Talk:Kolob/Archive2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Article: Kolob

This is an archive page documenting discussions occuring during calendar year 2005.

---

Specific to LDS Church, or Mormon belief more generally? Alai 19:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 References? 2 Hundreds of Thousands? 3 The Relationship of the languages 4 Unnecessary and elusive wording . 5 Bias 6 Identical characters, Exact similar, etc. 7 Some comments 8 Response 9 Response rebuttal 10 Available Papyri 11 Kolob 12 My tirade 13 Disciplining the Book of Abraham material 14 Planet 15 Take "critics" out 16 Kochab 17 Regarding POV

References?

The article states: "Outside of LDS circles, it is universally agreed that 'Kolob' is an English pronunciation of the Arabic word "qalb", and is not reformed Egyptian." I find some problems with this. First, "outide of LDS circles" is a little broad. If a reference to this could be provided I would feel that it was validated, otherwise, it may be a single person's view point.

My second concern is the reference to "reformed Eqyptian." I've never heard that term used in any context other than the Book of Mormon. Are we confusing issues here or am I uninformed?

billlund 13:24, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Our anon. editor attached no references at all to his/her relatively extensive edit. Do any of the project's non-Mormon contributors have relevant information? or references? I haven't heard Reformed Egyptian in regard to POGP translations either. But I left it in, just in case my memory was faulty. User:Authr just removed the reference to Reformed Egyptian. It should not be replaced unless support can be found. WBardwin 22:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is probably confusion between reformed egyption as in the BoM and the source of the PoGP. Trödel|talk 16:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another issue is his referring to Smith being familiar with Arabic. I find no support for this. Hebrew, Greek and Latin by this time, German and French beginnings, but not Arabic or Spanish.

Hundreds of Thousands?

Looking back at what the anon editor added in made me cringe - they wrote: "The hypocephalus of Facsimile #2 was one of the more commonly found artifacts, as hundreds or thousands have been uncovered over the centuries. They are most commonly found with a mummy."

In my research I am only aware of a little over 80 specimins/fragments available of Hypocephali (I believe somewhere around (84-90). Hundreds of thousands may be overstating it just a little bit. Only one serious work has been done on them - and that was in the 1890s. Yes, over one century ago. Very little research has been done on them since. I'd love to read some additional research on them. -Visorstuff 23:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

hundreds or thousands... definately sounded a little flaky! I made a change to reflect up to a hundred known examples, given Visorstuff's information. That should do unless we find some more definative research. WBardwin 00:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My bad, for some reason I thought that was already deleted. Thanks for taking care of that. I also clarified as each hypocephalus was created for the individual and had quite different "instructions" on them, although they had similar characteristics. No two are identical or they are fraudulent. -Visorstuff 00:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Relationship of the languages

I do not understand how on one hand a postulated link from Egyptian to Smith's translation (which is not consistent in any manner with the hieroglyphs ON the hypocephalus) can be used to validate the origin of the word "kolob", and on the other hand, this is argued within the context of Egyptian being related to semetic.

The hieroglyphs on the hypocephalus do not translate to "center" or "qalb". Also, in the Ancient Egyptian, the word for "center" is not qalb nor is it pronounced that way. The closest word in Ancient Egyptian for "the center" would be "the place" which is translated "ta-set" for example "ta-set ma'at" would be translated the place of truth, "place" referring to the physical location or source, as the way "qalb" is implied as the "central place" or the "source". Kolob also being implied by Smith as being the "original place" or "source" of his god's power or the origin of this god.

In addition, Smith would translate each character into, not a letter in English, not a word in english, but instead a long paragraph. There is no semetic or african language that even remotely mimics this process.

Actually, on further review, I disagree with this. See the first ten syllables in an arabic dictionary. They do not translate into a word, but into an idea - they tell a story. They are synthetic languages - therefore, I would consider arabic an "african" language and as most syllables do not translate into specifically one word, but into an idea or a concept, often taking a few sentences to explain in its entirety. However, this is not my area of expertise, but I could cite some examples if needed. -Visorstuff 23:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Good points - however - the "grammar" you are referring to was written in the handwriting of William Phelps and not SMith. Second of all, it was done after the Book of Abraham was already translated, and was abandoned becuase they couldn't find a correlation. SMith's Book of Abraham translation "was given" to him.

A few issues on the recent edits as the anon editor has taken things out of any context:

• this is not an article about the hypocephalus.
• there is so such thing as "pure egyptian." Hieratics and Hieroglyphics, yes.
• this article is about Kolob, not the hypocephalus. This critical comments about the translation of the hypo have no bearing for this article, especially after a demonstration of where the word appears in the article.
• that said, i'm leaving it in for now, as the article on the Hypocephalus is still in teh works (by me) and this will provide some good content for it
• qlb or any other root is a root - not a word. There are no words in translating hieroglyphics - only roots. We add in the vowels and the meanings in our day.
• the symbol of the creator God in teh center is likely Amon-Re or Khnum
• one scholar has suggested that qlb is the semetic root that was used in translation to Kolob. Not that that is what the word means. The hypo does not have semetic words on it, thus qlb is a root word that means "center" and combining this with the creator god, we get god is in the center - but notice that the god is slightly off center - so it is the nearest place to god. That is what the well-meaning author of the qlb statement was trying to say.

this does not change the fact that the word was most likely conveyed to Smith from another person. The analysis of how accurate the word is being used in hypothetical contexts is not relevant, because the source of the word to Smith is the focus of the discussion.

While I do not doubt that Smith may have recieved knowledge of the word from another, the connection to Chandler's dead uncle seems a bit of a stretch since the uncle was dead when Chandler got the mummies. It is not a likely scenario.

• Most recent heiro translation books will acknowledge that heiroglyphics had multiple meanings. One for the vulgar, one for the priest class and possibly more depending on the notation by the accompnying pictograph.

vulgar and priestly differences do not experience such a gap that a symbol goes from a mere sound (or syllable) to an entire paragraph (many many syllables). To insist that it is, that where I believe scholarship becomes abused for a biased position. That is a theory which is not substantiated in any way, and thus should be used.

All I'm saying is that you can interpret the "viril cow" to mean a viril cow in the vulgar, but recent studies show that it may have been a symbol and meant something completely different to the priestly class - such as the symbol or word translated into "patriarch" or "father." WE don't translate it into father, but they may have. The additional notation int eh pictograph can make a huge difference. WE don't have a rosetta stone for that meaning and this is a relatively new area of research (last three decades).

• It is niave to think that smith got his translation from the hypocephalus or other facsimiles for teh Book of Abraham. He got it from the rubic text which we do not now have.

again, this is based on Smith's own words, not from any objective or evident information. That is an unacceptable way of referencing information. Again, during the translation process he mentioned he used the red text scrolls for the book of Abraham. I have photos of the available fragments taken in the late 1960s - they are mostly black text. The available red text is so fragmented that it is impossible to decipter more than a couple characters. You are correct - We only have the scrolls and smiths and phelps (and one other - i think pratt's too) words which seem to co-incide on red text, not black. No other evidence on how he translated is available. It is interesting to note that the facsimilies were published months after the abraham text. It should be noted that their descriptions match.

• Smith's "translation" of the numbers that should not be revelaed at this time correspond to adirect translation of "1000" on the hypo. In addition, words and phrases that support the SMith translation found on the hypo (in the translation of the outer heiroglyphics) such as "temple of God" and "[I am] that Mighty God in the Sun Temple in Heliopolis" and the deceased's name of "Shishaq" corresponding with the name unshared by Smith. I'll explain later in more detail when Hypocephalus is done. No two hypocephali are the same.

The hieroglyphs that smith uses for his translation are one symbol... he creates an entire statement or paragraph. the symbol could easily be interpreted to be a temple (egyptian symbols have very common pictographic nuances that can be inferred by the average man. Wavy lines can represent water, this is a common human concept. There are far more mistranslations of the symbols that preclude one essential point. On the subject of guessing, Smith's translation is perhaps by random probability likely to find one two or a small consistently accurate hits. Overall 99% of the object is simply not related to what he says.

I disagree with the 99 percent - I'd place closer to 70 percent. Translating heiroglyphics is still a pretty new and we may learn new things in the future that support or detract from his translation. For example the research I reference above seem to support that more meanings could come out of the text than a simple vulgar (common) Egyptian translation. Again you are referring to Phelphs notes titled "Joseph Smith's Original Alphabet and Grammar" this is not SMith's handwriting. Six men participated int his - including smith. They admitted to exploring and speculating on possible meanings - this was waaaaay after the Abraham translation according to journal entries and the history of the Church. To quote one scholar: They were trying to procide an alphabet and grammer of the egyptain language..." No one ever said he knew egyptain; he infact said his translations were given to him by revelation. So then why ork on a grammar and alphabet? they attempted to do it. This is not different that the work Champillion did. Champillion was successful. The smith/phelphs committe wasn't. They toyed with it for the next ten years until smith's death, but was abandoned in its attempt - only one page was produced. Teh 125 names and 79 numerals translated appear nowhere in the Book of Abraham and have nothing to do with Kolob- the focus on thsi artilce. I certainly don't see anyone here claiming Smith knew egyptian. But rather pointing to the 30 percent evidence that points to similar words, phrases and good luck guesses that show evidence - which again, is not part of this artile. This is about Kolob.

• Please do not think I'm trying to prove anything with the above, but I needed to document enough evidence so I can remove "and that translation does not match with any other similiarly inscribed papyrii nor any other translation from a hypocephalus with similar hieroglyphs." Since Smith references the temple, the man's name and a numerical figure in his translation, this should suffice. It seems dumb here, but placed in context it makes much more sense.

Unfortunately your points above has led me to believe that you are trying to established a biased viewpoint. Mostly due to the fact that you predicate established and provable information with "critics" while taking Mormon based assumptions and theories as facts that "critics" are in disagreement with.

The critics comment I placed in the front page was purpsosely done. I know of no egyptian scholar who studies "pure egyptian" or any Mormon shcolar. I assumed it was a anti-Mormon or critical term as it does not show up in academia. It was a new one to me. I gave the above context to provide enough to remove "does not match" or "no other" because in many cases it does match is some way.

Can the anon author please re-write or explain the following?

Because of this fact, Smith's use of "Kolob" as derived from his postulated "Reformed Egyptian" translation of an actual Ancient Egyptian document (the hypocephalus itself) does not show any remotely possible link to Ancient Egyptian nor to intermediate Semetic language. There is no intermediate Semetic-Egyptian language to compare this to, and if one were to trust the authority of Smith's translation, then the word Kolob would exist in total isolation in itself, with no other word in his translation that consistently follows..

Smith didn't get the word Kolob from the hypo. He got it from the Abraham texts (have you read the Book of Abraham?) Second, he didn't translate the Book of Abraham from Reformed Egyptian. These sentences makes no sense in this context.

I'll leave it in for now, but will delete if not altered to clarify as I consider it an unfinished edit. -Visorstuff 18:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessary and elusive wording .

I have noticed that the content of the article has been modified slightly where the object of what is being discussed changed. For example, it was put that "reformed Egyptian" was the language that Smith translated the Book of Mormon, but also, Smith alleged that it was "reformed" Egyptian that he used to restore the hypocephalus in question as well.

