Facsimile No. 1

[Mortal Man]

Regarding JSP No. 1, Hugh Nibley claimed that the portion of the papyrus containing the head and knife was extant at the time Joseph Smith had it [1]. He states, "This is borne out by the clear traces left behind in the dried glue by those parts of the papyrus that crumbled away after it was mounted; they show that at the time of the mounting there was room on the papyrus for the complete head and hand of the priest." He also shows a portrait of Lucy Mack Smith, wherein a complete wrinkled image of Facsimilie 1 is hanging on the wall behind her. He claims that the original papyrus was hanging on the wall when the portrait was done. The wall picture clearly shows the knife and part of the head, but, from what I can make out, doesn't show the bottom of the hieroglyphic column just above the arm. My question is, has a forensic analysis been done to see if there are any papyrus fibers in the dried glue that would suggest Nibley is right?

[1] Hugh Nibley, "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price: Part 5, Facsimilie No 1." The Improvement Era, Vol. 71, No. 9, pp. 66-79, Sept. 1968.

[Lamanite]

Regarding JSP No. 1, Hugh Nibley claimed that the portion of the papyrus containing the head and knife was extant at the time Joseph Smith had it [1]. He states, "This is borne out by the clear traces left behind in the dried glue by those parts of the papyrus that crumbled away after it was mounted; they show that at the time of the mounting there was room on the papyrus for the complete head and hand of the priest." He also shows a portrait of Lucy Mack Smith, wherein a complete wrinkled image of Facsimilie 1 is hanging on the wall behind her. He claims that the original papyrus was hanging on the wall when the portrait was done. The wall picture clearly shows the knife and part of the head, but, from what I can make out, doesn't show the bottom of the hieroglyphic column just above the arm. My question is, has a forensic analysis been done to see if there are any papyrus fibers in the dried glue that would suggest Nibley is right?

[1] Hugh Nibley, "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price: Part 5, Facsimilie No 1." The Improvement Era, Vol. 71, No. 9, pp. 66-79, Sept. 1968.

NOt sure about the "orinal" state of the papyri, but it's my understanding that Facsimile No.1 has absolutely nothing to do with the BoA

Big UP!

Lamanite

[mfbukowski]

Regarding JSP No. 1, Hugh Nibley claimed that the portion of the papyrus containing the head and knife was extant at the time Joseph Smith had it [1]. He states, "This is borne out by the clear traces left behind in the dried glue by those parts of the papyrus that crumbled away after it was mounted; they show that at the time of the mounting there was room on the papyrus for the complete head and hand of the priest." He also shows a portrait of Lucy Mack Smith, wherein a complete wrinkled image of Facsimilie 1 is hanging on the wall behind her. He claims that the original papyrus was hanging on the wall when the portrait was done. The wall picture clearly shows the knife and part of the head, but, from what I can make out, doesn't show the bottom of the hieroglyphic column just above the arm. My question is, has a forensic analysis been done to see if there are any papyrus fibers in the dried glue that would suggest Nibley is right?

[1] Hugh Nibley, "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price: Part 5, Facsimilie No 1." The Improvement Era, Vol. 71, No. 9, pp. 66-79, Sept. 1968.

How is this relevant to anything? I don't mean to solve argumentative, but it isn't clear to me what this will show or not show, or why it is important.

[Mortal Man]

How is this relevant to anything? I don't mean to solve argumentative, but it isn't clear to me what this will show or not show, or why it is important.

It's extremely important.

From Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

Alleged false reconstruction of lacunae

Several Egyptologists, including Theodule Deveria, Klaus Baer, Rickard A. Parker, and Dr. ALbert Lythgoe noted that portions of Facsimile 1 appeared to be incorrect, based on comparison with other similar Egyptian vignettes, and suspected that they had been reconstructed from lacunae in the original papyri.[38] The papyri containing Facsimile 1 is acknowledged by Egyptologists to be a version of The Book of Breathings.[39][40][41][42][43] Lythgoe well summarized the consensus among these egyptologists:

"the god Anubus, bending over the mummy, was shown with a human and strangely un-Egyptian head, instead of a jackal's head usual to the scene."[44]

Other alleged misconstructions were also noted by these Egyptologists.[45] Later, when the original papyri were discovered (see section below), critics quickly noted that these portions were indeed missing, including the head of the standing figure, and suggested that Joseph Smith had filled in the missing portions in the published version of the facsimile.[citation needed]

Mormon apologists allege that the statements by these Egyptologists are speculation and that Joseph Smith's reconstruction was either correct, or inconsequential to the original interpretation.[46]

If the standing figure is holding a knife, then it could possibly be a sacrificial scene as described in Abraham 1:7-15. If Joseph Smith put the knife there, then the Book of Abraham is more likely a work of fiction.

