet.com/measures/Min.ithyphallic.GIF
Sorry for the low-res image of Min the Bull. I've been trying to get
something better but Mark Hines apparently couldn't care less about the
tribulations of his fellow antimormon brothers.
>
> Form follows function.
>
€ amen to that. Ol' Min has an equally awesome pair of testicles to go
with his substantial schlong. .
cheers, Red.
TheJordan6
>Boy, Howdy! I responded to your post and pointed out that you are not
>too keen on anatomy nor context. Nor are you keen on interpolation nor
>comparison.
>
>However, if you continue to assert that an arm and hand is a penis, I
>may have to inject that you have a butt on your shoulders instead of a
>head.
>
>Form follows function.
Gee, that's interesting, Red, because only a couple of days ago, another Mormon
on ARM named Charles Pyle confirmed that the depiction IS a penis. So, I
assume you believe that Charles Pyle's butt is on his shoulders as well?
>The question
>> merits repetition until there is a responsible reply from an official
>> "church" representative.
>
>I don't represent the Church,
That's a good thing.
and
>I gave quite a responsible reply to an irresponsible attempt at
>"scholarship", if I were to torture the word so in describing your
>humble effort.
>
>-Red Davis
Well, here's what reputable scholars say on the subject:
Every Egyptologist of note, and everyone else who is remotely interested in
this subject, is aware that the ancient Egyptian religion, as depicted on tomb
walls, and on funerary papyrii, is a religion that believed in the afterlife,
an underworld, and regeneration/reincarnation. Ancient Egyptians depicted
their mummified male corpses as being able to impregnate the god "Isis," which
was often depicted as a falcon figure. If you study the
subject, you will discover that many mummies had their penises packed with
materials to make them erect in death, and wrapped in linens. It was a MAJOR
part of their religion. You can read all about it in many works, especially E.
A. W. Budge's "Osiris---The Egyptian Religion of Resurrection." You will
probably recognize Budge's name as a frequent reference of the Nibley/Shirts
hydra. Go and read his work, along with the work of other qualified
Egyptologists (including Mormon ones), and you will discover many depictions
and references to the importance of the erect penis as pertaining to Egyptian
beliefs about deceased corpses impregnating "Isis", to achieve their own
regeneration.
Egyptologist Richard A. Parker spoke of Facsimile No. 1: "This is the
well-known scene from the Osiris mysteries, with Anubis, the jackal-headed god,
on the left ministering to the dead Osiris on the bier. The pencilled
restoration is incorrect. Anubis should be jackal-headed. The left arm of
Osiris is in reality lying at his side under him. The apparent upper hand is
part of the wing of a second bird which is hovering over the ERECT PHALLUS of
Osiris....The second bird is Isis and she is magically impregnated by the dead
Osiris and then later gives birth to Horus..." (Dialogue, Summer 1968, p. 86).
Egyptologist Klaus Baer, (Kerry's Hero), concurred with Parker: "He (Osiris)
was almost certainly represented as ithyphallic, ready to beget Horus..."
(Dialogue, Autumn 1968, p. 119).
Facsimile No. 2 that Mark Hines referred to, is called a 'hypocephalus.' It
has NOTHING to do with the Biblical 'Abraham,' nor anything in the
Judeo/Christian religion or culture. MANY such hypocephali have been unearthed
and deciphered from the same time and space as the one JS claimed to be from
the 'writings of Abraham.' It is beyond the bounds of sanity to believe that
the particular one that happened through Kirtland, Ohio, in a traveling
exhibition, was a relic of any Biblical characters or religion. 'Hypocephalus'
means 'head-warmth', and they were placed under the heads of mummies to keep
them warm during their journey into the underworld.
The hieroglyphic drawings thereon depict their beliefs on the afterlife.
Mormon Egyptologist Michael Rhodes stated that "The text of the hypocephalus
itself seems to be
an address to Osiris, the god of the dead.....Hypocephali first appeared during
the first Saite Dynasty (663-525 BC) and their use continued down at least to
the Christian era." (BYU Studies, Spring 1977, p. 260, 274).
That information alone rules out the possibility that Fac. No. 2 is from any
so-called "Book of Abraham," because, according to tradition, the Biblical
Abraham lived many centuries before hypocephali even came into use in the
Egyptian religion. Joseph Smith came up with a story about 'Abraham', and
installed him in a venue that didn't even exist during Abraham's lifetime.
Facsimile No. 2, figure 7, depicts the Egyptian god Min as an ithyphallic
(erect penis) figure.
As Mark Hines has repeated (and repeated), even Michael
Rhodes identified Min and his erect penis:
"(Figure) 7: A seated ithyphallic god with a hawk's tail.....The seated god is
clearly a form of Min, the god of the regenerative, procreative forces of
nature.....The procreative forces, receiving unusual accentuation throughout
the representation, may stand for many divine regenerative powers....." (BYU
Studies, Spring 1977, p. 273).
The infamous Mormon-paid apologist "R. C. Webb", (whose real name was J. C.
Homans), interpreted figure 7 as did Rhodes, in his
book "Joseph Smith As A Translator," in 1936:
"The group shown in the common run of hypocephali is evidently entirely
phallic, the seated figure being usually identified with the dual god,
Horus-Min......he becomes identified with the creative principle of nature, or
the universal generative power typified in phallic symbols.....To the Egyptian
artist, the symbol of creative power is the phallic symbol."
Hugh Nibley also wrote of the god Min:
"As the supreme sex symbol of gods and men, Min behaves with shocking
promiscuity....he is everywhere represented as indulging in incestuous
relationships with those of his immediate family....(he was) literally the Bull
of his mother." (Abraham in Egypt, 1981, pp. 210- 211).
To repeat, Joseph Smith identified this same Egyptian pagan god Min as "God
sitting upon His throne," which is laughable.
The LDS Church's 'Times and Seasons' of 1842 printed Facsimile No. 2, clearly
showing the erect penis of Min, and the facsimile was published in England in
1851 intact. However, in the LDS Church's 1878 publication of that facsimile,
the erect penis suddenly disappeared---then it reappeared in an 1891
edition---then in its 1907 edition, the penis was again gone! It seems that
the LDS Church alternately inserted and removed Min's penis
from edition to edition. The changing depictions of the hypocephalus, which
varied in each printing of the PGP, can be viewed in Dr. James R. Clark's "The
Story of the Pearl of Great Price."
Various Mormons responsible for the publications probably were embarrassed at
having an obvious erect penis in their book of 'scripture', so they apparently
removed it in several editions.
In the church's latest 1982 edition of the Book of Abraham, Min's penis is
restored----for which I'm sure he is eternally grateful.
So, Red, I guess you'd better call up all those scholars and tell them that
it's an arm, since you're so smart and all.
Randy J.
cont...@my-deja.com
meas...@vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) wrote:
> In article <8351hk$nfu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cont...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <3853e2a6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> > mjh...@ix.netcom.com (Mark Hines) wrote:
> > >
> > >
previously
> > > posted question: Why is it respectful of the LDS "church" to
> > represent
> > > God with Min (Menu-ka-mut-f), a pagan Egyptian god (Figure 7 of
> > > Facsimile 2 in the Book of Abraham) who has an erect penis?
> >
not
> > too keen on anatomy nor context. Nor are you keen on interpolation
nor
> > comparison.
>
than a
> bit short. Almost to the knee is pretty hard to beat.
> >
I
> > may have to inject that you have a butt on your shoulders instead
of a
> > head.
>
resembles
> a glans-penis. Check if out for yourself at:
> http://www.vcnet.com/measures/Min.ithyphallic.GIF
Again, you present an alternative image to support your conclusion as
to the significance and meaning of the Facsimile #2, Figure 7.
Again, please note that your reference drawing is much different in
composition then the one Joseph Smith translated. Also please note
that your drawing has the marking in the correct location to be what
you say it is. The figure 7, Fac #2 does not. It is in a totally
different place.
You are comparing an orange with an apple. It does no good to say,
"that apple is really an orange, if you need proof, just go look at the
orange, and ignore the fact that the apple is different. Their both
round, both fruits, thus the apple is an orange."
I have no doubht that the drawings you refer to are a paganized version
of sacred events that transpired.
Kind of like the Easter bunny and fertility on the day we use to
recongize Christ's resurrection and rebirth. A paganistic description
of a sacred event. Will you next claim Christ is the Ester Bunny?
Silly rabbit.
-Red Davis
> Sorry for the low-res image of Min the Bull. I've been trying to get
> something better but Mark Hines apparently couldn't care less about
the
> tribulations of his fellow antimormon brothers.
> >
> > Form follows function.
> >
> € amen to that. Ol' Min has an equally awesome pair of testicles to
go
> with his substantial schlong. .
>
> cheers, Red.
>
> --
> - Rich... 805.386.3734.
> www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
>
R. L. Measures
> In article <meas+ures-141...@port52.dial.vcnet.com>,
> meas...@vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article <8351hk$nfu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cont...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3853e2a6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> > > mjh...@ix.netcom.com (Mark Hines) wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have not received a responsible reply to the following
> previously
> > > > posted question: Why is it respectful of the LDS "church" to
> > > represent
> > > > God with Min (Menu-ka-mut-f), a pagan Egyptian god (Figure 7 of
> > > > Facsimile 2 in the Book of Abraham) who has an erect penis?
> > >
> > > Boy, Howdy! I responded to your post and pointed out that you are
> not
> > > too keen on anatomy nor context. Nor are you keen on interpolation
> nor
> > > comparison.
> >
> > € Yo, Red. I compared mine with Min the Bull's. I came up more than a
> > bit short. Almost to the knee is pretty hard to beat.
> > >
> > > However, if you continue to assert that an arm and hand is a penis, I
> > > may have to inject that you have a butt on your shoulders instead of a
> > > head.
> >
> > € That thang ain't no arm, Red. I have yet to see a hand that resembles
> > a glans-penis. Check if out for yourself at:
> > http://www.vcnet.com/measures/Min.ithyphallic.GIF
>
> Again, you present an alternative image to support your conclusion as
> to the significance and meaning of the Facsimile #2, Figure 7.
>
€ The image from the Book of Abraham's Figure 7 is there.
> Again, please note that your reference drawing is much different in
> composition then the one Joseph Smith translated.
€ This part of the Chandler papyri is presently lost. All we have is the
woodcut.
> Also please note
> that your drawing has the marking in the correct location to be what
> you say it is. The figure 7, Fac #2 does not. It is in a totally
> different place.
€ The woodcut has the member in question growing from near the belly
button. This ain't no "arm", Red.
>
> You are comparing an orange with an apple. It does no good to say,
> "that apple is really an orange, if you need proof, just go look at the
> orange, and ignore the fact that the apple is different. Their both
> round, both fruits, thus the apple is an orange."
>
€ I decline to get into a discussion with you regarding fruits.
> I have no doubht that the drawings you refer to are a paganized version
> of sacred events that transpired.
>
€ supposedly sacred is more likely.
> Kind of like the Easter bunny and fertility on the day we use to
> recongize Christ's resurrection and rebirth.
€ ... a fertility Goddess festival. .
> A paganistic description of a sacred event. Will you next claim Christ
is the Ester Bunny?
>
€ Are you perhaps suggesting that Christ might have impersonated some
fertility goddess to entertain his disciples during off hours?
>
later, Red
wwbr...@lds.net
>Facsimile No. 2 that Mark Hines referred to, is called a
>'hypocephalus.' It has NOTHING to do with the Biblical 'Abraham,'
If you squint closely at the center of fig. 11 of that same much-
maligned facsimile, you will see a very small Abraham on a very
small lion-couch, just as in Fac. 1. If you doubt that it is a
couch with someone on it, the symbol is translated as "sleeping"
per Hugh Nibley's article, online at
http://www.math.byu.edu/~smithw/Lds/LDS/Hugh-Nibley/TrFac.html
(Search on the word "sleep".) The whole prayer of figs. 11 thru
8 is the prayer of the man on the couch exactly, in all the many
lion-couch scenes like Facsimile 1. The oldest of these are very
solidly connected with Abraham. Not only did the Egyptians put his
prayer in, but used his figure in their language.
