From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: BoA Papyrus (SLCM-9/92-5/7)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Corp.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:25:24 GMT


A PAGAN BOOK?

        The attempt by Mormon scholars to escape Smith's own statements
that he translated the Book of Abraham from the papyrus appears to be a
flight from reality. It is clear that they realize there is no way to
defend Smith's work as a translator of Egyptian writing. Consequently,
they are forced to resort to some kind of a theory that allows Smith to
be a prophet even though his translation does not coincide with what is
found on the papyrus. The idea that there was another papyrus scroll
which Joseph Smith never had in his possession and that God revealed the
text of that papyrus to Smith by revelation seems to stretch one's
credulity beyond the breaking point.

        Even if a person could accept this theory, it raises another
insurmountable problem: why would God allow his prophet to use three
pagan documents (the facsimiles) to illustrate his Book of Abraham? The
facsimiles are filled with pictures of and praises to these heathen
gods. For example, Mormon scholar Michael Rhodes has translated
Facsimile No. 2 and admits that the text "seems to be an address to
Osiris, the god of the Dead, on behalf of the deceased..." (Brigham
Young University Studies, Spring 1977, page 274) On page 270 of the same
article, Rhodes acknowledges that the same facsimile has a drawing of
the "Hawk-headed Re"--the Egyptian sun god. Numerous other gods and
pagan scenes are shown on the facsimiles. Rhodes himself admits that
there is a "strange assortment of gods, animals, and mixtures of both"
on Facsimile No. 2. (Ibid., page 273) To have such an array of pagan
gods and activities in a book purporting to have been written by Abraham
appears to be in direct contradiction to the first commandment:

                "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of
   the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no
   other gods before me." (Exodus 20: 2-3)

        Charles Larson makes some interesting observations concerning
this matter in his new book:

                "Quite early in the game Dr. Nibley had given the
   impression that he felt that Mormon people ought to be willing to
   accept any association that could be found--even to pagan Egyptian
   mythology if need be--so long as it left open possibilities.

                "However, Nibley's approach in this regard is certainly
   in sharp conflict with the Bible, one of the four LDS standard works.
   Throughout the Old Testament it is abundantly clear that God took
   great pains to dissuade the children of Israel from any contact with
   the false gods and idolatrous practices of their pagan neighbors....
   God specifically admonished his people to repudiate and completely
   forsake the gods of Egypt, to whom they had been exposed during their
   years of captivity there (Joshua 24:14). The Old Testament records
   that every time the children of Israel fell into pagan idolatry, they
   experienced God's chastening (Judges 2:2. 3, 11-15).

                "The New Testament likewise teaches the same principle
   that God does not use pagan or ungodly vessels to bear His truth....

                "Since the Joseph Smith Papyri have been identified with
   absolute certainty as prayers to pagan Egyptian gods that, by
   biblical definition are ripe with occultism, it is inconceivable,
   given the holy character of God, that he would associate Himself or
   His revelation in any way with these pagan religious documents. This
   fact alone is ample grounds for totally rejecting the Book of Abraham
   as a revelation from the one True and Living God." (By His Own Hand
   Upon Papyrus, pages 119-120)

        John Gee argues that the Book of Breathings "is addressed to no
Egyptian gods; rather, it is addressed to a human individual and reminds
him of promises made to him and things he has experienced." (_Review of
Books on the Book of Mormon_, vol. 4, p. 100) While this diversionary
tactic may be technically correct, those who take the time to read the
text will find that the deceased is promised help from Re (the sun god),
Uto (the cobra goddess), Nekhbet (the vulture goddess), Geb (the earth
god), Shu (the god of air), and other gods and goddesses. (See Klaus
Baer's translation in _Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought_, Autumn
1968, pp. 116-126.) As noted earlier, we found at least fifteen pagan
gods and goddesses mentioned on this papyrus!

        Moreover, we have shown that the Mormon scholar Michael Rhodes
has translated Facsimile No. 2 of the Book of Abraham and acknowledges
that the text "seems to be an address to Osiris, the god of the Dead, on
behalf of the deceased..." In addition, the rest of the Joseph Smith
Papyri contains prayers to pagan deities.

        We have to agree with Charles Larson's statement on page 166 of
his book: "...It is surely inconceivable that the God of the Bible would
compromise his exclusivity as the one, true God by co-mingling His
revelation with the idolatrous pagan teachings and rites of Egypt as
expressed in the Joseph Smith Papyri."

RELIGIOUS PORNOGRAPHY ?