[Chris Smith]

The image of Facsimile 1 in Lucy's portrait has been shown to be based on the published version from the Times and Seasons (cf. Jay Todd's Saga of the Book of Abraham, 212-216). To my knowledge, John Gee (the premiere living defender of Nibley's thesis that Facsimile 1 was originally more complete) has not repeated Nibley's argument concerning fibers and glue on the backing paper where the knife or head would have been. He bases his argument on eyewitness evidence. Concerning the witnesses he cites, I wrote on another board,

I should preface my response to Rommelator by reciting the historians' dictum that the questions we ask of a historical text quite frequently were not in the mind of its author. An author may not have intended to describe a text with the kind of accuracy that the historian might wish, he may not have been interested in the same distinctions the historian is interested in, and he may simply overlooked or discounted as irrelevant aspects of an object or an event that (for whatever reason) are important to the historian. When we begin drawing inferences or focusing on details that were not important to a text's author, we run the risk of interpretive error. That, of course, is not to say that the historian should avoid this task altogether. But it is to say that when he or she does so, he/she should do so cautiously and hold his/her conclusions tentatively.

I say this because in a few cases, Gee and Rommelator both are drawing hard-and-fast conclusions based on minor details in eyewitness accounts that probably did not have any great importance to the witnesses.

[...]

The third case in which I believe the sources are being overtaxed is in the case of the knife. Rom argues that "We know that a knife was in the vignette in JSP I since Henry Caswall, William Applyby and Charolette Haven all detailed such." There are actually only two witnesses who mention a knife. Charlotte Haven does not take notice of this particular vignette. In the case of William Appleby, some care must be taken. His "journal" actually appears to be a later redaction, and he intersperses information from the published, Times & Seasons version of the Book of Abraham with contemporary reminiscences. It is not at all clear where we are to draw the line between redactions and the original. My own rough guess places the passage Rom cited among the original text, but I can't say with any certainty that the original journal mentioned a knife. In any case, both Appleby's and Caswall's accounts suggest that the vignette was being interpreted for them by Joseph or one of his associates. Caswall makes this explicit: "Pointing to the figure of a man lying on a table, he [the Mormon guide] said, 'That is the picture of Abraham on the point of being sacrificed. That man standing by him with a drawn knife is an idolatrous priest of the Egyptians.'" Caswall therefore places the "knife" in the mouth of his Mormon guide, rather than necessarily on the papyrus itself. Appleby, too, identifies a "priest", an "altar", and "idol gods". We may surely suppose that he was given more or less the same interpretation as Caswall. To complain that the visitors did not go on at great length about how the knife was actually a hypothetical reconstruction of a lacuna in the vignette is an imposition of our concerns upon these historical sources rather than a good-faith exposition of the meaning communicated by the authors. In sum, the 19th-century sources certainly do not demand that we reconstruct this vignette in an Egyptologically peculiar way.

And here on MADB I have written,

It should also be noted that [Henry Caswall] visited after the facsimile was published in the Times and Seasons, so if he "fabricated parts of his visit to Nauvoo," one wonders if he might not have used the T&S to do so. William I. Appleby's account was not written until 1848, and he appears at least at some points to have relied on the published T&S version. It is unclear whether he was working from an earlier diary entry or from memory. Whatever the case may be, he clearly accepted JS's restorations and explanations and described them in detail.

[...]

It's worth adding that in 1912 a number of Egyptologists pointed out that the head of Anubis and of the bird were wrong and that Anubis shouldn't have a knife. They asserted that JS had incorrectly restored these portions. Since the papyri were not then extant, this seemed like a ridiculous argument to all the apologists. The Egyptologists were ridiculed for wishing away evidence that didn't comport with their secular interpretation of the vignette. When the papyri were later recovered and those parts were damaged after all, you can imagine that the critics felt vindicated.

[...]

I don't think it's that big a deal whether there was a knife or not. However, considering that the vignette appears to be a resurrection scene, it would be odd for Anubis to have a knife. So I am not especially inclined to accept Gee's doubtful historical inference.

Best,

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

If the standing figure is holding a knife, then it is a sacrificial scene as described in Abraham 1:7-15.

