Are The Lds Temple Rituals Supposed To Be Anything Like The Rituals Of The Old Testament Temple?

[wenglund]

The same way that Joseph Smith was able to tell his family all about the minute details of Nephite society before he ever even got his hands on the golden plates.

The story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, with its visions and angelic visitations, is so remarkably different from the story of the coming forth of the Book of Abraham, as to render your wild speculation highly implausible.

Also, the Chandler papyri contained images, such as the walking serpent next to a female figure, which seemed biblical to Oliver Cowdery, which he broadcast to Kirtland Mormons in the official church newspaper. William West was recording what everybody in Kirtland evidently believed, based on Cowdery's description.

Perhaps you are here referring to the Cowdery letter published in the December 31, 1835 edition of the Messenger and Advocate, in which there is said, in part, "The language in which this record is written is very comprehensive, and many of the hieroglyphics exceedingly striking. The evidence is apparent upon the face, that they were written by persons acquainted with the history of the creation, the fall of man, and more or less of the correct ideas of notions of the Deity. The representation of the god head --three, yet in one, is curiously drawn to give simply, though impressively, the writers views of that exalted personage. The serpent, represented as walking, or formed in a manner to be able to walk, standing in front of, and near a female figure, is to me, one of the greatest representations I have ever seen upon paper, or a writing substance; and must go so far towards convincing the rational mind of the correctness and divine authority of the holy scriptures, and especially that part which has ever been assailed by the infidel community, as being a fiction, as to carry away, with one might sweep, the whole atheistical fabric, without leaving a vestige sufficient for a foundation stone. Enoch's Pillar, as mentioned by Josephus, is upon the same roll. -- True, our present version of the bible does not mention this fact, though it speaks of the righteousness of Abel and the holiness of Enoch, -- one slain because his offering was accepted of the Lord, and the other taken to the regions of everlasting day without being confined to the narrow limits of the tomb, or tasting death; but Josephus says that the descendants of Seth were virtuous, and possessed a great knowledge of the heavenly bodies, and, that, in consequence of the prophecy of Adam, that the world should be destroyed once by water and again by fire, Enoch wrote a history or an account of the same, and put into two pillars one of brick and the other of stone; and that the same were in being at his (Josephus;) day." (Messenger and Advocate, Dec 1835, Oliver Cowdery p.233-237--emphasis mine)

However, within this letter there is implication that the above account was a function of translation: "When the translation of these valuable documents will be completed, I am unable to say; neither can I give you a probably idea how large volumes they will make; but judging from their size, and the comprehensiveness of the language, one might reasonable expect to see a sufficient to develop much upon the mighty acts of the ancient men of God, and of his dealing with the children of men when they saw him face to face."(ibid--emphasis mine)

This is, to some degree, substantiated by the prophet's journal: October 1, 1835. "This after noon labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with brsr. O. Cowdery and W.W.Phelps: The system of astronomy was unfolded." (Joseph Smith's Journal--emphasis mine) and December 16th, 1835: "Elders William E. M'Lellin, Brigham Young, and Jared Carter, called and paid me a visit with which I was much gratified. I exhibited and explained the Egyptian records to them, and explained many things concerning the dealing of God with the ancients, and the formation of the planetary system." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.25, p.334--emphasis mine)

Also, several of the KEP documents (the three Egyptian Alphabets and the Grammar and alphabet of the Egyptian Language), which were presumably written in late summer and fall of 1835, speak of the beginning, creation, Adam, the first man, and the garden (see explanations for the characters with the sounds: Pha E, Aleph, Ba Eth Ka, Zub Zool Oan Eh, Zub. Beth Ku Ain Trieth, Beth, Beth Ka, Zool)

In short, contrary to your objection and wild conjectures, there is much evidence, beyond the West account, to support the proposition that at least some portion of the Book of Abraham creation/garden story was first translated in 1835, though the same may have been retranslated and completed in 1842.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 14, 2012 by wenglund

[Robert F. Smith]

That's quite a trick for pagan temples that pre-date the temple of Solomon to have been "debased" forms of the Hebrew temple practices. I don't think there is archaeological evidence that the Canaanites had time machines.

The Temple of Solomon is a latecomer on the ancient stage. Had you read more carefully, you'd have noticed that I did not say that pagan temples and rituals were debased forms of the Solomonic Temple rites, but rather of much more ancient authentic originals. In fact you make a habit of misreading what others write here. Indeed, in the Bible alone, we read accounts of authentic esoteric rites being performed for a thousand years before Solomon. Instead of misplaced sarcasm and mockery, you might try sincerity, and perhaps reading some of the sources I have already recommended.

[Cobalt-70]

Neither did I. You need to read more carefully what people in fact say. We do not know when Joseph actually translated the papyri, but we do know for certain that the creation story was a known part of the contents already in Kirtland -- not Nauvoo. Thus, because you so readily admit that the Genesis and Book of Moses creation stories were already available, it is obtuse of you to suggest somehow that the creation story in the Book of Abraham had any sort of big impact on Joseph. That is nonsense.

