Make your own free website on Tripod.com
BookOfAbraham1
==============
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/16/93         9:22 AM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/14 12:43 PM

TO:      ALL
FROM:    MATTHEW GLOSENGER   (FMSR26B)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

           THIS LETTER IS ADDRESSED TO ALL WHO HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM.

             Lets take a look at the teachings of the BoA
and see what we can come up with. I will be as brief as
possible.
             So far I see only the account of the creation
and a description of the Lords dealings with him. Who are we
to say that he didn't have the vision? It is an interesting
thing to note that the egyptians were expert in the field of
astronomy and that abraham was a citizen in that land. Part
of abrahams vision was based on astronomy.
                The other part that coincides with fact is
that it gives a more in depth account of the individuality
of the Gods and the council in heaven.
                The last point that should be made here is
that, If the record was false, then the Lord would have
either told Joseph not to record it, or he would have told
one of the prophets down the line that it was not doctrine
and eliminated it. THAT has not happened yet nor is it
likely to happen because, assuming that God is the same
yesterday, today, and forever, God still does call prophets.
The LDS church is the only church who even claims to have a
living prophet ( the RLDS claim the same but are still
searching for the lineage as I recall)
                The point has been brought up before that no
prophets are now necessary but it is based on interpretation
only. If otherwise then it would have been a revelation
given to the world in plain sight through a prophet.
                Earl you are LDS... Look beyond the obvious
inconsistencies. They are only there because of a lack of
understanding of MEN. God knows the truth of all things and
gives that truth--not through scholarly men-- but by small
and simple things are great things brought to pass. These
MEN do not have the insight that our faith and prophets
have been and are entitled to. Look at the information I
posted. Does it make sense or not?

                                  MATT G.


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/16/93         9:24 AM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/15  1:19 AM

TO:      MATTHEW GLOSENGER   (FMSR26B)
FROM:    EARL CRANDALL   (DDSJ06A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

MATT G:
The teachings really do not count, do they, especially if
Joseph Smith "duped" us all??!!
Furthermore, as I've said elsewhere erstwhile, why would
GOD, who detests anything pagan, allow J.S. to use a pagan
papyrus to give us lessons not to be found anywhere else??
Earl:  Hudson, NY (4/14 -- 11:40 p.m. EDT)


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/16/93         9:27 AM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/15  7:39 PM

TO:      EARL CRANDALL   (DDSJ06A)
FROM:    MICHAEL LOVE   (BXXF11A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

Earl

You have said repeatedly, "The teachings really do not
count."  On the contrary, teachings are the only thing
valuable in ANY religious text.  The question really is
"What does the Book of Abraham teach us about religion."  I
know you are going take issue with this, but hear me out.>>>
There are hundreds of truly inspiring religious works, which
are attributed to the wrong author.  Some of the biblical
books may even fall into this catagory.  In fact, there is a
huge body of moving work called the Abraham literature.
Virtually all of it is spurious... oh uh, written "in honor
of Abraham." Technically, the Book of Abraham fits rather
nicely into this corpus of work.

Now, as to the pagan argument.  The Mormon God does NOT
"detest everything pagan".  If this were the case, He would
not have left bits and pieces of paganism, in virtually ever
area of Mormon teaching and practice.  In fact, it can be
respectfully argued that Mormons ARE pagans, or maybe
Christian Pagans.

Many of the teachings of the BOA are far from original.
They are sprinkled throughout the Mormon scriptures, and
confirmed by the Abraham Literature.

On the other hand, there are many teachings that are unique
to the BOA.  This is what makes it one of the most
intriguing examples of modern religious text.
So, where does that leave your argument?


              proclus


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/16/93         9:27 AM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/16 12:32 AM

TO:      MATTHEW GLOSENGER   (FMSR26B)
FROM:    EARL CRANDALL   (DDSJ06A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

MATT G.:

... but is STILL hinges on J.S. and whether or not he was
what he said he was!!  And, therein is MY problem.

Earl:  Hudson, NY (4/16 -- 12:21 a.m.)


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/16/93         9:30 AM

RELIGION
TOPIC:    LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TO:       DDSJ06A
SUBJECT:  BOOK OF ABRAHAM
DATE:     04/16/1993


Earl

Even if you don't believe Joseph was a prophet, it is still
possible to find teachings of great beauty and utility in
the Book of Abraham.
                          enrapture
                                   proclus


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/16/93         8:48 PM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/16  3:42 PM

TO:      MATTHEW GLOSENGER   (FMSR26B)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

On the contrary! We have LOTS of information in the
Intertestamental period. The Dead Sea Scrolls for one bring
in lots of material, as do the apocrypha, and
Psuedepigrapha. The literature of the Intertestamental
period is FAR LARGER than the rest of the Bible combined.

                    Kerry A. Shirts


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/16/93         8:50 PM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/16  3:58 PM

TO:      SCOTT VOLK   (MFWH11A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

Well, one idea from "our" side is that the issue of
translation is tricky here. What and how do we define
translation as? While Joseph's enemies have used one
defintion, wwhile Smith understand another aspect of it, the
enemies have sought to do damage to Smith. But Joseph lets
us know that he didn't even need the document to be
translating. It was GIVEN to him to understand what Abraham
was doing and saying. And now that we have bona-fides
apocalypses and testaments of Abraham, we compare them with
Smith's version and we don't see him going out of bounds or
way off on the deep end. Someone anciently was in touch with
what happened to Abraham, his journeys, visions, covenants,
etc. and Smith apparently tapped into that same vein of
understanding. These are NOT in the Bible so, like the Books
of Enoch and Moses, Smith could not have just copied them
down from there. Yet they are now seen as genuine as the
sorts of things happening in the testamentary literature in
general. Smith wasn't wild and fancy, but has all the
elements correct in Facsimile #1, 2, and 3 as well as the
story of Abraham.



                  Kerry A. Shirts


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/16/93         8:51 PM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/16  4:16 PM

TO:      EARL CRANDALL   (DDSJ06A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

Hi Earl.
   Yes this is an interesting issue to be sure. I think
though when we see the Egyptologists denouncing Smith we
must understand what Spaulding gave them prior to asking
them what the facsimile was. He didn't just send it and ask
them to translate it so we could see what it is. This was
the blunder John Widstoe caught Spaulding in, and boy did
Spaulding squeal! But Widstoe, being the true scientist that
he was, saw that in order to be a valid scientific test,
there MUST be certain conditions met in the experiment.
Spaulding sent them NOT the original, but a bad copy and
THEN said this is Smith's view...you know, that crazy Mormon
Prophet? Well is he right? Now with that pre-conceived note,
what else could the Egyptologists say? Instead of carrying
on the perfect test for smith, Spauldinig loaded the dice
first so that there was ONLY one answer available. So
Widstoe asked each of the "experts" to tell us what
facsimile # 1 was! And could they? Oh sure, make no mistake
about it, but NONE of them AGREED as to who was on the couch
or who the strange figure was standing over the lying one on
the couch! Well why not? Could it be they were merely
puffing out their new shiny degrees and flaunting authority
where instead, scholarship was needed? We also need to
remember William F. Albright's idea that "to rely on any
translation of Egyptian historical texts which appeared
before Breasted's 'Ancient Records' (1906), since Breasted
was the first historian to take full advantage of the
tremendous progress in the knowledge of Egyptian achieved by
Erman and Sethe after 1880. It is EQUALLY UNsafe to depend
on any translations of Egyptian religious texts made before
1925 since that year marked the publiication of the first
volume of the Great Berlin dictionary...The first reliable
English translations of Egyptian religious texts appeared in
Blackman's 'Literature of the Ancient Egyptians'(1927), and
Breasted's 'Dawn of Conscience' (1933)." Since that was
written there have been more important changes, but where
does that leave our experts of 1912? Hugh Nibley's analysis
in the "Improvement Era" in 1968ff are a must for
understanding just why the Spaulding test was a complete
failure, and what the issue here really is. John Tvedtnes,
and others are also gettinig onto the bandwagon on the
papyri so I think it is very important to read as much as
possible while suspending judgement. It's been my
experience that most do not want to suspend judgement, but
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/16/93         8:51 PM

they just want Smith to be a bogus and as fast as possible
please!!! We must hurry it seems to damage as much of the
Mormon's faith as possible. Now of course we Mormons have
been gullible in the past of the high ranking savants of the
universities (I'm trying to become one myself!), but there
are always more ideas, options, views, and possibilities
than ANY anti-Mormon ever admitted to so they try and keep
our attention away from these areas, and keep the problem
(usually a straw man) in front of us. So...I broaden my
reading. Now you are welcome to do likewise or not. Either
way, I will try NOT to be judgemental and self righteous,
but goodness there is a lot to read on this subject and its
GROWING, NOT shrinking! So.....well it goes on.......