More likely, it would be an embalming knife. Depictions of Anubis with an embalming knife are not unheard-of.

[Chris Smith]

Mortal Man,

I almost forgot! A while back I put together a couple overlays that try to match up the damage on Facsimile 1 (which is the outer wrap and therefore will be slightly more damaged than the inner ones) with the damage on the next wrap.

As you can see, the contours of the damage in the area in question are comparable. If the "knife" had been originally present on the papyrus, we would expect that to be reflected in the contours of the damage on the left-hand wrap. It is not. To the contrary, said contours appear to show that the present damage to Facsimile 1 in this area is basically the same as it was when Joseph Smith acquired the papyrus.

Best,

-Chris

[Olavarria]

It's extremely important.

From Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

Alleged false reconstruction of lacunae

Several Egyptologists, including Theodule Deveria, Klaus Baer, Rickard A. Parker, and Dr. ALbert Lythgoe noted that portions of Facsimile 1 appeared to be incorrect, based on comparison with other similar Egyptian vignettes, and suspected that they had been reconstructed from lacunae in the original papyri.[38] The papyri containing Facsimile 1 is acknowledged by Egyptologists to be a version of The Book of Breathings.[39][40][41][42][43] Lythgoe well summarized the consensus among these egyptologists:

"the god Anubus, bending over the mummy, was shown with a human and strangely un-Egyptian head, instead of a jackal's head usual to the scene."[44]

Other alleged misconstructions were also noted by these Egyptologists.[45] Later, when the original papyri were discovered (see section below), critics quickly noted that these portions were indeed missing, including the head of the standing figure, and suggested that Joseph Smith had filled in the missing portions in the published version of the facsimile.[citation needed]

Mormon apologists allege that the statements by these Egyptologists are speculation and that Joseph Smith's reconstruction was either correct, or inconsequential to the original interpretation.[46]

If the standing figure is holding a knife, then it is a sacrificial scene as described in Abraham 1:7-15. If Joseph Smith put the knife there, then the Book of Abraham is more likely a work of fiction.

Uh....missing pieces of papyri are by definition, missing. You can't study missing papyri.

I for one don't know or care if there was a knife there or not as the "filling in the gaps" in fac1 and fac2 were probably done out of austhetic concerns or maybe not.

look at figure 3

As to whether or not the figure was holding a knife, may or may not affect the meaning of the vignette. Check out Gee's paper in the latest Farms Review(it isnt online yet). Gee shows that during the Greco-Roman period(the only relevant period when talking about the JSP) lion couch scenes do have much to do with human sacrifice. I dont want to type it all here, like ive done with other stuff. Wait and read. For example, "In the Dendara texts, the word for the lioncouch, nm.t, is either homophonous or identical with the word nm.t, "abattoir, slaughterhouse," as well as a term for "offerings." He cites Wilson, Ptolemaic Lexicon, 516-517.

Just for fun

PDM xii . 135-46 [PGM XII. 474-79]

"...you bring a sealed...of copper...this lion, this mummy(?), and this Anubis...while we seek...black scarab(?)...put...: /'...AIDIO ORICH THAMBITO, Abraham who at...PLANOIEGCHIBIOTH MOU ROU and the whole soul for her, NN[whome NN bore]...the female body of her, NN[whome NN bore], I conjure you by the...[and] to inflame her, NN whom [NN bore].'

[Write these] words together with this picture on a new papyrus:"(1).

Source

(1)The Greek Magical Papyri In Translation Including The Demotic Spells Second Edition

By Hans Dieter Betz , pg. 171.

Published by University of Chicago Press

ISBN 0226044475, 9780226044477

Ashment

http://www.irr.org/mit/ashment-pt1.html

Gee's response to Ashment

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=1&id=171

[Benjamin McGuire]

Chris writes:

More likely, it would be an embalming knife. Depictions of Anubis with an embalming knife are not unheard-of.

But almost exclusively (I say almost - although I know of no exceptions) with a mummy, not a person in their clothing on the table.

Ben M.

[Mortal Man]

Mortal Man,

I almost forgot! A while back I put together a couple overlays that try to match up the damage on Facsimile 1 (which is the outer wrap and therefore will be slightly more damaged than the inner ones) with the damage on the next wrap.

As you can see, the contours of the damage in the area in question are comparable. If the "knife" had been originally present on the papyrus, we would expect that to be reflected in the contours of the damage on the left-hand wrap. It is not. To the contrary, said contours appear to show that the present damage to Facsimile 1 in this area is basically the same as it was when Joseph Smith acquired the papyrus.