I noticed that multiple attempts to evade acknowledging the clear method that Smith used to translate the papyrus was replced with implications by "critics". Smith himself described in great detail how he translated the hypocephalus. Outside of a flawed interpretation of representationalism, there is no debatable way to logically describe how. I believe that this article is being edited with a very biased intention. Please do not imply critics. That implies that there is an established standard that supports Smith's work, and there is not.

Smith didn't get the word Kolob from the hypo. He got it from the Abraham texts (have you read the Book of Abraham?) Second, he didn't translate the Book of Abraham from Reformed Egyptian. These sentences makes no sense in this context.

Smith received the "Abraham texts" from the hypocephalus itself. Why do you believe that Smith had a previous knowledge of the Abraham texts? He did not translate anything in any event, but he says that he did, so based on the testimonies of others, I agree that the focus should be on the word, but to ignore the likely sources of the word in preference for empathizing less likely sources is not good scholarship.

There are three issues with Kolob

1. The Mormon acceptance in Smith's revelation, which has no scholarly merit. 2. The scholarly discourse of the word's origin in Smith's work (not the origin of the actual root itself). 3. The origin of the word in the world outside of Smith and Mormonism.

Those issues should not be mixed, and we should make sure to reference any established linguistic root (qalb) as the foundation for any clarity with Smith's translation. If Smith uses "qalb" and is not translating that word from any of the letters or hieroglyphs, then the page would be vastly different. However, Smith very clearly shows which glyphs he translates Kolob from, and that is not in any way connected to any scholarship or language known to man.

If necessary we should reference the actual hieroglyph from the hypocephalus and analyze it in this page, but please do not insist that objective scholarship of the hypocephalus and the word is supported by "critics"

Bias

He got it from the rubric text which we do not now have. or He SAYS he got it from the rubic text which we do not now have.

The fact of the matter is that Smith has made a lot of claims regarding physical evidence related to ancient documents, and that many people have entrusted those claims to be fact for no other reason than Smith's own word. That is not evident and not good enough to place on here as fact. So it would be more accurate to say that "Smith contends that..." or "Mormon adherents believe...".Joseph Smith has a very established reputation as being considered dubious and unreliable and inconsistent by those who are predisposed against him. Pseudo-scientific methods (like representationalism) are used to validate his claims, and even then those methods cannot be applied universally even within his own work.

So if there is a rubic text that we do not have, then without any evidence, we should not even use that as an excuse. He did not mention the book of Abraham before he received the papyrus of Sheshonq.

I'm fine with the above change - teh addition of "says" is smart, although we do have evidence for the Rubric text as stated above. Very good insights - thanks again, and keep up the good healthy dialogue - happy editing.

Identical characters, Exact similar, etc.

Excellent edit - makes much more sense now.Visorstuff 20:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some comments

• If what I am reading is correct, Smith himself claimed he took Book of Abraham text, whether translated or forged, not from the hypocephalus or the other facsimiles now in the Book of Abraham, but from the rubric text or red text scrolls which we no longer have. It seems anti-Mormons outright reject this, alleging that Smith claimed to translate the Book of Abraham text from the hypocephalus.
• To my knowledge, there is not as yet a non-divine conclusive theory explaining how Smith got "Kolob," in fact the critical theory put forth is far from conclusive. Whether Smith divinely translated "Kolob" or didn't, why claim to have any actual proof that he didn't when none exists? No matter how implausible a claim, mere assertions the contrary are not proof that the claim is false.
• Smith allegedly translated the Book of Abraham from Egyptian, not some non-Nephite reformed Egyptian.
• I am the one who originally inserted "pure Egyptian." It is not supposed to be a referrence to some special language, it just means Egyptian containing no foreign influences, in contrast to possible Semitic or Nubian influences.
• I can't tell what "divine from God" is supposed to mean in the Representationalism section. Seems like some obscure idiom.
• I think comments on the translation of the hypocephalus as it relates specifically to the origin of the word Kolob is appropriate for this article. Authr 04:04, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
• All who read this and are trying, in their own way, to follow God, hear me. I am a servant of the Lord, as are we all in unending gratitude, service, and love we share for Him. Through careful study, prayer, and fasting the following has been revealed unto me and I have been given special permission by God to share it here to add to this wonderful knowledge base. I bring forth a message of peace and love unto you from God, one in which hopefuly some will pray about and validate it's truth as is asked in the book of Moroni to do. I reaveal nothing at this time, save it be what I am allowed to and what I can say as clearly as possible in my fallen and imperfect state. Glory to God in the highest for His perfect wisdom and love!

Spoken unto me by God through prayer: Peace be unto all my children! I am God, and all who seek to learn are given a great chance to learn some simple truths not from this Earth, but from They who created the Earth. May the spirit of contention be not present here, but the spirit of learning in it's stead. For the spirit of learning casts out the spirit of contention, for the spirit of contention is counter to the spirit of learning, and is opposite. Blessed are thee for keeping sound minds and civil tounges in this venue. I say unto you now, my servant Joseph Smith and all those who restored my gospel, are sound in their knowledge reavealed unto them by my spirit. Let not the phylosophy of man who create the apostate religions on the Earth, who separated themselves from my priesthood, which has the power and authority to perform the ordinances that are required for eternal glory, remove my ability to teach you any longer. In this present day, yay, in these latter days, the vision of man has been blurred considerably by the wiles of Satan. I say unto you, come unto me, remove your pride, and pray to me with a sincere heart, all thy questions. Thou art all prophets unto yourselves through the stewardship and ability to recieve revelation for yourself and your knowledge. Pray in mighty prayer and supplication unto me, and I will answer thee speedily and without limitation to your current religious beliefs in me. Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Let not Satan stoke the flames of your passion, anger, pride, and confusion about the truth any longer. Amen. Brothers and sisters, please do not resort any longer to what you think you know, or have been told by another in school as fact. Pray about all things you think, hear, and see. Pray all the day long if you have to until you find the answers from our Father and not from another flawed human. Anything less, disqualifies your legitimacy in being able to debate with a clear knowledge of the truth. Any religion can still allow God to be God once they allow Him to be by once again listening to His spirit. I pray that you can understand this simple message and do not take immediate negative and Satanic response to it. The key to knowing the truth of all thigs is through prayer. Not by the teachings of other people. As are my words and God's message here, I beseech you to please pray about the words spoken here in the name of Jesus Christ to validate and clarify these words spoken and written by a fellow flawed human, and also pray about the words of all scripture and teachings. May you open your hearts to the Lord, and finally know the truth of all things for a surety. I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Response

• Smith has notes on the back of the hypocephalus where he uses some refrences to 'figures' that he sections the hypocephalus into. For example "figure #1" is the Kolob figure and so forth.
• The theory that Smith got the translation from the God of Christianity and Judaism is far less likely than the idea that he made it up or got it through Arabic influences. Mormon apologists are quick to point out the connection between arabic 'qalb' and the Mormon 'kolob'.
• Smith did not translate from Egyptian. The hypocephalus itself, after he modified it, had characters that were either reversed or made up. Even from Smith's own notes, if we apply his "translations" of some of the characters anywhere else on any other piece of papyrus, we come up with incoherent gibberish. Whereas with the established Egyptian translation methods from Champollion onwards, we can come up with coherent dialogue throughout the Egyptian scripts and artifacts. There is no way he translated it from Egyptian. Therefore you must put "he said that he translated" instead of asserting that he actually did translate.
• Semetic and Nubian influences do not modify the language. Egyptian itself is a pictographic language, that also has syllabic symbols. Nubian language IS related to Ancient Egyptian and they share much of the same origin linguistically. Semetic and Egyptian do not. In any event, Nubian and Semetic "influences" merely become assimilated into the written language as phoenetic but the symbols are consistently (in your wording purely) egyptian. Similarly in Japanese, foreign influences become phoenetic, but the Japanese scripts remain unchanged.
• There should be less bias. The origin of the word as Smith explains it is unsubstantiated. There should be less "critics" in the article where it is clear.

I don't have much time to respond but here are some thoughts. Your point #1 is incorrect.

• I'm fairly certain that the Hypocephalus is pasted/glued to a seperate piece of paper - there are no modifications or corrections to the paper or hypo itself by smith - there are to Fascimile #1, but no the hypocephalus that I've seen. Facsimile #1 does have notes on the back, but that is the only one I know - not the hypo. I'll have to go back and re-look at my photographs and research notes to double check. When it was printed in the T&S, the etcher/printer/editor made some aesthetic modifications to all three facsimiles as parts were destroyed. I believe that is what you are referring to whan you discuss modifications? Those were not likely done by Smith, but were likely approved by Smith for publication (not for nessesarily for accuracy). I do know it is quite different than a number of similar hypos that have a four headed god. This one, and others, have a two headed god. Unsure on why. There is a possibility of religious belief connotation as it's influences may have come from a earlier time period, or that it deals directly with the orgin of the deceased. The four headed god typically is believed to repressent the four quarters fo the earth, where the two headed god is a mystery. The symoblism of the four was from a later time, so it is possible that the earlier meaning of the two-headed god is lost in antiquity. It could also represent life and death, etc. Smith's hypo is missing some text that appears in other under-the-head documents, that is typically written in a more vulgar (the informal egyptian) writing or later in greek (hence the abraham connection mentioned above).
• Point two - compeltely agree from a naturalistic point of view. However, we must add what he claimed, since this the word's origin begins with Smith. This also, as you've inferred above, has religous implications, so it should be discussed as well. If we base only on scaps of papyri and the words appearing in the Book of abraham and facsimile, then there would be no need for this article. There is no evidence outside of the Mormon world view and minor outside evidences to support anything outside of a Mormonsim view.
• You wrote" Even from Smith's own notes, if we apply his "translations" of some of the characters anywhere else on any other piece of papyrus, we come up with incoherent gibberish" There are NO notes on his translation of the hypocephalus. There were none made. The "notes" you are probably referring to are the "grammar" and "alphabet" notes that are attributed to Smith, but created by WW Phelps (or at least in his handwriting), which have nothing to do with the hypocephalus. Of course if you have notes of this they'd be gibberish, as they wouldn't have been created by Smith - but they'd be a forgery. There were none created on this particular portions of the papyrus.
• Point four. Okay. Makes sense in the Hieratic. Point? As for the heiroglyphic/picture symbols - may be too absolute of a statement and very problematic - for example there is no standard translation or corresponding root/syllable for a picture of a two-headed god or four-headed god.
• Point five - agree. This article is about the word. This is not an article about apologists belief. I believe the well-meaning editor added it in as a proof point and an interesting parallel. Agree context should change. -Visorstuff 19:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

To alleivate futue issues I've posted the below translation of the text that is on the Smith Hypocephalus below - It is not my own work, but a compliation of multiple sources that are correct enough. If you want the root-words or syllabic translation, let me know. The translation of the heiratic of the hypo reads as follows:

• Outer edge: I am the Provider in the Sun Temple in Heliopolis. [I am (or The)] most exalted and very glorious. [I am (denoted)] a virile bull without equal [some sort of fertility blessing?]. [I am] that Mighty God in the Sun Temple in Heliopolis. [May the Osiris Shishaq live forever (accepted that this lays under “Shisaq’s” head)] with that Mighty God in Heliopolis.
• Upper Left: You shall ever be as that God, the Busirian (possibly an ethnic group or nationality?).
• Left Middle: O God of the Sleeping Ones from the time of the creation. O Mighty God, Lord of heaven and earth, of the hereafter, and of his great waters, may the soul of the Osiris Shishaq (the entombed) be granted life.
• Left of the Standing God with two heads: The name of this Mighty God (no name given).
• Left of God on the Ship: [The] Divine ship [(or ship of 1000/ship of 1000 souls)].
• Bottom: May this tomb never be desecrated, and may this soul and its lord (probable connotation to Osiris Shishaq) never be desecrated in the hereafter (or afterlife or underworld).