                 Kerry A. Shirts


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/16/93         8:52 PM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/16  4:16 PM

TO:      EARL CRANDALL   (DDSJ06A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

Hi Earl.
   Yes this is an interesting issue to be sure. I think
though when we see the Egyptologists denouncing Smith we
must understand what Spaulding gave them prior to asking
them what the facsimile was. He didn't just send it and ask
them to translate it so we could see what it is. This was
the blunder John Widstoe caught Spaulding in, and boy did
Spaulding squeal! But Widstoe, being the true scientist that
he was, saw that in order to be a valid scientific test,
there MUST be certain conditions met in the experiment.
Spaulding sent them NOT the original, but a bad copy and
THEN said this is Smith's view...you know, that crazy Mormon
Prophet? Well is he right? Now with that pre-conceived note,
what else could the Egyptologists say? Instead of carrying
on the perfect test for smith, Spauldinig loaded the dice
first so that there was ONLY one answer available. So
Widstoe asked each of the "experts" to tell us what
facsimile # 1 was! And could they? Oh sure, make no mistake
about it, but NONE of them AGREED as to who was on the couch
or who the strange figure was standing over the lying one on
the couch! Well why not? Could it be they were merely
puffing out their new shiny degrees and flaunting authority
where instead, scholarship was needed? We also need to
remember William F. Albright's idea that "to rely on any
translation of Egyptian historical texts which appeared
before Breasted's 'Ancient Records' (1906), since Breasted
was the first historian to take full advantage of the
tremendous progress in the knowledge of Egyptian achieved by
Erman and Sethe after 1880. It is EQUALLY UNsafe to depend
on any translations of Egyptian religious texts made before
1925 since that year marked the publiication of the first
volume of the Great Berlin dictionary...The first reliable
English translations of Egyptian religious texts appeared in
Blackman's 'Literature of the Ancient Egyptians'(1927), and
Breasted's 'Dawn of Conscience' (1933)." Since that was
written there have been more important changes, but where
does that leave our experts of 1912? Hugh Nibley's analysis
in the "Improvement Era" in 1968ff are a must for
understanding just why the Spaulding test was a complete
failure, and what the issue here really is. John Tvedtnes,
and others are also gettinig onto the bandwagon on the
papyri so I think it is very important to read as much as
possible while suspending judgement. It's been my
experience that most do not want to suspend judgement, but
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/16/93         8:52 PM

they just want Smith to be a bogus and as fast as possible
please!!! We must hurry it seems to damage as much of the
Mormon's faith as possible. Now of course we Mormons have
been gullible in the past of the high ranking savants of the
universities (I'm trying to become one myself!), but there
are always more ideas, options, views, and possibilities
than ANY anti-Mormon ever admitted to so they try and keep
our attention away from these areas, and keep the problem
(usually a straw man) in front of us. So...I broaden my
reading. Now you are welcome to do likewise or not. Either
way, I will try NOT to be judgemental and self righteous,
but goodness there is a lot to read on this subject and its
GROWING, NOT shrinking! So.....well it goes on.......


                 Kerry A. Shirts


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/17/93         7:36 PM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/17  2:08 PM

TO:      MATTHEW GLOSENGER   (FMSR26B)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

I think you need to modify BOTH assumptions. I'm honestly
not trying to argue here. But the Bible is NOT accepted by
everyone, and EVERYONE else who does accept it, does NOT
agree as to its significance, doctrine, history, politics,
etc. It is clearly a sealed book! The apocrypha,
pseudepigrapha, etc. WAS at one time accepted as genuine
scripture by many different ancient groups. The Bible and
those books not in the Bible is simply a political statement
of the Augustinian era. The Book of Enoch, for instance, was
thrown out as scripture in Augustine's era because it was
TOO BULKY to keep copying! Well is that a valid reason
though? What if they'd have thought that about the book of
Isaiah also? We now have many books that the Bible claims
were lost, with many variations, interplays,
interpretations, etc. The Dead Sea Scrolls are clearly in
this category, and they DO talk about their era! That WE
today do not know much about these other writings in no wise
means they are not scripture, pure and valid, anymore than
by accepting today what we think is scripture pure and valid
makes them so! What is scripture and who is to say whether
it is or not? The world's acceptance or rejection of things
sacred is NEVER a good indicator as to what we accept and
reject. Just as Hugh Nibley tirelessly points out to us
"Socrates showed long ago what a hollow thing consensus is."
It was like when Brigham Young would NOT indulge in
wondering what to wear, or where to buy the latest
fashionable clothes. Who on earth cares? The point is clothe
the body. The fashion of this world comes and goes, comes
and goes, and to keep up with it is a whimsical way to live.
Being with the "in" thing is NOT usually what Mormons are
accustomed to anyway. We are after the order of the
eternities and the grand Restoration, the big summing up,
includes lost books of Adam, Noah, Enoch, Abraham,
Methuselah, Moses, Elijah, and ALL the writings of the lost
prophets including these of the Dead Sea Scrolls Teacher of
Righteousness, the New Testament apocrypha (how do we know
what in them is fake and what in them is serious without
reading them and cross referencing?) as well as the Eastern
scriptures, the archaeological texts being found by the tens
of thousands, the old Egyptian papyri, the Book of Mormon,
D&C, PofGP, etc. Two thirds of the Book of Mormon is YET to
come out! So I think as we readjust to this marvelous
uotpouring of ancient scripture (which began incidentally
WITH the Book of Mormon!) is something we have to examine
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/17/93         7:37 PM

and test, and read and understand, otherwise we are no
better than the secterians who say "A Bible! A Bible! We
have got a Bible!" Does this make sense? Hope so.


                  Kerry A. Shirts


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/17/93         7:50 PM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/17  2:37 PM

TO:      MICHAEL GARRETT   (VJFG24A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

Mike
   Further on this issue of the Egyptologists, when
Cuneiform was just being learned and it was claimed that at
last we now know how to read Cuneiform, what was the test
for it? Very simple. Send Cuneiform documents to the experts
without their knowing their collegues receive the same,
without collusion, and without comment and ask them to
translate it and send it back. When all the translations are
in, we can compare them, and sure enough when this happened
it demonstrated rather effectively that Cuneiform indeed was
readable. Spaulding had this exact same test on Joseph Smith
to perform. Only he botched it just in case Smith turned out
to know what on earth was going on. Spaulding sent a cover
letter to each of the Egyptologists saying here is Smith's
translation what do you think? They then understood exactly
what was going on and what the Mormons claimed for these
documents, and also what would happen to their professional
standing if they happened to agree with the Mormons. So....
they denounced Smith. In fact they all made a big to do
about the documents obviously being just ordinary funerary
papyri and a few minutes with them would prove it. So John
Widstoe asked them to do such and they hedged, and hum
hawed, and then reviled Widstoe for asking questions! In
fact, THREE of Spaulding's scholars were American Episcopal
clergymen! Spaulding himself was no Egyptologist. Smith gave
us the perfect test, he even invited the world to find out
what these things meant! And Spaulding made a hash of the
science of a very good test. Well, now we know that Smith's
interpretations of the facsimiles are not out of bounds.
In fact. James Harris has shown that the interpretations of
the figures in facsimile # 2 fit very well with what we know
about facsimiles in general. It is a VERY GOOD fit. Quite a
performance. How is it that Smith gets SO MUCH right? Oh its
an easy thing to get things wrong, heavens that's the name
of scholarship anyway, but how does he get so many things
right? See the discussion is open still, not banged closed
with finalistic authoritarian announcements. We know that
Egyptian symbols can ALWAYS mean MORE than just one thing.
They loved to play on the multiplicity of meanings. To date,
no one has touched the Book of Abraham, but insisted on
a strawman argument. Our questions are involved with trying
to figure out who this Abraham  was. Does Smith tell an
authentic story here? How can we tell unless we do a lot of
comparing (the essence of GOOD scholarship) with other
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/17/93         7:51 PM

stories concerning Abraham and Pharoahs desire to sacrifice
him? In one Dead Sea Scroll fragment (I believe the Genesis
Apocryphon) it describes how Abraham healed Phaoroah by the
laying on of the hands. Is THAT parallel so hard to see?
Does this confirm Mormonism though? No. But then what is
confirmation? Talk about subjective studies here! The
parallel is there and the discussion is open however as to
the Mormon idea of laying on of hands for healing. Is it so
wild? Incorrect? Out of this world? Weird? Wonderful? Waste
of time? Can't we just pray? Well sure, but there is no sin
in the laying on of hands performing the works of Abraham
either. We believe this is the Restoration era. ALL THINGS
will be restored. We live in a wonderful era, and should
take advantage of ALL views on the ancient scriptures among
other things. The Book of Abraham is one of these, and no
one....absolutely no one has studied it and written about it
more than the Mormons. We're up to discussing this thing....
are you? Hope so, it's a nifty subject.  Kerry A. Shirts


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/17/93         7:57 PM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/17  3:39 PM

TO:      MICHAEL GARRETT   (VJFG24A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