Best,

-Chris

Chris,

Thanks for your well-researched response. I had not noticed the repeated similarity of the lacunae before. It looks to me like the pattern appears a third time to the left of the instructions column. So was Lebolo or Chandler the vandal?

I think your analysis of the witness' statements is spot on. They strike me as overly credulous and easily excitable "yes men". Still, I think it would be worth putting the glue under a microscope.

Best,

MM

[Chris Smith]

So was Lebolo or Chandler the vandal?

There are some early reports to the effect that the papyri were embalmed in a tube with a sticky preservative called bitumen, and were torn when Chandler pulled them out of the tube. At this point he was allegedly looking for valuables, and so took little care to preserve the integrity of the papyri.

Still, I think it would be worth putting the glue under a microscope.

I agree. Let's study every aspect of these documents several times over! But I would prefer that the microscopic analysis be performed by a disinterested third party rather than by the FARMS apologists who have defended the Book of Abraham to date.

[Jason]

Short of inventing a time machine, there really isn't any way to definitively answer what the original state of the papyri Joseph Smith had possession of was, nor what was and wasn't on those papyri.

[Olavarria]

But I would prefer that the microscopic analysis be performed by a disinterested third party rather than by the FARMS apologists who have defended the Book of Abraham to date.

When it comes to Joseph SMith, there is no such thing as a "disinterested third party". Everyone has a theological pony in this race.

[Chris Smith]

When it comes to Joseph SMith, there is no such thing as a "disinterested third party". Everyone has a theological pony in this race.

I think one could certainly involve an outside expert who doesn't understand the significance of the question and has no particular interest in the Book of Abraham. But I would even settle for a Kevin Barney or a Sam Brown, so long as it's not Gee or Hauglid or other members of the FARMS inner circle.

[Glenn101]

I think one could certainly involve an outside expert who doesn't understand the significance of the question and has no particular interest in the Book of Abraham. But I would even settle for a Kevin Barney or a Sam Brown, so long as it's not Gee or Hauglid or other members of the FARMS inner circle.

Are you questioning their integrity?

Glenn

[AngelPalmoni]

Here is some really great research on the second Facsimile.

I attached the thumbnail... the full drawing is at

www.angelpalmoni.com

[Chris Smith]

Are you questioning their integrity?

Glenn

Just their judgment.

[mfbukowski]

It's extremely important.

From Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

Alleged false reconstruction of lacunae

Several Egyptologists, including Theodule Deveria, Klaus Baer, Rickard A. Parker, and Dr. ALbert Lythgoe noted that portions of Facsimile 1 appeared to be incorrect, based on comparison with other similar Egyptian vignettes, and suspected that they had been reconstructed from lacunae in the original papyri.[38] The papyri containing Facsimile 1 is acknowledged by Egyptologists to be a version of The Book of Breathings.[39][40][41][42][43] Lythgoe well summarized the consensus among these egyptologists:

"the god Anubus, bending over the mummy, was shown with a human and strangely un-Egyptian head, instead of a jackal's head usual to the scene."[44]

Other alleged misconstructions were also noted by these Egyptologists.[45] Later, when the original papyri were discovered (see section below), critics quickly noted that these portions were indeed missing, including the head of the standing figure, and suggested that Joseph Smith had filled in the missing portions in the published version of the facsimile.[citation needed]

Mormon apologists allege that the statements by these Egyptologists are speculation and that Joseph Smith's reconstruction was either correct, or inconsequential to the original interpretation.[46]

If the standing figure is holding a knife, then it is a sacrificial scene as described in Abraham 1:7-15. If Joseph Smith put the knife there, then the Book of Abraham is more likely a work of fiction.

"More likely a work of fiction"?

The existence or non existence of the knife is irrelevant. Do you think that the BOA is actually a literal translation of Facsimile 1? And so Joseph with his alterations (assuming he did in fact make alterations) somehow now "drew in" the correct egyptian text so that his translation matched the altered "text"? I think you are mistaken.

The BOA cannot really be called a "translation" in the conventional sense. But it IS a revelation and a true one at that. The existence of the knife is irrelevant.

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Yesterday, 10:50 PM

"More likely a work of fiction"?