>...nor anything in the Judeo/Christian religion or culture.
Easy to flip out a statement like this, how would you prove it?
The Bible has Egyptian symbols in it. The Israelites spent 400
years in Egypt, from the time just after Abraham to the time of
Moses, and they traded with Egypt in all their history, fleeing
there in time of trouble, establishing colonies of Jews in various
places along the Nile; why so certain they are totally unrelated?
Does the diagram not show God in the center of the universe, giving
laws to worlds? Does it not show him again at the top, with a son
journeying away from him to go down to the earth (at the bottom,
upside down to symbolize the perversity of this world)? does it
not show another traveler on the other side of him, one strikingly
like a dove? Does not the God of Christianity have a triple nature,
varying by whose exposition of Christianity you listen to? Could
it be that your conclusion of "NOTHING" is due more to your limited
imagination, study, or insight, or your agenda, than any actual
absence of correlations?
>...MANY such hypocephali have been unearthed and deciphered from
>the same time and space as the one JS claimed to be from the
>'writings of Abraham.' It is beyond the bounds of sanity to
>believe that the particular one that happened through Kirtland,
>Ohio, in a traveling exhibition, was a relic of any Biblical
>characters or religion.
Why? Why does this conclusion follow from this fact? Or from any
other fact? Isn't Egypt mentioned in the Bible? Didn't Abraham
journey into Egypt? Didn't his grandson Joseph become the Prime
Minister there? Didn't Jeremiah go there? Didn't Jesus live there?
Why are you certain that none of these men ever wrote anything in
the Egyptian language?
Does the fact that the papyri and mummies arrived via a traveling
exhibition somehow indicate they didn't originate in Egypt? The
proprietor of the exhibition wasn't a con man; he was an educator,
if all the accounts of his stops in the newspapers of the time are
not wholly fiction. The mummies and papyri were most certainly
from Egypt. I almost wonder if you just tossed this out trying to
snow people.
>...'Hypocephalus' means 'head-warmth',
Uh, hypocephalus means "under head". I am making slow progress in
Greek, but I can warrant you that much.
>...and they were placed under the heads of mummies to keep them
>warm during their journey into the underworld.
The warmth aspect was to preserve the spark of life somehow so
they could be resurrected. In every detail, the Egyptians show
that they draw on a tradition of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which
the Book of Abraham says was taught to them by Abraham during his
sojourn there. After 2000 years they had corrupted it a good
deal, but it was still intact enough so that the Egyptians flocked
to Christianity when it reappeared there in the first century. That
is why there is a Coptic Church.
>Hypocephali first appeared during the first Saite Dynasty (663-
>525 BC) and their use continued down at least to the Christian
>era." (BYU Studies, Spring 1977, p. 260, 274). That information
>alone rules out the possibility that Fac. No. 2 is from any so-
>called "Book of Abraham," because, according to tradition, the
>Biblical Abraham lived many centuries before hypocephali even
>came into use in the Egyptian religion.
I hope you realize that people normally have writings from ages
earlier? Jesus quoted scriptures from Adam's time, as in Matt
19:5, and we have these same writings ourselves... The tradition
of round diagrams of the universe goes a long way back. The
Egyptians using them under mummy heads reminds me of how the
American courts used to have people swear with their hand on the
Bible. The Bible existed long before the American system; it seems
to me possible that at some point the Egyptians must have thought
these sacred diagrams would be good for the dead souls. I really
don't see how this rules out them being more ancient; in fact, I
think it almost guarantees it. What sacred stuff do we have that
is not old?
>...Joseph Smith came up with a story about 'Abraham', and
>installed him in a venue that didn't even exist during Abraham's
>lifetime.
Not comprehending here, pard. Why didn't it exist? Egypt existed,
the land of Canaan existed, the land of Ur existed; these are the
places Joseph Smith puts Abraham; the same places the Bible puts
him. Can it really be that you don't know these things?
>To repeat, Joseph Smith identified this same Egyptian pagan god
>Min as "God sitting upon His throne," which is laughable.
Your gripe here depends on several things. First, that we
understand all what the Egyptian documents really say. Second, that
earlier generations of Egyptian writers understood them the same
way later ones (who rewrote them) did. And finally, that God is
nothing at all like Min. Before you pretend to choke, the Greeks
seem to have depicted Zeus (Theos) as someone who mated with every
babe from the Pillars of Hercules to the Black Sea. But take away
the corrupt ideas, and you are left with a picture of God being a
Man, father of the Gods and the human race, too. There was an
original pure idea which got cluttered up with later generations'
filthy additions. How do we know the same thing did not happen
with the Egyptians?
Joseph Smith sees an ancient diagram and understands the pure
ideas that were laid down in the original copy of it. The critics
focus on the later interpolations and want to attach these to him.
'Taint the way to find truth.
>Various Mormons responsible for the publications probably were
>embarrassed at having an obvious erect penis in their book of
>'scripture', so they apparently removed it in several editions.
The LDS didn't make the diagram, and the early LDS never even
seem to have noticed the funny arm. What their removing it shows
is that they have modesty. It is the critics who don't seem to have
any. If you're really trying to get people disgusted so as to drive
them from one camp to another, by dwelling on this to the point
of nausea, which way will they really go?
Wood
wwbr...@lds.net
> ... mjh...@ix.netcom.com (Mark Hines) wrote:
> > The question
> > merits repetition until there is a responsible reply from an
> > official "church" representative.
I wonder how long he will have to keep repeating this before
the last of the Mormons stops praying for his hiney? You know
there is no other explanation for why the Lord would allow
him to remain in such misery. Then he will get a responsible
reply...
> I don't represent the Church, and
> I gave quite a responsible reply to an irresponsible attempt at
> "scholarship", if I were to torture the word so in describing your
> humble effort.
If you want to waste a few hours, you can dig back in deja.com
and find that any number of people have given him replies, from
the scriptures, from common sense, from praying about it, from
any number of responsible provenances. Hiney has this angle
that he thinks can't be beat: since the GA's don't have time
or inclination to follow a.r.m, he can bray about this till hell
freezes over and pretend that they answer all sorts of questions
on usenet, but never his.
If you want to get completely disgusted, look back about five
years and see how Hiney's changed and yet managed to remain the
same.
cont...@my-deja.com
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> Red Davis wrote:
>
> >Boy, Howdy! I responded to your post and pointed out that you are
not
> >too keen on anatomy nor context. Nor are you keen on interpolation
nor
> >comparison.
> >
> >However, if you continue to assert that an arm and hand is a penis, I
> >may have to inject that you have a butt on your shoulders instead of
a
> >head.
> >
> >Form follows function.
>
> Gee, that's interesting, Red, because only a couple of days ago,
another Mormon
> on ARM named Charles Pyle confirmed that the depiction IS a penis.
Your case must be pretty shaky if you have to throw in that sentence.
There are some 11,000,000 Mormons. I am quite sure that out of some
11 million, you can get someone to say almost anything.
I am stating another voice and opinion. I support my opinion by an
analsys of the facts, and a demonstration of common sense and simple
anatomy.
>So, I
> assume you believe that Charles Pyle's butt is on his shoulders as
well?
Depends (no pun intended)!!!
I have dealt with you anti-Mormos for over two decades now (for people
in Orangevale, that's over 20 years). They use the same tactics over
and over again: truth, truth, half-truth, out-right-lie, truth, truth.
They cover their deception with known facts in an attempt to make it
seem as if the facts agree with their point, and that their point is
irrebutable. They specialize in the use of slicing and dicing
quotations so that they can use equivocation to deceive their readers.
Your post is a on point. I shall show such:
>
> >The question
> >> merits repetition until there is a responsible reply from an
official
> >> "church" representative.
> >
> >I don't represent the Church,
>
> That's a good thing.
>
> and
> >I gave quite a responsible reply to an irresponsible attempt at
> >"scholarship", if I were to torture the word so in describing your
> >humble effort.
> >
> >-Red Davis
>
> Well, here's what reputable scholars say on the subject:
OK, you start off by implying that "reputable scholars" say and agree
with everything that follows - hence your sentence above.
>
> Every Egyptologist of note, and everyone else who is remotely
interested in
> this subject, is aware that the ancient Egyptian religion, as
depicted on tomb
> walls, and on funerary papyrii, is a religion that believed in the
afterlife,
> an underworld, and regeneration/reincarnation.
Ah, alas, the anti-Mormon tactic of stating a truth. Yes, your
statement above is true. Indeed, can I say, "No Duh?"
> Ancient Egyptians depicted
> their mummified male corpses as being able to impregnate the god
"Isis," which
> was often depicted as a falcon figure.
Ah, enter the nonsensical red-herring. What does a "mummified male
corpse" have to do with Facsimile #2, Figure 7? Is that a figure of a
"mummified male corpse"?
> If you study the
> subject, you will discover that many mummies had their penises packed
with
> materials to make them erect in death, and wrapped in linens.
Ah, another truth. Did not such mummies have other vital organs
"packed with materials" and "wrapped in linens" in preparation for the
after life?
So, by not setting the full-context of the Egyptian mummufication
process, you emphasize one aspect regarding the penis as if it was
unique with regards to the rest of the organs. Such is not true.
> It was a MAJOR
> part of their religion. You can read all about it in many works,
especially E.
> A. W. Budge's "Osiris---The Egyptian Religion of Resurrection." You
will
> probably recognize Budge's name as a frequent reference of the
Nibley/Shirts
> hydra.
I assure you that I am quite well read on thing Eqyptian. After all,
am I not the one that pointed out to you the importance of both arms in
Egyption drawings?
> Go and read his work, along with the work of other qualified
> Egyptologists (including Mormon ones), and you will discover many
depictions
> and references to the importance of the erect penis as pertaining to
Egyptian
> beliefs about deceased corpses impregnating "Isis", to achieve their
own
> regeneration.
Quite nice. But again, what does this have to do with Facsimile 2,
Figure 7? Not a thing. What will you do next, pull an Ed Decker and
tell us about supposed "Mormon agents that poisoned my pizza"?
>
> Egyptologist Richard A. Parker spoke of Facsimile No. 1: "This is the
> well-known scene from the Osiris mysteries, with Anubis, the jackal-
headed god,
> on the left ministering to the dead Osiris on the bier. The pencilled
> restoration is incorrect. Anubis should be jackal-headed. The left
arm of
> Osiris is in reality lying at his side under him. The apparent upper
hand is
> part of the wing of a second bird which is hovering over the ERECT
PHALLUS of
> Osiris....The second bird is Isis and she is magically impregnated by
the dead
> Osiris and then later gives birth to Horus..." (Dialogue, Summer
1968, p. 86).
What does Facsimile #1 have to do with Facsimile #2?
But, even at that: is the "pencilled restoration incorrect", or is the
pencilled restoration correct, and the good Richard Parker is incorrect
in ASSUMING that the scene is exactly as he has seen elsewhere? Or,
given his agenda and clamor for fame, he was too easily convinced to
interpret the image in a controversial manner?
Indeed, could not Facsimile #2, Figure 7 be an earlier version of the
scene and is most correct, while the one Richard Parker is referring to
is devolution of it? Or, could it be a totally different scene given
all the differences between what Richard Parker is referring to, and
the representation known as Facsimile 2, Figure 7?
Thus, there are several possibilities, yet you only want to show one.
Hardly the ethics of a scholar.
>
> Egyptologist Klaus Baer, (Kerry's Hero), concurred with Parker: "He
(Osiris)
> was almost certainly represented as ithyphallic, ready to beget
Horus..."
> (Dialogue, Autumn 1968, p. 119).