Lets talk more on Smith's completely mistaken concept of
Egyptian here. Take Kolob for instance. Of all things! Well
even this idea has been ridiculed right on these boards, it
is a different name or word to be sure...but that it now
turns out to be a genuine Egyptian word is astounding me!
Consider John Tvedtnes's article "Internal Evidences For an
Abrahamic Oral Tradition". When he asked William J. Adams
who teaches and deals in Classical and Asian Languages,
Adams wrote back that Ancient Near Eastern Religious Texts
tend to shrink. The Akkadian version seems to have just
enough to bring to one's remembrance the entire story as was
recorded in the  Sumerian version. [the Abraham story here]
Perhaps in looking at the BofA the full story was once
written out, but the later versions from which Joseph Smith
translated was just enough to bring the entire story to
one's remembrance. P.S. It is interesting to note that lines
331 and 332 mention an exalted place called Kullab. So
Tvedtnes searched this out! Naturally! Kullab - Kolob is
close. That they both represent an exalted place justifies
looking into it. Now, in Hebrew the base of all words is the
root. The word "book" consists of the root K-T-B, with the
basic meaning of "write", we may inflect it to produce
"Katab", "he wrote", katu:b - written; (as in the book is
written), kote:b writing, or writer, when used as a noun. In
Arabiic, using the same root, we have kita:b - book; maktab
- office; or maktabah - liibrary, all having to do with the
basic idea of writing. There are similarities, they are
related. Take the Egyptian root q-r-b, meaning "near,
approach, befriend, brinig near, sacrifice, entrails, inner
part, relative" in its various usages in the Semitic
languages. Slight phonological changes, however, give us
different roots. Changing the liquid /r/ to the liquid /l/,
for example, gives us q-l-b meaning "heart", and the
devoicing of /b/ to produce /p/ gives us /qlp/ - "peel off,
parchment." The /q/, too, may be slightly altered by
fronting, to produce a /k/, thus giving us the roots "krb",
"angel," and "klb", meaning dog, from which perhaps kolob
derives. It was common in Semitics to make such slight
changes. Other roots are related as well. These are "rrb" -
"increase," "be numerous or large", "multiply", while "lbb"
means fascinate, encourage, heart, mind, understanding,
midst, center. "lbn" means white moon, while "lpn" means
near to or in front of. Two other roots are "pnh" meaning
"turn", and "kkb" meaning star. Lipney (note the "lpn"!)
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/17/93         7:57 PM

means literally "to the face of", (hence "Before") while
"kkb", star, is similar to the name Kolob. So we have some
genuine Egyptian roots placing us ever closer to
understanding what Kolob may mean. Further, Michael Dennis
Rhoades in his translation of Facs. # 2 notes that Smith's
explanation that the figure represents the revolutions of
Kolob, and Oliblish agrees favorably with what we know of
the symbolism of the Sokar-boat in the festival of Sokar at
Memphis. In other words, we have here a fairly close
representation as it should be according to the Egyptian
nature of the subject! I'll continue in the next note.
Thanks.


                     Kerry A. Shirts


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/17/93         8:04 PM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/17  3:58 PM

TO:      MICHAEL GARRETT   (VJFG24A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

NOTE # 2 on Kolob:
   R.C. Webb's article "Have Joseph Smith's Interpretations
Been Discredited" in "The Deseret News", Nov. 15, 1913, is
interesting here. on page 347, Webb (I know, I know, this
isn't his real name, I am much more interested in his
argument than who he really is) says it is quite evident
that Kolob is the name of the greatest of all the stars
(Kokaubeam), that is Kolob is the name of a star, it doesn't
MEAN "star". Interestingly, Arabic Kalab - a dog, and qalab
- heart,are components of several star names in Arabic! Al
Kalb al Akhbar means "the greater dog"; Al Qalb al Akrab -
"the scorpion's heart". The Assyrian word for dog is Kalbu
which is also the name of the constellation Canis Major, and
is in combinations Kalab-Samsi (Dog of the Sun); Kakkab
Kalab-Mituti (star "dog of death"); Kalab-Me etc.
     So...it is a real name and word apparently. This isn't
so wild and off base. So we see that with these
possibilities out, we have to still try and figure out the
significance of it all. The point is there IS a relation and
an explanation following Smith, but iif that's rejected, how
then descriibe how he still got it right from the Egyptian
end of things? That is a sticky issue, one in which most
have only been willing to wave a lot of credentials around
in order to kill any discussion about it. It seems like, no
matter what, Smith MUST be wrong? Why? Because the "experts"
says so and after all, they are the experts! Well such
circular arguing doesn't convince us skeptical Mormons, so
we want to bring this out and discuss it further.
                   Kerry A. Shirts


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/19/93         8:57 AM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/19  3:21 AM

TO:      MICHAEL LOVE   (BXXF11A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

Your ward library had "The Message..."??? Wow! What in
heck's name (or is that Hecate's name?) is wrong with MY
ward library?! A Whitewash? Oh I dunno.....I've been through
it 10 or so times as well as his previous series of articles
"A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price" and his continuing
book "Abraham in Egypt" not to mention his dozens of
articles from Dialogue, BYU Studies, Sunstone, and with the
accumulated total, I'd say what he does is keeps the door
open for further discussions. I mean...now that FARMS is
getting ready to reprint the rest of his materials, the
PofGP stuff will be coming out, and the papyri issue will be
raised all over again, so we may as well keep ahead of it
all. Well for instance, last month I re-read Larson's book
"...By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" which claims is a new look
at the papyri. The review of it by John Gee, John L.
Sorenson, and Michael Dennis Rhoades in "Review of Books on
the Book of Mormon", Vol. 4, 1992 was extremely
enlightening! So I say, as long as we have both sides
contributing, then all the better! It would be foolish to
simply label the attacks as anti and dismiss them without
seeing why they have weaknesses, as well as just accept the
LDS views because some of us are LDS....right? So critical
examination is of the essence (Essenes...G!).
   The Message...isn't a whitewash, but it is difficult. And
the dubious assertion that these documents are not the
source of the BofA is not so dubious when we consider the
description of the papyri that Smith was using. 28 feet long
or longer?! All we have are bits and tatters of fragments!
And only 11 small pieces at that...so what do they say? No
one except Nibley has even bothered to tell us that! I'd
say, READ THE WHOLE BOOK. Granted your time is short, but if
I can dedicate myself till 2 in the morning (Waking at 4:30
to be to work at 5:00) then you can stay up a couple extra
hours a night. You're a fast, good reader, it'll only take
you a week or so to get through it. You also should have
noted (you did, but didn't mention it, so I will) that
Nibley notes the dubious assertions that the critics claim
these are the sources that Joseph Smith THOUGHT contained
the BofA. We aren't mind readers though. How can Baer tell
us what Smith thought? Nib has a point...I think....anyway,
Nibley in his tapes on his Semester's teaching of the BofM
at BYU also says Baer used to tell his LDS students who went
to Chicago to study that Joseph Smith was a genius, he knew
that, and they knew that, now don't ever bring up his name
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/19/93         8:57 AM

again! He was extremely nervous about how WELL Smith's
interpretations in the facsimiles and the stories in the
BofA, Enoch, Moses, fit what we know today. He wasn't
ignorant of the implications, just scared of them. No wonder
Nibley notes that the experts are scared to talk about this
stuff! They want to END all discussion by a few frank
remarks that Smith was wrong. Period end of discussion. Why?
Because the experts had spoken and that is all there is to
it. Well we then say "B
BookOfAbraham2
==============
OO!" back and notice all sorts of
Egyptian connections and they squirm and humn haw and hedge!
So the discussion goes on. As I've said, The Message...has
many insights and ideas Smith could NEVER have understood in
the least about the Egyptians, but its there in the
facsimiles! I'll re-read it again with you and lets keep
talking, and believe it or not....REAALLY here.....Sirius
DOES enter into this!!! It'll knock you out!

                Siriusly,   Kerry A. Shirts


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/21/93         8:41 AM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/20  5:32 PM

TO:      MICHAEL GARRETT   (VJFG24A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

Hi Mike;
   O.K.! Good! A good point...we ARE still waiting for
Nibley's translation! We are also still waiting for the
scholars to getting around to testing Joseph Smith as well!
And where are their translations? Actually, in "The Message
of the J.S. Papyri" pp 19-45 a line by line transcription of
the papyri, and then...then he does a marvelous thing! He
then shows us that there is a more complete text of the
Book of Breathings, the Louvre papyrus No. 3284 edited by J.
De Horrack! Nibley has underlined all the parts that is
included in the J.S. Papyri and shown us how it is
definitely an abbreviated version. In other words, we have
some controls for this thing. The Herweben Papyri is also
included to show us that the themes of the J.S. Papyri are
no way out of bounds or ridiculous, that is, unless we
don't think there is anything the ancient Egyptians have to
offer us. Now about the scholar who works hard who is worth
his salt...ah yes...here is a theme! Spaulding not only had
an axe to grind, he lost total face with that axe. The
Egyptologists can be excused for their not giving it much
time because they were busy with other things, but
Spaulding? Hey, he STARTED this shenanigans, he ought to
carry it out! But he didn't! In fact Spaulding is off to an
absolutely stupid start by saying he's testing the Book of
Mormon (!) by analyzing the Book of Abraham! Wow! The two
books are not the same, did not come about in the same way,
do not say the same things, and are totally different
circumstances. Spaulding couldn't fool the Mormons for a
minute. S.A.B. Mercer, in fact admitted that not one of the
jury pretended to translate the poorly copied hieroglyphics,
instead of which they interpreted the figures, a very
different thing, as Mercer admitted! In fact B.H. Roberts
asked the Egyptologists why they didn't translate the
hieroglyphics in the facsimiles! They claimed they were
copied off too badly (Spaulding gave them the WORST copied
pieces, and THEN claimed THEY were the original!!! What a
straight liar!), but then other of the Egyptologists thought
they COULD be read! So some say they can't read them, others
say they can. Well which is it? For Pete's sake just
translate the darn little doodles and get on with it! This
was the exact stance of the Mormons, and the giants wouldn't
translate! And Roberts brought up another point which was
never answered...if the hieroglyphics are SO BADLY copied
off as you say, then how can you claim they are so
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/21/93         8:41 AM

incorrect? Ah! The Mormons were quick! If you can't read em,
how do you know they are wrong? A very, very fine point.In
fact, Mercer gives himself away when he said while the
figures are copied off fairly well, the hieroglyphics are
copied incorrectly. Well that meant he knew how they should
have been copied. He is in the position to give us the
correct copying then, but he never does! Odd isn't it? Here
is Mercer's time to shine forth, and he refuses. What a dud.
No wonder we Mormons haven't layed down when the scholars go
bang. Give us some substance...Smith has actually given you
the proper mode of testing! So get on with the test! We now
have thousands of Egyptian materials available to see if
Smith knew Egyptian!!! Kill him then!!! But critics refuse
to...Odd isn't it??? Why not? The critics then in 1912
admitted very LITTLE time was spent on the obvious fakes!
Obvious to who? NO ONE has YET taken the time to teach us
HOW all this is simply mumbo-jumbo and its 1993!
                  Kerry A. Shirts