The existence or non existence of the knife is irrelevant. Do you think that the BOA is actually a literal translation of Facsimile 1? And so Joseph with his alterations (assuming he did in fact make alterations) somehow now "drew in" the correct egyptian text so that his translation matched the altered "text"? I think you are mistaken.

The BOA cannot really be called a "translation" in the conventional sense. But it IS a revelation and a true one at that. The existence of the knife is irrelevant.

Ah yes, when it becomes obvious, and some refuse to see the obvious, that the papyri(Facsimile #1 and accompanying text) claimed by Joseph to be the BOA did not in reality translate into the BOA, one must in order to maintain faith and get rid of doubts come up with other explanations. Two of my favorite are the hidden meaning and the papyri acted as a catalyst for inspiration. And Poof, the knife becomes irrelevant. Unfortunately neither is reasonable and both represent a game that can be played to explain anything you want.

[Mortal Man]

"More likely a work of fiction"?

The existence or non existence of the knife is irrelevant. Do you think that the BOA is actually a literal translation of Facsimile 1? And so Joseph with his alterations (assuming he did in fact make alterations) somehow now "drew in" the correct egyptian text so that his translation matched the altered "text"? I think you are mistaken.

The BOA cannot really be called a "translation" in the conventional sense. But it IS a revelation and a true one at that. The existence of the knife is irrelevant.

I edited my earlier post to "...could possibly be a sacrificial scene...," because I agree with Chris Smith in that, if there were a knife there, then it would be an embalming knife. My understanding is that human sacrifice was extremely rare in ancient Egypt. The importance of the knife lies in the fact that a host of Egyptologists, starting with Theodule Deveria, have said it shouldn't be there. Imagine the brouhaha that would ensue if the Hor mummy turned up somewhere and there were a papyrus fragment left stuck in a tube on his breast and it had a human head and knife on it!

I have no problem with the BoA being a revelation. In fact, I've long thought that if JS simply would have produced it in the same manner as the Book of Moses (no papyri involved and no pictures included), then the whole JSP/KEP controversy would never have arisen. (There would of course still be the four alleged anachronisms...) However, the BoA introduction states, "TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS , BY JOSEPH SMITH" and that is very hard to ignore, as are numerous journal entries speaking of translation of the papyri and construction of an alphabet and grammar of the Egyptian language.

I have no interest in arguing any particular position but I am deeply interested in uncovering all the facts and evidence.

[mfbukowski]

I edited my earlier post to "...could possibly be a sacrificial scene...," because I agree with Chris Smith in that, if there were a knife there, then it would be an embalming knife. My understanding is that human sacrifice was extremely rare in ancient Egypt. The importance of the knife lies in the fact that a host of Egyptologists, starting with Theodule Deveria, have said it shouldn't be there. Imagine the brouhaha that would ensue if the Hor mummy turned up somewhere and there were a papyrus fragment left stuck in a tube on his breast and it had a human head and knife on it!

I have no problem with the BoA being a revelation. In fact, I've long thought that if JS simply would have produced it in the same manner as the Book of Moses (no papyri involved and no pictures included), then the whole JSP/KEP controversy would never have arisen. (There would of course still be the four alleged anachronisms...) However, the BoA introduction states, "TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS , BY JOSEPH SMITH" and that is very hard to ignore, as are numerous journal entries speaking of translation of the papyri and construction of an alphabet and grammar of the Egyptian language.

I have no interest in arguing any particular position but I am deeply interested in uncovering all the facts and evidence.

But what is not understood is the fact that the papyri include information not found in the text which is relevant to understanding the temple rites. This is what most miss. This is one of the reasons I chose my avatar. This particular cut is precisely what Jospeh says it is, and has been a major key to my understanding of the temple ceremonies.

If we didn't have the actual cuts as given by Joseph, this would not be possible. You may think what you want about Joseph, but especially for those who think he was a fraud, he was not stupid. If he was a fraud, why would he publish material which he must have been able to forsee would some day be translated to the detriment of his "translation"? Remember this was AFTER the whole Anthon manuscript BOM affair, so clearly being a cunning fraud, he would have already learned his lesson about releasing manuscripts which might be translated differently by others.

So to me, that is a very naive view that a man as smart as Smith would make the same huge mistake twice.

Clearly, the facsimilies have another hidden function for the whole scriptural scheme. And what they are is clear with a little study of them with spiritual eyes. They are keys to the understanding of the temple ordinances. They are the roseta stones for understanding the symbols, if you only really see what is there.