        Figure 7 of Facsimile No. 2 of the Book of Abraham has caused
some embarrassment to Mormon officials. In fact, it was considered so
"explicit" that it was falsified in some printings of the _Pearl of
Great Price_. In 1981, however, it was restored to match the original
woodcut prepared under Joseph Smith's direction. (In Mormonism--Shadow
or Reality? pp. 341-43, 369-D, we discuss this pornographic drawing in
detail and give photographic evidence of the falsification.) Joseph
Smith stated that "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."
It is actually an extremely crude representation of the pagan fertility
god Min!

        We have previously spoken of a letter written to Michael Rhodes
by a member of the LDS Church who was troubled with regard to the
authenticity of the Book of Abraham. In this letter, dated June 30,
1988, we find the following: "...how do you account for the Explanation
of the Facsimiles?... Figure 7 of Facsimile 2 is described by Joseph as
being Heavenly Father (with an erection?), whereas it is really the
Egyptian god Min."

        Michael Rhodes did not mention the problem with regard to Fig. 7
in his response. However, in his article published in _BYU Studies_ in
1977, he gave a very honest explanation of this part of 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)

        The Mormon writer Ian Barber responded to our work with regard
to the god Min. He tried to defend the Book of Abraham but had to admit
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)

        That Joseph Smith would identify this promiscuous god who
engaged in incest with his own mother as "God sitting upon his throne"
shows a complete lack of inspiration.

        Unfortunately for Mormon apologists trying to save the Book of
Abraham, the problem with regard to the ithyphallic-god Min spills over
onto Facsimile No. 1. As we have shown, Dr. Nibley has pointed out that
the expression "Bull of his Mother" is applied to the god Min. When the
Egyptologist Klaus Baer translated the original papyrus from which Fac.
No. 1 was taken, he found these words: "Min Bull-of-his-Mother. "
(Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon thought, Autumn 1968, page 116)

        The problem may even go much deeper: Egyptologist Richard A.
Parker pointed out that the portion of the original papyrus which was
missing when the Mormons obtained it was incorrectly restored by Joseph
Smith. According to Professor Parker, the papyrus really contained a
sexual scene before the papyrus was damaged:

                "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 (now broken away). The second bird is Isis and she is
   magically impregnated by the dead Osiris and then later gives birth
   to Horus..." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968,
   page 86)

        The Egyptologist Klaus Baer agreed with Professor Parker: "He
[Osiris] was almost certainly represented as ithyphallic, ready to beget
Horus, as in many of the scenes at Dendera." (Dialogue: A Journal of
Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, page 119) Since Facsimile No. 2 shows the
ithyphallic god Min, it seems possible that a sexual scene would be
shown on Facsimile No. 1. Dr. Hugh Nibley argues against this
interpretation, but we have shown that his reasoning is fallacious (see
_Mormonism-Shadow or Reality? page 350). Nibley acknowledges, however,
that there are "a number of procreation scenes in which the mummy is
begetting his divine successor or reincarnation" (Improvement Era,
October 1968, page 78).

        In his book, _By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus_, page 102, Charles
Larson restores the scene according to the interpretation given by
Egyptologists. Below his restoration, he comments as follows: "Isis,
meanwhile, has taken the form of a falcon and hovers over the groin of
Osiris who holds his phallus (hence this is known as an ithyphallic
drawing) in anticipation of the procreative act which will make Isis
pregnant with their son Horus."

        John Gee argues that the reconstructed drawing appearing in
Charles Larson's book makes no sense: "Not only is his restoration of
Joseph Smith Papyrus I obscene, it is impossible... the reconstruction
is too crude to have been done by a good artist." (_Review of Books on
the Book of Mormon_, vol. 4, pp. 101-102) While Mr. Gee labels Larson's
reconstruction as "obscene" and "impossible," he neglects to mention the
fact that it was based on the statements of two noted Egyptologists,
Klaus Baer and Richard A. Parker. (It is interesting to note that when
Professor Parker translated the important portion of the Book of
Breathings, Dr. Hugh Nibley publicly stated that he was "the best
[Egyptologist] in America for this particular period and style of
writing."