>
> Facsimile No. 2 that Mark Hines referred to, is called a
'hypocephalus.' It
> has NOTHING to do with the Biblical 'Abraham,' nor anything in the
> Judeo/Christian religion or culture.
Did not Abraham live in Egypt? Why, yes he did. Could Egyptian
characters be used to tell an Abrahamic story? Why, yes it could.
Indeed, the fish was a symbol of Egypt. Yet, do not some Christians
use the fish as a symbol of Christ? Indeed, does not that single
symbol not only tell of Christ, but a whole story of the feeding of the
masses?
You again to flush out important contextual information for your
readers.
> MANY such hypocephali have been unearthed
> and deciphered from the same time and space as the one JS claimed to
be from
> the 'writings of Abraham.'
Non-sequitur. They are not THE hypocephalis that Joseph Smith ascribed
to be the writings of Abraham.
Do each and every single hypocephalis portray the exact same characters
doing the exact same things, in the exact same portrayals? Not even
close.
> It is beyond the bounds of sanity to believe that
> the particular one that happened through Kirtland, Ohio, in a
traveling
> exhibition, was a relic of any Biblical characters or religion.
Only if you are a person of no faith. Only if you are a person who
rejects that Abraham lived in Egypt (we know for a certainty that he
did for even the Biblical text states as much). Only if you are a
person who continually leaves out the other side in their thought
processes. Only if you are an anti-Christ.
I guess you don't believe in the parting of the Red Sea, do you?
The raining of manna upon Israel? The resurrection of Christ?
Generally speaking, do you really believe that it is impossible for the
Almighty to guide a document to His living prophet? If you do --
that's your prolbem: no faith.
It is your problem, not mine.
> 'Hypocephalus'
> means 'head-warmth', and they were placed under the heads of mummies
to keep
> them warm during their journey into the underworld.
Given that mummies are cold....where did the warmth come from?
> The hieroglyphic drawings thereon depict their beliefs on the
afterlife.
No duh.
> Mormon Egyptologist Michael Rhodes stated that "The text of the
hypocephalus
> itself seems to be
> an address to Osiris, the god of the dead.....Hypocephali first
appeared during
> the first Saite Dynasty (663-525 BC) and their use continued down at
least to
> the Christian era." (BYU Studies, Spring 1977, p. 260, 274).
NO duh.
> That information alone rules out the possibility that Fac. No. 2 is
from any
> so-called "Book of Abraham," because, according to tradition, the
Biblical
> Abraham lived many centuries before hypocephali even came into use in
the
> Egyptian religion.
You qualify your as-a-matter-of-fact statement with the words
"according to tradition". A fact based loosely on loose tradition?
> Joseph Smith came up with a story about 'Abraham', and
> installed him in a venue that didn't even exist during Abraham's
lifetime.
Another matter-of-fact statement based upon an assumption founded in
loose tradition.
Let me ask you this: Is it not beyond the bounds of sanity for a
person to sit here in 1999 and state matter-of-factly that the ancient
Egyptians did, or did not do something some many millenia ago because
our 60 years of meager study has guessed at such a thing?
Heck, boy, we don't even know what national treasures are in the White
House waiting for Hillary Rodham to steal. Think about it. The most
secure house in the world, with the most documented entry in history,
and we don't even know what's in there, and you are telling me we know
perfectly what was customary and what happened 5,000 years ago? And
you, the half-whit, bring up sanity?
Wake-up, McFly!!
>
> Facsimile No. 2, figure 7, depicts the Egyptian god Min as an
ithyphallic
> (erect penis) figure.
Outright lie. It depicts no such thing. You move from describing
general Egyptian knowledge to asserting a fact without anything tying
them together except the slight of hand of equivocation and red-herring.
>
> As Mark Hines has repeated (and repeated), even Michael
> Rhodes identified Min and his erect penis:
>
> "(Figure) 7: A seated ithyphallic god with a hawk's tail.....The
seated god is
> clearly a form of Min, the god of the regenerative, procreative
forces of
> nature.....The procreative forces, receiving unusual accentuation
throughout
> the representation, may stand for many divine regenerative
powers....." (BYU
> Studies, Spring 1977, p. 273).
His opinion, which I clearly reject.
>
> The infamous Mormon-paid apologist "R. C. Webb", (whose real name was
J. C.
> Homans), interpreted figure 7 as did Rhodes, in his
> book "Joseph Smith As A Translator," in 1936:
>
> "The group shown in the common run of hypocephali is evidently
entirely
> phallic, the seated figure being usually identified with the dual god,
> Horus-Min......he becomes identified with the creative principle of
nature, or
> the universal generative power typified in phallic symbols.....To the
Egyptian
> artist, the symbol of creative power is the phallic symbol."
If you say this guy isn't credible, why do you even list him?
>
> Hugh Nibley also wrote of the god Min:
> "As the supreme sex symbol of gods and men, Min behaves with shocking
> promiscuity....he is everywhere represented as indulging in incestuous
> relationships with those of his immediate family....(he was)
literally the Bull
> of his mother." (Abraham in Egypt, 1981, pp. 210- 211).
Hugh Nibley wrote this "of the god Min", not of Facsimile 2, Figure 7.
Another half-truth.
>
> To repeat, Joseph Smith identified this same Egyptian pagan god Min
as "God
> sitting upon His throne," which is laughable.
Is it? If someone were to point at the cross and say "That represents
the love of God", would you say, "That is laughable, that is the tool
Romans used to execute the death sentence".
So, to ancient Rome, the cross meant one thing. To Christians, it
means another entirely differnt thing - indeed, a complete story about
the power and love of God.
Could not Abraham have done the same thing with Egyptian symbols?
I think so. Indeed, I know so. That's where we have the Book of
Abraham from.
>
> The LDS Church's 'Times and Seasons' of 1842 printed Facsimile No. 2,
clearly
> showing the erect penis of Min, and the facsimile was published in
England in
> 1851 intact. However, in the LDS Church's 1878 publication of that
facsimile,
> the erect penis suddenly disappeared---then it reappeared in an 1891
> edition---then in its 1907 edition, the penis was again gone! It
seems that
> the LDS Church alternately inserted and removed Min's penis
> from edition to edition. The changing depictions of the
hypocephalus, which
> varied in each printing of the PGP, can be viewed in Dr. James R.
Clark's "The
> Story of the Pearl of Great Price."
> Various Mormons responsible for the publications probably were
embarrassed at
> having an obvious erect penis in their book of 'scripture', so they
apparently
> removed it in several editions.
> In the church's latest 1982 edition of the Book of Abraham, Min's
penis is
> restored----for which I'm sure he is eternally grateful.
Just sounds to me like they kept going back to source material to make
an accurate representation. If they had such dire motives - they would
have just left it off, and noted the Times and Season's picture as
faulty long ago. But, they didn't.
Again, the depiction has nothing to do with a penis, but everything to
do with the "key words" Joseph Smith spoke of.
>
> So, Red, I guess you'd better call up all those scholars and tell
them that
> it's an arm, since you're so smart and all.
Yep, I am very smart. Smarter than most, certainly smarter than you.
However, smartness has nothing to do with. Sincerety does. Accuracy
does. You simply are niether.
Again, Figure 7 shows an arm being held down, bent at the elbow 90
degrees. Unless, you want to continue to offer the absurd argument
that a penis is located between the belly-button and the liver. I
maintain that it is located in the groin area -- just as the other
Egyptian drawings depict is as being located when they depict a penis.
-Red Davis
-Red Davis
>
> Randy J.
TheJordan6
>seem to have noticed the funny arm. What their removing it shows
>is that they have modesty. It is the critics who don't seem to have
>any. If you're really trying to get people disgusted so as to drive
>them from one camp to another, by dwelling on this to the point
>of nausea, which way will they really go?
>
>Wood
Woody, I'm not bothering to respond to your post, because number one, I don't
have the time, and number two, you haven't quoted a single reputable scholar on
the subject at hand that refutes a single point in my post. When you can quote
from some qualified scholars of Egyptology, rather than merely spouting your
own opinions, or those of the non-qualified, and much discredited Hugh Nibley,
then maybe I'll take the time to respond to you.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
on this subject. You wrote line after line of your uneducated opinions, and
you added nothing of value to the subject. For instance, where I wrote:
> even LDS Egyptologist Michael
>> Rhodes identified Min and his erect penis:
>>
>> "(Figure) 7: A seated ithyphallic god with a hawk's tail.....The
>seated god is
>> clearly a form of Min, the god of the regenerative, procreative
>forces of
>> nature.....The procreative forces, receiving unusual accentuation
>throughout
>> the representation, may stand for many divine regenerative
>powers....." (BYU
>> Studies, Spring 1977, p. 273).
To which you replied:
>His opinion, which I clearly reject.
His "opinion" is as a PhD. Egyptologist, and his opinion is backed up by the
most noted Egyptologists in the world. Your dismissal of the scholarship of
qualified scholars on a given subject, in favor of your uneducated opinion,
pretty much ends any need to further discuss the subject with you.
When you can reply with some scholarly quotes that refute what I wrote, Red,
write back.
Randy J.
R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> >The LDS didn't make the diagram, and the early LDS never even
> >seem to have noticed the funny arm. What their removing it shows
> >is that they have modesty. It is the critics who don't seem to have
> >any. If you're really trying to get people disgusted so as to drive
> >them from one camp to another, by dwelling on this to the point
> >of nausea, which way will they really go?
> >
> >Wood
>
> Woody, I'm not bothering to respond to your post, because number one, I don't
> have the time, and number two, you haven't quoted a single reputable
scholar on
> the subject at hand that refutes a single point in my post. When you
can quote
> from some qualified scholars of Egyptology, rather than merely spouting your
> own opinions, or those of the non-qualified, and much discredited Hugh Nibley,
> then maybe I'll take the time to respond to you.
>
Congrats, Randy. This is one of the two ways to control TBM time-sappers.
cont...@my-deja.com
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> Red, your response to my post contained no cites from anyone
qualified to speak
> on this subject.
Well, they say that a picture speaks a thousand words. What if I were
to say that I had a picture of an Egyptian papyrus dated circa 1400
B.C. copied from the British Museum which shows not one Egyptian god,
not two Egyptian gods, not even three or four - but TWELVE Egyptian
gods seated in chairs just like Figure 7, and ALL of them have an arm
located in EXACTLY the same position as Figure 7, and that these are
arms is indisputed because they are holding spears, staff, and other
items?
What if I were to say that all the other characters in this Egyptian
papyrus also have two arms (as does any major character in any Egyptian
drawing)? And, why must I ask that you continue to ignore the fact
that EVERY major character in an Egyptian drawing has two arms - EXCEPT
this one figure 7 in Facsimile #2?
You simply remain silent on the point knowing that it completely
shreads the proposition that the mark above the belly-button is a penis
(which is absurd to begin with - a penis located above a belly-button).
Well, I have such a picture in .bmp form (pixel by pixel baby). I will
post it to the Internet tomorrow and give the web address so that
everyone can see for themselves.
Shall we say "slam-dunk" the anti-Mormon?
I'm laughing all the way to my scanner so that I can scan in the Book
of Abraham Fac 2 fight beside it.
Thanks to Mr. Jackson for sending me the picture via e-mail. While I
do not have the resources to authenticate the source material -- I did
examine the image with special image editing software and I could find
no alterations to the image.
And, NO, I did not alter the image. Maybe Ed Decker does such things
(like the horn he placed on top of the Angel Moroni on his diatribe
entitle "To Moroni with Love", but not I.
> You wrote line after line of your uneducated opinions, and
> you added nothing of value to the subject. For instance, where I
wrote:
My daddy once told me, "Son, there is such a thing as an educated
person, and there is such a thing as an intelligent person. Don't be
dumb enough to confuse the two."
Common sense outrules psuedo-babble any day.