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/21/93         8:42 AM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/20  5:48 PM

TO:      MICHAEL GARRETT   (VJFG24A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

And WHAT the Egyptologists HAVE agreed on is DENOUNCING
Smith! Want a demonstration of what they say?
Facsimile #1:
Deveria: (whose authority is later accepted by Spaulding);
the soul of Osiris in the form of a hawk...Osiris reviving
on the funeral couch. The god Anubis bringing about the
resurrection of Osiris.
Petrie: the well know scene of Anubis preparing the body of
a dead man. Fig. 1 is the hawk Horus. Fig. 2 is the dead
person. Fig. 3 is Anubis.
Breasted: Number 1 depicts a figure reclining on a couch,
with a priest officiating. The reclining figure represents
Osiris rising from the dead. Overe his head is a bird, in
which form Isis is represented.
Peters: Apparently the plate represents an embalmer
preparing a body for burial. At the head the soul (Kos) is
flying away in the form of a bird. In the waters below the
earth I see a crocodile waiting to seize and devour the
dead if he be not properly protected by ritual embalming.
Meyer: The body of the dead lying on a Ba' (bier) the soul
in the shape of a bird flying above it, and a priest
approaching it.
Lythgoe: Merely the usual scene of the mummy upon its bier.
The idolatrous priest was [Dr. Lythgoe explained] merely the
familiar figure of the god Anubis, protector of mummies,
leaning over it in a position as if to keep him from harm.
   Interestingly, Professors Sayce, Mace, and Mercer have
nothing whatever to say about fac. #1, which made the
Mormons wonder since they were the most outspoken of all in
denouncing Smith, thus seeming to confirm the rule that the
less knowledge one has, the more one must rely on bluster
and invective.
   Six brief statements of the "experts" and on not a single
point do all the authorities agree, and no two of them agree
on all points! What to some is a dead man is to others
Osiris himself! What to some is an ordinary priest or
embalmer is to other Anubis! The hawk is the soul to some,
while it is Isis to others! They absolutely CANNOT agree!
They had gone out of their way to make the point that the
things Joseph Smith had misinterpreted were painfully ob-
vious to any scholar. They failed the test that they
themselves wanted to give Smith! And they NEVER did get
around to giving him that test Mike! When pressed about
these inaccuracies and discretions, Mercer said it was
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/21/93         8:42 AM

because the scholars were too busy to spend any kind of time
examining the obvious guesses of Smith! Yet we are told they
exist (documents like Smith's) in untold thousands. So
Roberts told them to compare them and see! They wouldn't.
NEITHER WOULD SPAULDING! Widstoe got on him for that. He
told him YOU started this pal, YOU carry it on, but
Spaulding decamped and fled. So Smith has not be refuted to
this day yet Mike. It's been almost 82 years since Spaulding
 carried on his masquerade, I think it's time the scholars
start fessing up and testing Smith on Egyptian. And this has
 given us Mormons time to learn a bit ourselves. Wait till
you see what's up my sleeve!!!


               Kerry A. Shirts


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/21/93         8:47 AM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/21 12:09 AM

TO:      RHONDA JOCKISCH   (KNRH03A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

Joseph Smith clearly described which papyri he was
translating from. Consider his description. The book of
Abraham papyri was beautifully written with black and a
small part of red ink, in perfect preservation. The Book of
Abraham was beautifully written...The book of breathings is
clumsily written with retouched characters, it has uneven
lines, which is not beautifully written. Even Dr. Wilson
noted the course appearance of J.S. Nos. X and XI (the
supposed source of the book of Abraham according to the
critics). In the second place, the book of Abraham contained
what scholars today would call rubrics, that is red ink.
There is NO rubrics on Nos. X and XI though! Smith described
a real document of which we still do not have yet, as the
original source of the Book of Abraham. NOW...there ARE
rubrics in some of the other fragments of the J.S. Papyri,
but NONE, not a drop of red ink in these two crucial
documents. AND...the papyri Smith got the book of Abraham
off of was in "a perfect state of preservation", while
anyone can see that our little fragments, X and XI are the
most badly preserved ones of the whole bunch! If there is
any of the papyri which are not "perfectly preserved", these
are it! Then too, Nibley notes that Smith failed to mention
the most striking thing about the Abraham text had it been
the same as the book of Breathings, namely, the full page
drawing immediately adjoining the text. So how do we account
for Smith's description  of the papyri from which he derived
Abraham from, and none of the fragments now in possession of
the church matching that text? We still do not have
the original papyrus of Abraham!  AND...the scholars are not
disagreeing on MINOR points! THESE points are THE point! How
can you minimize their effort like that? The point is they
claimed Smith bungled and very badly. That means they
understood what the hieroglyphics said! Yet they never could
translate them or agree on ANYTHING about the facsimiles!
AND...why not continue using Nibley's idea on the men
wearing women's clothing? He went on to say that actually,
strange though it is from OUR viewpoint, men anciently in
the Egyptian courts dressed in women's clothes! There was a
reason and point for it from THEIR view. But it IS Egyptian
practice! So much for Smith not understanding anything about
Egyptian! Show us any total discrepancy between Smith's
explanations on ANY of the facsimiles with what we know
today about them from many Egyptian sources. We have
comparisons of hundreds of hypocephaluses, of which they are
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/21/93         8:47 AM

actually in agreement, but in 1832??? How many were known in
Kirtland for Smith to study? Can you demonstrate he had
access to any of this from outside sources? Who gave them to
him? How did he know what to say and put in them? How did he
get so much right?! We have been told he knew NOTHING about
Egyptian, yet through many comparisons we find nothing out
of line in facsimile 1,2, or 3. Oh there are some strange
things going on, but that isn't the point. Ancient aspects
of religion are bound to be strange from our modern day
view, but if they are strange, they are also very Egyptian.
THAT is THE point. Everytime someone thinks taking on
Smith's books of scriptures is easy enough to polish off in
a few minutes (a glance Mercer said!!!) finds out on further
 investigation that there is much, MUCH more than they
bargained for here. That is what I'm here for. I intend on
showing just what it is to get involved with this very
large, fascinating issue.
               Kerry A. Shirts


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/21/93         8:49 AM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/21 12:20 AM

TO:      RHONDA JOCKISCH   (KNRH03A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

And Improvement Era August 1969, pg. 75? Sorry, can't find
the quote. In fact in 69, was where Nibley was discussing
the various figures on facsimile #1! And THIS IS where we
CAN test Smith's knowledge of Egyptian. For example, now
that I'm at Aug. 1969, De Buck's studies have shown CLEARLY
that what we have in these documents which at one time was
owned by Joseph Smith is NOT a late COMPOSITION, but only a
late COPY. The Coffin Text version of Chapter 78 of the Book
of the Dead can be clearly traced BACK TO the XII and even
the IIX Dynasties.
   In the Aug. 1969 issue, Nibley demonstrated using many,
many sources, that the hawk in facsimile #1 was
authentically described by Joseph Smith as a messenger (for
that IS the meaning of the Hebrew word "Mal'ak" - Angel,
"Messenger". In Ugaritic, Arabic, and Ethiopic the verb
"l'ak" means "to send"). And of course, the hawk in
Egyptian literature is themessenger of the skies soaring
aloft out of sight to the heavens coming back with messages
and help for those in need. In fact, we now know also that
the lion couch Abraham is on was a sacrificial couch used in
the Egyptian Set Festivals also! NOT just an embalmers table
as the hasty Egyptologists of 1912 quickly said. The
sacrificial nature of the scene has also been confirmed
through further studies, as has the Four Sons of Horus, the
four things depicted under the lion couch. As far as the
Egyptians were concerned, the canopic jars DO stand for the
earth and its four quarters, just as Joseph Smith said they
did! So the Aug. 1969 issue I would advize you to read
again! This is where things are winding up, with we Mormons
testing Smith's claims to understanding Egyptian, because
the world scholars won't do so! But for them to then turn
around and try to minimiize this? Nah! That won't wash! The
world wanted to test Smith and cheaply loaded the dice
against him from the start. If we Mormons have to we'll
carry on and test him properly. If you don't like the
results, then get to the Egyptian material and show us how
all of this is not and cannot fit in with what Smith said
about it. You'll find you're in for a very rude awakening.
                         Kerry A. Shirts


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/21/93         8:57 AM

RELIGION
TOPIC:    LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TO:       CWXH30A
SUBJECT:  BOOK OF ABRAHAM
DATE:     04/21/1993


Kerry

Nibley (PAPYRI) says that the Egyptians had no fish or water
gods (p 102).  This is surprising for a people who lived
their lives connected to the Nile river, their source of
life.  It is in fact too surprising.  A quick look at
facsimile 2 of the the BOOK OF ABRAHAM reveals a fishtailed
god making a ritual gesture.  He is shown in figure 7
"sitting on his throne, revealing through the heavens the
grand Keywords of the priesthood"  The Philistines had a
fishtailed god called Dagon.  He is often shown making
similar gestures.  The rites spoken of in the BOOK OF
ABRAHAM obviously run deep through many of the "pagan"
Mediterranean cultures.

I really found the section on the stone of truth (120-123)
interesting, especially in light of some of the Digitalis
info in Temple's book, THE SIRIUS MYSTERY.  I have really
had a soft spot for Urim and Thummim lore.  Some medieval
writers, like Pseudo-Dionysius, are relevant in this
connection.  Did I ever tell you about the Jan Van
Ruysbroeck (c1293) treatise, THE SPARKLING STONE ?  It is
really interesting in that it has ritual isomorphism, like
the text that Nibley is dealing with.  Here is a little
quote for you;

"This stone is also so small that a man hardly feels it,
even though he treads it underfoot.  And that is why it is
called 'calculus', that is treadling.  He refers to it as a
"mirror in which all things are reflected."  He goes on to
say;

"Behold, this is the sparkling stone which is given to the
God-seeing man, and in this stone a new name is written,
which no man knoweth saving he that receive it.  You should
know that all spirits in their return towards God receive
names; each one in particular, according the nobleness of
its service and the loftiness of its love."

heavy stone       proclus


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/21/93         9:06 AM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/21  7:25 AM

TO:      SYLVIA ELIOT   (NNNP41D)
FROM:    BONNIE WRIGHT   (FVNM12A)
SUBJECT: THINKING FORBIDDEN

Sylvia;
  I was touched by your post to Proclus, ie; Mike Love.  I
too, feel that I am different then the average sister in
Relief Society.  I have no children, and I work full time,
being the breadwinner as my husband does not work.  For four
years, I did not have a calling, then once I learned to
trust in the Lord, then the pain that I felt was taken away.
I joined the church through a singles ward in 1979. They
were very supportive. The next year I went to the temple,
then the next I made a mistake by getting married.  I have a
strong testimony, but find that I do not make a good
apologist.
  I felt your pain from your post.  I think our own personal
relationship with the Savior is the key to our spirituality.
Trust in Him.  Feel of His love.
  I live in the Dallas area.  Before I lived here, I lived
in the Los Angeles area.  I'm not sure what part of the
country you live in.                      bonnie


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/22/93         7:04 PM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/22  2:09 AM

TO:      RHONDA JOCKISCH   (KNRH03A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

First off, since you are discussing the Egyptian Alphabet
and Grammar, I'll forge ahead here. The one thing I see is
that the Tanners stole a document that wasn't theirs, and
then SOLD it for profit. AND then...then a certain Mr.
Heward claimed to have translated it and found the BofA
false. So the scholars most are familiar with in the anti
tradition are thieves and liars. Not a firm base to stand on
to be sure. On the A&G (Alphabet and Grammar) there are a
number of issues to deal with not just an either/or.
Obviously we Mormons are going to have to do the real work
as you critics seem just too hurried to get down to the real
work. I have some very tough questions for you from Hugh
Nibley's article "The Kirtland Egyptian Papers" out of the
BYU Studies, since you seem to think this thing is all
wrapped up and final. I think it is high time I start
getting some answers to these questions. Heward said he saw
the process of translation that Smith supposedly did in
these papyri. Smith apparently produced the BofA from these
papyri-though Heward is the first to tell us that the
process is impossible. But what does that tell us of the
"process" by which the BofA was produced? Heward says a
quick glance (same thing Mercer said in 1912! The critics
haven't moved forward an inch here!) at the A&G discloses
the "modus operandi" of J.S. in determiniing iits contents.
He assures us that the text from Abraham 1:4-2:8 "has been
verified as having originated in this way." In WHAT way?
What is the "process", the "modus operandi" which Mr. Heward
(and you) find so obvious? If you guys know so well how its
done, then give us an independent translation of the papyri!
Heward then goes to the History of the Church and finds as
his final point this: The remainder of this month I was
continually engaged ini translating an alphabet to the Book
of Mormon, and arranging a grammar," which for Heward is an
indication of how and when he proceeded to do it. But no
matter how carefully one reads the passage, it tells us
neither when, how, nor by whom the Kirtland Egyptian Papers
were produced. Heward ONLY uses Smith's name involving these
papers and studiously avoides the OTHER 6 men involved as
well! Why? They are as much a part of this picture as Smith
was, but no...Heward must set up the straw man here. Typical
but NOT convincing to we Mormons who bother to research out
our scriptures FAR more carefully than you critics ever
think of doing.
   The Kirtland Papers are written in 6 men's handwriting.
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/22/93         7:05 PM

In only 6 weeks after they were acquired the prophet was
engaged in other necessary church business. After 5 years
the work had hardly got beyond the physical manipulation of
the documents. A note written by Willard Richards at the
dictation of the prophet states: Wed. Nov 15, 1843...P.M. at
the office suggested the idea of preparing a grammer [sic]
of the Egyptian language." It never got beyond the
planning stage. The translation was never completed either.
In Feb 1843 the editors of the "Times and Seasons" announced
that they had a promise from Joseph that further extracts of
the BofA was coming out. Certainly translation had never had
to wait on the completion or even the beginning of a
grammar. Continued next note.


                     Kerry A. Shirts


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/22/93         7:06 PM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/22  2:29 AM

TO:      RHONDA JOCKISCH   (KNRH03A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

Note #2 on Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar

   Heward noted that Smith sorta did a rush-job with the
BofA. He was in a hurry darn it and so as an after-thought
quickly kicked out the flop. But even if the project was
carried out in 1842, the plan was conceived of at the
beginning in 1835, giving Smith years to think it over.
Heward just wasn't careful! He makes things up to fit HIS
view only. While his rhetoric impresses himself, it does
nothing for critical readers. In fact Heward claimied that
the BofA wasn't considered as any kind of inspired
translation at all as the church has believed about the Book
of Mormon! So critics will concede the Prophet's ability to
deal with Reformed Egyptian but place ordinary Egyptian
hopelessly beyond his reach. Oh brother! Heward's arguments
are hot air. But it did get him in the New York Times, so he
musta been impressed with himself! Heady stuff here...
(giggle). Heward ignores the many various pronouncements of
how the LDS viewed the book, such as Orson Pratt, W.W.
Phelps, Wilford Woodruff, etc. Well why quote THEM when they
refute the thesis? Exactly...and Heward DOESN'T quote them!
Strawmen all the way here.....and the LDS are bothered by
this? Astounding. Well we Mormons have had years to get with
it, so if we get caught off guard again, it's our fault.
Well....some of us are, at last, taking this seriously and
giving up t.v. more and more. (NOT Roseann though, G!).
   Note the A&G has no title. Smith ALWAYS titled his
revelations! A-L-W-A-Y-S. The title was crammed in AFTER the
page was completed. Stranger still, Smith is nowhere desig-
nated as the author. He always... A-L-W-A-Y-S took full
responsibility for his writings or dictations, as when he
took pains to let the people know just who was responsible
for the editorials in the "Times and Seasons" when HE was
the editor. All the scriptures even revealed through him
bear his name conspicuously at their head. The grammar and
spelling in the grammar is nearly perfect which clearly
rules Smith out as the author! This is written by the
literate hand of W.W. Phelps. It was not the habit of Smith
to suppress his revelations. He made every effort to see to
it that each excerpt from the BofA was published to theworld
the moment it was presentable. But none of the A&G was
E-V-E-R published in ANY form; no one is challenged to put
these writings to the test; as all the world are invited to
examine the Facsimiiles and their interpretations; no claims
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/22/93         7:06 PM

of revelation are made for them; no one claims authorship
for them; no one is invited to inspect and comment or
criticize. Those who peddled the papers publically have
advertized them as suppressed for 130 years. If they were
suppressed they can hardly be given the status of official
documents, let alone that of a standard work. So how did the
translation occur WITHOUT DOUBT showing Abraham false as you
maintain? I would like a demonstration for all us Mormons
interested in the subject here. Especially Earl as he seems
to be troubled a little bit about this stuff. Before I get
troubled though, I'm gonna have to have a lot of
tough...very tough questions answered and a translation
demonstrated as well as HOW Smith did what is universally
acclaimed as impossible to do. Quit keeping it a
secret...show us Smith's method here.

                   Kerry A. Shirts


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/22/93         7:11 PM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/22  2:37 AM

TO:      RHONDA JOCKISCH   (KNRH03A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

Note #3 on Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar

   Don't you find it odd...VERY odd that in the A&G the one
line explanations are carried on for the first page and for
ten characters on the second page, but there they come to a
stop? The next 19 characters (the list of 23 being repeated
over and over again under different "parts" and "degrees")
have their sound indicated, but no equivilant English
letter, and no explanation is offered for any of them? For
the next 17 characters, including the first 7 on page 3, not
even the sounds are given! Thus this great project the
Grammar and alphabet of the Egyptian language of Joseph
Smith, fizzles out on the 2nd page! It ground to a halt on
the 3rd. And this handwriting is in W.W. Phelps writing.
There are 3 different grammars to boot anyway! One was
Phelps, another was Cowdery's and another Smith's. The
interesting thing is the way the three men disagree with
each other's interpretations, each going their own way. The
one sign constantly being rehashed is the reed-sign, perhaps
the most important and commonist of Egyptian hieroglyphic
symbols.

Ms#3: Za ki on-hish, or Kulsidonish, in the land of the
Chaldees. ["Za ki an hish" is lined out underneath the next
line] Ahbrah aam, the father of the faithful. ["the first
right, unto whom is committed" is also lined out]

Ms#4: Ah-bra-oam. Signifies father of the faithful. the
first right-the elder ["Ah-braam - Ah bra oam. signifies
father of the faithful. The" is also lined out] first right.
The elder

Ms.#5: Zakiian-hish, or Kulsidoniash  The land of the
Chaldeans.

Each of these is interpreting the same sign, with no
sovereign master-mind to bring them to a unity of the faith.
Cowdery and Phelps hear different sounds and come up with
different meanings. And Joseph freely lets them go their way
while he goes his, each under obligation to "study it out in
your mind" BEFORE asking for revelation (D&C 6!).
   The A&G has only about 1/6th of the intended operation
completed! It only has ONE page of grammar proper! and that
is limited to a discussion of degrees of comparison. The A&G
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/22/93         7:12 PM

that follows consists of only 30 symbols. With HUNDREDS of
hieroglyphic and THOUSANDS of hieratic symbols to choose
from, the author throughout limits himself to ONLY 30 of
them! Why, since he is  by no means bound by the
conventional definition of an alphabet does he stop with 30?
And why of those 30 is ONLY 1....JUST 1 ever completely
explained? And why does he exhaust his ingenuity explaining
that one symbol (the reed-sign) no less than 15 times, each
time with a different shade of meaning? This A&G never came
anywhere near approaching the point at which its author
could pretend that the one-page grammar and the
sex-letter-alphabet were serviceable! So how did Smith
translate? How account for these discrepancies? We believe
the A&G was specualtive in their private moments. EVERYTHING
points to this, NOT as the SOURCE of Smith's ideas. This
CLEARLY is NOT the source of the Book of Abraham! THAT is
the strawman.
                       Kerry A. Shirts


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/23/93         5:31 PM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/23  3:07 AM

TO:      MICHAEL LOVE   (BXXF11A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

That's interesting about the Fish God and the lack of it in
Egypt. Actually Nibley was quoting Eric Hornung about that
concept. Actually, I found it interesting that Sagan and
Schklovskii wrote about the Fish God mentioned by Berosus,
in Apollodorus' account. Apparently many ancient kings
mention this so-called Fish God named Oannes. Interestingly,
Temple has many aspects of him, but Nibley also mentions him
in his book on Enoch the Prophet! In fact, apparently he
brought the ancients their incredible knowledge of
agriculture, law, the stars, etc. From under the sea though?
Fascinating. But...all this has gotta wait as I have a paper
due tomorrow I'm doing on UFO Abductions!?@#$&%^ Wow! What a
subject! It seems that these little critters are quite real
according to the authors I've read this last month, Budd
Hopkins "Intruders: The Incredible Visitations at Copley
Woods"; Raymond E. Fowler "The Watchers" (very interesting
pictures in this one!); Of course Whitley Striebers books
"Communion" and "Transformation"; David M. Jacobs "Secret
Life", and a host of other books as take off points into
this bizarre and incredibly interesting, weird, scary, outa
this world subject! Zany stuff! What's interesting is I
interviewed a gal right here from my home town who claims to
have been abducted, and I have news for you! She is very
credible, down to earth, and quite serious. I don't have
many reasons to doubt that she has had an awful experience.
Her marriage, unfortunately, is on the rocks, and she dang
sure ain't makin a dime about it! She feels very negatively
towards them, and the illustrations I've spooked up from
various books and magazines are at once instructive and VERY
eerie. Anyway, I didn't want to get off the subject, but the
the Book of Enoch is PART of the subject of Smith and his
knowledge of the ancients right? Hey! You're causing me to
read Nibley more carefully than I have before. Thanks. His
material on the stone is facinating. I was reading just
tonight in Budge's book "The Rosetta Stone" and in there it
also discusses this new stone one receives just before going
into the Temple in ancient Egypt. Nibley seems to be on to
something, but then thats usual. It'll take a lifetime to
exhaust his sources and track things down, but what a
trip...what a trip.  Thanks, and I'll get back with ya! KAS


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/23/93         6:10 PM

RELIGION
TOPIC:    LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TO:       CWXH30A
SUBJECT:  BOOK OF ABRAHAM
DATE:     04/23/1993


Kerry

I hope you don't mind me throwing some post Christian
material at you.  I think one of the weaknesses of Nibley's
work is that he neglects most everything that happened after
300ad.  Medieval and modern works demonstrate the continuity
of these initiatory traditions.  For example, Nibley states
that "drugs and dreams" can be used in some of the ritual
transitions that he describes (p 130), like when the lights
come up.  He doesn't say anything more about it.

Do you have any Robert Anton Wilson books.  In SEX AND
DRUGS.  He traces the use of the use drugs in these kinds of
ritual contexts from ancient times to the present.  Well,
there is no use of drugs in Mormon temples.  Heck, I was
plenty confused the first time I went through.  I didn't
need any drugs for heaven sake.
                  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you've got COSMIC TRIGGER, look carefully at the
illustration in the section titled "The Horus Hawk and Uri
Geller" (p 175 in 3rd ed).  Now open up to Facsimile 2 in
BOA and make sure you sit down!

He also has some more of those Oannes pictures like in
Temple's book that Jaques Vallee collected.  Wilson does an
OK job with the winged globe motif.

                   more later
                               proclusBookOfAbraham3
==============
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/24/93         5:02 PM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/24 12:16 AM

TO:      MICHAEL LOVE   (BXXF11A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

Yes, getting back to this "Stone" idea.... I have been
reading lately in Norma Lorre Goodrich's book "The Holy
Grail" wherein she says some of the early legends about the
Grail is that it was a book, or a stone. On p. 24 she says
"Many brave knights ("Ritter") line at the German
Munsalwasche (Mountain of Salvation) in order to guard their
Grail, the hermit explained to Parzival. They are also
Templars. They live from the power of a stone that fell from
Heaven ("Er heisst Lapsit exillis"). This stone had such
power that when it burns the phoenix, or fire bird to ashes,
the (immortal sun) bird comes back to life at sunrise again.
The same is true for mankind." She later says the Grail is a
white stone. Interesting dontcha think? The phoenix of
course, is identified in the Frenchman Louis Charbonneau
Lassay's book "Le Bestiaire du Christ" (The Beastiary of
Christ) with Christ, but as ORIGINATING in EGYPT. Ah
clues...clues...everywhere, on the ground, and in the
air...well...it isn't Shakespeare, but I'm working on it! G!
The incredible imagery will have to wait for another note I
suppose, that is if you're interested in seeing how detailed
this phoenix idea is!? (Please say no, it's a lot of
typing....G!). Anyway, Lassay goes on to note the many
varieties of animals associated in one way or another with
Christ, and I can't pass the fish up! Of course he notes
that Oannes was a fish deity in ancient Phoenicia and
Philistia. He notices how the name Oannes changed as it
moved into various other countries. (p. 295ff) The sacred
fish of course has cosmological ties all over the place
(Need I say Picses?) and it was consumed as a ritual meal at
least in Egypt. Nibley in his book of Enoch identified
Oannes with Enoch! Well, he shows how other scholars have
anyway. Oannes, like Enoch was the seventh mystical king of
Babylon (not Enoch, but Oannes). Enoch was the seventh
Patriarch, the bringer of heavenly wisdom to mankind (one of
Oannes' functions you will recall!). The name Enoch suggests
Enki-Ea, the King of Wisdom who created intelligence. He
knows everything that has a name, like the Egyptian Thoth,
and like Thoth (remember the Tarot Cards were once thought
of as the secret Book of Thoth, giving divine wisdom to the
ancients! A stunning book by the way on the Tarot and the
incredible tie ins is called "Tarot Revelations" by Joseph
Campbell and Richard Roberts), anyway, Thoth is also the
great guide to the rites of initiation into the mysteries.
Joseph Campbell in his wonderful book  "Transformations of
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/24/93         5:03 PM

Myth Through Time", discussing the mysteries of Eleusis,
shows that initiation was the theme with a ritual meal of
bread and wine as this meal is associated with a cycle of
death, descent into the underworld, and then reborn life
again! This is the essence of Essene theology in the Dead
Sea Scrolls, as it was in Early Christianity, and now look
at Nibley "Papyri" on the essence of the Egyptian mysteries!
p. xii. The themes are expanded or contracted as various
peoples use them, but the essence of the mysteries is
concerning the resurrection, which brings us back with a
jolt to the J.S. Papyri! I say, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians,
Christians, Pagans, Europeans, everyone gets into this act!
And why not? It goes back way inito hoary antiquity, with
scattered bits and pieces coming through history all the
time in mystery clues such as this wonderful stone, which by
the way, Graham Hancock in his "The Sign and the Seal" his
search for the Ark of the Covenant, says this stone SHINED.
(p. 68f), which recalls the Jaredites shining stones!!! KAS


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/24/93         5:18 PM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/24 12:22 AM

TO:      MICHAEL LOVE   (BXXF11A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

I find it interesting that while we examine Smith's
descriptions of what the symbols meant in the Hypocephalus
(Facs. #2) "Hypo-" of course meaning "under", while the
suffix "cephalus" means "head", literally, "Under head"
which is usually where these little documents were placed
when the mummies were buried anciently. They were thought of
as the Eye of Re, the fire of life and resurrection which
the body was to have for eternity, so these little things
were mighty important to the ancient Egyptians! Anyway, I
noticed that since the mysteries of initiation everywhere in
the ancient world, and everywhere again way back into hoary
antiquity concerns the resurrection....it is interestinig
that Smith in Facs. # 2 fig #3 that it represents God,
sitting on his throne, clothed with power and authority of
Eternal light on his head; representing also the Grand
Key-words of the Holy Priesthood. Well what on earth (or in
Heaven) is going on here? This god in ancient Egypt was
considered a creator God who distilled light  through the
immensities of eternity. All creation awaited on his decrees
and commands. In other words he has the power and authority,
exactly like Smith said! The Wedjat eye is the symbol of the
resurrection, life, wholeness, and the nourishment of the
gods. The restored eye is symbolic of life and resurrection.
Since this symbol is consistently identified by J.S. as the
Grand Key-words of the Priesthood, one wonders if the
numerical arrangements of it by the Egyptians was in regards
to the sacred/secret name of God. This is Harris speaking!
I'm in "Studies in the Scripture, Vol. 2, The Pearl of Great
Price", (p. 272ff). Interesting that those
possessing the secret of the eye reached a new and higher
level of consciousness. Possession of the eye would
determine the successor of Osiris (the Egyptian Christ!) in
the battle between Horis and Set; this sign could very
appropriately represent the Grand Key-Words and the grandest
aspiration of the Priesthood! Harris intrigues me. This is
so very interesting to see how the Egyptian side of things
is not so out of line with what Smith said they represented,
NOT that they WERE these things, but representations very
much in line. I can't help it, I like this stuff!
                    Kerry A. Shirts


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/25/93        11:40 PM

RELIGION
TOPIC:    LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TO:       CWXH30A
SUBJECT:  BOOK OF ABRAHAM
DATE:     04/25/1993


Kerry

It is interesting to note that the Egyptians associated the
Stone of Truth with the hidden name (p 140).  In fact,
Nibley makes it pretty clear that the Apocalypse is full of
Egyptian ritual imagery.  One has to  wonder where John got
his revelations.  Maybe he just copied them from the
Egyptians, a la Joseph Smith!  Just a thought, heheh.

Nibley tends to beat around the bush sometimes, like when he
discusses the Sirius cult in connection with the three
degrees of glory.  That is why I was surprised when Nibley
said flatly that the temples were built "by beings from
other worlds" hinting that the ritual boats were actually
spacecraft.  It seems that Nibley is a von Daniken fan, or
maybe he just read Temple's book.

I have never heard the white stone connected with the holy
grail (Great info!).  It does not surprise me though.  Many
scholars have shown that the quest legends have ritual
isomorphism.  I can send you my paper on SIR GAWAIN AND THE
GREEN KNIGHT if you want it.  Temple does a good job with
the connections of Gilgamesh and Jason and the Argonauts
with the Sirius cult.  He shows how the ancients attributed
their astronomical knowledge to heavenly visitations.  He
attributes the recurrence of the number fifty to the fact
that Sirius B, Digitalis, has a fifty year orbital period.
It seems that the Argonauts sprang from fifty dragon teeth.
The golden fleece is just as interesting as the holy grail.
Read about it in Chapter called "The Sacred Fifty."  The
Sumerians were heavily involved in this.  All of this has
parallels in the BOOK OF ABRAHAM.  Once again we find Nibley
beating around the bush, trying to place Abraham in Sumerian
Ur.  Sometimes I wish Nibley would just come out and tell us
straight.  (These things always remind me of Joseph's quorum
of fifty.  Didn't he institute the quorum in the Nauvoo
period?)

Kerry, I am glad you brought up the Knights Templar in
connection with the Stone of Truth.  Freemasonry, a reputed
source for our temple ritual, usually traces its origins
through the Templars.  It really turns all of our ramblings
into a very nice story.  The circle closes.

yes, there's more
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/25/93        11:41 PM


proclus


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/25/93        11:44 PM

RELIGION
TOPIC:    LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TO:       CWXH30A
SUBJECT:  BOOK OF ABRAHAM
DATE:     04/25/1993


Kerry

I am so glad you brought up the Tarot.  This is an example
of a more recent development that goes ignored by Nibley.
Thank heavens for Campbell.  He has really bailed a few of
us out!  Did you know that Crowley tells us flatly in his
BOOK OF THOTH that the star card represents Sirius.  This is
very interesting since the trump cards fit very nicely into
the ritual cycle which we are discussing.  Of course, it is
not the same, but it does mirror that cycle.  We can learn
alot from it.

For example,  Nibley tells us that the Egyptian glyph for
eternity is the symbol for the earth (p 139).  The earth is
thought of as solid and unshakable.  This viewpoint is very
different from orthodox treatments of the earth.  I suppose
that since the earth was often associated with the Goddess,
Orthodox Xtianity tended to vilify it along with Eve.
Mormonism is not an orthodox religion.  In Mormonism, Eve is
exalted with the a sentient earth.  I think that the
Egyptian view of the earth is much closer to the Mormon
view.

So, who is this Harris?  That exposition on the Eye of Re
just blew me away.  I have thought of all these pieces by
themselves many times, but I never was able to put them all
together.  I was wondering when someone was going to explain
why Joseph placed this universal religious symbol at the
very core of our ritual tradition.  Please keep this info
coming.  I'm eating it up!

Atwixt the pillars

proclus


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/27/93         7:34 PM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/27  7:24 PM

TO:      MICHAEL LOVE   (BXXF11A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

Ah Mike!!!
    So we're winding up here eh? Its interesting to see
where this discusssion can lead isn't it? I just finished
the Tanner's pamphlet "Solving the Mystery of the Joseph
Smith Papyri". I don't think they're past the 1912 argument
yet! Astounding considering the material Nibley has brought
out, as well as Gee and Harris and Tvedtnes and others. Oh
well. What interested me was howw they characatured Nibley.
They claim he made light of the papyri, and that he  didn't
take it seriously. Now this was printed in 1992 mind you,
A-F-T-E-R Nibley has written over 1,000 pages on the subject
and gone through many thousand Egyptologists writings and
studies, but he doesn't seem to be serious....right, play it
again Sam. The Tanner's are a mock to scholarship. Such
drivvle will only impress those who don't bother to look
into the sources themselves. Well, I then re-read John A.
Wilson's article on the papyri in Dialogue, as also Klaus
Baer's, Richard Parker's, Richard P. Howard's (RLDS, and who
also says there is nowhere where Joseph Smith ever claimed
to know Egyptian, though he emphatically wrote and declared
he studied Hebrew), Grant S. Heward and Jerald Tanner, and
Nibley's answer, as well as Benjamin Urrutia. Fabulous
material here. Incredibly interesting discussion to be sure.
Interestingly, Wilson himself says that Budge's rendering of
things Egyptian is out of date and over-free in his usage.
But note that Heward earlier had used Budge to try and
refute Smith! And the Tanner's and Larson use Heward! Well
why rely on Heward who lies and relies on Budge when Budge
is out of date? Is this good scholarship though? Are
they that desparate? Heward claimed he was translating the
LDS papyri, but in reality when Nibley checked his
translation Heward was paraphrasing Budge while claiming it
was his translation! What a dope. Did he think he could fool
the likes of Nibley? Very interesting. Interesting also that
Baer said it was refreshing that the church was so speedy in
getting the papyri out in public unlike their previous
custodians (the Non-LDS)! What? The Tanner's accuse the
church of covering up and suppressing these documents, but
the documents have been in the possession of non-LDS for the
last 130 years! And Nibley knew they knew about them way
back in 1968! In fact one gent told him they didn't want the
LDS to know about these as it would only open up the
discussion and they didn't want to talk about it! Well, what
chicancery! So, I am glad you are a willing audience. So
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/27/93         7:35 PM

much for blubbering. But oh hey....don't get on Nibley too
much just yet. Oh granted he doesn't develop the Medieval
theme as much as the ancient one, but believe me he hops on
the Jewish mysticism and the Zohar and the Kabbalah and all
that sort of stuff. Lets go to a new note so I can expound.

                       Kerry A. Shirts>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh by the way, I also thought it interesting how the
Tanner's note it was Baer who found out that the facsimile
#1 and the J.S. Papyri # X or else XI, one of them anyway,
were originally attatched together, and later Nibley
acknowledged that, as if he found out and said Oops! I
better get in line and start agreeing with the authorities
here. But Baer acknowledged that it was Nibley who showed
him the connection!!! Baer was very grateful and kind about
it as he should have been. He was a great man. Nibley is
quite on top of these things.
                   Kerry A. Shirts


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/27/93         9:40 PM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/27  8:19 PM

TO:      MICHAEL LOVE   (BXXF11A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

These apocalyptic voyages or journeys of all the ancient
heroes, Abraham, Enoch, Michael, Seth, and Moses (not to
mention Elijah, Melchizedek and Ezekiel) all have the same
story. God takes them away to teach them astronomy and they
want to write it down, which they do, but they are
instructed to hide it so the godless won't have something to
trip them up. Secrecy is a big motif in all these ancient
writings, which is really brought out if one reads the Nag
Hammadi codices! The Zohar of course, depiicts Abraham,
always the scientist, trying to weigh and measure the earth,
learn as much about it as he can (see the Bk of Ab. saying
he was a seeker after GREATER light and knowledge, even
after the already GREAT light and knowledge he had!).
Interestingly, S. Birch noted that in the famous Florence
Hypocephalus The bifront figure (the same as in Fac #2, Fig.
2 resembles the planet Osiris (!?!), or Jupiter; "the boat
that of the constellation ARGO (!). Creationism is a major
theme of these little round drawings according to the best
scholars today. The chamber wherein ALL of God's creation
dwelt to discuss the Plan of what to do in the universe for
all of these (the Pre-existent plan, of course) was called
by Sethe "the Holy of Holies". Oooooooooo...gettin warm eh?
Fascinating!"The King and his Council at ON are the council
in heaven at the beginning of the world" according to
Anthes. They represent those gods who did not rebel and were
not punished in the pre-existence. Hey wait a minute! Hold
the phone! Isn't THIS Mormonism's teaching?! Whoa, this is
getting right on target. The name ON incidentally, is
Heliopolis, the city of the sun, is found no less than THREE
times on the rim of Facs. # 2.The City of the SUN of course,
played a conspicuous part in learning about the MOON and the
STARS in their courses. We have Sun, Moon, and Stars,
conspicuous throughout the Pearl of Great Price. The three
degrees of glory. The true cosmic order, according to
ancient Egyptian hypocephaluses was from pre-existent
councils to an earth life (of and for the GODS) who would be
tempted by the false angel, die, and be resurrected (For
THAT is THE function of putting the hypocephalus under the
head of the mummy, to keep the flame of the spirit alive
awaiting the resurrection of the physical body, as all Gods
have already done before (!)), only to find that heaven is
layered in degrees represented by the Sun, Moon, and Stars.
I mean, what else do you want? Smith said the ancient
Egytians had something. It now turns out they did, and the
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/27/93         9:41 PM

tie ins with Early Christianity have been noted by many
scholars as well,  but that Smith's religion has this also?
Wow! And in EVERY case, this goes back to a revelation to a
hero who journeyed to heaven in some sort of physical craft,
who was taught astronomy so he could go teach about the true
creation, which Abraham is doing in Facs. #3 in Pharoahs
court! I mean EVERYTHING fits here! Incredible. This is the
message of no other book than.....are you sitting Mike? Than
the Egyptian Book of Thoth! Oh heck! This is too much! So
maybe we oughta examine the Tarot a little more eh? I mean
the clues are awesome! And this is Nibley's writings! The
symbolism of the tarot and the facsimile would be an
excellent joint adventure to do and try to publish wouldn't
it? Want to give it a try? Oh, interestingly, the relation
of the micro/macrocosm is shown in that the right eye of the
Wdjt eye owner (?) picks up messages from Saturn, the left
eye, messages from Jupiter. What are these doing in here?
The Jewish mystics knew about the cosmic order. KAS, blowout


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/27/93         9:50 PM

         RELIGION
TOPIC:   LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TIME:    04/27  8:28 PM

TO:      MICHAEL LOVE   (BXXF11A)
FROM:    KERRY SHIRTS   (CWXH30A)
SUBJECT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM

But there's more... (this is note 3 by the way, or is it 4?)
The hypocephalus' are all round. The human cycle is compared
to that of the solar star. Again the micr/macro cosm idea,
of which by the way, Da Vince as well as Newton and the
Alchemists were certainly fascinated with! The design of the
hypocephalus exemplifies the great circle of the universe.
The ruling God is always depicted in the middle. Of course
this is the two headed God (sometimes 4 headed) God that
Smith claimed was the great God sitting on his throne. The
reason Mercer said Smith was so full of it with this figure
is that at that time no two headed gods in hypocephaluses
were found then, but we know they were drawn that way now.
See we're always on the move here, learning greater light
and knowledge, patient with apparent discrepancies and
contradictions. There is a timetable to these things, we
just gotta go by faith for a bit. The King is the
intermediary between heaven and earth (kingship BIG in
ancient Egypt as in the PofGP as also WHO had the TRUE
Priesthood, hence the rivalry of Pharoah (Nimrod) and
Abraham), moving in the shnnt itn, the ever circling course
of the sun. There it is again, the macro/microcosm idea. Man
IS part of the gods and the universe. Talk about mysticism
in all its glory here!!! And this from Smith's hypocephalus!
It's time to stretch the boundaries it looks like. The root
shn, made eternal by the form shenen, means a round,
suggesting to conditioned ears "Shinehah", which IS the sun
(Abr. 3:13), and now the head reels. Shine-hah strongly
suggests Alma 7:20 "Therefore...his course is one eternal
round" (endowment). The lower half of these drawn circles
represents the beginning, birth, while the upper represent
the resurrection into the universe, the stars, planets, with
the gods. This is the figure which Smith says represents the
grand words of the Priesthood! Well what else is priesthood,
except the power of God....to resurrect?! And this has its
place, in fact was copied from into the Early Christian
literature and THEIR concepts of resurrection! Didin't
Christ teach the mysteries in the Temple? And are not some
figures in Facs. # 2 to be had in the Temple?! If creation
is the theme, then both these parts, the upper male half,
and the lower female half MUST be present, and Smith's ren-
dition is clearly on the exact mark. Of course, the central
God in the middle panel represents Amon or Amon-Re whose
classic equivilant is Janus, the Father of time. The time of
the revolutions, the other stars, in relation to the
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         04/27/93         9:50 PM

central, the heart of the universe where God resides, which
is of course, the meaning of Kolob, and bang, the head reels
again. Who would have guessed Smith would come out so
interesting in the last 30 years? And who would have guessed
that as the scholars started learning this stuff that
Smith's ideas would not be so far fetched?! And Janus is
depicted as the two headed ram (the biblical animal of sac-
rifice) representing God seeing all in the past and in the
future, concerns with matter and energy, male and female,
all wrapped up in one eternal round (which IS what the
hyppocephalus IS) an eternal round depicting the universe
and its cosmoligcal principles. Well this is enough for now
to see that we are clearly in the realm of cosmoligcal huge
proportions, with meanings and hidden subtle thoughts and
ideas in these amazing Egyptian cryptograms, which the tarot
is the Christian counterpart! So maybe we ought to hup to it
on this tarot/hypocephalus idea!
                       Kerry A. Shirts


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         05/01/93         9:03 PM

RELIGION
TOPIC:    LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TO:       CWXH30A
SUBJECT:  BOOK OF ABRAHAM
DATE:     05/01/1993


Kerry

I'm afraid that all of this may be getting too big for my
little brain (or at least too big for six pages).  Your
connection of the central figure in facsimile 3 with Jupiter
rang all my bells.  Here is a silly cartoon;
   Horus  |  Zeus  | Jupiter |          Argo
          X        |         > Sirius <
   Osiris | Cronos | Saturn  |          Golden Fleece

Temple goes on at great length to show how Osiris becomes
Zeus becomes Jupiter becomes Horus, an how Chronos the
bifront is connected with time. (p 117).  Nibley, on the
other hand tells us simply that Horus is whatever object
happens to be brightest in the sky (ABRAHAM IN EGYPT).
Temple spends a whole chapter showing the connection of Argo
and the fleece to Sirius, but doesn't mention Crowley's
initiatory society,  The Argentum Astrum.  Now, here comes
Kerry telling us that the god in question is the bifront god
at the center of the facsimile 3.  Joseph flatly calls him
Kolob, the redidence of God!  He continues to explain how
the reckoning of time is related to Kolob.  Nice, very clean
and accurate.

Now, here is some free association.  When Wilson was getting
his Sirius transmissions, one of the things that came
through clearly was "Time is very important."  That is when
he got the spiral form and related it to the tree of life
and, by extension, the tarot.  It's all documented in COSMIC
TRIGGER and a book he co-authored with Tim Leary called "THE
GAME OF LIFE".

Do you ever listen to Firesign Theater?  In BOZOS, Sirius is
implicated in hermetics and the birth of science.  The god
of the future is called "Dr. Memory".  The hero of the
story, Clem, succeeds in undoing this doctor, with the
user-friendly help of someone named "Mack".  The wierd thing
is that the play came out BEFORE the advent of Macintosh.
First, Clem has to arrange his tranportation to the world of
Dr. Memory.  Clem asks if the doctor is there, to which the
Dr, Mem responds, "The Doctor is ON."  Clem undoes him by
asking him a question that he cannot answer (!).  The story
is an essay unto itself.

         But wait, there's more!
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         05/01/93         9:04 PM

                                       proclus

ps sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this!
I've also got the Mormo{Subjects and FINALS.


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service         05/01/93         9:07 PM

RELIGION
TOPIC:    LATTER-DAY SAINTS
TO:       CWXH30A
SUBJECT:  BOOK OF ABRAHAM
DATE:     05/01/1993


Kerry

Then there is SIR GAWAIN AND THE GREEN KNIGHT again.  I have
shown that the story has much ritual isomorphism and
transition.  Gawain carries a shield that has a five point
star on it.  (Did I tell you this before?)  The star is
called "The Knot of Solomon"  (I am anxious to read MOTHER
WOVE THE MORNING!).  Occulted within this shield is the
hero's patron, the virgin Mary.  It is now pretty well
accepted that the Green Knight is an image of Nimrod.
Gawain narrowly escapes a ritual death at the hands of this
Green Knight at the end of the story.  Now that we have
hashed over all of the Abrahamic literature, I can only
place the tale of Gawain and the Green Knight at the center
of the Abrahamic tradition.

Speaking of Nimrod always reminds me of Gregory of Tours.
Gregory is no friend of secret intitiatory traditions.  For
Gregory, secrecy is only a mask for wickedness and murder.
He weaves this theme into the stories of the middle European
kings and thier demise.  His introduction is even more
germane.  He tells us of Cush, the firstborn of Ham.  It
seems that Cush was the founder of all idolatry.  "The
Persians called him Zoroaster, that is, 'living star'."  The
son of Cush, Gregory informs us, was a giant named Nebron,
who built Babyl.  Of course, he is speaking of Nimrod.

          Astarte and the tower
                                   proclus
Visit
MutantRMs


LE FastCounter

Michael L. Love/proclus/GNU-Darwin link block

Related social networking sites that might be lesser known