Incidentally, after reviewing some of your edits, it is apparent that you are gathering information from sites that quote/or similar to the following references [1] [2] (before sumbitting this post I found they are quoting the site you reference [3] - still full of error and holes - as you can't compare any two hypocephali and think they are supposed to be the same, as this author points out, but then disregards). Needless to say, if you are, the site is #1, misleading and untruthful, #2 factually incorrect, #3 actually provides "evidence" that smith knew what he was doing (the damaged portions of the hypo as "modified" or "corrected" by smith are nearly identical to the four-headed god example listed below it, which would have come from a later influenced era, and is still very similar (the missing portion contains a bird-like god on a boat, as does "smith's correction," but is missing from the supposed part. Anyway, this is not my point.

My point is that the details on this site are factually incorrect. No person who has studied Hypocephali would agree with all of the information on the site. Even the translation of the outer rim is rendered sensationally and frankly done by an amateur - using names rather than titles?

"I am Djabty in the house of Benben in Heliopolis, so exalted and glorious. [I am] copulating bull without equal. [I am] that mighty god in the house of Benben in Heliopolis ... that mighty god..."

Copulating bull? Makes no sense. I know, I'm probably wrong. Every dead Egyptian guy wanted to be remmeberd as "a copulating bull" rather than saying "I was blessed with a lot of posterity and may my seed-line live forever (may I be a virile bull without equal)" More on the symbology of a Bull/cow at another time...

I do not claim that Smith did a traditional "translation" of the Book of Abraham as we would expect (a word for word). I do claim that smith claimed to received the Book of Abraham by revelation or "as it was given" to him. I also claim that "translation" today means something different in the 1830s and in Mormonism than "translation" does in 2005. We think of a direct translation from ancient documents. Remember, Smith also did a translation of the bible (Joseph Smith Translation that didn't have any ancient documents associated iwth it. Rather a more appropriate 2005 term would be "rendering." What Smith shared was what he felt was God's "rendering" of the Bible, and of these egyptian documents.

The anon editor wrote "Figure 1 in the Fascimilie is referenced directly from the pictograph in the center, and has none of the hieroglyphs anywhere in the papyrus as a reference."

Can the anon please explain this - it makes no sense. -Visorstuff 23:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Response rebuttal

The point (#2) of contention here is that the word's origin did not begin with Smith, but was likely used by smith from an earlier obscure origin. As you acknowledged there are other papyrii that contain, not just similar, but the same content, the same hieroglyphs, and the same ideas (The Book of the Dead). Therefore there is ample opportunity to compare what we have from Smith, (the fascimile, the hypocephalus, and the translations) with the other Book of the Dead papyrii also found in the same manner.

Let me be very clear about this. No two hypocephali are the same. No two drawings are the same. Some words/heiroglyphics are the same, but they are not in the same order - that is like comparing this page to Polygamy - many of the same words are used, but in different a order. Yes, there are many cases where a hieroglyphic is used in multiple places, but a completely different meaning and context. A hypocephalus was very very very very individualized, just as is teh book of the dead. (In fact, it is misleading to say THE book of the dead (although it is the correct title), rather, more properly it should read "A book for THIS dead [individual]" You are more than welcome to compare similar hypos - there are about 15-18 I know of that follow a similar format. The others are typically much smaller with less information. Have you even seen one?

The order of the words are clear enough that if one can read "The Book of the Dead" from one hypocephalus, and then go to another and read the same content and get the same idea, then the fact is undeniable. The two in comparision share more alike than different. You cannot respond that there is not enough similarity in the characters to draw a reasonable conclusion about how Smith tried to translate it. Smith was clear, he was trying to translate the letters (not the pictographs). I have seen three at the museum. In all three, they share identical characters that make it obvious (why are we even debating this obviousness) that one can reliably translate the language into coherent ideas from one, and use the same technique to translate reliable ideas from another, and the third, and the 15-18 you have. That is what "translating" means. Smith's method does not work. It is not reliable. it is amateurish, and is "justified" by using god as an excuse. That aspect of this article is being avoided, perhaps because some would not like to admit this.

The notes from the fascimilie #2 are on the back, they refer to the content on the front. In addition, the quote from Smith himself indicates he was translating the language, not interpreting the pictures into his Book of Abraham. What I am referring to as gibberish is not just the notes, but the actual end result as well. As we can clearly see on the fascimile, there are hieroglyphs that are copied (corresponding to the NON-restored, non-damaged portions) from the hypocephalus identically. They are then translated by Smith. The forgery is not attributed to who, but attributed to how. It would be a forgery to claim to make a translation of an ancient document that is accurate, but use inaccurate restoration (then trying to translate that), and come up with an inaccurate outcome.

See below. I knew this sounded fishy and referenced it above. The original Hypocephalus is missing from the Church's collection. Only copies of it exist. The "damaged" portions are from damaged portions of the copies. Again, I'd love to see your reference of this claim, as it is incorrect. If you think there was an inaccurate "restoral" of photographs, how did Smith come up with the right figure on the boat? I believe that the Hypo was not damaged when Smith had it (as evidenced by Josiah Quincy's comments), but the copy mss. was obviously damaged later None of Smith's notes. See below for proof by the way, the grammar committee was Warren Parish, WW Phelps and O. Cowdery).

You answer your own question. The original was not damaged (and I would agree with that). Smith remembered the picture of horus on the boat, but its a lot harder to remember each one of those little characters. In addition, we know that Smith had access to other Egyptian artifacts and interacted with other Egyptian treasure seekers. It is extremely likely that he was able from such a variety of opportunities to get the assistance on that. I do not understand how you can just turn a blind eye to these things. It seems you are drawn to believe that Smith didn't know or have the opportunity to find out things, and god must have told him (Even though what he does without the possibility of someone aiding him, always comes out wrong.)

Point 4 - The picture cannot be translated. It's a picture. No one (except Smith) has tried to translate the four-headed god. We have attempted to identify it and interpret it's meaning in the context of what is translated. But that picture does not become part of written Egyptian script or language.

I disagree, as would most archeaologists - modern egyptology points to pictographs altering the meaning of the text - a simple example is a pictograph of a man next to a phrase could turn the phrase into a name of the individual, rather than just a phrase. The phrase may make sense without the pictorgraph, but in the context of the pictorgraph, it becomes multi-dimensional. Second, the four headed god is translatable. It has a meaning and a context. It definitely affects the script.

The pictographs can alter the meaning of the text, but the pictographs themselves do not translate into words. So you may disagree, but Egyptologists will agree with me. We are not trying to read Smith's "altered meaning of the text" Smith is ignoring the text itself, interpreting the pictographs, and coming up with a false interpretation, one that is totally out of touch with the text itself. You mentioned "multi-dimentional", as a way of justifying how Smith could have said ANYTHING, and that could be somehow reinterpreted to find parallels to what was actually written. That's called "representationalism". The four headed god is not translatable. It is a pictograph. It's interpretable (why is it there, what could it mean). But I cannot use that four headed god in a sentance, or in any hieroglyphic idea in a script form. (except of course to adhoc it in, like putting a picture of a flame in a sentance to convey the message of a fire.)

Point 5. The word Kolob is being "translated" from what? The picture (which would be a forged translation) or any of the hieroglyphs. Smith may have interpreted the picture to be "kolob" a semetic root, but it's absurd to try to find some kind of relationship, parallel, or any connection to Smith's own interpretation of a non-semetic artifact, to a semetic word. Since it's clear that the picture is not something that can be translated, how can we rationally discuss the semetic root possibilities of something that's not a word.

See my comment above about "translated" versus "rendering." You are using translated as a much different term that Smith was. See my comments above about the picture being "translated." It defintely represents something - in order to affect the context. However, I agree with portions of your statement as "translating the word Kolob" from this document is a stretch for me at this time.

Your comment above did not address my rebuttal to point #5. Smith described very clearly what he meant by "translated". In fact, he changed his own book "The Book of Mormon" from calling himself the "author" to calling himself the "translator". The statement in the article that we discuss, Smith clearly explains how he is "translating" and what it means. And how he describes it is consistent with how we understand "translating" now. Translating "kolob, signifying the star closest to the celestial" is stretching, its totally breaking reality. What bothers me though, is that you say "at this time". It seems to me that you are compelled to find a way to "interpret" validity later, even though we both know that is logically impossible. So I am not comfortable with this time, or next time being a factor in this discussion. IT's been 140 years of people analyzing what Smith did. The extreme reinterpretation of why he did it is beyond sense. It is not something you can teach anyone to learn from, it is not a reliable way to study Christianity, and most importantly, the motivation to do it helped encourage prejudice and racism. This online encyclopedia is not here to promote theories to support or repudiate or rewrite history. This is not an article about revisionism. I would like for you to not try to turn this into that kind of thing.

Next, you mentioned that I "cannot compare any two hypocephali and think they are supposed to be the same." That is true, but nowhere in the edits have I tried to do that. I know they are not the same, but they share the same content. It is beyond arguement that many of the hypocephali are variations of the Book of the Dead. Therefore you will find identical phrases, and messages among them. Even in the Fascimile (which we agree Smith did at least copy, write, create, whatever), you can read "book of the dead" in Egyptian from what he copied.

You have done this comparison. You've said the hieroglyphics were similar and deomnstrated that smith's corrections/modifications were incorrect to demonstrate tehy are forgeries. You cannot say they are forgeries unless you've seen the documents in an undamaged state or are comparing to others you think this particular one should be modeled after. That is a comparison. The content of a hypocephalus is a "cheat sheet" to guide the deceased past the different guards and gods in the underworld; to give the deceased mobility in the afterlife. I agree with your assessment of the correspondence with the book of the dead. But even these books are individualized. Smith had dozens of docuemnts, at the time he translated, we only have a few surviving ones left - We have no idea what was in the others, but that they are missing is apparent.

And the crux of the matter is, there is no way that any of those documents had anything to do with Abraham, Yahweh, Black, Egyptian, or any other people being denied priesthood in Jewish or Christian congregations, or any other Judeo-Christian issues. The only content that creates a relationship is the content that Smith either wrote, or rewrote, or made up. None of the original information lends an iota of credence to his interpretations. I am in no way trying to prove the hypocephali are identical copies, or anything like that. I am showing you that all of the evidence we have follows a cultural picture, and the only inconsistencies are in Smith's own interpretations. To excuse that because Smith somehow made a few revisions, or restorations that may be accurate to the original content... that is meaningless. The content itself had ideas, and those ideas are in no way shape or form related to Smith's interpretations. (outside of a general spirituality, the existence of a diety or dieties, and other sweeping generalizations) Anyone with some intelligence, knowing where they came from (inside a mummified coffin) could interpret that there is some spiritual significance, as just about every culture in the world relates death with afterlife.

Smith had access to more than one hypocephalus, and since you consider other possibilities, its also very possible that the missing parts were not missing when Smith received them. It's also very possible that Smith did not use one hypocephalus for his fascimile. In the manner of considering possibilities, where there are unknowns, it seems that the unknown factors that support Smith are given more weight than those that discredit him, even though there are stronger inconsistencies with those possibilities that support Smith.