>
> > even LDS Egyptologist Michael
> >> Rhodes identified Min and his erect penis:
> >>
> >> "(Figure) 7: A seated ithyphallic god with a hawk's tail.....The
> >seated god is
> >> clearly a form of Min, the god of the regenerative, procreative
> >forces of
> >> nature.....The procreative forces, receiving unusual accentuation
> >throughout
> >> the representation, may stand for many divine regenerative
> >powers....." (BYU
> >> Studies, Spring 1977, p. 273).
>
> To which you replied:
>
> >His opinion, which I clearly reject.
>
> His "opinion" is as a PhD. Egyptologist, and his opinion is backed up
by the
> most noted Egyptologists in the world. Your dismissal of the
scholarship of
> qualified scholars on a given subject, in favor of your uneducated
opinion,
> pretty much ends any need to further discuss the subject with you.
His "opinion" is that of a man who thinks that a penis is located above
the belly-button - not in the groin area. I think such an "PhD" should
study Anatomy 101 again.
Again, please compare my point with the photocopy I post on the morrow
(Friday) to the web. Come one, come all. See anti-Mormon choke on his
own stupidity.
>
> When you can reply with some scholarly quotes that refute what I
wrote, Red,
> write back.
I don't care how many "scholarly" quotes you have that say that the
penis is located above the belly-button. No matter how many high-brows
say it, well, I have other evidence to the contrary, about 3 billion
males currently, and about 4 billion that have gone before them.
Now, please note that where the Egyptian characters really do have a
penis - it is located in the groin area. Why the exception? Could it
be that just like the Twelve Egyptian gods (notice the number 12 - I
guess just another accident between Hebrew and Egyptian beliefs) who
have arms EXACTLY where Figure 7 does of facsimile 2, that it REALLY is
an ARM?
Imagine that.
cont...@my-deja.com
> > >seem to have noticed the funny arm. What their removing it shows
> > >is that they have modesty. It is the critics who don't seem to have
> > >any. If you're really trying to get people disgusted so as to drive
> > >them from one camp to another, by dwelling on this to the point
> > >of nausea, which way will they really go?
> > >
> > >Wood
> >
one, I don't
> > have the time, and number two, you haven't quoted a single reputable
> scholar on
> > the subject at hand that refutes a single point in my post. When
you
> can quote
> > from some qualified scholars of Egyptology, rather than merely
spouting your
> > own opinions, or those of the non-qualified, and much discredited
Hugh Nibley,
> > then maybe I'll take the time to respond to you.
> >
> Congrats, Randy. This is one of the two ways to control TBM time-
sappers.
Well, they say that a picture speaks a thousand words. What if I were
-Red Davis
>
> --
> - Rich... 805.386.3734.
> www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
>
R. L. Measures
> In article <19991216220557...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
> thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> > Red, your response to my post contained no cites from anyone
> qualified to speak
> > on this subject.
>
> Well, they say that a picture speaks a thousand words. What if I were
> to say that I had a picture of an Egyptian papyrus dated circa 1400
> B.C. copied from the British Museum which shows not one Egyptian god,
> not two Egyptian gods, not even three or four - but TWELVE Egyptian
> gods seated in chairs just like Figure 7, and ALL of them have an arm
> located in EXACTLY the same position as Figure 7, ...........
€ And it came to pass that some of the defenders of the faith fell upon
their own swords
R. L. Measures
> Red, your response to my post contained no cites from anyone qualified
to speak
> on this subject.
€ Butt of course.
>...
cheers, Randy
R. L. Measures
> In article <meas+ures-161...@port24.dial.vcnet.com>,
> meas...@vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article <19991216215259...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
> > thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> >
> > > >The LDS didn't make the diagram, and the early LDS never even
> > > >seem to have noticed the funny arm. What their removing it shows
> > > >is that they have modesty. It is the critics who don't seem to have
> > > >any. If you're really trying to get people disgusted so as to drive
> > > >them from one camp to another, by dwelling on this to the point
> > > >of nausea, which way will they really go?
> > > >
> > > >Wood
€ a rather appropriate name for a participant herein. .
> > > Woody, I'm not bothering to respond to your post, because number
one, I don't
> > > have the time, and number two, you haven't quoted a single reputable
scholar on
> > > the subject at hand that refutes a single point in my post. When
you can quote
> > > from some qualified scholars of Egyptology, rather than merely
spouting your
> > > own opinions, or those of the non-qualified, and much discredited
> > > Hugh Nibley,then maybe I'll take the time to respond to you.
> > >
> > Congrats, Randy. This is one of the two ways to control TBM time-
> sappers.
>
> Well, they say that a picture speaks a thousand words.
€ We have all seen Kerry Shirts and Kevin Dirks greatly surpass this
mark, Red. .
>What if I were
> to say that I had a picture of an Egyptian papyrus dated circa 1400
> B.C. copied from the British Museum which shows not one Egyptian god,
> not two Egyptian gods, not even three or four - but TWELVE Egyptian
> gods seated in chairs just like Figure 7, and ALL of them have an arm
> located in EXACTLY the same position as Figure 7, and that these are
> arms is indisputed because they are holding spears, staff, and other
> items?
>
> What if I were to say that all the other characters in this Egyptian
> papyrus also have two arms (as does any major character in any Egyptian
> drawing)? And, why must I ask that you continue to ignore the fact
> that EVERY major character in an Egyptian drawing has two arms - EXCEPT
> this one figure 7 in Facsimile #2?
>
> You simply remain silent on the point knowing that it completely
> shreads the proposition that the mark above the belly-button is a penis
> (which is absurd to begin with - a penis located above a belly-button).
>
€ it's only on the woodcut. The gen-u-wine Egyptian hypocephalus leaves
no doubt that Min is equipped to handle even a herd of heifers in estrus.
.
> Well, I have such a picture in .bmp form (pixel by pixel baby).
€ JPEG is pretty much the Internet std. for pictures, Red. .
> I will post it to the Internet tomorrow and give the web address so that
> everyone can see for themselves.
>
> Shall we say "slam-dunk" the anti-Mormon?
>
> I'm laughing all the way to my scanner so that I can scan in the Book
> of Abraham Fac 2 fight beside it.
>
€ go for it.
> Thanks to Mr. Jackson for sending me the picture via e-mail. While I
> do not have the resources to authenticate the source material -- I did
> examine the image with special image editing software and I could find
> no alterations to the image.
€ Give me 90 minutes with Photoshop and I can put three, maybe four,
Texas Longhorn dicks on Min. the Bull of His Mother.
>
> And, NO, I did not alter the image. Maybe Ed Decker does such things
> (like the horn he placed on top of the Angel Moroni on his diatribe
> entitle "To Moroni with Love", but not I.
>
> -Red Davis
> >
€ Another delightsome laugh a Min. on a.r.m.
Red -- it still looks like you need a margin adjust on your Newsreader app.
Clovis Lark
R. L. Measures <meas...@vcnet.com> wrote:
>In article <83ckca$5aj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cont...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> In article <19991216220557...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
>> thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
>> > Red, your response to my post contained no cites from anyone
>> qualified to speak
>> > on this subject.
>>
>> to say that I had a picture of an Egyptian papyrus dated circa 1400
>> B.C. copied from the British Museum which shows not one Egyptian god,
>> not two Egyptian gods, not even three or four - but TWELVE Egyptian
>> gods seated in chairs just like Figure 7, and ALL of them have an arm
>
>€ And it came to pass that some of the defenders of the faith fell upon
>their own swords
Let's help them, Rich! Here are some quotes and citations:
Michael Rhodes on Facsimile No. 2:
"7. A seated ithyphallic god with a hawk's tail, holding aloft the
divine flail.... The seated god is clearly 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.... The procreative forces,
receiving unusual accentuation throughout the representation, may stand
for many divine generative powers, not least of which might be conjoined
with the blessings of the priesthood in one's posterity eternally."
(Brigham Young University Studies, Spring 1977, page 273)
--------------------
Ian Barber admits that Fac. 2, Fig. 7, shows an "ithyphallic" god:
"The seated god Min in Figure 7... is an ithyphallic deity. The
Tanners call this 'a pornographic representation,' and remark that it is
'hard to believe that Abraham would draw an obscene picture of God.'...
For the Egyptians, the ritual portrayal of the phallus was not understood
to be obscene, but rather symbolic of the divine, regenerative powers, and
it was even respectfully mummified on occasion. The Tanners are correct
in implying that such an emphasis would be inappropriate in our
contemporary Western culture, and that the explicit portrayal offended
Mormon sensibilities is evidenced by the fact that the phallus has been
removed from several printings of the Pearl of Great Price..." (What
Mormonism Isn't, page F-5)
---------------------
In his book, Abraham in Egypt, Dr. Hugh Nibley acknowledges that Min was
an Egyptian sex god who indulged in promiscuity and incest with his family
and even his own mother:
"As the supreme sex symbol of gods and men, Min behaves with shocking
promiscuity. 'The Egyptians,' wrote Plutarch, 'are accustomed to call
Horus "Min" meaning visible,' referring to the symbol of reproduction
publicly paraded at his festival.... The Greeks identified him with the
lustful Pan... His sacred plants were aphrodisiacal... and he is
everywhere represented as indulging in incestuous relationships with those
of his immediate family.... The rites of Min were secret, and the Chief
Priest was 'the Director of the Mysteries of the god in his character of
Kamutef,' literally the Bull of His Mother.... His special bull titles
always denote his too-intimate relationship with his mother.... For he is
the divine beast, the irrepressible rampart bull ready for anything. In
this regard he is the double of Seth, the two occupying prehistoric
shrines directly opposite each other... Their outstanding characteristic,
as Te Velde describes it, is their insistence on going 'beyond the bounds'
of discretion and morality, completely unrestrained in their appetites and
passions....
"The whip that the Min-images hold with upraised arm is always viewed
as a fertility symbol... some Egyptologists have maintained that it
signifies that Min took advantage of his mother by brute force, seizing
the matriarchal rule of the land by violence and incest.. What suggested
that was his commonest epithet, Ka-mut-ef, 'Bull of his Mother,' the title
that the youthful successor to the throne went by at the coronation..."
(Abraham in Egypt, 1981, pages 210-211)
--------------------------
R. L. Measures
cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Clovis Lark) wrote:
> In article <meas+ures-171...@port46.dial.vcnet.com>,
> R. L. Measures <meas...@vcnet.com> wrote:
> >In article <83ckca$5aj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cont...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >> In article <19991216220557...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
> >> thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> >> > Red, your response to my post contained no cites from anyone
> >> qualified to speak
> >> > on this subject.
> >>
> >> Well, they say that a picture speaks a thousand words. What if I were
> >> to say that I had a picture of an Egyptian papyrus dated circa 1400
> >> B.C. copied from the British Museum which shows not one Egyptian god,
> >> not two Egyptian gods, not even three or four - but TWELVE Egyptian
> >> gods seated in chairs just like Figure 7, and ALL of them have an arm
> >> located in EXACTLY the same position as Figure 7, ...........
> >
> >€ And it came to pass that some of the defenders of the faith fell upon
> >their own swords
>
> Let's help them, Rich! Here are some quotes and citations:
>
€ Help them? These quotes are not faith-building by any stretch of even
an apologist imagination.
cheers, Clovis.
> Michael Rhodes on Facsimile No. 2:
>
> "7. A seated ithyphallic god with a hawk's tail, holding aloft the
> divine flail.... The seated god is clearly 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.... The procreative forces,
> receiving unusual accentuation throughout the representation, may stand
> for many divine generative powers, not least of which might be conjoined
> with the blessings of the priesthood in one's posterity eternally."
> (Brigham Young University Studies, Spring 1977, page 273)
> --------------------
> Ian Barber admits that Fac. 2, Fig. 7, shows an "ithyphallic" god:
>
> "The seated god Min in Figure 7... is an ithyphallic deity. The
> Tanners call this 'a pornographic representation,' and remark that it is
> 'hard to believe that Abraham would draw an obscene picture of God.'...
> For the Egyptians, the ritual portrayal of the phallus was not understood
> to be obscene, but rather symbolic of the divine, regenerative powers, and
> it was even respectfully mummified on occasion. The Tanners are correct
> in implying that such an emphasis would be inappropriate in our
> contemporary Western culture, and that the explicit portrayal offended
> Mormon sensibilities is evidenced by the fact that the phallus has been
> removed from several printings of the Pearl of Great Price..." (What
> Mormonism Isn't, page F-5)
>
> ---------------------
>
> In his book, Abraham in Egypt, Dr. Hugh Nibley acknowledges that Min was
> an Egyptian sex god who indulged in promiscuity and incest with his family
> and even his own mother:
>
> "As the supreme sex symbol of gods and men, Min behaves with shocking
> promiscuity. 'The Egyptians,' wrote Plutarch, 'are accustomed to call
> Horus "Min" meaning visible,' referring to the symbol of reproduction
> publicly paraded at his festival.... The Greeks identified him with the
> lustful Pan... His sacred plants were aphrodisiacal... and he is
> everywhere represented as indulging in incestuous relationships with those
Clovis Lark
R. L. Measures <meas...@vcnet.com> wrote:
>In article <83dl9f$1ij$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Clovis Lark) wrote:
>
>> In article <meas+ures-171...@port46.dial.vcnet.com>,
>> R. L. Measures <meas...@vcnet.com> wrote:
>> >In article <83ckca$5aj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cont...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <19991216220557...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
>> >> thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
>> >> > Red, your response to my post contained no cites from anyone
>> >> qualified to speak
>> >> > on this subject.
>> >>
>> >> Well, they say that a picture speaks a thousand words. What if I were
>> >> to say that I had a picture of an Egyptian papyrus dated circa 1400
>> >> B.C. copied from the British Museum which shows not one Egyptian god,
>> >> not two Egyptian gods, not even three or four - but TWELVE Egyptian
>> >> gods seated in chairs just like Figure 7, and ALL of them have an arm
>> >> located in EXACTLY the same position as Figure 7, ...........
>> >
>> >€ And it came to pass that some of the defenders of the faith fell upon
>> >their own swords
>>
>> Let's help them, Rich! Here are some quotes and citations:
>>
>
>€ Help them? These quotes are not faith-building by any stretch of even
>an apologist imagination.
I looked at the gamut of hypocephali today and their little figures.
Anyone concluding that they are looking at an arm is very much off base.
Arms in these drawings invariably extend from the shoulder no matter what
position they are in. This protrubence clearly does not. Add to this the
painful reality that church officials did their best to hide the rod for
some time and the quotes below, it becomes clear that those arguing for an
arm are fighting the elite of their religious hierarchy as well as
scholarship in this opinion.
>
>cheers, Clovis.
>
>
>> Michael Rhodes on Facsimile No. 2:
>>
>> "7. A seated ithyphallic god with a hawk's tail, holding aloft the
>> divine flail.... The seated god is clearly 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.... The procreative forces,
>> receiving unusual accentuation throughout the representation, may stand
>> for many divine generative powers, not least of which might be conjoined
>> with the blessings of the priesthood in one's posterity eternally."
>> (Brigham Young University Studies, Spring 1977, page 273)
>> --------------------
>> Ian Barber admits that Fac. 2, Fig. 7, shows an "ithyphallic" god:
>>
>> "The seated god Min in Figure 7... is an ithyphallic deity. The
>> Tanners call this 'a pornographic representation,' and remark that it is
>> 'hard to believe that Abraham would draw an obscene picture of God.'...
>> For the Egyptians, the ritual portrayal of the phallus was not understood
>> to be obscene, but rather symbolic of the divine, regenerative powers, and
>> it was even respectfully mummified on occasion. The Tanners are correct
>> in implying that such an emphasis would be inappropriate in our
>> contemporary Western culture, and that the explicit portrayal offended
>> Mormon sensibilities is evidenced by the fact that the phallus has been
>> removed from several printings of the Pearl of Great Price..." (What
>> Mormonism Isn't, page F-5)
>>
>> ---------------------
>>
>> In his book, Abraham in Egypt, Dr. Hugh Nibley acknowledges that Min was
>> an Egyptian sex god who indulged in promiscuity and incest with his family
>> and even his own mother:
>>
>> "As the supreme sex symbol of gods and men, Min behaves with shocking
>> promiscuity. 'The Egyptians,' wrote Plutarch, 'are accustomed to call
>> Horus "Min" meaning visible,' referring to the symbol of reproduction
>> publicly paraded at his festival.... The Greeks identified him with the
>> lustful Pan... His sacred plants were aphrodisiacal... and he is
>> everywhere represented as indulging in incestuous relationships with those
cont...@my-deja.com
meas...@vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) wrote:
> In article <83ckca$5aj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cont...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <19991216220557...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
> > thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> > > Red, your response to my post contained no cites from anyone
> > qualified to speak
> > > on this subject.
> >
> > Well, they say that a picture speaks a thousand words. What if I
were
> > to say that I had a picture of an Egyptian papyrus dated circa 1400
> > B.C. copied from the British Museum which shows not one Egyptian
god,
> > not two Egyptian gods, not even three or four - but TWELVE Egyptian
> > gods seated in chairs just like Figure 7, and ALL of them have an
arm
> > located in EXACTLY the same position as Figure 7, ...........
>
> € And it came to pass that some of the defenders of the faith fell
upon
> their own swords
Or, perhaps they say that anti-Mormons have now determined that a male
penis extends from the belly-button.
Here is the promised link:
The mark in Facsimile 2, Figure 7 is clearly an arm.
-Red Davis
>
> --
> - Rich... 805.386.3734.
> www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
>
cont...@my-deja.com
>
> > In article <meas+ures-161...@port24.dial.vcnet.com>,
> > > > >seem to have noticed the funny arm. What their removing it
shows
> > > > >is that they have modesty. It is the critics who don't seem to
have
> > > > >any. If you're really trying to get people disgusted so as to
drive
> > > > >them from one camp to another, by dwelling on this to the point
> > > > >of nausea, which way will they really go?
> > > > >
> > > > >Wood
>
>
> > > > Woody, I'm not bothering to respond to your post, because number
> one, I don't
> > > > have the time, and number two, you haven't quoted a single
reputable
> scholar on
> > > > the subject at hand that refutes a single point in my post.
When
> you can quote
> > > > from some qualified scholars of Egyptology, rather than merely
> spouting your
> > > > own opinions, or those of the non-qualified, and much
discredited
> > > > Hugh Nibley,then maybe I'll take the time to respond to you.
> > > >
> > > Congrats, Randy. This is one of the two ways to control TBM time-
> > sappers.
> >
>
> mark, Red. .
>
> > to say that I had a picture of an Egyptian papyrus dated circa 1400
> > B.C. copied from the British Museum which shows not one Egyptian
god,
> > not two Egyptian gods, not even three or four - but TWELVE Egyptian
> > gods seated in chairs just like Figure 7, and ALL of them have an
arm
> > arms is indisputed because they are holding spears, staff, and other
> > items?
Here is the promised link:
The mark in Facsimile 2, Figure 7 is clearly an arm.
> >
> > What if I were to say that all the other characters in this Egyptian
> > papyrus also have two arms (as does any major character in any
Egyptian
> > drawing)? And, why must I ask that you continue to ignore the fact
> > that EVERY major character in an Egyptian drawing has two arms -
EXCEPT
> > this one figure 7 in Facsimile #2?
> >
> > You simply remain silent on the point knowing that it completely
> > shreads the proposition that the mark above the belly-button is a
penis
> > (which is absurd to begin with - a penis located above a belly-
button).
> >
> € it's only on the woodcut. The gen-u-wine Egyptian hypocephalus
leaves
> no doubt that Min is equipped to handle even a herd of heifers in
estrus.
Excuse me while I correct a direct and unequivocal lie: There does not
exist "the orginal" papyrus that Joseph Smith Translated. It is clear
from the 200 differences (major differences like completely different
scenes, different characters, different writings, etc) that the OTHER
papyrus that Mark Hines posted is not a copy nor the original of the
Facisimile Joseph Smith translated.
I only included a small part relating to figure 7 on the web site.
Go to Mark Hines posted links and you any reasonable person will find
that the two images are not the same.
But then again, aren't you the one claiming that a penis is located
just above the belly-button?
Look, the mark is not located in the groin, it is not at the correct
angle, it is not shaped like the penis in the other drawing.
Thus, you are left grasping at straws, "Well, the wood cut is
inaccurate. It must be." Talk about smoke and mirror and throwing
oneself on their sword.
-Red Davis
> --
> - Rich... 805.386.3734.
> www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
>
cont...@my-deja.com
> thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
>
> > Red, your response to my post contained no cites from anyone
qualified
> to speak
> > on this subject.
>
I think that the web site speaks mountains of your stupidity.
How else can one describe a person or persons who maintain that
the male genitalia is located ABOVE the belly-button?
Look, the mark in Facsimile 2, Figure 7 is more comparable to the
arms of the 12 Egyptian gods, then to the images containing a penis.
-Red Davis
>
> >...
>
> cheers, Randy
>
> --
> - Rich... 805.386.3734.
> www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
>
TheJordan6
> "The whip that the Min-images hold with upraised arm is always viewed
>as a fertility symbol..
>(Abraham in Egypt, 1981, pages 210-211)
Exactly. What Red, and some other Mormons on ARM (such as Woody Brison)
mistake for the Masonic/Mormon "compass and square" behind Min's head, is
actually a "divine flail," a common symbol in Egyptian culture and royalty.
I find it fascinating that Red even disagrees with Hugh NIbley, whom most TBMS
worship.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>I looked at the gamut of hypocephali today and their little figures.
>Anyone concluding that they are looking at an arm is very much off base.
>Arms in these drawings invariably extend from the shoulder no matter what
>position they are in. This protrubence clearly does not.
<chuckle> Since the appendage isn't anywhere near the shoulder to be an arm,
one wonders why today's Mormons don't try to come up with another explanation
for it?
For instance, since JS was mistaking Osiris-mystery papyrus fragments for
artifacts of Judeo/Christianity, perhaps Mormon apologists should follow
Smith's lead, and opine that the appendage is a yule log that "god" is holding
on his lap.
>Add to this the
>painful reality that church officials did their best to hide the rod for
>some time
That's actually a very big point---the fact that the Mormons in charge knew it
was a penis, so they deleted it in various editions.
What TBMs like Red and his ilk don't know, is that this isn't the only instance
of Mormons doing this.
In Dr. James R. Clark's "The Story of the Pearl of Great Price," (Bookcraft,
1973, p. 115,) is a photocopy of a letter from apostle and LDS historian Joseph
Fielding Smith to Clark. Smith includes a sketch of an ancient Egyptian
drawing from another book that had caught his attention, so he copied the
drawing and sent it to Clark.
The drawing is another example of the snake-god offering the "wedjat-eye" to a
standing figure which faces it. The snake-god has legs, just as it does in
other papyrii of the day, and it also has an obvious flaccid penis and
testicles. But in the other figure which faces the snake-god, his groin area
has a short missing portion where his penis should be. Either the author from
which JF Smith viewed the drawing deleted the penis, or Smith deleted it before
copying it for Clark. But it's fascinating that the obvious penis and testicles
were left intact on the snake-god. The assumption would be that the standing
figure's missing penis was obviously erect, just as Min's is in Figure 7; Smith
wouldn't want to send Clark something so obviously sexual, so he conveniently
omitted it.
To show JF Smith's ignorance of the meaning of the drawing (which mirrors the
average Mormon on ARM), here's what Smith wrote to Clark about it (Nov. 4,
1935)
"I am enclosing to you a roughly traced sketch from 'The Accuracy of the Bible'
by A. S. Yahuda showing a serpent as the author says feeding bread to a Deity.
More likely the serpent tempting Eve. This serpent also has legs."
Obviously, the place where JF Smith got his idea that the figure was "the
serpent tempting Eve" was Joseph Smith's statement back in the 1840s, speaking
of one of his papyrus fragments with a similar drawing. In giving his
explanation for that drawing, Joseph Smith said that before the "fall," snakes
went about on legs, just like chickens, and that one of the results of the
"fall" was that God made serpents crawl on their bellies.
So, in 1935, JF Smith was misinterpreting the drawing just as his great-uncle
had in the 1840s.
The silliest thing about JF Smith's opinion is that he assumed the standing
figure to be "Eve"----but it has an obvious male shape, with flat chest, a
beard, and the aforementioned broken line where the penis should be.
So, JF Smith did the same thing JS did before him---try to impute a
Judeo/Christian meaning onto artifacts of the Osiris mystery religion.
Rich, if you'll send me your snail-mail address, I'll send you a copy of JF
Smith's letter and the drawing, which you can mount beside your Min pic on your
site.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>
>-Red Davis
According to whom, Red?
Have you found any scholars who agree with you yet? Or are you still just
winging it on your own?
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>>Here is the promised link:
>>
>>http://reddavis.clanpages.com
>>
>>The mark in Facsimile 2, Figure 7 is clearly an arm.
>>
>>-Red Davis
I just viewed Red's pictures on his site, and I strongly encourage all
interested parties to do so. As Red said, a picture's worth a thousand words,
and you can clearly see how wrong Red is from viewing his own pictures.
Take particular note of the picture just below Red's words "Below is picture a
clip of an Egyptian papyrus showing a character with a penis."
Note that the papyrus which Red refers to is another hypocephalus, similar to
the one JS owned and allegedly interpreted. Note that the curved band of
hieroglyphs running around the top left side of Red's picture are similar to
the band of hieroglyphs on JS' hypocephalus. Note the snake-god figure in
Red's picture, with obvious erect penis, offering the "wedjat-eye" to the
sitting figure who also has an erect penis. Note also the hawk's wings which
adorn the sitting figure, and the "divine flail" above and behind its back
(which Red mistakes for a Masonic compass and square in the BOA facsimile.)
Now please note the overall remarkable similarity of Red's enlarged scene, to
Fig. 7, which JS claimed was "God sitting upon His throne" and "the Holy Ghost
in the form of a dove."
Now, remember that the band of hieroglyphs surrounding JS' hypocephalus have
been interpreted by scholars, and the text has nothing to do with 'Abraham,'
nor anything in Judeo/Christian culture or religion. It is purely Egyptian.
But according to Red, and all other Mormon apologists, JS' hypocephalus somehow
pertains to the Judeo/Christian God----even though many other Egyptian
hypocephali have been discovered and deciphered, and they all pertain to the
Egyptian religion as well---not to 'Abraham.'
So Red, thank you for furnishing that picture on your website, that shows a
complete, undamaged hypocephalus, and shows all of us how wrong JS was.
As I wrote in another post---in the original copy of the hypocephalus, which
appears in JS' "Egyptian Grammar," the alleged "Holy Ghost" figure is damaged
and incomplete. The figure is supposed to be a snake-god with legs and erect
penis---just as it is in Red's enlargement. But Joseph Smith ignorantly
interpreted it as a "dove," because he needed the Facsimiles to jibe with a
Biblical-sounding story about 'Abraham' that he was concocting.
LDS Egyptologist Edward Ashment related how Joseph Smith and/or his copyist
Reuben Hedlock incorrectly copied the facsimiles from the original papyrii:
"It can be clearly ascertained that portions of Reuben Hedlock's Facsimiles 1
and 2 were conjecturally restored. Moreover, according to the diary entry for
Friday, March 4, 1842, in the History of the Church, it is apparent that the
prophet was connected with their production....he probably was not concerned
with having historically accurate restorations of Facsimiles 1 and 2 as he was
with having complete pictures to publish in the times and Seasons." (Sunstone,
December 1979, p. 44.)
Ashment confirms what I've written in the past----JS didn't "translate" the
papyrus for the purpose of adding new "scripture" to the world; he concocted
his "Book of Abraham" for two reasons: To maintain his self-proclaimed status
as a "translator of ancient languages," and to sell newspapers of which he was
the editor.
As Ashment states, Smith wasn't concerned with accuracy, but with merely having
SOMETHING to publish.
Red, your appropriate response to this post is "It's still an arm."
Randy J.
R. L. Measures
cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Clovis Lark) wrote:
€ indeed, Clovis. TBMs have no choice but to say whatever to defend
God's true church.
..
R. L. Measures
€ two hyphocephali have been posted, the BoA version and the Lady
Takhred(?) version. The original of the woodcut apparently does not
exist.
.........
R. L. Measures
> In article <meas+ures-171...@port46.dial.vcnet.com>,
> meas...@vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article <83ckca$5aj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cont...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <19991216220557...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
> > > thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> > > > Red, your response to my post contained no cites from anyone
> > > qualified to speak
> > > > on this subject.
> > >
> > > Well, they say that a picture speaks a thousand words. What if I
> were
> > > to say that I had a picture of an Egyptian papyrus dated circa 1400
> > > B.C. copied from the British Museum which shows not one Egyptian
> god,
> > > not two Egyptian gods, not even three or four - but TWELVE Egyptian
> > > gods seated in chairs just like Figure 7, and ALL of them have an
> arm
> > > located in EXACTLY the same position as Figure 7, ...........
> >
> > € And it came to pass that some of the defenders of the faith fell
> upon
> > their own swords
>
> Or, perhaps they say that anti-Mormons have now determined that a male
> penis extends from the belly-button.
>
> Here is the promised link:
>
> http://reddavis.clanpages.com
>
€ I checked it out, Red. In the BoA and in 1 March, 1842 *Times and
Seasons* woodcut, there is a bump below the horizontal shaft that could
represent gonads. This bump is missing on your page.
R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
it's getting goofy, Randy
cont...@my-deja.com
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> >Here is the promised link:
> >
> >http://reddavis.clanpages.com
> >
> >
>
> According to whom, Red?
Uh, every male ever born on the face of the planet earth.
Out of those 5,000,000,0000 males - not one of them was born with a
penis above their belly-button.
The evidence is in, the jury is in, the mark is an arm.
Or, will you continue to blabber and cry over the fact that you were
just plain wrong?
You seem to present that the opinions of some few people with little
letters behind ther names should override the overwhelming evidence
that the mark is an arm. Well, those people with those little letters
behind their names are wrong more times then they are right.
Take for instance those textbooks from 30 years ago. I would hazard a
guess that 90% of the stuff in them is now dismissed - even though
people with those little letters behind their names wrote in stone that
such was factual, and would never change.
Let' summarize once again the differences between an arm in an Egyptian
drawing and a penis:
Arm - An arm is located just above the belly-button, and is parallel to
the ground. Its position is acounted for by the arm being lowerd at the
shoulder and bent at the elbow forming a 90 degree angle with the
forearm parallel to the ground. In Egyptian drawings - the presence of
two arms is very important for their main characters.
Penis - a penis is located in the gron area, and is at an angle of
about 45 degrees to the ground. Such marks are clearly represented as
such with the representation closely following the appearance of male
genitals.
The mark in Figure 7, Facsimile 2 is located just above the belly-
button, and is parallel to the ground. Its location is precisely where
an arm would be that is lowered at the shoulder and bent at the elbow
at 90 degrees - showing the forearm to be parallel to the ground. The
mark also accounts for the figure's second arm.
>
> Have you found any scholars who agree with you yet? Or are you still
just
> winging it on your own?
I could care less who agrees with me, or doesn't agree with me. I have
never found truth by playing the "safety in numbers" game. In fact,
that is the worse way to find truth.
The facts speak eloquently that the mark is an arm. That is why you
continue to play red-herring issues and that is why you continue to
ackowledge the strength of the pictorial evidence on my web site.
You do realize how silly you are looking now, don't you?
OK, here comes the horses laugh for such a silly goose:
He-he-he, ha-ha-ha-ha, ho-ho-ho! Randy can't admit the truth.
-Red Davis
>
> Randy J.
cont...@my-deja.com
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> Red Davis wrote:
>
> >>Here is the promised link:
> >>
> >>http://reddavis.clanpages.com
> >>
> >>The mark in Facsimile 2, Figure 7 is clearly an arm.
> >>
> >>-Red Davis
>
> interested parties to do so. As Red said, a picture's worth a
thousand words,
> and you can clearly see how wrong Red is from viewing his own
pictures.
>
> Take particular note of the picture just below Red's words "Below is
picture a
> clip of an Egyptian papyrus showing a character with a penis."
>
> Note that the papyrus which Red refers to is another hypocephalus,
similar to
> the one JS owned and allegedly interpreted.
We have already been over this point. The two hypocephalus are
"similar" but not the same. There are over 200 differences between the
two -- and these differences are not just jots and dots, but entirely
different scenes, characters, markings, and positions. The clip I
included on my web page simple covers Figure 7 -- a small part of the
hypocephalus.
> Note that the curved band of
> hieroglyphs running around the top left side of Red's picture are
similar to
> the band of hieroglyphs on JS' hypocephalus.
Excellent occassion for me to point out your definition of the word
"similar": The hieroglyphs running around the top left side of the
clip from the Book of Abraham facsimile are TOTALLY different in
contents then then the hieroglyphs in the band running around the one
Mark Hines furnished. TOTALLY different.
The only "similarity" they have is that there are markings there.
> Note the snake-god figure in
> Red's picture, with obvious erect penis, offering the "wedjat-eye" to
the
> sitting figure who also has an erect penis.
Uh, guy, that is not my picture, that is Mark Hines - the one that is
NOT from the Book of Abraham.
> Note also the hawk's wings which
> adorn the sitting figure, and the "divine flail" above and behind its
back
> (which Red mistakes for a Masonic compass and square in the BOA
facsimile.)
Sorry, I have not "mistaken" them for "a Masonic compass and square".
Nor is the image a "divine flail" - it is the character's near arm.
I said that the image of the character is one that Masons would
recognize as doing certain things that are found in their belief system.
>
> Now please note the overall remarkable similarity of Red's enlarged
scene, to
> Fig. 7, which JS claimed was "God sitting upon His throne" and "the
Holy Ghost
> in the form of a dove."
What "remarkable similarity"?
1. The Hieroglyphs are completely different in the two clips
2. The characters facing the seated character are completely different:
In the Book of Abraham Facsimile 2, the character is a bird
In Mark Hines hypocephalus, the character is a snake.
3. The snake in Mark Hines' hypocephalus has two feet at the bottom
The bird in the BofA does not.
4. The snake in Mark Hines' hypocephalus has two long legs.
The bird in the BofA does not.
5. The snake in Mark Hines' hypocephalus has an erect penis orginating
in the groin area.
The bird in the Bof A has no penis at all.
6. The symbol between the two characters is completely different.
Just to prove that there you go again with your illogical definition of
"similar".
>
> Now, remember that the band of hieroglyphs surrounding JS'
hypocephalus have
> been interpreted by scholars, and the text has nothing to do with
'Abraham,'
> nor anything in Judeo/Christian culture or religion. It is purely
Egyptian.
Examined from a purely Egyptian stand point one would get Egyptian.
Again, it would not be improbable for Abraham, a man how lived in
Egypt, to use Egyptian characters and symbols to tell a Hebrew story.
> But according to Red, and all other Mormon apologists, JS'
hypocephalus somehow
Hmmm. If a person agrees with you, they are a "scholar". If they
disagree, they are an "apologist". Such makes you an "idiot".
> pertains to the Judeo/Christian God----even though many other Egyptian
> hypocephali have been discovered and deciphered, and they all pertain
to the
> Egyptian religion as well---not to 'Abraham.'
Many is not the one Joseph Smith had. That's like saying that you
examined many tablets written in 34 AD - none of which mentioned
Christ, so the Gospel of Matthew must be false.
> So Red, thank you for furnishing that picture on your website, that
shows a
> complete, undamaged hypocephalus, and shows all of us how wrong JS
was.
You have done a lot of typing, yet you haven't said a thing that would
support your point that the mark in Figure 7 is a penis. Not one thing.
Uh, what about the mark you said was a penis?
>
> As I wrote in another post---in the original copy of the
hypocephalus, which
> appears in JS' "Egyptian Grammar," the alleged "Holy Ghost" figure is
damaged
> and incomplete.
You are funny. The "original copy". How about the original?
Uh, what about the mark you said was a penis?
> The figure is supposed to be a snake-god with legs and erect
> penis---just as it is in Red's enlargement.
Actually, you yourself said that the figure is only "often" a snake-god
-- not that it is "always" a snake god. Thus, your use of the word
"supposed" is begging the question. You have not offered any evidence
in support of your begging.
However, clearly the two people who were looking exactly at the
original hypophalus that was used to translate the Book of Abraham were
of the distinct determination that the figure was a bird -- as that is
what they printed.
Absent any evidence that the figure was a snake, and the actual
existence of a bird - the figure is a bird.
Uh, what about the mark you said was a penis?
> But Joseph Smith ignorantly
> interpreted it as a "dove," because he needed the Facsimiles to jibe
with a
> Biblical-sounding story about 'Abraham' that he was concocting.
Oh, really? Nothing would be more "Biblical-sounding" then a snake, or
have you never heard of the Garden of Eden, or the exodus of Moses?
Uh, what about the mark you said was a penis?
>
> LDS Egyptologist Edward Ashment related how Joseph Smith and/or his
copyist
> Reuben Hedlock incorrectly copied the facsimiles from the original
papyrii:
>
> "It can be clearly ascertained that portions of Reuben Hedlock's
Facsimiles 1
> and 2 were conjecturally restored. Moreover, according to the diary
entry for
> Friday, March 4, 1842, in the History of the Church, it is apparent
that the
> prophet was connected with their production....he probably was not
concerned
> with having historically accurate restorations of Facsimiles 1 and 2
as he was
> with having complete pictures to publish in the times and Seasons."
(Sunstone,
> December 1979, p. 44.)
This is hilarious! "he probably" makes it "clearly assertained"?
Talk about "conjecture"!!!
Uh, what about the mark you had said was a penis?
And, you score not points quoting supposed "Mormons" from StunSone.
StunSone has long been the breeding ground for apostates and
discontents. D. Michael Queen and Mark Hoffman are two examples.
Two homosexual historians racking havoc on the LDS Church in the name
of "scholarship".
>
> Ashment confirms what I've written in the past----JS didn't
"translate" the
> papyrus for the purpose of adding new "scripture" to the world; he
concocted
> his "Book of Abraham" for two reasons: To maintain his self-
proclaimed status
> as a "translator of ancient languages," and to sell newspapers of
which he was
> the editor.
Oh, right, to "sell newspapers", "self-proclaimed status".
Uh, what about the mark you had previously said was a penis?
> As Ashment states, Smith wasn't concerned with accuracy, but with
merely having
> SOMETHING to publish.
>
> Red, your appropriate response to this post is "It's still an arm."
Given you never addressed the mark you previously stated was a "penis",
I think those following this thread can see for themselves which side
of the table the facts are on.
I mean, when you have to use the word "similar" to describe two
writings that have over 200 differences, and whose clipped texts as
posted on my web site are entirely different.
Uh, what about that mark?
cont...@my-deja.com
> Now, remember that the band of hieroglyphs surrounding JS'
hypocephalus have
> been interpreted by scholars, and the text has nothing to do with
'Abraham,'
> nor anything in Judeo/Christian culture or religion. It is purely
Egyptian.
hypocephalus somehow
> hypocephali have been discovered and deciphered, and they all pertain
to the
> Egyptian religion as well---not to 'Abraham.'
Uh, BTW, here are two sources that do put Abraham's name on hypocepalus
that came from the same region of Egypt, and which had couch scenes
like Facsimile 1 of the Book of Abraham:
30. Hans D. Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1986), lviii.
31. Janet H. Johnson, "The Demotic Magical Spells of Leiden I 384,"
Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden to Leiden
56 (1975): column XIII line 6 (hereafter cited as Demotic Spells).
(From Rhodes' web site)
> So Red, thank you for furnishing that picture on your website, that
shows a
> complete, undamaged hypocephalus, and shows all of us how wrong JS
was.
Actually, it only shows a very small clipping from one, which shows all
the differences I outlined in my previous response - and all those
differences just in one small clipping.
>
> As I wrote in another post---in the original copy of the
hypocephalus, which
> appears in JS' "Egyptian Grammar," the alleged "Holy Ghost" figure is
damaged
> and incomplete. The figure is supposed to be a snake-god with legs
and erect
> penis---just as it is in Red's enlargement. But Joseph Smith
ignorantly
> interpreted it as a "dove," because he needed the Facsimiles to jibe
with a
> Biblical-sounding story about 'Abraham' that he was concocting.
Actually, the figure could "supposed to be" a bird, an ape, or a snake
according to scholars. A bird fits in nicely and is accepted by Rhodes
due to the fact that Egyptians saw a bird as a representation of a
spirit.
-Red Davis.
>
> LDS Egyptologist Edward Ashment related how Joseph Smith and/or his
copyist
> Reuben Hedlock incorrectly copied the facsimiles from the original
papyrii:
>
> "It can be clearly ascertained that portions of Reuben Hedlock's
Facsimiles 1
> and 2 were conjecturally restored. Moreover, according to the diary
entry for
> Friday, March 4, 1842, in the History of the Church, it is apparent
that the
> prophet was connected with their production....he probably was not
concerned
> with having historically accurate restorations of Facsimiles 1 and 2
as he was
> with having complete pictures to publish in the times and Seasons."
(Sunstone,
> December 1979, p. 44.)
>
> Ashment confirms what I've written in the past----JS didn't
"translate" the
> papyrus for the purpose of adding new "scripture" to the world; he
concocted
> his "Book of Abraham" for two reasons: To maintain his self-
proclaimed status
> as a "translator of ancient languages," and to sell newspapers of
which he was
> the editor.
> As Ashment states, Smith wasn't concerned with accuracy, but with
merely having
> SOMETHING to publish.
>
> Red, your appropriate response to this post is "It's still an arm."
>
Woody Brison
> I just viewed Red's pictures on his site, and I strongly
> encourage all interested parties to do so. As Red said, a
> picture's worth a thousand words, and you can clearly see how
> wrong Red is from viewing his own pictures.
Your strong encouragement here puzzles me. I looked at it very
carefully, and the twelve figures have arms in the same position as
fig. 7 does. They are clearly arms, with hands on the ends of 'em
holding staffs! The way the bodies and hips are drawn is the same
style as in fig. 7, so the identification as an arm is valid for
fig. 7, too -- same drawing school. If people go to this site, they
are going to see this. I can understand that you would claim Red is
wrong, but to actually send people there, you have me worried. Are
you giving up? or can you actually not see what is there?
I have also put up an article on the subject, at
<http://web.lds.net/pages/wwbrison/fig7.htm>.
It will be interesting to see whether public opinion conforms to
your view or ours as time goes by. Won't it be fun if Qualified
Egyptologists start seeing it our way too?
> Note that the papyrus which Red refers to is another
> hypocephalus, similar to the one JS owned and allegedly
> interpreted. Note that the curved band of hieroglyphs running
> around the top left side of Red's picture are similar to the
> band of hieroglyphs on JS' hypocephalus.
Can you furnish any quotes by any Certified Egyptologists on this
point, or are you authorizing us to rely on our own eyes here?
> Now please note the overall remarkable similarity of Red's
> enlarged scene, to Fig. 7, which JS claimed was "God sitting
> upon His throne" and "the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove."
How wonderful that you would notice this. There have been found
something like 150 of these diagrams. They all have the same layout
generally. There is even one described in the Egyptian chapter of
the Illiad, ch. 18. It was obviously something that the Egyptians
loved or revered, they made many copies. At some point they started
placing them under the heads of mummies. They also at some point
began to misinterpret the symbols and figures as they degenerated
into profane living, hence the obscene things that were drawn into
them. I speculate that the older examples will show less of this,
since I believe that the tradition started out more pure and became
more corrupt.
> Now, remember that the band of hieroglyphs surrounding JS'
> hypocephalus have been interpreted by scholars, and the text
> has nothing to do with 'Abraham,' nor anything in
> Judeo/Christian culture or religion. It is purely Egyptian.
This is one of the proofs that Joseph Smith really was inspired,
for he offered no comment on this writing, as he had for others.
The band around the disk was usually written with things related
to the specific owner, and on the original for Fac. 2, it was
damaged -- they filled in with some hieratic from another papyrus.
> But according to Red, and all other Mormon apologists, JS'
> hypocephalus somehow pertains to the Judeo/Christian God----
> even though many other Egyptian hypocephali have been
> discovered and deciphered, and they all pertain to the Egyptian
> religion as well---not to 'Abraham.'
In the text of the Book of Abraham, you will read how Pharoah was
denied from holding the Priesthood because of the curse issued by
Noah (Gen. 9). He nevertheless sought to imitate it, including the
temple ordinances. Thus the Egyptians had this tremendous tradition
of these rites, which resemble at every turn, the eternal endowments.
It takes the eye of the endowed to recognize them; outsiders go right
by it.
When Abraham went to Egypt, he taught them the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, apparently by this time a Pharoah of different lineage was
on the throne, and it was well received. Thus the old traditions
received new life, assuming Abe taught them the temple ordinances
also; and again, after he left, the old and the new were mingled
and swizzled. Joseph as the prime minister later doubtless had
some influence on their culture; a tomb still exists, called the
tomb of "Zoser", which has many odd correlations with the religion.
Moses was raised in this environment and obviously had the written
records of Abraham and Joseph. There is thus little reason to
believe that the Egyptian tradition is completely divorced from
the religion of Israel, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
> As I wrote in another post---in the original copy of the
> hypocephalus, which appears in JS' "Egyptian Grammar,"
This is tremendous news, Randy, the original has been missing for
150 years. You have found it you say? Don't sell it for small
money...
The copy in the Kirtland Papers is not the original. Such an
idea would lead to all sorts of errors. It's on paper! not
papyrus. But the two diagrams match up; and the original was
obviously an authentic hypocephalus. The symbols that are present
in Fac. 2, but missing in the blank areas of the other copy, are
correct per other examples. I believe your technique here as a
critic is incorrect; if you say that the Joseph filled in the
missing parts by guess, how did he guess so well? Better I think
for you to say the other copy was simply incomplete, and admit that
no one knows where the original is. I'd hate to think you were not
criticizing at peak performance.
> LDS Egyptologist Edward Ashment related how Joseph Smith and/or
> his copyist Reuben Hedlock incorrectly copied the facsimiles
> from the original papyrii:
>
> "It can be clearly ascertained that portions of Reuben
> Hedlock's Facsimiles 1 and 2 were conjecturally restored.
I missed the article, how did he ascertain this, lacking the
original parts? Joseph's conjectures seem to have turned out
pretty good, tho; his restorations are consistent with other
ancient documents which have surfaced since, which he could
not have known about. (unless he really WAS a seer.)
> Moreover, according to the diary entry for Friday, March 4,
> 1842, in the History of the Church, it is apparent that the
> prophet was connected with their production....he probably was
> not concerned with having historically accurate restorations of
> Facsimiles 1 and 2 as he was with having complete pictures to
> publish in the times and Seasons." (Sunstone, December 1979, p.
> 44.)
I further wonder by what magic Ashment ascertained what the
Prophet's inner thoughts were.
> Ashment confirms what I've written in the past----JS didn't
> "translate" the papyrus for the purpose of adding new
> "scripture" to the world; he concocted his "Book of Abraham"
> for two reasons: To maintain his self-proclaimed status as a
> "translator of ancient languages," and to sell newspapers of
> which he was the editor.
Wow, Randy, that's a bizarre one. He was the president of a
large church, mayor of a large city, and general of an army,
but his real ambition in life was to sell newspapers! I'll
have to update my notes about that.
Wood
TheJordan6
I don't think that Red's post here needs any additional comments from me. I'll
just let it speak for itself.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>> >
>> >-Red Davis
>>
>
>Uh, every male ever born on the face of the planet earth.
Would you mind naming one of them? Besides you, of course.
Randy J.
Ray Jackson
>>The mark in Facsimile 2, Figure 7 is clearly an arm.
>>
>>-Red Davis
>
>According to whom, Red?
>
>Have you found any scholars who agree with you yet? Or are you still just
>winging it on your own?
>
>Randy J.
When I first brought up the subject of other Egyptian seated figures
having arms in the same area as what the blind are calling the "penis" they see
in fig. 7 I also said I was tempted to put up a webpage with the scans. I
didn't, and you can see why. Even though you have posted the proof, they have
in effect hardend their hearts, and will not see. Anyone with enough smarts to
turn on a computer can see for themselfs, and yet the rage on.
It is a lot like what Paul cautioned Timothy about :
1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane
[and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
.
.
.........................................2 Nephi 33:6:...
I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus,for he has
redeemed my soul from Hell.
Ray Jackson..................................... Milwaukee. Wi
Ray Jackson
(TheJordan6) writes:
>>
>>Uh, every male ever born on the face of the planet earth.
>
>Would you mind naming one of them? Besides you, of course.
>
>Randy J.
Fact: Fig 7 shows a seated personage with an protrusion issuing from the
middle of the torso. It is an arm, but slightly vague, due to being a
rendition.
Fact: The scan on Red's site shows 12 simular seated personages, with
protrusions issuing from the same area. They are arms also, but more clearly
drawn, being of much higher detail.
Everything else is smoke an mirrors. You can write all you wish that
black is white, good is bad, and that festering garbage smells sweet. For
anyone who LOOKS at the two facts, it is more than clear that the figure in fig
7 is in fact an arm.
.
Keith Wood
Woody Brison wrote:
>
> Now, Randy Jordan had written,
>
> > I just viewed Red's pictures on his site, and I strongly
> > encourage all interested parties to do so. As Red said, a
> > picture's worth a thousand words, and you can clearly see how
> > wrong Red is from viewing his own pictures.
>
> http://reddavis.clanpages.com
>
> Your strong encouragement here puzzles me. I looked at it very
> carefully, and the twelve figures have arms in the same position as
> fig. 7 does. They are clearly arms, with hands on the ends of 'em
> holding staffs!
Next Randy will claim this as a severe case of Perionie's Disease.
R. L. Measures
> In article <19991217205254...@ng-cf1.aol.com>,
> thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> > >Here is the promised link:
> > >
> > >http://reddavis.clanpages.com
> > >
> > >The mark in Facsimile 2, Figure 7 is clearly an arm.
> > >
> > >-Red Davis
> >
> > According to whom, Red?
>
> Uh, every male ever born on the face of the planet earth.
>
> Out of those 5,000,000,0000 males - not one of them was born with a
> penis above their belly-button.
>
€ On which planet,. Red?
> The evidence is in, the jury is in, the mark is an arm.
>
€ So Nibley and the rest really and truly were wrong when they said that
the member was a penis?
........
R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> >> Have you found any scholars who agree with you yet? Or are you still
> >just
> >> winging it on your own?
> >
> >I could care less who agrees with me, or doesn't agree with me. I have
> >never found truth by playing the "safety in numbers" game. In fact,
> >that is the worse way to find truth.
> >
> >The facts speak eloquently that the mark is an arm. That is why you
> >continue to play red-herring issues and that is why you continue to
> >ackowledge the strength of the pictorial evidence on my web site.
> >
> >http://reddavis.clanpages.com
> >
> >You do realize how silly you are looking now, don't you?
> >
> >OK, here comes the horses laugh for such a silly goose:
> >
> >He-he-he, ha-ha-ha-ha, ho-ho-ho!
€ Shades of Kerry Shirts?.
>Randy can't admit the truth.
> >
> >-Red Davis
>
> I don't think that Red's post here needs any additional comments from
me. I'll
> just let it speak for itself.
>
€ Indeed. This has gotta be a time-sapper, Randy. If Red formally
attacked the LDS experts who determined that that Min the Bull's member
is a phallus, he would undoubtedly have gotten the Brethern's boot.
Ray Jackson
meas...@vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) writes:
>Indeed. This has gotta be a time-sapper, Randy. If Red formally
>attacked the LDS experts who determined that that Min the Bull's member
>is a phallus, he would undoubtedly have gotten the Brethern's boot.
>
Shows just how much you know. Min the Bull's member may well be a phallus. The
figure in fig 7 is not Min. More smoke. Watch for the mirrors.
.
..
R. L. Measures
mil...@aol.comcan.spam (Ray Jackson) wrote:
> In article <meas+ures-191...@port65.dial.vcnet.com>,
> meas...@vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) writes:
>
> >Indeed. This has gotta be a time-sapper, Randy. If Red formally
> >attacked the LDS experts who determined that that Min the Bull's member
> >is a phallus, he would undoubtedly have gotten the Brethern's boot.
> >
>
> Shows just how much you know. Min the Bull's member may well be a phallus. The
> figure in fig 7 is not Min. More smoke. Watch for the mirrors.
> .
€ Confrontations are hardly won by proclimation, Ray. Nibley et al plus
many Egyptologists agree that his is none other then Min the Bull of His
Mother.
Behold ye. Almost to knee is one humungous schlong.
cheers, Ray
Woody Brison
> The papyri Smith claimed to translate
Why does it take you so long to learn anything? We do not have
any papyrus anywhere that was *identified by Joseph Smith* as
the papyrus he translated to get the Book of Abraham text.
There have been several papyri recovered from his collection,
but it is much debated whether we have his source or not.
Nothing we have matches the description he gave.
For an analysis of the identification, see
http://web.lds.net/pages/wwbrison/rolls.htm
> To the right of Min in Figure 7 is a slender personage Joe
>Smith identifies as the "Holy Ghost ... The depiction of
>Nehebkau at this link was taken from a hypocephalus designated
>Leyden AMS 62, a hypocephalus that is similar to Smith's:
It seems just a tad odd that to prove that Joseph Smith
misidentified the figure in his diagram, you must refer us to a
different diagram, one that Joseph Smith never saw.
The nation of Israel had high standards in the days of Joshua.
Later, they degenerated into idolatry and wickedness. If they
could do it, so could the Egyptians, si? The obscenities in
their drawings, little different from the filth in the stalls in
a public bathroom today, are from certain periods, I believe;
and Joseph Smith had a diagram from a different period. It is
completely lacking in the obscenities. The only thing dubious
in it is the small detail in fig. 7. For an analysis on this,
see
http://web.lds.net/pages/wwbrison/fig7.htm
Careful inspection of the arms of the 12 figures shows it is an
arm. Good luck sorting this out, Mark. If you need help, there
are some excellent medical anatomy texts, available in most good
libraries.
Woody Brison
(I had written:)
> >The LDS didn't make the diagram, and the early LDS never even
> >seem to have noticed the funny arm. What their removing it shows
> >is that they have modesty. It is the critics who don't seem to have
> >any. If you're really trying to get people disgusted so as to drive
> >them from one camp to another, by dwelling on this to the point
> >of nausea, which way will they really go?
>
> Woody, I'm not bothering to respond to your post, because number one,
> I don't have the time,
I'm sorry you don't have time to discuss the accusations you
advanced. It might have been enlightening.
>...and number two, you haven't quoted a single reputable scholar
>on the subject at hand that refutes a single point in my post.
>When you can quote from some qualified scholars of Egyptology,
>rather than merely spouting your own opinions, or those of the
>non-qualified, and much discredited Hugh Nibley, then maybe I'll
>take the time to respond to you.
I offered some reasoning from the primary evidence. I used my
eyes, and I saw there are three figures at the top of the circle
that seem to have significant correlations with Christian matters:
God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. The "No Quotes
from qualified Ph.D Egyptologists" argument really won't beat two
aces, I mean eyes, because everybody here can look for themself.
Not knowing what the Egyptians were up to, understanding their
papyri is like trying to guess a 150-digit number. The LDS
with their knowledge of the eternal temple ceremonies can
often recognize immediately what is depicted, which the most
highly accredited scholar of the world will not understand.
This is not illogical, for we know we have spiritual gifts
that transcend academic interpretations; and we know the Egyptian
ceremonies were imitations of the real ones which Noah taught
to his family.
If a man studies old English, Latin, and Greek, if by the end
of high school has read every known word from ancient Greece
and memorized half their plays, serves a mission in Europe
where he speaks most of the languages so fluently the police
don't believe he's an American when his papers are stolen;
studies Arabic, Hebrew, and Coptic -- becoming one of the few
scholars in the world who speaks both Coptic and English at
the time -- reads every book in the UC Berkely library about
anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, ancient cultures, etc.,
then gets a job as a professor and continues to study the
ancient middle east for sixty years, can read hieroglyphs as
well as you or I can read Shakespeare -- and while none of his
many degrees happen to say "Egyptology" on them, a Jesuit
scholar listening to him speak, puts his face in his hands,
saying, "It is obscene that any man should know that much";
is he an Egyptologist or not?
You must answer this question yourself, but when you think
you are qualified to discredit the above professor, I would
like to know about it, this should be enlightening indeed.
Ray Jackson
meas...@vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) writes:
> .
>€ Confrontations are hardly won by proclimation, Ray. Nibley et al plus
>many Egyptologists agree that his is none other then Min the Bull of His
>Mother.
I hardly expect to "win" any confrontations here. That is not my I am
here. This is not a game of points. While I have read some of Bro. Nibley's
books, the last time I looked he was not the Prophet. You say he has called
this figure Min, and I can't say he didn't, because I don't know.
Why an I here? To place before those who may be earnestly seeking truth
some of what I hold as true.
Here is what I know about what the figure in Facsimile 2, fig 7. It is
from the Scriptures.
Fig. 7. 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.
I really don't care what anyone else says it is. This is what it is
claimed to be. I have found many phallas figures in Egyptian texts. What is
shown in fig 7 is not one of them. I have placed into the fray an esample of 12
sitting figures that have arms in the place that some get off on calling a
penis.
I also have a Hypocephalus that, aside from being round with horizontal
lines, looks nothing at all like Facsimile 2, or the one that has Min in his
glory.
.
.
R. L. Measures
mil...@aol.comcan.spam (Ray Jackson) wrote:
> In article <meas+ures-191...@port76.dial.vcnet.com>,
> meas...@vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) writes:
>
> > .
> >€ Confrontations are hardly won by proclimation, Ray. Nibley et al plus
> >many Egyptologists agree that his is none other then Min the Bull of His
> >Mother.
>
> I hardly expect to "win" any confrontations here. That is not my I am
> here. This is not a game of points.
€ Think ye not that third parties keep score?
> While I have read some of Bro. Nibley's
> books, the last time I looked he was not the Prophet. You say he has called
> this figure Min, and I can't say he didn't, because I don't know.
€ Those who read what Nibley wrote about the subject know.
>.......
Ray Jackson
meas...@vcnet.com (R. L. Measures) writes:
>
>€ Think ye not that third parties keep score?
>
Why? If they are truely interested, they could look at what has been
place on Red's page, and see for themselfs. I notice you didn't speak to the
fact that there is another, non LDS source that shows arms drawn in the manner
that is use in fig.7.
Is this the smoke, of the mirrors?
.
..