For one who was involved in sacred mysteries, what better way to find those prepared for understanding than to publish the keys to the mysteries for all who are not prepared, to ignore and argue over? There is a certain humorous justice in all of it.

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Yesterday, 09:12 PM

If he was a fraud, why would he publish material which he must have been able to forsee would some day be translated to the detriment of his "translation"? Remember this was AFTER the whole Anthon manuscript BOM affair, so clearly being a cunning fraud, he would have already learned his lesson about releasing manuscripts which might be translated differently by others.

He must have been able to foresee? Egyptian was was not known, and many could have thought it would never be known. It was only the Rosetta stone that changed that, which I doubt Joseph was aware had been found. Frauds, If Joseph was one, don't always think or care about the future as long as the fraud works in their favor in the present or near future. I'm not sure what lesson Joseph was supposed to learn from the Anthon affair.

So to me, that is a very naive view that a man as smart as Smith would make the same huge mistake twice.

Makes me wonder who is really being naive.

For one who was involved in sacred mysteries, what better way to find those prepared for understanding than to publish the keys to the mysteries for all who are not prepared, to ignore and argue over? There is a certain humorous justice in all of it.

Yes humorous that we can convince ourselves of what we want, and I can even laugh at myself for having been in that boat.

[Mortal Man]

But what is not understood is the fact that the papyri include information not found in the text which is relevant to understanding the temple rites. This is what most miss. This is one of the reasons I chose my avatar. This particular cut is precisely what Jospeh says it is, and has been a major key to my understanding of the temple ceremonies.

If we didn't have the actual cuts as given by Joseph, this would not be possible. You may think what you want about Joseph, but especially for those who think he was a fraud, he was not stupid. If he was a fraud, why would he publish material which he must have been able to forsee would some day be translated to the detriment of his "translation"? Remember this was AFTER the whole Anthon manuscript BOM affair, so clearly being a cunning fraud, he would have already learned his lesson about releasing manuscripts which might be translated differently by others.

So to me, that is a very naive view that a man as smart as Smith would make the same huge mistake twice.

Clearly, the facsimilies have another hidden function for the whole scriptural scheme. And what they are is clear with a little study of them with spiritual eyes. They are keys to the understanding of the temple ordinances. They are the roseta stones for understanding the symbols, if you only really see what is there.

For one who was involved in sacred mysteries, what better way to find those prepared for understanding than to publish the keys to the mysteries for all who are not prepared, to ignore and argue over? There is a certain humorous justice in all of it.

Funny you should mention that as I am currently making my way through Nibley's The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment. You are absolutely right in that the JSP papyri and similar papyri, are key to understanding our temple rites.

Regarding Joseph Smith. My belief is that he firmly believed in everything he did.

Regarding your avatar, I once thought exactly the same thing as you. Several years back, I pointed out that figure to my brother immediately following a session. In actuality the seated figure is Min and the thing sticking out his front is not his arm.

This is a pro-Mormon link: http://www.lightplanet.com/response/BofAbraham/jshypo.htm

[Olavarria]

Funny you should mention that as I am currently making my way through Nibley's The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment. You are absolutely right in that the JSP papyri and similar papyri, are key to understanding our temple rites.

Regarding Joseph Smith. My belief is that he firmly believed in everything he did.

Regarding your avatar, I once thought exactly the same thing as you. Several years back, I pointed out that figure to my brother immediately following a session. In actuality the seated figure is Min and the thing sticking out his front is not his arm.

This is a pro-Mormon link: http://www.lightplanet.com/response/BofAbraham/jshypo.htm

What is this?

The seated figure is ithyphallic and is brandishing a flail. Another figure is in front of him and is presenting the wedjat eye. In other hypocephali , the presenting figure is a bipedal snake.

What did the Egyptians call this figure?

Nṯr ʿɜ, "the great god"(1)

What is the Eye in the hands of the snake?

This is the wedjat eye. "The wedjat eye could represent almost any aspect of the divine order, including kingship and the offerings made to the gods and the dead"(2).

How did the Prophet Joseph Smith explain this figure?

Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove.

What spiritual insights can be gained from these explanations?

The Prophet Joseph explained, "God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret.",(3). God the Father is male in the most common, everyday sense of the word.

"All human beingsâ??male and femaleâ??are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose"(3).

Sources:

(1)John Gee, "Towards an Interpretation of Hypocephali," in "Le lotus qui sort du terre": M

[Mortal Man]

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose

{blushes} Move along folks. Nothing to see here.