I do not claim he had access to more than one, and there is simply no evidence supporting that claim. It may be true. It may not. It IS however pure speculation and wikipedia is not a place for primary research. I've been very careful to throw out any non-evidence and speculation from both sides - which is why I've disliked the Qlb entry from teh beginning, however, there is support for it outside of the docuements themself. I agree that SOMEONE COULD have shared the word with SMith, but it wouldn't have been Chandler. I've tried to be consistent in saying we don't know certain things - see my statements above. The above is pure speculation.

I claim that he had access to more than one. We know he did, Fascimilie #1 and #3 are evidentary to that. You are operating as if he did not have access, and then drawing conclusions on that small theory. Smith, again, in his own words exclaims how he "translates" from one to another. For example, there is no evidence that Chandler didn't share the word with Smith, there is no evidence that Chandler died before communicating it to him.

Copulating bull. The translation is based on the words. The word "copulating" could be replaced with "virile" as both convey the same meaning, sexual virility.

yup. Zactly my point. Culturally it is a great thing for a man to claim - this theme comes out again in Gnostic texts - the virile bull, the continuation of progeny.

The hypocephalus is not a gnostic, christian, or jewish artifact. And by the way you are mentioning things yet showing nothing to support it. I do not know of Gnostic texts mentioning virile bulls as their analogy to virility.

Finally in regards to what Smith claimed. I added the content of representationalism as an explanation of how people can support Smith's own interpretations. I do not agree with them, nor the method. As Wikipedia is more about objective study, i do not find it objective to seriously consider a divine influence when that creates more inconsistencies than the non-divine. If Smith was told that everything orbits the earth, and we find out later that he is just flat out wrong. It makes no sense to speak about Smith's interpretation of reality by trying to create a "Smith-oriented" frame of reference. To support a one-sided perspective is not in anyway scholarly and is useless in teaching others. Unfortunately even given a little leeway, Smith's own words make it impossible. He said he was translating, not "interpreting", not "rendering". Smith himself made it clear time after time, from going letter by letter, symbol by symbol.

Agree that both sides should be presented, but not by ill-intentioned amatuers such as the sites you reference. I've no problem giving the direct translation - see above - of the heiratic of the hypo - let is stand for what it is worth.

The sites that support Smith are far more amateurish in their approach. What do you see as evidentary in them? They are longer? That's not an indicator of professionalism.

Again, I disagree that we was going letter by letter. His statements (outside of the history of the church grammar committee statement) was about receiving the book of Abraham by revelation. His "translation" of the book of Abraham and his "translation" of the bible and his "translation" of the Book of Mormon have to be viewed in the same context. The word "translation" was not used in the same context as we use it today.

And that is where you miss the point. Smith himself contradicted himself. He changed his own position, and you (I believe you are biased or Mormon) are trying as hard as you can to synergize his comments so that there are no inconsistencies. If Smith says he did "A" and then Smith said that he "never did A", you try to interpret that to mean that somehow he did AND did not do "A", yet you never consider the possibility that Smith simply lied. Smith says that he translated, then he says he was given divine interpretation. His work in any event reveals itself to be flawed to the point of randomness. He cleary described that he was translating, not "awaiting revelation". Later on, he says that he was awaiting revelation. You can't have both. He either lied in the first place, or lied afterwards.

In any case, this has NOTHING to do with the word Kolob, the article at hand. -Visorstuff 01:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Just as a lawyer tries to catch people in their words to get gain, thou liest as much. He does not contradict himself. No position was changed, because all of what he said is true, all at once. Translating requires inspiration and revelation, and new revelation to await as God sees fit, and many other things that we are not to understand. Your simple, earthly, and flawed interperatation is leading you down the wrong conclusive path. It is once again limiting God's ability to be God as is usually the case when the pride of the philosophy of man takes heed over God's wisdom. You need to remember God is unlimited, and when he calls upon someone, so shall it be that it is made possible to complete the task.

Available Papyri

The following is the title of the Papri the LDS Church owns that are related to the Book of Abraham with who authored the document:

P. JS, ca. 1837. Three scraps of a scroll, better knows as the Sen-sen papyrus. This includes the Lion-couch scene with the priest (attached to a sheet of paper) and the "snake text." The three pieces are part of a funerary text, that were created sometime between 650-150 BC.

Egyptian manuscripts (contain copied Egyptian characters with some English except # 10):

Egyptian Mss. # 1, (KEPE#1) ca. 1837. 1 vol. 31 x 20 cm. Ms. Manuscript entitled "Grammar & aphabet [sic] of the Egyptian language," in the handwriting of W. W. Phelps and Warren Parrish.

Egyptian Mss. # 2, (KEPE#2) ca. 1837. 2 leaves. 33 x 2O cm. Ms. Manuscript entitled "Egyptian counting," in the handwriting of W. W. Phelps. Characters with English explanations.

Egyptian Mss. # 3, (KEPE#3) ca. 1837. 4 leaves. 32 x 2O cm. Ms. Manuscript entitled "Egyptian alphabet," in the handwriting of W. W. Phelps.

Egyptian Mss. # 4. (KEPE#4) ca. 1837. 9 leaves. 33 x 20 cm. Ms. Manuscript entitled "Egyptian alphabet," Text by Oliver Cowdery and another hand. (Does not contain odd explanations of # 3.)

Egyptian Mss. # 5, (KEPE#5) ca. 1837. 4 leaves. various sizes. Ms. Manuscript in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery. Top has deteriorated, similarity between Mss. 4 and 5 indicates it was probably titled "Egyptian alphabet."

Egyptian Mss. # 6, (KEPE#6) ca. 1837. 1 vol. 20 x l3 cm. Ms. Titled "Valuable discovery of hiden [sic] records . . . (this title apparently in the handwriting of Joseph Smith. It seems that this is the only internal item in the collection that indicates the presence of Joseph Smith) English contents are in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery.

Egyptian Mss. # 7, (KEPE#7) ca. 1837. 1 vol. 2O x 16 cm. Ms. English contents in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery. Back cover has "F.G.W." and "Williams" on it.

Egyptian Mss. # 8, (KEPE#8) ca. 1837. 1 leaf. (1 fold.) 32 x 40 cm. Ms. Egyptian characters and hieroglyphs.

Egyptian Mss. # 9, (KEPE#9) ca. 1837. 1 leaf. 33 x 19 cm. Ms. Characters by unknown person.

Egyptian Papyri #1O, (KEPE#10) n.d. 1 leaf 33 x 2O cm. Ms. Egyptian Papyrus attached to a sheet of paper.

Book of Abraham manuscripts:

Manuscript # 1, (KEPA#1) ca. 1837. 10 pages. 32 x 20 cm. Ms. Translation of the Book of Abraham, 1:1 to 2:18 in the handwriting of W. W. Phelps and Warren Parrish. Obtained from Wilford Wood.

Manuscript # 2, (KEPA#2) ca. 1837. 4 pages. 33 x 19 cm. Ms. Book of Abraham, 1:4 to 2:6 in the handwriting of W W. Phelps.

Manuscript # 3, (KEPA#3) ca. 1837. 6 pages. 32 x 19 cm. Ms. Book of Abraham, 1:4 to 2:2 in the handwriting of Warren Parrish.

Manuscript # 4, (KEPA#4) 1841. 18 leaves. 29 x 20 cm. Ms. Book of Abraham, 1:1 to 2:19, 3:18 to 3:26 in the handwriting of Willard Richards. Includes (back of page 2) explanations of figures in Facsimile No. 1 in the hand of Willard Richards, except explanation of fig. 12 is shorter. Facsimile No. 2, ca. 1841. 4 pages. various sizes. Ms. Includes explanations in the handwriting of Willard Richards. "A Fac-simile from the Book of Abraham," no. 2, ca. 1843 Engraved by Reuben Hedlock. Broadside. 32 x 19 cm. Facsimile from the Book of Abraham with explanation of the characters. On back is a letter, Aug. 1, 1843, to Clyde Williams Co., Harrisburg, Pa., signed by Joseph Smith and W. W. Phelps.

Kolob

IN fact this does have everything to do with Kolob. Smith's word "Kolob" came from somewhere.

1. From God 2. From Smith's imagination 3. From arabic 4. From a combination of Hebrew and Smith's own imagination.

The idea of what Kolob came from could be:

1. From God 2. From Smith's studies of Hebrew. 3. From Smith's interaction with arabic (whether 2nd, or 3rd hand).

Since the hypocephalus and the fascimilie's own testament does not agree with Smith's interpretation, we can discount God from both. Only by relying on representationalism can you make up a possible spiritual relationship.

Smith was studying hebrew, and if you believe that from the small bit of coiencidence between Smith's reworkings of the pictures and the Egyptian originals, that there is a relationship of substance to Smith's translation of the word and it's actual factual origin, then you are confounding "restoration" with "translation". I can memorize a symbol and have no idea what the writer originally meant by printing it. Then it boggles the mind how the similarities (using whatever method you choose) with Smith and other writers and scholars of HIS time are ignored by you. View of the Hebrews, Smith's hebrew teacher, Smith's use of Arabic in many of his things (Comoros Islands = Cumorah; Capital of Comoros Islands is Meroni... again Arabic words).

It amazes me how to the last nth degree you ignore that Smith was an AVID dabbler in occultic things, and had an extreme interest in (what would be considered) archaeology of his time. I believe he actually had a very educated insight into Egyptian things, although he didn't know the language. However his insight is far removed from divine inspiration as the evidence proves it. Why then do you imply that Smith didn't have access to any Egyptian artifacts other than the sole solitary hypocephalus of fascimilie #2 (one of three!).

• Note here, you need to know that "occultic things" are realative to your religious beliefs in that "the occult" are things your religion doesn't believe in, nor chooses to learn more about. Ignorance is no excuse, and you cannot pass the buck or invalidate someone just because you have been taught by the phylosophy of man that something is of the occult.

Finally, this topic is turning obviously into a debate. I dont mind, but it's not a credible way to update the document. half of the Mormon article you have cited use representationalism all over. That is amateurish. I presented them to illustrate the absurdities that any rational reader can see, not as legitimate evidence of their position in regards to this topic. For example in Fac #3, one of those sites tried to prove that it makes sense that Anubis is the accurate "representation" of the slave Olimlah because anubis is a black dog. Obviously there is no meaning to that, and it is an absurdity to use that as "proof". There is no relationship between Anubis and Olimlah other than that both are "black".

I WILL update the article again. I do not articulate the statements as professionally because I choose not to take the time to do so, but the information I have placed in this article has been the core of the content around the history of the word, and I have noticed that the changes have been "alternative interpretations" that attempt to superimpose over the obvious or over the clarity. This is bias and I would like it to stop.

My tirade

You give three alternatives- there is a fourth: we'll simply never know in this life because there is just not enough evidence to treat this subject properly.

WE can all speculate, but they are not even good enough speculations to be taken seriously as theories. No evidence, no data, no conversation. You are allluding to something that is not there. Most Mormons and those who have studied the "revelations" of Smith have accespted this is a faith-based matter, not a hard data matter - why can't you? If you disagree fine, but dont say there is evidence for something there is not. Faith-based topics must be treated from a faith-based view. Go over the God, and try to show that God is a made up thing - or that he doesn't exist - or that he does - this is a faith-based matter, and when Smith and others say he recieved the text of the Book of Abraham from revelation (including the word Kolob), and the corresponding papyri is likely destroyed based on first-hand accounts, you have to take that as either you believe or you don't. You do not, others do, some are undecided, and others of us realize there is no data to support either way.