        As to Gee's statement that the drawing in Larson's book is
obscene, most Christians would feel that it is more obscene even
blasphemous, to have a drawing of the ithyphallic god Min identified in
the Book of Abraham as "God sitting upon his throne" (see Facsimile No.
2, Figure 7)

        Instead of attacking Larson's restoration, John Gee should be
discussing the false restorations in the facsimiles found in the Book of
Abraham. The fact that Joseph Smith instructed Reuben Hedlock to make
incorrect restorations in the woodcuts of the Book of Abraham facsimiles
is acknowledged by noted Mormon scholars. James R. Harris, who felt that
Joseph Smith sometimes operated under the power of inspiration, admitted
that this was not always the case: "When he was not inspired, and
consequently operated on his own wisdom, Joseph Smith did not
demonstrate an ability to interpret or to make appropriate restorations
of damaged portions of the documents." (The Facsimiles of the Book of
Abraham, A Study of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, page 4)

        We have already quoted Michael Rhodes concerning the "obvious
modifications" in Facsimile No. 1. Edward H. Ashment also frankly
discussed Joseph Smith's false restorations:

                "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 as 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. Neither he nor Reuben Hedlock would have known that a
   standing human body would have a dog's head (Facsimile 1, Fig. 3),
   nor that a bird would have a human head (Facsimile 1, Fig. 1).... It
   seems that they completed each damaged section with what was to them
   logical or important for whatever reason: a man's head on a man's
   body... a bird's head on a bird's body..." (Sunstone, Dec. 1979, page
   44)

        The evidence against the Book of Abraham is absolutely
devastating. That Mormons would continue to endorse the Book of Abraham
in the face of this evidence is almost beyond belief. Charles M. Larson
made this comment concerning the sad state of affairs which now exists:

                "Sometime during the mid-1850s... an LDS Apostle named
   Orson Pratt confidently laid a dramatic challenge before the world:
   "...convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason,
   by logical arguments, or by the Word of God, and we will be ever
   grateful for the information, and you ever will have the pleasing
   reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God of
   redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see
   enveloping their minds."

                "Orson Pratt was no doubt confident that a successful
   case against the claims of Mormonism would never be presented because
   one simply did not exist. Over a century-and-a-half of close
   scrutiny, though, has proven the opposite to be the case. It is this
   fact which probably best explains why the contemporary LDS Church has
   shifted from the bold, confrontational stance of Pratt's day, to one
   of cautioning members to 'rely on faith and not on historical
   fact'... The message coming from LDS spokesmen today appears to be
   more and more one of accommodation: If facts fail to justify faith
   (what one wishes to believe), then faith should overrule facts. This
   sort of thinking is evasive, and must be set aside if any real
   reckoning with the facts is to take place.

                "But going back to Pratt, the challenge he made is a
   valid one, and the tendency of contemporary LDS figures to
   rationalize away problems instead of confronting them only underlines
   the fact that serious problems do exist. If error or falsehood within
   a religious system exists, it should be exposed, and using reason and
   the Word of God to do so makes a great deal of sense. Exposing error
   is the right thing to do, as only good can be the ultimate result of
   people learning the truth.

                "We are not only justified, then, in examining the
   evidences challenging the truth of the Book of Abraham which God has
   graciously allowed to come forth, we are firmly obligated to do so.
   And it is quite possible that the case against the Book of Abraham is
   the strongest evidence ever provided to test the truthfulness of
   Joseph Smith's claims....

                "One by one, virtually every Mormon belief about the
   Book of Abraham once considered essential to its support and regarded
   as faith promoting, has been shattered by the facts.

                "Not one trace of reliable evidence has appeared that
   would support the LDS view of the Book of Abraham as an authentic
   scripture, while an enormous amount of evidence is available to show
   that it is a man-made production of the nineteenth century, created
   by Joseph Smith to support his claim among his people to be a
   'prophet, seer, and revelator.'... When an individual fails to
   respond openly and honestly to such a problem it only passes the
   problem--and the pain of dealing with it--to someone else,
   multiplying ignorance and hurt in the process....

                "So much potential pain to loved ones and future
   generations could be avoided! How? By placing truth ahead of
   convenience, by being honest with ourselves and with others.

                "The question of meeting challenges to our faith really
   does matter, because truth matters. The Bible gives us the promise
   that 'the truth shall make you free' (John 8: 32)--and that includes
   being free from delusion." (By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, pages 169,
   171, 175, 181)

        We highly recommend Charles Larson's new book. We feel that he
has done a very good job of presenting the case against the Book of
Abraham. He has also examined and refuted some of the theories Mormon
scholars have brought forth in their attempts to save Joseph Smith's
work. Besides taking a very close look at mistakes made by Dr. Hugh
Nibley, he also deals with misrepresentations and errors in the book
written by Robert and Rosemary Brown. This is the first full-size book
devoted almost entirely to presenting the evidence against the Book of
Abraham. In addition, it contains beautiful color photographs of nine
pieces of the Joseph Smith Papyri. _By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New
Look At The Joseph Smith Papyri_ is available from Utah Lighthouse
Ministry (see special offer on the first page of this newsletter).
-- 
=============================================================================
= Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@thunder.sim.es.com         =
= Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then  =
= Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.                =
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc