Monday, October 21, 2024

Dan Ellsworth on The Great and Abominable Church in 1 Nephi 13 Being Marxism

  

Verse 4: I saw among the nations of the Gentiles the formation of a great church…

 

Marxism is a system, and it was formed among nations of the gentiles, specifically in Germany and France. Marx was not the originator of all the ideas in what we call Marxism, but he was the first to systematize those ideas and make them into an action-oriented movement.

 

Verse 5: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.

 

Here we read that persecution of saints, the followers of Christ, is another key characteristic of the Great and Abominable Church. There is probably no belief system in modern history that has been a greater source of violent persecution of followers of Christ throughout the world than Marxism and all of its branches.

 

. . .

 

Verses 7-8: And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots. And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church.

 

Marxist movements typically claim to represent the common worker, the lower classes, the vulnerable in society. But in observable Marxist reality, we see a constant tendency for leaders of Marxist movements to amass power and resources to themselves, and destroy the lower classes of society. Some of the most notable concentrations of Marxist activity are on the campuses of universities with massive layers of administration and extraordinary financial endowments of donor funding.

 

In modern-day America, wealthy progressive cities are the locations of the great concentrations of people living in extreme economic class inequality and those cities tend to be led by Marxist-leaning politicians.

 

Verse 26: And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

 

To take away plain and precious parts of the gospel is often imagined to be a process of changing scripture in ways that obscure God’s intended meanings. But another way to think of this passage is to understand how critical readings of scripture remove God from the text entirely. We have mentioned Bruno Bauer and other figures who attacked the bible using their critical tools, and reinterpreted it to remove any notions of miracles up to and including the resurrection of Christ. Critical scholarship of scripture devastates communities of faith by undermining people’s confidence in the witnesses of God that we find in scriptural texts. Much of the field of critical scholarship has its origins in Germany during the time of Marx, and Marx had plenty of exposure to critical approaches to the Bible. (Dan Ellsworth, Marxism: A Latter-day Saint Perspective [Eremos Books, 2024], 139, 140-41)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist (US)

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

 

Cameron Bertuzzi cannot read

Serial grifter Cameron Bertuzzi is the gift git who keeps on giving. Here is another gem showing he is a liar, not just a grifter:




This is something I would expect from Trent Horn and others from Catholic Answers, showing that Bertuzzi may have indeed become a Roman Catholic after all--the inability to read documents in their context. Here is the letter:


Letter to Newel K., Elizabeth Smith, and Sarah Ann Whitney, 18 August 1842 (notice that it is not just addressed to Sarah Ann Whitney but her parents, too; this alone shows Cameron has not read it but is cribbing it either 2nd or even 3rd hand). Here is the text of the letter:


 

Dear, and Beloved, Brother [Newel K. Whitney] andSister, [Elizabeth Ann Smith] Whitney, and &c. [Sarah Ann Whitney]—

I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not livelong in this way: and <if you> three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me, now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers [Granger’s], Just back of Brother Hyrams [Hyrum Smith’s] farm, it is only onemile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of<you> come <can> come and see me in thefore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it <is> next to the cornfield; I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect saf[e]ty, I <know> it is the will of God that you should comfort <me> now in this time of affliction, or not all at all now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I <will> tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it, keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it, one thing I want to see you for is <to> get the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you will pardon me for my earnestness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me, I close my letter,I think Emma wont come to night if she dont dont fail to come tonight, I subscribe myself your most obedient, <and> affectionate,companion, and friend.

Joseph Smith 

 

The following is from the Historical Introduction on The Joseph Smith Papers website:

 

On 18 August 1842, while hiding at Carlos Granger’s home on the outskirts of Nauvoo, Illinois, JS wrote a letter to three individuals, addressing them in the first line of the letter as “Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.” In addition to the directly named recipients, Nauvoo bishop Newel K. Whitney and his wife, Elizabeth Ann Smith Whitney, the letter was intended for their seventeen-year-old daughter, Sarah Ann Whitney, who lived with her parents in Nauvoo. On 27 July, three weeks earlier, Newel K. Whitney had sealed Sarah Ann and JS, with Elizabeth Ann Whitney serving as a witness to the sealing. In early August, Adams County sheriff Thomas C. King arrived in Nauvoo with a warrant to arrest JS and extradite him to Missouri. JS attempted to fight the warrant on legal grounds and was released on a jurisdictional question; then, by 10 August, he went into hiding for the next two weeks to avoid the possibility of arrest and extradition.

In his letter, JS asked the three members of the Whitney family to visit him at Granger’s home, instructing them to approach the house covertly. JS’s request for stealth was at least partially intended to keep his whereabouts secret, given the threat of arrest and extradition that initially drove him into hiding and the fact that posses were searching for him in Illinois and Iowa Territory, making him fear for his life. JS’s desire for secrecy also likely arose from his practice of plural marriage, a principle he had shared with only a small group of trusted friends at that time. According to the letter, JS may have wanted to keep knowledge of the Whitneys’ visit from his wife Emma Smith, who had been away from Nauvoo at the time of JS’s sealing to Sarah Ann. JS instructed that the letter be destroyed as soon as it was read, possibly because of his dual concerns of maintaining his safety in hiding and the secrecy of his plural marriage to Sarah Ann.

 

Although vague, JS’s letter suggests that he needed to address some matters with the Whitneys in person. His urgency may have been motivated by his fear that he would be extradited to Missouri, which led him to contemplate leaving Nauvoo.8 In the letter, JS mentioned that one reason he wanted the Whitneys to visit was to bless them. This may indicate that he had not been able to fully bestow the blessings promised to Newel and Elizabeth Ann Whitney as part of the 27 July sealing of Sarah Ann to JS. Partial journal entries, apparently written by Newel K. Whitney, were copied in two extant versions of the 27 July 1842 revelation that Whitney used to seal JS and Sarah Ann. The journal entries mirror the language and promises found in the revelation. The first of the entries recorded that on 21 August 1842, Newel and Elizabeth Ann Whitney received blessings granting them and their family part in the “first resurrection,” which Latter-day Saints believed would occur as part of the second coming of Jesus Christ. A week later, on 27 August, at which point JS was no longer in hiding, a second journal entry noted that the couple were rebaptized, confirmed, and blessed with long life, priesthood keys, and “all gifts posessed by my progenitors who held the Priesthood before me anciently.”

 

By 18 August, JS had been in hiding for more than a week, with little opportunity to be outside and with visits from only a few trusted people. JS had a gregarious personality, which probably made his seclusion difficult, and the letter emphasized his loneliness. While most of the letter was directed to all three members of the Whitney family, some sentiments appear to be particularly intended for Sarah Ann and suggest that JS wanted to spend time with his recently married plural wife.

 

JS wrote the letter himself. Before it was delivered, William Clayton added the date and location. Since JS intended the letter to remain private and to be destroyed once read, it was likely hand delivered to the Whitneys by a trusted courier, possibly Clayton. Though the fact that the letter was kept and passed down in the Whitney family indicates they received the letter, JS’s journal contains no entry for 18 August, and it is unclear whether the proposed visit occurred. On 19 August, JS returned to Nauvoo but remained in hiding. He spent the next three days in the dry goods store he owned in Nauvoo before returning home.

 

 

 Interestingly, Todd Compton in his 1996 review of Fawn Brodie listed Sarah Ann as a possible example of "dynastic marriage," not sexual polygamy. Of course, as Cameron is reliant on 10-second google searches, he will not know this. That this marriage was an eternity-only sealing is also agreed upon by Michael Marquardt, an ex-LDS researcher:


 

Sarah Ann Whitney was married to Joseph Smith on July 27, 1842. Nine months later on April 29, 1843, she was [legally] married to Joseph C. Kingsbury with the Prophet Joseph Smith officiating. She was then eighteen years old. It seems that Joseph Smith married Sarah Ann Whitney for time and for all eternity and then relinquished her for time, in a pretended marriage ceremony to Joseph C. Kingsbury. (H. Michael Marquardt, The Strange Marriages of Sarah Ann Whitney to Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet, Joseph C. Kingsbury, and Heber C. Kimball (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm, 1973; rev. ed., Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1982), 18)

 


For actual scholarship and research on (1) Joseph Smith and Sarah Ann Whitney specifically and (2) Joseph Smith's polygamy in general, see, for e.g.:


B. H. Roberts Foundation, Joseph Smith's Polygamy (primary sources)


Brian C. Hales, Sarah Ann Whitney


Gregory L. Smith, Review of Nauvoo Polygamy: “. . . but we called it celestial marriage” (2008), by George D. Smith, FARMS Review 20, no. 2 (2008): 37-123


Cameron Bertuzzi is nothing short of a hack and intellectual fraud.


 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

 




Stephen O. Smoot on Figures 8-11 of Facsimile 2

The following comes from Stephen O. Smoot, "Temple Themes in the Book of Abraham," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 60 (2024): 233-36

 

 

Figures 8–11 of Facsimile 2 Joseph Smith left untranslated, commenting instead that these figures contain “writings that cannot be revealed unto the world” because they are “to be had in the Holy Temple of God.” [71] The hieroglyphs that appear in both the manuscript and published versions of Facsimile 2 appear legible enough for us to secure a fairly reliable reading. [72]

 

Translations of these figures have, accordingly, been offered by Nibley and Rhodes, [74] Mekis, [75] and most recently Gee, [76] with a substandard presentation of the text offered by Ritner. [77] There is broad agreement in the translation of these figures, but problematic transcriptions of the hieroglyphs in both the unpublished and published versions of Facsimile 2 give rise to some disagreements, as noted in my translation (see Table 3).

 

Table 3. Translation of Figures 8-11 of Facsimile 2..

Original

Translation

i nTr Sp(s) m sp

O noble [78] god at the first

Tp(y) nTr aA nb{t} pt tA

Time [79] — great god, lord of heaven, earth,

dwAt mw [Dw.w]

the underworld, the waters, [and the mountains] [80] —

di (?) anx bA Wsir 5Sq

may the soul [81] of Osiris-Sheshonq [82] live!

 

Although it may not be obvious at first glance how this relates to the temple, a closer look at the underlying context of this brief inscription and attested parallels reveals something significant. For starters, the ordering of the epithets attributed to the unnamed deity in these lines, most likely the god Amun, [83] finds near-verbatim attestation on the pylon gates of both the Amun and Khonsu temples at Karnak. [84] The reference to the “first time” (sp tpy; “first occasion,” “first instance,” etc.), is also noteworthy for understanding this inscription as having a temple context, since “frequent are the instances in temple inscriptions in which the historical temple is equated with the st n sp tpy, the Seat of the First Occasion.” [85] The phrase was used to describe the Luxor Temple, for example, “first and foremost a creation site and as such [a site that] had a primary role to play in the grand drama of the cyclical regeneration of Amun-Re himself. The god’s rejuvenation was achieved through his return to the very place, even the exact moment, of creation at Luxor; and the triumph over chaos represented by the annual rebirth of the kingship ensured Amun’s own re-creation.” [86] So too was it used to designate the “Holy of Holies” of the temple (st Dsrt nt sp tpy; “the sacred place of the first time”). [87] The conceptual link between the “first time” of creation and the temple is clear from the ancient Egyptian perspective.

 

Then there is the benediction of the concluding line: “may the soul of Osiris-Sheshonq live!” It is not difficult to suggest the appropriateness of this invocation for a Latter-day Saint temple context. “A common theme of all Egyptian funerary literature is the resurrection of the dead and their glorification and deification in the afterlife, which is certainly a central element of our own temple ceremony.”  [88] By reconsidering this line from the perspective of the modern Latter-day Saint temple, we begin to see both the logic behind Joseph Smith’s explanation of these figures in Facsimile 2 as well as how the text may be brought to bear on temple ritual and vice versa. This may also explain why Joseph Smith may have intended to display the Egyptian papyri and the published translation of the Book of Abraham in the Nauvoo temple upon its completion. [89] With this methodology a symbiotic relationship between text and temple begins to manifest, so that the Latter-day Saint participant in the temple informs and is informed by these lines in the facsimile. Barring the Latter-day Saints from partaking in this universal habit of religious syncretism as it pertains to their ritual performances in the temple, or somehow insisting that such is illegitimate, is nothing short of special pleading.

 

 

 

Notes for the Above:

 

71. “A Fac-Simile from the Book of Abraham, No. 2.”

72. See “Copy of Hypocephalus, between circa July 1835 and circa March 1842,” The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/copy-of-hypocephalus-between-circa-july-1835-and-circa-march-1842/1.

74. Nibley and Rhodes, One Eternal Round, 327; cf. Michael D. Rhodes, “A Translation and Commentary of the Joseph Smith Hypocephalus,” BYU Studies 17, no. 3 (1977): 264–65; “The Joseph Smith Hypocephalus…Twenty Years Later,” FARMS Preliminary Report (1997), 4–5.

75. Mekis, The Hypocephalus, 113, 208.

76. John Gee, “Hypocephali and Gates,” in Aegyptus et Pannonia 6 (Budapest: The Ancient Egyptian Committee of the Hungarian-Egyptian Friendship Society, 2020), 33–34.

77. Substandard because of his perplexing omission of any hieroglyphic transcriptions. Robert K. Ritner, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, A Complete Edition: P. JS 1–4 and the Hypocephalus of Sheshonq (Salt Lake City: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2011), 222–23.

78. Nibley and Rhodes read Sps as SDr (“sleeping”). This reading is less likely than the one preferred by Mekis, Gee, Ritner, and myself of Sps (“noble”).

79. That is, the primordial time of creation.

80. Nibley and Rhodes follow the reading of the printed facsimile, which filled in the lacuna with the hieroglyphs for f and aA stacked on top of each other, to form the reading mw=f aA “his great waters.” Again, this reading is less likely than the one preferred by Mekis, Gee, Ritner, and myself of Dw.w (“mountains”). But consider also the intriguing alternative suggestion of David Calabro, “The Choreography of Genesis,” 257–58n23, who reads Figures 8–9 as ir pt tA dwAt mw=f aA, “he who made heaven, earth, and the Duat — its (i.e., the earth’s) great waters” with the comment that this reading “relates directly to the visionary and cosmological content of Abraham 3 … [and] may bear similarity to the creation theme of Abraham 4–5.” Calabro further notes, “The term ‘great waters’ does not appear in the creation account in Genesis, but it does appear in Abraham 4:9–10, where it describes the primordial waters out of which land emerged. The phrase ‘its great waters,’ with the masculine suffix pronoun referring to the masculine noun ‘land’ (the words for ‘heaven’ and ‘Duat’ are feminine), could thus be understood as a gloss relating the Egyptian concept of the Duat (the netherworld, understood in Egyptian cosmology as the source of the Nile inundation) to the cosmology of the Book of Abraham.”

81. Read by Mekis and Ritner as sanx (s-causative of anx; “cause to live…”) instead of the prospective/optative di anx, which is favored by Nibley and Rhodes and myself. The first figure on the far right seems unlikely to be s as read by Mekis and Ritner, although admittedly it also does not look entirely like di.

82. Ritner implausibly argues that traces of n in the name of Sheshonq/Shishak are detectable underneath the first SA sign. Instead, the two strokes underneath appear to be an unidentifiable sign on the right and q on the left.

83. Nibley and Rhodes, One Eternal Round, 326–27, believe the deity in question is Osiris, but this is unlikely, as in other hypocephali (e.g., Mekis, The Hypocephalus, 110–113), the identity of this god is explicitly said to be Amun.

84. Gee, “Hypocephali and Gates,” 33–34.

85. E. A. Reymond, The Mythical Origin of the Egyptian Temple (Oxford: Manchester University Press, 1969), 300.

86. Lanny Bell, “Luxor Temple and the Cult of the Royal Ka,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44, no. 4 (Oct. 1985): 290 and n217a.

87. James K. Hoffmeier, Sacred in the Vocabulary of Ancient Egypt, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 173. Compare Margaret Barker, Creation: A Biblical Vision for the Environment (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 73, who observes that in the biblical cosmic imagination, “Day One [of Creation] was the holy of holies, the state beyond time and matter, and the earliest picture of Christian worship is set in the holy of holies.” Barker, Creation, 73–101, then proceeds to catalogue numerous biblical and para-biblical writings illustrating this important point. All of this, of course, fits rather nicely with a Latter-day Saint temple perspective and with the Book of Abraham, which narrates the pre-mortal council and Creation in a context that easily lends itself to a temple setting.

88. Nibley and Rhodes, One Eternal Round, 327; cf. Rhodes, “The Joseph Smith Hypocephalus … Twenty Years Later,” 12: “Since the designated purpose of the hypocephalus was to make the deceased divine, it is not unreasonable to see here a reference to the sacred ordinances performed in our Latter-day temples.” One need look no further than the Book of Breathings among the Joseph Smith Papyri to encounter this expectation for the postmortem divinization of the deceased in other forms of funerary literature besides hypocephali. “The beginning [of the Document of Breathing], which [Isis] made [for her brother, Osiris to cause his soul to live, to cause his body to live, to rejuvenate all his limbs] again, [so that he might join] the horizon with his father, Re, [to cause his soul to appear in heaven as the disk of the moon, so that his body might shine like Orion in the womb of Nut, and to] cause [the same] thing to happen to the Osiris Hor, justified.” Michael D. Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002), 28.

89. An anonymous visitor to Nauvoo in 1840 met with Joseph Smith and, among other things, was shown the Egyptian papyri and mummies kept in his house. According to the published report of the encounter, when the visitor observed “what an ornament it would be to have these ancient manuscripts handsomely set, in appropriate frames, and hung up around the walls of the temple which you are about to erect in this place,” the Prophet replied, “Yes, and the translation hung up with them.” See “A Glance at the Mormons,” Alexandria Gazette, July 11, 1840, [2], emphasis in original.

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Cameron Bertuzzi on Joseph Smith and Polyandry

Cameron Bertuzzi of Capturing Christianity (a grifter who teased becoming Roman Catholic for months so he could get money from Catholics) has been showing his 'research' methodology for faiths he disagrees with--google and snippets of books quoted therein, in this case, In Sacred Loneliness by Todd Compton.


The claim:





The truth:


For further reading on how Joseph Smith did not engage in sexual polyandry (and a refutation of Compton's work, both in his book and a recent essay in Secret Covenants: New Insights on Early Mormon Polygamy [Signature Books, 2024]), see Hales' essay:


Brian C. Hales, "Joseph Smith's 'Polyandry': Expanding the Narrative," The Journal of Mormon History 50, no. 2 (2024): 105-36 (PDF in my possession; will happily send it to anyone who requests it at ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com)


See also Brian's critique of Dan Vogel:


Response to Vogel's Second Polyandry Video


And:


Joseph Smith’s Sexual Polyandry and the Emperor’s New Clothes Brian Hales





My friend Swenson Baily just posted a video responding to some of Cameron's nonsense at:


Debunking Capturing Christianity's 15 Attacks on Joseph Smith Part 1






Cameron's channel has some good videos, to be sure; however, Cameron himself is a dolt and has no clue about anything he discusses, "Mormonism" included.

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com



Sunday, October 20, 2024

Dallin H. Oaks on "The Great and Abominable Church"

  

Prophecies of the last days foretell great opposition to inspired truth and action. Some of these prophecies concern the anti-Christ, and others speak of the great and abominable church.

 

. . .

 

The Great and Abominable Church and Other “Churches”

 

Book of Mormon prophecies describe the “great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil” (1 Nephi 14:17). This “church” is prophesied to have “dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people” (1 Nephi 14:11). Called “most abominable above all other churches,” this church is also said to act “for the praise of the world” in bringing “the saints of God … down into captivity” (1 Nephi 13:5, 9).

 

Because no religious denomination—Christian or non-Christian—has ever had “dominion” over all nations of the earth or the potential to bring all the saints of God down into “captivity,” this great and abominable church must be something far more pervasive and widespread than a single “church,” as we understand that term today. It must be any philosophy or organization that opposes belief in God. And the “captivity” into which this “church” seeks to bring the saints will not be so much physical confinement as the captivity of false ideas.

 

Nephi was told by revelation that there were only “two churches”: “the church of the Lamb of God” and “the church of the devil” (1 Nephi 14:10; see also 13:4–6). This description suggests the contrast between those who believe in God and seek to serve Him according to their best understanding and those who reject the existence of God (see 1 Nephi 14:10).

 

Other teachings in the Book of Mormon also use the word church to signify belief or nonbelief in God. The final chapters of 2 Nephi prophesy that in the last days the Gentiles will build up “many churches” that will “put down the power and miracles of God, and preach up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own learning, that they may get gain” (2 Nephi 26:20). They tell of “churches which are built up, and not unto the Lord” (2 Nephi 28:3), which will “teach with their learning” and “deny the power of God” (2 Nephi 28:4, 5). They will “say unto the people: Hearken unto us, and hear ye our precept; for behold there is no God today” (2 Nephi 28:5).

 

In the Savior’s ministry among the Nephites, He warned against a church that is not “built upon my gospel, [but] is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil” (3 Nephi 27:11; see also the teaching about the “great and spacious building” in 1 Nephi 8:26–33; 11:35; and 12:18). These warnings are not limited to religious organizations. In the circumstances of our day, they include a multitude of secular philosophies and activities. (Dallin H. Oaks, "Stand as Witnesses of God," devotional, Brigham Young University-Idaho, February 25, 2014, repr. Ensign [March 2015])

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist (US)

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Stephen O. Smoot on Figure 3 of Facsimile 2

The following comes from Stephen O. Smoot, "Temple Themes in the Book of Abraham," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 60 (2024): 230-33

 

Figure 3 of Facsimile 2 Joseph Smith identified as “God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority; with a crown of eternal light upon his head; representing, also, the grand Key words of the Holy Priesthood, as revealed to Adam in the Garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchisedek, Abraham and all to whom the Priesthood was revealed.” [56] A similar interpretation is given to Figure 7, which is said to be “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.” [57] The main operative temple element in both of these interpretations is that God is revealing the keywords of the priesthood. This seems to reflect Joseph Smith’s interpretation or understanding of the seated deity in the proximity of the wedjat (wDAt)-eye in both of these figures.

 

What might we say about the wedjat-eye that could illuminate Joseph Smith’s interpretation as it pertains to the keywords of the temple? [59] First, it might be helpful to know the meaning of the word. In Egyptian, wDA means “hale, uninjured,” and also “well-being,” [60] or otherwise “wohlbehalten, unverletzt, unversehrt sein.” [61] The word can describe the health or wholeness of the physical body, the soul, or even an individual’s moral character. [62] In the Ptolemaic period the word meant “whole or complete” and also “perfect,” and appears in ritual settings where the ib (“heart”) is said to be wDA when the words of the ritual are “spoken exactly” (that is, properly executed). [63] In Coptic, true to its Egyptian roots, the word ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ̈ came to mean “healthy, whole” and, significantly from a temple perspective, “salvation, saved” in the Christian theological sense. [64] In the colophon to the Discourse on Abbaton, to name just one of several possible examples, we read of the monk who secured ⲡⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ⲛⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ (“the salvation of his soul”) for writing and donating the book to the monastery of St. Mercurius in Tbo. [65]

 

Beyond its etymology, we can also say something about how the wDAt-eye functioned in Egyptian religion. In its Egyptian context the wDAt-eye was imagined as the “whole” or “sound” eye of the god Horus used in the process of revivifying his father, the god Osiris, and so it held a pronounced apotropaic function. In this regard the eye appropriately symbolized the divine restoration and renewal of the body. [66] But the wDAt-eye was more than this. It “could represent almost any aspect of the divine order,” observes Geraldine Pinch, “including kingship and the offerings made to the gods and the dead.” [67] It also appears in temple contexts. In Ptolemaic temple inscriptions the term is connected with “saving and protecting the body, or being saved in the temple.” [68] The phrase di wDA (“giving wDA”) is used in one Demotic creation text “as something the creator god does to the gods while eternally rejuvenating them, a usage reflected in prayers for mortal individuals,” and it appears in the temple graffiti of petitioners requesting blessings. [69] Joseph Smith’s syncretistic recontextualization of the iconography of the wDAt-eye for a Latter-day Saint temple setting is thus entirely appropriate and finds solid grounding from both an ancient Egyptian and an ancient Christian perspective. (What’s good for Coptic Christians is good for Latter-day Saint Christians.) With this understanding, therefore, Latter-day Saints may better appreciate how the figure of the wDAt-eye in Facsimile 2 relates to their own expectation for eternal life and resurrection in God’s presence obtained through the keywords of the priesthood as revealed in the temple liturgy. [70]

 

Notes for the Above:

 

56. “A Fac-Simile from the Book of Abraham, No. 2,” Times and Seasons 3, no. 10 (March 15, 1842): insert between 720–21.

58. Times and Seasons, March 15, 2842. The wedjat-eye features prominently in both of these figures. In Figure 3, the seated figure in the boat is flanked front and back by the wedjat-eye; in Figure 7 it is presented to the seated figure. © Intellectual Reserve, Inc. Courtesy of the Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

59. See Stephen O. Smoot et al., “God Sitting Upon His Throne (Facsimile 2, Figure 7),” BYU Studies Quarterly 61, no. 4 (2022): 259–63.

60. Raymond O. Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1962), 74–75.

61. Rainer Hannig, Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch (2800–950 v. Chr.) (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1997), 231–32.

62. Adolf Erman and Hermann Grapow, Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1958), 1:399–400; Hannig, Großes Handwörterbuch, 231.

63. Penelope Wilson, A Ptolemaic Lexicon (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 283.

64. Wolfhart Westendorf, Koptisches Handwörterbuch (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1977), 287; Richard Smith, A Concise Coptic-English Lexicon, 2nd ed. (Atlanta, GA: Scholar’s Press, 1999), 39; John Gee, “Some Neglected Aspects of Egypt’s Conversion to Christianity,” in Coptic Culture: Past, Present and Future (Stevenage: Coptic Orthodox Church Centre, 2012), 51–52.

65. E. A. Wallis Budge, ed., Coptic Martyrdoms, Etc., in the Dialect of Upper Egypt (London: The British Museum, 1914), 1:248–49.

66. Nibley and Rhodes, One Eternal Round, 314.

67. Geraldine Pinch, Handbook of Egyptian Mythology (Oxford: ABC–CLIO, 2002), 131.

68. Gee, “Some Neglected Aspects of Egypt’s Conversion to Christianity,” 51–52.

69. Ibid., 52.

70. Furthermore, on Figure 7 of Facsimile 2 as being a protector of the temple, See Jorge Ogdon, “Some Notes on the Iconography of Min,” Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 7 (1985/6): 29–41.

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Lynn Martin, "Responding to Orthodox Arguments for Icons"

 I just came across the following excellent treatment of how Eastern Orthodox apologists (e.g., Garten; Truglia) attempt to defend the veneration of icons dogma:


Lynn Martin, Responding to Orthodox Arguments for Icons


I have added this to my listing of articles on the topic at:


Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons


 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com


Blog Archive