You wrote:

Since the hypocephalus and the fascimilie's own testament does not agree with Smith's interpretation, we can discount God from both. Only by relying on representationalism can you make up a possible spiritual relationship.

and you wrote:

half of the Mormon article you have cited use representationalism all over. That is amateurish.

This IS a faith-based topic - you should go debate simlar issues at the Historicity of Jesus or discuss the Zoroastrianism, Baalism and Occultic influcnes on Moses. By saying the above, you are treating this article based on your own conclusions. You are treating it with your world view - which is not bad- but when you have a conclusion to share about a controversial topic, it introduced POV into the article. Whereas I have continuously said this is a circular arguement as we'll never know - there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove anything in regard to the book of abraham. From the beginnin, I've stuggled that this article isn't more than just a definition of the "Mormon" word. What you are trying to create is Evidences of the word Kolob. Let alone such unknowns and evidence such as smith saying that an unknown heirogylph "signified" something. "Signified" and "means" or "translates into" and "corresponds" mean very different things and unless you know egyptians who wrote the hypo, then you don't know, as no serious egyptologist would come to a conclusion on teh context - yes they'd have their opinions, but they would realize they don't understand the context that was meant, unless it was explained in another way. Hence the new study of Heiroglyphs in the past few years about pictographs altering the heiroglyph meanings, givng more than one interpretation to the text as I explained above. Have you read what I've tried to demonstrate?

The person who added in the idea of "QLB" was well-meaning but used it as evidence. I'm fine with leaving in your comments about evidence the other way - when they are accurate - which on a great part, i've demonstrated you've gotten your data from outdated and incorrect sources.

I agree that based on current conventions the correlation between Anubis and Olimlah is a stretch. I do not have an opinion on that either way and actually had not heard that one before. Interesting.

You wrote: "small bit of coiencidence" when similar hypocephalus have at least a half-dozen "correct guesses" on properly placed images. Smith only had one hypo available according to records. I guess they were pretty interesting "guesses" and coincidences.

You know what? Maybe you are right. In fact, when Smith "wrote" the book of mormon by age 27, he must have been pretty well studied. Not bad for a new england farmboy. Let's list the same things listed on the sites you reference (and some others) in regard to translation of other ancient docuements - specifically the Book of Mormon: "Smith's use of Arabic" in the book of mormon, his understanding of remote geographic locations such as the "Comoros Islands" and it's french captital Moroni (you say it's arabic, it was actually french if you look at the history; and it is spelled moroni, not meroni), Smith being an "AVID dabbler" in occultic things, including the astrological coincidences of the timing of getting the plates of the book of Mormon; a deep understanding of masonry legends that appear in the Book of Mormon; a deep understanding of the septagint/hebrew bible similarities and differences to modify Nephi's isaiah quotes, understanding of gnosis teaching and apocyphal (40 day) teaching about signs and tokens; jesus blessing the children; angels "ministering" to them; the differences in the Lord's prayer and praying aside from teh people in the same pattern as he must have "plagerized" for Third Nephi; an understanding of the law of hamaruabi for his supposed plagerism there and the coinage, a thoughough reading of the federalist papers and madison letters for the "plagerism" his "swindling" of spaudling to get the text for "a view to the hebrews" to base the Book of Mormon story line on, his money digging escapades; his understanding of the apocryphal "gospel of philip" (oh wait - that wasn't discovered until the late 1950s - must be a coincidence); his deep understanding of Swedenborg's works, luther's 99 thesis, enoch legends, urim and thummim breastplate andsword legends, Astrology, Magick, wicca, zorastrianism, satanism, black/white inhabitants of america/mamoths/llamas/horses for american archeaology; an understanding heretical christianity including Montanism; Epistle of Barnabas; Arianism; Manichaeism all by the time he "authored" the book of Mormon. These are all various Anti-Mormon claims, but to say a 24 year old man has that good of an understanding on these topics by the time he "wrote the Book of Mormon" is pretty amazing. Smith must have been an evil genius or a prophet of God. Or maybe it is just a coincidence. Or he must have had access to one big a library - Philidelphia perhaps? Oh wait, nothing on Masonry in those libraries, let alone the copic texts. Gosh, there must have been a conspiricy to begin mormonism at least 50 years previously to write such a book and get it right. Amazing logic that people have to point to all of these and not put together that so many "coincidences" might actually add up to something. Simply amazing. Maybe it's best if detractors focus on just a few, rather than pointing out every evidence. But then it is easily discounted when you have the book of abraham, (which by the way the the whole idea of the hypocephalus is similar to the ideas in the temple rites - the promise of an increase of seed eternally, resurrection, mobility in the afterlife and a "cheat sheet" on various doctrines that were taught in mortality to take their place among the gods - oh yeah, then there are the similarities with masonry). What a coincidence. But again I digress...

This is a faith based issue. Coincidences aside, evidences (because there is a lack of them) aside, you either believe it or you don't. If you don't that is fine, but please use facts to support your claims, not supposed theories that don't match up with historical docuemnts. See my comments above.

You wrote:

I have noticed that the changes have been "alternative interpretations" that attempt to superimpose over the obvious or over the clarity. This is bias and I would like it to stop.

Duh. As stated before, any faith-based matter tries to share alternative interpretations. Look at Arianism, Gnostic, Mother Teresa and Jehovah's Witnesses. They have similar "biases" as they treat their topics from a faith-based view. All religious topics should, but they should also allow for scholarly detractions in teh appropriate place. Wikipedia is not a place for apologetics or proselytizing your views that Smith was not a prophet. I don't push that he was on the article pages, rather I share REAL evidence on various things he did or leave out things based on LACK of evidence on things that are uncertain. This is one of those things.

You wrote:

I WILL update the article again. I do not articulate the statements as professionally because I choose not to take the time to do so, but the information I have placed in this article has been the core of the content around the history of the word

Good, I look forward to your continued particpation. Wikipedia needs more good editors - just please share what is really known instead of blindly following those who make up claims and unsubstantiated theories on things they really haven't studied, let alone seen - even the Anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner are quiet on this one due to the recent research and developments - that should give a clue. They will I'm sure come up with their conclusions and print them after they study it more, but I'm shocked you continue to push incorrect information on data that is not available. I'm sure you have much insight to share - but I hope you do it in a scholarly way. That is the point of being a wikipedean. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 15:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

My apologies at the above statements - I'm just so frustrated at the lack of research most editors have when they have a point to prove, when there is no evidence to support EITHER points. Faith-based = articles written about what the believer believes and why the detractors don't. There is simply no evidence for the claims on an article that should only exist as a stub or a definition. Doen'st any one study historical theory or how to do research anymore? THe Internet is great, but it has destroyed credible research. Tom, is this what you are debating on the credibility discussions for Wikipedia???? Blah! It's embarrassing! -Visorstuff 16:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a part of the problem we are discussing related to credibility. Roughly, it is important to be able to select article versions that are trusted. We trust that a User:Wesley or a User:Kim Bruning won't add nonsense to an article on Kolob, even if they believe the subject itself is nonsense. We can't say the same for new users or anons. So we need to include a trust metric in our article presentation, allowing peole to say, "Show me only trustworthy versions." This, however, mainly deals with overt vandalism, and not content disputes. Tom Haws 19:06, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

There is actually evidence, but what ends up happening is that the evidence itself is reinterpreted to lose it's context. For example:Smith was convicted for being a glass looker, which was back in those days a form of con-artistry. He convinced people that he could find gold underground, but he never did. But the entire article about Joseph Smith here in Wikipedia is so blatently biased to defend him, despite the contrary evidence, that it's not even a balanced and professional article. The data: His signature, accepting the conviction as a guilty plea. Yet all of this is swept aside and the picture is painted of someone whose intentions were misunderstood. We see the same pattern of behavior in the situation of the Abraham Kolob article here. We see fascimilies that are identical to hypocephalil, but denials (or attempts to deny) that they came FROM actual papyri, but instead were 'coiencidentally and divinely' made in a similar manner. Smith coiencidentally and divinely may have used a word that is also a word he could very well easily made up from his experiences with Hebrew and Arabic. So there is data, but we keep asking for a higher standard of the data that discredits Smith, than we do for the data that supports him. Smith's own words contradicts himself.

Again your statments are factually incorrect. The one "conviction" of Smith (a misdemeanor) never states what he was convicted for "glass looking" (the "1826 trial" as it is known). The trial cost $2.68. and has not Smith Signature - it has a Judge Neely Bill signature. It is under the title: "Joseph Smith The Glass Looker" and many believe it is a forgery - for a number of reasons (even Non-Mormons). 1- it was ignored by the early anti-Mormon writers who heavily published the 1830 trial at the same location; 2) it is not listed in the judges diary as ever having taken place. 3) Smith could not have been present. 4) The documents surfaced in 1971 outside by a man who "removed" it from the courthouse (have you ever tried to remove a legal record from a courthouse without being arrested?) 5) No other record of the trial exists in any other court record and 6) if it fit into the court record, it wouldn't have been a regular page of the "book" as it was not torn or removed - it would have been a loose paper. This is why this particular item is disputed. Now having said that, I personally have no opinion as to whether or not this took place, and it has nothing ot do with Kolob. Second, you are stating that this is a fact, when historians both within and without of hte church have not come to final concusions. Even the tanners have shown problems with the trial see http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no68.htm; as the dates do not match up to the testimony dates given and smith's other documented travels. That said, it would make for a good addition to the JS JR article, especially if you add in all the known details feel free to add it in.

your second point makes no sense - please clarify. First No two hypocephali are identical. Have you read one word I've written about this? No one is disuputing a majority of your points. Why do you keep arguing it? SEcond, perhaps it is a coincidence that smith guessed right in "restoring" portions (I personally don't think they were destroyed when he had them) or that the engraver used heiratic symbols (backward or forward or upside down) for aestetics when printing. I don't know where the word Kolob came from, No one does, there are some interesting parallels - just as there are when you look at the historicity of the words Ahman (from smith) and Amen (closing in God's name). But niether proves anything, they are ancedotal, as there is not strong enough evidence to support any claims. It is speculation. His own words contradict him? His own words as written by another. okay. I've studied the matter and primary docuemtns in depth, you've read others' works on it. Try reading them and forming your own opinions, rather blind obedience to others'.

This IS a faith-based topic - you should go debate simlar issues at the Historicity of Jesus or discuss the Zoroastrianism, Baalism and Occultic influcnes on Moses.

By saying the above, you are treating this article based on your own conclusions. You are treating it with your world view - which is not bad- but when you have a conclusion to share about a controversial topic, it introduced POV into the article. Whereas I have continuously said this is a circular arguement as we'll never know - there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove anything in regard to the book of abraham. From the beginnin, I've stuggled that this article isn't more than just a definition of the "Mormon" word. What you are trying to create is Evidences of the word Kolob. Let alone such unknowns and evidence such as smith saying that an unknown heirogylph "signified" something. "Signified" and "means" or "translates into" and "corresponds" mean very different things and unless you know egyptians who wrote the hypo, then you don't know, as no serious egyptologist would come to a conclusion on teh context - yes they'd have their opinions, but they would realize they don't understand the context that was meant, unless it was explained in another way. Hence the new study of Heiroglyphs in the past few years about pictographs altering the heiroglyph meanings, givng more than one interpretation to the text as I explained above. Have you read what I've tried to demonstrate?

What you have been unable to do, despite this being a faith based topic, is to demonstrate how your viewpoint makes sense. For example, you are pointing out that the pictographs can alter the hieroglyphic meanings, but you cannot in any way explain how any of that has anything to do with Smith's interpretation of Kolob. Smith used the word "signifying" in his "translation" and Smith described what translating means to him. What he described and what the data shows (from him and the original papyrii) are not the same thing. Period. So the context of the hypocephalus is pretty evident, from the translation, and if you want to spend a few months or years learning hieratic and demotic and hieroglyphs go right ahead. If my conclusion of the meaning of the symbols is unreliable, then I should not be able to use that same technique to read Egyptian stories and coherent ideas from other artifacts. Its just not possible. Smith, on the other hand made a conclusion. And his interpretations were just as you describe mine, biased, judgemental, and prejudiced. He wrote the Book of Abraham to describe why Black people should not be treated with the same dignity as whites. But ever since the mid 1980s Mormons have tried to totally turn this upside down and actually say that Smith was trying to "support" Black equality in some way. But this digresses. You wanted to know about if I read what you tried to demonstrate. When you said that Chandler did not meet the relative that gave him the mummies, I found that to be speculative. I also found it to be meaningless. Because it wasn't one person that passed the mummies along, from the relative, to chandler, to smith. There were groups of people, obviously, that dealt in the movement, the procurement, and so fourth. But the picture you paint is that Chandler received the mummies somehow without any kind of sensible interaction with the "relative".All I am saying is that Smith was describing that he was translating the symbols, the hieroglyphs, not the pictures. He actually didn't DO what he said he was doing. He did the opposite. The meaning he came up with is totally out of touch with the context of the writing. So what you are saying about the context, and the pictographs altering it... there is no stretch of reason that can cause the pictographs to change the context of the hieroglyphs to support Smiths interpretation. You know it, I know it, why are we discussing this? There is no depth to Smith's interpretation. He has an imagination, but there is no quality of work that produces any kind of product. He could have called that word "bashibaw" and somehow there would be some trying to find a serious relationship between that word and something semetic, or egyptian. And I guarantee, with representationalism and diffusionism (which is what you are allowing to enter into the article) you WILL find a "logical" relationship between any random made up word, and some ancient egyptian or semetic word that shares a remotely similar meaning.

You wrote: "but you cannot in any way explain how any of that has anything to do with Smith's interpretation of Kolob." You are correct. that is not my point. I am not trying to convice anyone this. I didn't add it in. Nor am I trying to convicne people of my viewpoint in this artilce (which incidentally is not in the aritlce). I am stating the KNOWN facts, which apparently you have not studied. You add in the conjecture and unsupported theories of others. I am not offering support for either arguemnt in the article. But rather, I am demonstrating (and I think quite well) that we have no idea when it comes to the true meaning of many heiroglyphics. the more mankind studies it the more we realize the less we know. You wrote: "What he described and what the data shows (from him and the original papyrii) are not the same thing." I'd love to see the original book of Abraham Papyri. Since apparently you have access to it, and the church does not, can you share pictures? It does not exist as demonstrated above. You wrote: "if you want to spend a few months or years learning hieratic and demotic and hieroglyphs go right ahead." By demotic I believe you are referrning to the vulgar. I have studied hierogphys and heiratic and the various theories on and off for the past eight years. I can hold my own, though defintely not proficient. Smith said that this was was what "given to him" that is hardly a definite conclusion on anything. You wrote: "He wrote the Book of Abraham to describe why Black people should not be treated with the same dignity as whites." Anyone familiar with the book of abraham would realize this is not the main thesis of the writing. That statement does not help with your credibility or demonstrate your knowledge on the subject. I'm not meaning this as an attack, but rather, pointing out that you should slow down and look at the data before writing about something you know little about. See Tom's comments above about credibility. You wrote: "But ever since the mid 1980s Mormons have tried to totally turn this upside down and actually say that Smith was trying to "support" Black equality in some way." Again, look at when the policy went into affect. Some anti-mormon writers place this blame on Brigham young, as blacks could hold the priesthood prior to his administration (and a few after). You wrote: "it wasn't one person that passed the mummies along, from the relative, to chandler, to smith. There were groups of people" Okay the original edit basically said he did learn it from his "uncle." Use more of this data you have to back up your theory. He didn't learn it from his "uncle" and owner of the mummies. I'd love to see the support for this theory of the other arabic travelers in shipment to chandler. It would make a great paper. You should dig up the research and publish it. It would be very insightful and frankly I don't think it has been explored before. I'm not sure if they were accompanied by anyone or not. Please share and add in this new data. Good insight. I always assumed they were shipped to chandler via boat cargo. You wrote: "All I am saying is that Smith was describing that he was translating the symbols, the hieroglyphs, not the pictures" Umm. The facsimiles are pictographs. they do have heroglyphs and heiratics in them, but he did state this is what this picture signifies - etc. Again, perhaps in your hurry to respond you overlooked this. There is simply not enough evidence. Period. Anything else is conjecture.

QLB is from Arabic, and thats not an outdated source. the other information I posted is also not outdated. What do you mean outdated? You mean its been a settled matter so long ago? That means it's established, not outdated. I am not really annoyed that you removed the links, because the core of the article is how I want it. All of this ambiguity you seem interested in preserving is simply no longer possible. But the content you removed, I will repost in the future with redundant references if need be. If you wanted to be fair, you could simply post a copy of the hypocephalus, and the fascimile and let the evidence speak for itself, but you have supported the idea, that the fascimilie didn't come from any papyrii that we have on record. You should have an opinion about Smith trying to change Anubis into a slave and reinforce a mythological association between blackness, slavery, and the bible. That's a little irrational wouldn't you say? What records do you go to that say that Smith only had one hypo? Smith had 3 at least (which is why he has 3 fascimilies) And the guesses he made, once it's known what information he has access to, these guesses are NOT amazing. They are insightful because he had taken a lot of time beforehand studying the subject matter. The best guess he made was when he associated the four corners with the four directions. (North, South, East, West), but there are only a few "four" concepts to work with. Four seasons, four headings, four ???. Smith was already involved with Masonic orders and the occult. He had gained enough experience to get a pretty insightful interpretation of some of the pictographs, but still 99% of the content is still flat out wrong. So again, I ask, stop turning a blind eye to what is evident. Many of his comments about the hypocephalus were plural (as in he spoke of multiple artifacts, not one).

By outdated, you are referring to thoughts about hte destruction of portion of they hypo. Most of the findings on the pages you reference is from data written in the late 70s/early 80s. Research has been updated and new theories and anti-theories have been discussed since those. By referencing older material, your arguements are outdated. There are better, more recent arguements against the book of abraham, but you are not using them. Definitely not established - especially when you quote sites who take their research (actually plagerize is a better word) from folks like Dee Jay Nelson and watler martin (and the larsons who are unrelated). The first two haven't even degrees even though they both claim egyptian studies as their expertise, the other two, you can read about on this page adn book of abraham talk page about issues with their research methods. That is what i'm meaning about outdated. You'd rather trust Nelson who stated he worked for King Faurak in egypt, when no american or non-egyptian has been allowed to work on the subject matters that gave him his experience. Let alone his mail-order degrees, without coursework and his lying about his degrees from other universities. I could go on about the others. Smith's life is an open book - his supposed lies and deceptions. Let's look at his critics lifes and lies and deceptions as well. Basing research on a lie is not a solid foundation for being taken seriously in academia. This is all what is meant by using outdated reasearch. You wrote: "but you have supported the idea, that the fascimilie didn't come from any papyrii that we have on record." Man, did you read what I wrote? I'm saing that the facsimile that smith had and that was published is no longer around. Most think it was destroyed. The Church doesn't have it, niether doe sthe museum. You said that there were notes in smith's writing on the back of it, but on further research, I have demonstrated that this is false, as the hypo does nto exist. That portion of papyri has been destroyed. You wrote that I am stupid for not having an opinion on a matter. I don't have an opinion because I've studied it in depth and realize I don't have enough data to base an opinion on. You jump to concusions. that is like saying because the stoplight is red, it is all clear to cross the road. Whereas I say, I'd rather look before crossing just to double check. You wrote: "What records do you go to that say that Smith only had one hypo? Smith had 3 at least (which is why he has 3 fascimilies)" The fact is that smith had boxes and boxes upon boxes of papyrus and we don't know all of what is in them, as most is believed to be destoyed. Most apparently contained rolls of text without a lot of pictographs or "facsimiles." but were in either hieratic or hyroglphs. We know this from the descriptions of Josiah Quincy (yes that quincy from Mass), Parrish, Phelps cowdery, young, pratt, JF Smith, W. Smith and others that match up. They also state that smith found the hypo very interesting and it seemed to be unique among the available papyrus he had. Apparenly most was destroyed as we only have a few fragments left. You note the "four" as his correct guesses. I actually think the boat is a stronger argument. He nailed that one nearly perfectly. You said, "Smith was already involved with Masonic orders." actually, smith didn't enter into masonry until the nauvoo period. the translation was done in Kirtland in 1835 and published at that time. The facsimiles and text were also printed in the T&S in 1842 and in 1856 and 1888. SMith also entered masonry in 1842, after the "translation" and the word Kolob was already in existence (having been done in 1835). Again, your facts are a bit off the historical mark. You wrote: "Many of his comments about the hypocephalus were plural (as in he spoke of multiple artifacts, not one)." Can you point me to a source on this?

Now Smith's ability by 27 is impressive, but it's not amazing. He did not work on his content alone, there were many "assistants" who themselves were well versed in their own right. You call him a "farmboy" and there again, you try to create a mental image with a bias, and then prop up that image. Farmboys are just as mentally capable as... what, city dwellers, or aristocrats... to learn and achieve knowledgeable goals. But he didn't really succeed in this. He succeeded in being very persuasive. He did not write the Book of Mormon in a void, he copied much of it from the Bible, Book of the Hebrews, and from the research done by others. He didn't have to have a deep understanding of the concepts, he just had to have a keen interest in the subject matter. For example, the Comoros islands: He didn't have to "understand" the islands, he just had to see them on a map. He took the name, and copied it into his book. It's what science fiction writers do now. Isaac Asimov was a farmboy if I recall, and he was a successful writer by age 27. But I do not believe that Asimov's work is so good that God Himself wrote it. And Asimov's writing is of a much higher quality than Smith's. The astrological "coiencidences" of getting the plates... I am familiar enough with astrology to know that the combinations of factors and interpretations of astrological charts can create meaning from any random period. Astrology itself is a pseudo-science rife with subjectivity. In fact, so much of your position is based on pushing subjectivity off as objectivity. "if i look at it this way, it could mean this and that, and if we assume that is true, then it would make sense that Smith said what he said, if you reinterpret what Smith means." And again, what you are doing is ignoring the evidence. Smith's content in the Book of Mormon is very simliar and widely believed to be plagarized from other writers of his period. The similarities, for example to the septuagint bible are apparent, because he used the hebrew bible as a reference. Why would you try to imply that he didnt? Because he was a "farmboy" or something? So again, you bring up a lot of examples, and say "deep understanding" because there is similarity. But that's what I am having to remind you over and over. There is no depth to his work, there is a lot of similarity because he had access to the information. The contemporary source that you bring up, the Gospel of Philip for example, I see no depth between that and any of Smith's writings. And you have to understand something, Smith is not an uneducated person, but he was a poorly educated one. All of the redundant use of King Jamesesque talk in his book discredits him and reveals yet again, his unoriginality. His ignorance of the Urim and Thummin was based on his interpretation of each of those as "one" object when the two are plural. The Urim is a plural of "Urah" and The Thummi is plural of "Thumm'ah". Yet he made up a story of a Urim stone and a Thummin stone he used to "translate" with. All of that insight and depth you believe he had, and he overlooked the obvious. As a fiction writer, one's imagination can create a lot of content that readers can read into. And when you have access to others, like Smith did, who are already highly accomplished, then its no wonder that you see "quality" here and there in his work. The guy had what, 4 educators to help him, he had access to a variety of maps, yet with all this depth, he was hoaxed by people. The Kinderhook incident should wake you up at the very least. IF the hoaxers didnt come forward, we would be discussing the validity of Smith's translation of those as well. You would be using the same argument. I'm left wondering: what would be evidence? Smith writing in his own blood that he made it all up? Con-artists don't actually do that kind of thing, especially when money and power has to be given up. This may be a faith-based article, but the content is in real dispute. Were it not for the racism I really would not care so much. I tyhink part of the problem is that I am focused on this article instead of the Book of Abraham article. So in that regard I am letting the issue go. I will be doing my part to clean up the Book of Abraham article. And since you have such a high standard of quality for this, I am sure you have no problem with me quoting from Smith himself. I don't believe that this is a faith based article, but has become one. You dont like how I have added to the article, but look at the edits before I even came into the picture. Most of the content after the translation is what I brought. What you have done is edit it. So in the end you must admit I brough much more credible content than anyone else. I do not believe it's fair to create a picture of me detracting from the overall quality. Obviously you have had to find opposing viewpoints, and I am not used to the formatting standard here, the coding is different and it takes longer to format the content than to type it. but please don't get so overly offended. I read the quality of the "North Africa" article, and it hasnt been touched in a while, and it's extremely biased. Maybe it's not your area but it's far more impacting on Wikipedia as a whole than Kolob.

Smith was a farmboy. But he definitely wasn't well-educated. He wasnt' a dummy either - he was quite literate, but having a library will all that content in it near his home is quite problematic for your arguemnt. Harris definitely wouldn't have had the brains to do it, and cowdery was the best studied, but by that time, the stories were already in existence to people outside the family. The best guess you could probably come up with for an assistant is if Rigdon could have known the family prior to the time. However, based on his sermons and writings, he never addressed ancient subjects liek smith did. He would have had to have a lot of self-discipline to not let it out of the the many times he was "on a break" from smith. You wrote: "For example, the Comoros islands: He didn't have to "understand" the islands, he just had to see them on a map" which he could have done as early as 1823, but Moroni wasn't the largest city at that time, nor that capital, and it only existed on a few maps. this is a good argument, but likely not available to upstate New York. You wrote: "The similarities, for example to the septuagint bible are apparent, because he used the hebrew bible as a reference." Okay. Septagint does not equal hebrew. They are very different. Again, shows your lack of understanding of the issues you are opining about. And to say it was copied from teh KJV when it the 433 verses that are attributed to bible prophets more closely alighn with a non-modern Christian bible, is silly (septagint versus hebrew - KJV and vulgate are based on hebrew). I'm not awaare of an english translation of the septagint in Smith's time. He would have had to read the greek. As far as "deep understanding" versus "similarity" he would have had to do more than a casual reading of many of the Gnostic texts as to integrate their many themes as he did. You wrote: the "Book of Mormon is very simliar and widely believed to be plagarized from other writers of his period" what writers? Ethan Smith's romance (you say Book of the Hebrews, the actual title is View to the Hebrews - again another correction)? That shows a lack of understanding of both texts. Yeah, they both start in the old world and end up here, but that's about the only similarity. For a discussion of the plurality of Urim and Thummin, see my edits on teh matter at Urim and Thummim. The plurality was actually explained by him elsehwere. Not a new concept. The Kinderhook plates "incident" is an interesting one. Particularly when smith stated that the plates were created by "a decendant of Ham through the loins of Pharoh," and the con-artists stating that a slave created the plates (in his world view- not mine - this would be consistent). Let alone smith's lack of interest in "translating" them. You wrote: "Were it not for the racism I really would not care so much." Your edits then should be more appropriately addressed to Blacks and Mormonism. Smith was not racist in any form in my opinion, especially running on an anti-slavery platform for his presidential campaign. You are full of contradictions. You wrote: "I don't believe that this is a faith based article" Because Kolob has a religious orgin, it is faith-based. You either believe in it's orgin or you don't. If it exists outside of the world of Mormonism, then I agree, it wouldn't be fiath-based, but because I am unasware of it existing outside of Mormonism, then I conclude it is a matter of faith. You wrote: "Most of the content after the translation is what I brought." in reference to having added to the article. I have continueally said, that I believe that this article should be a definition-type page, as there is no evidence for more than that. Keep this one a stub, I think. I have not removed your edits, but rather have tried to clean them up to state what is known and what is not, and to correct grammar, etc. You wrote: "but please don't get so overly offended." That is kind. I am not. I hope you are not either. This will hopefully imporove the article and similar ones on wikipedia as people read this thread and discuss credibility and editing. your work is valued - even if I don't agree with the foundation of your work or your tertiary research sources. WE hope you will register and become a valued contributor to Wikipedia. I am not as much of an expert on North Africa as I am in Mormon and early christian studies. I'm not sure I could add much value aside from those areas and a bit on egyptian studies there. I am saddened that you think that lack of priesthood being extended to the majority of blacks equates with racism. It was not a "given" to all whites before the revelation was given in the late 70s which opened it up to all men regarless of race. Priesthood is not a right of any person. God revealed who he wanted it to go to. Prior to 1978, he only wnated it to go to predominately to a handful of men who believed they were form the tribe of ephriam - regardless of race. I'd encourage you to read research from black mormon groups such as genesis, etc. that have demonstrated and discussed the complex issues of blacks and mormonism. Definately, culturally there were some issues, but official church doctrine has been consistent.

Like I said, I will offer more irrefutable references. I am glad the most recent editor took out what he did. As the article was presenting itself to be overly supportive of Smith. It's obvious that I think of Smith a fraud, and that's merely based on the EVIDENCE. I don't think it's good enough to pass off coiencidence as evidence, especially in light of the context of him having access to insightful and educated individuals to assist him.

Again, you are only looking at half of the evidence - and I'd hardly say that "Educated" individuals were as edcuated as you think. Harris had money, not knowlede. Rigdon had some religious training. Cowdery was a high shcool graduate (graduated same time as hyrum from the academy if I remember right), that is who is typically tied to Smith as being his "brain trust" - hardly insightful individuals or overly educated. I think hundreds of coincidences at some point add up to mean they are evidences - at least in U.S. courts they do. The more you study the topic, the more you will find how little we really know about it all. Happy editing. I have enjoyed the exchange. -Visorstuff 21:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Disciplining the Book of Abraham material

The BofA material needs to be merged into Book of Abraham. This is the wrong place for it. Can the anonymous editor help with this please? Tom Haws 20:21, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

[snip material to section above]

Wow! Was all the above [snipped material] an answer to me?!? I confess I was lost 4 words into it. Perhaps the above goes in a different section? Please clarify. Perhaps all the above needs to be moved to Talk:Book of Abraham. Thanks. Tom Haws 20:16, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Let's keep the content here for navigatability. I agree that this belongs at book of abraham, but it was created here and should remain for the time being until archived. At that time, let's place in both archives, if you agree. -Visorstuff 21:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I moved it above. Tom Haws 21:18, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I took out the following 1913 John Andreas Widtsoe quotation:

In the year 1831, a French traveler, M. Antonio Sebolo, found several mummies near Thebes, Egypt. He retained eleven of these and started for Paris. On the voyage he took sick, and after a few days of illness he died at Trieste, Austria. The bodies were eventually forwarded to his nephew, Mr. M. H. Chandler, in New York, who obtained possession of them in the year 1833, whereupon he decided to tour the country for the purpose of exhibiting them. In due time he arrived in Kirtland. This was in 1835. He had previously opened the cases and found two rolls of papyrus and a few smaller pieces containing writing.

As the Prophet Joseph Smith had acquired a reputation for ability to translate ancient languages, Mr. Chandler, naturally, asked his opinion concerning those records. The Prophet interpreted some of the characters, and Mr.Chandler at once recognized the agreement between his interpretation and that of scientists whose opinion had been solicited. Being satisfied that the records were genuine, some of the Saints in Kirtland purchased them and the mummies.

This material is more appropriately placed in the Book of Abraham article. However, I didn't move it there, because there are better, more direct sources for this information than John Widtsoe. Widtsoe is a secondary source. COGDEN 19:53, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Agree. see my many points about primary research to the anon editor. Welcome back COGDEN. This definition page has become quite overblown for the available data on the topic, don't you think? -Visorstuff 21:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

On Kolob? Definitely! Tom Haws 21:19, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

^)

Planet

Where is Kolob as a possible "planet" coming from?

1. Is this a point of the article?
2. Perhaps from this passage? "one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob,"

p.s. My personal thought is that the word "nigh" is significant here, and that the planets are the sons of men who vary in greatness until thou come nigh unto Jesus Christ. Tom Haws 02:54, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't your symbolic interpretation require that Kolob be a planet? I was just wondering what the "planet" reference is based on. Both literal and symbolic interpretations of Kolob are presented in the article. If there are also different opinions as to whether Kolob is a star or a planet those could be presented as well. Authr 08:29, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Technically stars are planets by definition. -Visorstuff 08:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there is really an important distinction in the Book of Abraham. Planets can be stars, is that what you mean Visorstuff? Tom Haws 04:45, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've been considering inserting a section on the planet vs. star controversy. It's pretty clear to me that the words star and planet in the Book of Abraham both just mean, generically, one of the heavenly lights or orbs. This is supported by the fact that the Explanation to Fig. 5 of Facsimile 2 apparently calls the sun ("Enish-go-on-dosh") a planet. I personally think they are used interchangeably. But I've seen some differing opinions on this: some apologists insist that Kolob isn't a planet. COGDEN 18:01, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

That is exacly what I was referring to. In looking at dictionaries from the time period, I also believe the terms are used somewhat interchangeably. Planets refer to heavenly bodies, stars refer to all heavenly bodies that give their own light - including comets, planets, etc. Not nec. synonomous, but close in meaning. Therefore, Kolob could be both a planet and star. Modern terminology would need to be explained. -Visorstuff 19:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Kolob is a planet. I have been there. It is good. I had six wives there. -Briley Clemouth

Take "critics" out

I have not even read the reply (or replies) to my most recent previous post,but i saw the article, and I am ok with the biased slant in favor or Mormonism, because the contradictions are also there, but i am very much against the use of "critics" over and over throughout the article. "Critics" implies a non-substantiated position. Translating a language into a intelligible interpretation is not "critical" but neutral. Please reword it so you do not push a position that a non-substantiated position (i.e. critics) is being pushed against an established and reliable position, since the Mormon Kolob interpretation of the papyrus is not established, and not reliable.

Perhaps I am misinformed. It is my understanding that "Kolob" is a strictly Mormon word. In that context, I have a hard time seeing how anybody not connected with Mormonism could have any opinion or experience with the word. The recent edits say that there are people with study experience and knowledge about the word Kolob who are not connected with Mormonism. Is this possible? Regarding the word "critics", it is an acceptable Wikipedia practice to attribute beliefs and perspectives using that word. At the same time, I think perhaps I understand the reasoning behind your actions. Perhaps we can find a better way to word these things. I don't think we're there yet. I suggest you and VS keep at this using perhaps few talk page words until you strike a happy medium. Perhaps we can all continue to edit the article, avoiding outright reverts, until the result is better. Tom Haws 16:04, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm slammed today and tomorrow - won't have time to do much - critics is standard on wikipedia - of theories, you have proponents and critics of every theory from gravity to evolution creationism to Q document. Nothing strange about the word - especially when referring to people discussing the word Kolob. They either believe it or they don't as this is a faith-based topic. I've read no scholar comment about Kolob outside of Mormonism, so I'd be interested in documentation on the comment from the article on the following statements:

• Most Egyptian language scholars (who are neither critical nor interested in Mormon theology)... (Note: I am unaware of such a study from "disinterested" parties - even bishop spaulding's book noting six "objective" scholars included two of his subordinates, two known anti-mormons, one egyptologist who was athiest and thought that egyptians were as well (kinda funny that egyptian religous study is a post-1945 field of study) and one self-proclaimed egyptologist that was quoted heavily in the mass media, but was not a professor, never went on a dig and was never referenced by any other academian. But spaulding's work is the basis of the anti-Mormon sites you get your information from). I'm sorry I need a source for this edit- but don't think you can provide one.
• All of these contentions regarding Kolob has exposed Mormonism to a new scrutiny that has caused supporters of Smith to rely on a different interpretation of faith than Christians, although to a non-christian, this would be difficult to discern without clear conversation.
• The use of Kolob in an Egyptian papyrus as symbolism of God of Christianity has furthered divisions between Mormons and Christians, and has actually created a new theory of connecting Mormonism to Islam, as both share many other similarities.

I also find it contradictory that you rely on "scholarly" sources (that you do not identify) but then write: "In Christianity, this would be considered blind faith in a man's interpretation, and not faith in a reliable and consistent God." Aren't you giving "blind faith" on man's interpretation by believing in unnamed "scholars" statements?

If you look back at the first conference about Hypocephalus in 1884, the examined the 30 (then) available hypos (now there are about 100 - all dealing with the same family). They determined that they were astrological documents related to burial. Yes, times have changed and theories have been modified, but that is still one of the leading theories - consistent with the book of the dead. Smith did not offer a translation of the facsimilies - he offered a interpretation of some of the symbols on the pictographs known as the facsimilies. But yet, no two egyptologists offer the same interpretations either. For example, the couch scene, better known as facsimile 1, most antis say it is Annubis preparing someone for death, but scholars do not agree. Most say it is a priest of that particular god, but that is where the similarities end. Some say he is resurrecting the individual, some say he is sacrificing him, some say there is a struggle, some say he is preparing for burial, some say performing a religious rite, some say it is a medical procedure - that could be related to death. Notice on similar ones, the movement of the "deceased" or the individual Smith called "abraham" has movement. the other couple that exist that are similar, there is no movement, or movement to suggest other activities - the differences between them have lead to further study and a lack of a definitive answer. Since Egyptian is a synthetic language (where a sybmol is usually not translated into one word, but a phrase or a thought), even the hieroglyphic interpreatations theories have changed ove rthe past 100 years. Heiratic is much more reliable, but there are a number of changes in the past 30 years there too.

The problem with your edits is that you insist on forcing a showdown to demand a once and for all official statemement that will be forever without dispute or discussion. Egyptologists would disagree with this - as their findings and new theories (which are heatly debated if you've ever attended a symposium on Egypt - which I'm sure you have since you are knowledgeable on this matter) are put forth to foster continued discussions, not to settle an issue. The purpose of theories are not to put forth a final statement, which you think you have, but to put forth an idea or model that fits a situation, to see if it can be applied in other situations and then to question and examine that theory.

This is why the field of egyptology is growing so much in the past 80 years. If there were definite answers then we've just have heiroglyph translators and archeaologiest rather tahn a whole field of study called egyptology to try to figure it out. I on the other hand have repeately stated that there is too much we do not know about the topci and this article is way too long on the available data. Try to use a bit of current topic understanding in your research, rather than relying on 80 year old "objective research" from anti-mormons.

I look forward to your response and references/sources. -Visorstuff 19:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Kochab

Moved seemingly irrelevant site reference here for review. It may not warrant discussion. WBardwin 05:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

http://www.webspawner.com/users/cosmic/ Kochab,

star of Ursa Minor, in the little dipper.

Second occurence. Someone thinks it applies here. WBardwin 20:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• [4]The star Kochab, in the bowl of the little dipper,

as a probable supernova, (exploded star)....

Regarding POV

Hi. First, my qualifications: I was a very active participant of the LDS as both a "examiner" for 2 years (aka pre-baptism) and "convert" for 4; I've been inactive for about 2 years, due to philosophical differences with the main body, generally around when killing is OK, esp. with regard to Mormon scripture (particularly D&C 86). I was heavily involved in apologetic research, particularly around the information found in the Pearl of Great Price and the books of Enos, Omni, and Esther (book of the Jaradites).

The first *major POV I find is the entire section demarcated by Representationalism. It seems totally off-topic, the tone is overtly negative, and it is entirely there to "debunk" the article in question. I'm not against having a "debunk kolob" page, ti just needs to be titled as such.

The non-Semitic nature of the Egyptian language ... this makes several assumptions, namely that the Egyptian characters could not be migrated to other languages. Archaeologically this has been proven time and again to be false, with both Egyptian and other alphabets/glyphs. The Sumerian alphabet was adopted and morphed into Babylonian; our alphabet came from several cultures over the span of millennia, and there is a host of info that Hebrew originated from Egyptian. One of the more unresearched (never disputed) oddities is that the Algonquin's ancestral tribe — the Micmacs (exterminated 1803) — were pratically the only North American Native American tribe to have a written language, one that used over 90% similiar glyphs to ancient Egyptian (i think it was the 3rd dynasty), somethign that wasn't discovered until the 1960s. [5] I have personally researched this a great deal.

---

Therefore according to Smith he was translating Kolob from the hieroglyphs, as the pictographs themselves, although interpretable, are by their nature beyond the realm of translation.

Again, this seems off-topic. I could just as easily say that this makes other assumptions: That languages would not be used cryptically for arcane reasons. Consider the book of Daniel of the Old Testament. It was written under *very* different conditions for the bulk of teh old testament, namely in Jewish captivity, and arguably by one of Nebuchanezar's main advisors. Talking about Jehovah was a criminal offense for higher-ups back in the day, and so the book of daniel was written unlike any other book in the entire Bible: cryptically:

• Chapter 1 — stories about Jehovah and the destruction of Jerusalem (both non-PC) — Hebrew
• Chapters 2–6 — stories about Babylon (PC) — Aramaic (the common man's language
• Chapters 7–11 — prophecies about Babylon falling predictions, etc (non-PC) — Hebrew
• Chapter 12 — Closing verses with admonish by angel to O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end (Aramaic)

E.g. the book of Daniel was "sealed" to all but the priestly class until the end of the Babylonian captivity when more could understand Hebrew.

What this leads to is that some manuscripts, particularly in otherwise-hostile societies ahve portions kept secret. This is true of the Pearl of Great Price in particular. While it was announced in 1967 that *some* papyri had been found, I do not believe any one ever claimed *all* had been discovered. That this is the case is highlighted in Joseph Smith's own journal [6].

---

I found most of these edits ignorant on basic structure of Hebrew as a morphological language. Having no vowels, words are constructed from a very specific context; as a sort of cryptic language, Hebrew words can mean dramatically different things to different people under different contexts. y-w-h-w (jesus, joshua, jehovah, yeshua, etc). K-l-b... It is interesting to note that keleb is "dog" in Hebrew, thus it may be a reference to the dog star Sirius, brightest star in the sky. This is just conjecture, but still...I find that the piece consistently rules in negative favor of the possibility that the Pearl of Great Price may be authentic relevation.

---

I admit I have no answers, but I do not find it proper to bash Kolob or the Pearl of Great Price on the page. If you have issues, please take it to a debunking pgp or debunking book of abraham pages, not about some planet. I suggest that as an interim solution, all such negative off-topic dialogue be moved to a temp page of this talk page. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 13:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with many of your points, however, we've had to allow many of the edits you reference as compromises with other editors. Feel free to Be bold and make some changes - just don't make it too apologetic. Don't just raise the concerns and slap the NPOV template, but let's do somethignt o fix it. Also, would like to invite you to participated in the WP:LDS. We have a good mix of Mormon, non-Mormon, and ex-Mormon assistance on the project about Mormonism. -Visorstuff 15:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the Representationalism section (#4) should be merged somehow with the "name" section above it (#3), in some sort of apologetics section, which would include criticisms of the apologetic approaches. And the NPOV tag can be converted to a section-NPOV tag and limited to that section, if necessary. As far as headings #1 and #2, I don't think there is any real controversy. COGDEN 20:40, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I plan to edit it substantially ... I figure the best way to handle large quantities of POV negations would be seperate, clearly linked-to articles with decisive names. If you *have* to bash something on its very page there probably is something wrong. Imagine having a Planned Parenthood link on the Pro Life page. Besides, seperating semantically opposed viewpoints (Kolob is real vs Mormonism is fake) is very relevant. Chances are you came looking for Kolob to find out more ... if you *want* to find out that it's wrong you'll look for the anti-Kolob page ... but you'll probably find an anti-Mormon page even more relevant.

I am proposing the creation of another page and a merge...basically merge the anti-PGP stuff with a surely-extant anti-mormon page; create a new anti-Kolob page and put the specific details there. Maintain maybe a clause or two per argument in the pro-Kolob page under a category Disputes with prominent links to each point's location on the anti page.

Regardless, since Kolob is *totally* a mormon artifact there should be sources from its most authoritative sources, no matter their overall POV. I refer to an lds.org link, the scriptures.lds.org link to references of Kolob, a FARMS link and optimally some links from other forks of the LDS church like the RLDS or whatever they're called these days; if they even exist (last i ehard they gave up book of mormon).

I do this tomorrow. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 04:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't create an "anti-Kolob page. It would be a waste of effort. While I agree with your thought process, let's just simplify and stick to the facts. Religious based topics are controversial and as Mormonism-adherents, we can't be perceieved as censoring. Let's document why things are being removed and take care, but we have to give both sides of the argument. That said this article should be what Kolob is as claimed by mormons, not why it shouldn't be believed or why the LDS church is wrong, evil or whatever. Storm Rider and I have been discussing this on my talk page -Visorstuff 17:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I would agree. A distinct section on the page dealing with the more controversial issues and perspectives should do for now. It is a relatively minor topic, and probably not notable enough for two pages in the encyclopedia. That would give us two places to monitor as well. Peace. WBardwin 17:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with Visorstuff about not creating an anti-Kolob article. Criticism should usually be in the main article, which might include specific information about what is wrong with Kolob. Let's work out the details in the talk page. I have too many memories of the short-lived anti-polygamy page. Nereocystis 18:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)