The timing says that it did--that he had a renewed interest in the Genesis story just at the time he was developing the temple ceremony. Also, the Book of Abraham contains new elements that are only also found in the temple version of the Genesis myths, such as reference to multiple "Gods," the statement by the gods that "We will do x," followed by x being done in accordance with orders given, and the phrase "let us go down" in the context of the creation.

I already referred to Joseph's clerks. I believe them to have been very sincere in their efforts. They are the ones who wrote his journals, and the 1857 publication was made after Joseph's death, just as I stated. The process of creating the History of the Church took many years, Roberts merely being the final hand to bring it to publication. We do not in fact know when Joseph actually translated the papyri, even if it was done in steps. It is quite likely that a final manuscript was prepared for publication in early 1842. It is unfortunate that we don't have that MS. Bear in mind, however, that the use of the term translate was often confused by Joseph and the brethren with transcribe.

However, Smith's journals were not written after his death. Why would a scribe say that Smith was recommencing the translation of the Book of Abraham if he wasn't. And wouldn't the scribe keeping Smith's journal have known? And CFR for an example in which Smith's scribes used the word "translate" to describe editing or mere transcription from one English manuscript to another English manuscript.

[Cobalt-70]

Perhaps you are here referring to the Cowdery letter published in the December 31, 1835 edition of the Messenger and Advocate, in which there is said, in part, "The language in which this record is written is very comprehensive, and many of the hieroglyphics exceedingly striking. The evidence is apparent upon the face, that they were written by persons acquainted with the history of the creation, the fall of man, and more or less of the correct ideas of notions of the Deity...

However, within this letter there is implication that the above account was a function of translation: "When the translation of these valuable documents will be completed, I am unable to say; neither can I give you a probably idea how large volumes they will make; but judging from their size, and the comprehensiveness of the language, one might reasonable expect to see a sufficient to develop much upon the mighty acts of the ancient men of God, and of his dealing with the children of men when they saw him face to face."(ibid--emphasis mine)

It is clear that Cowdery was making his conclusions based on what was "apparent upon the face" of the papyri, such as the figures he identified as Lucifer and Eve, and the "Pillars or Enoch." We know exactly what figures he was referring to, and they are from the part that was supposed to be the Book of Joseph, which was never translated.

His statement that the translation was not yet completed is not at all an indication that his above conclusions were based on translation. It just means that the Smith had only started translating by the end of 1835. By that time, he only had translated chapters 1-2, and possibly part or all of 3.

This is, to some degree, substantiated by the prophet's journal: October 1, 1835. "This after noon labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with brsr. O. Cowdery and W.W.Phelps: The system of astronomy was unfolded." (Joseph Smith's Journal--emphasis mine) and December 16th, 1835: "Elders William E. M'Lellin, Brigham Young, and Jared Carter, called and paid me a visit with which I was much gratified. I exhibited and explained the Egyptian records to them, and explained many things concerning the dealing of God with the ancients, and the formation of the planetary system." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.25, p.334--emphasis mine)

The "system of astronomy" is associated with the KEP and with Chapter 3 of the Book of Abraham. Even if Smith had got to chapter 3 by the end of 1835, the genesis myth chapters are chapters 4-5.

Also, several of the KEP documents (the three Egyptian Alphabets and the Grammar and alphabet of the Egyptian Language), which were presumably written in late summer and fall of 1835, speak of the beginning, creation, Adam, the first man, and the garden (see explanations for the characters with the sounds: Pha E, Aleph, Ba Eth Ka, Zub Zool Oan Eh, Zub. Beth Ku Ain Trieth, Beth, Beth Ka, Zool)

So what if the KEP that contained references to Adam. That doesn't mean that Smith had already translated Abraham 4-5 by 1835. It just means that, like Oliver Cowdery, Smith thought that the papyri had some connection to the Genesis myths.

[Cobalt-70]

The Temple of Solomon is a latecomer on the ancient stage. Had you read more carefully, you'd have noticed that I did not say that pagan temples and rituals were debased forms of the Solomonic Temple rites, but rather of much more ancient authentic originals. In fact you make a habit of misreading what others write here. Indeed, in the Bible alone, we read accounts of authentic esoteric rites being performed for a thousand years before Solomon. Instead of misplaced sarcasm and mockery, you might try sincerity, and perhaps reading some of the sources I have already recommended.

I pretty much agree with your secular sources. But they don't even come close to supporting what you are claiming. Where is the evidence of the existence of these "authentic" pre-temple temple rituals? And don't say the bible, because Joseph Smith had access to the bible, too, and the bible was written centuries after the temple of Solomon. If there is an arrow of influence, it goes from the temple of Solomon to the bible, and from the bible to the Nauvoo endowment ceremony, not the reverse direction.

[Bill Hamblin]

I pretty much agree with your secular sources. But they don't even come close to supporting what you are claiming. Where is the evidence of the existence of these "authentic" pre-temple temple rituals? And don't say the bible, because Joseph Smith had access to the bible, too, and the bible was written centuries after the temple of Solomon. If there is an arrow of influence, it goes from the temple of Solomon to the bible, and from the bible to the Nauvoo endowment ceremony, not the reverse direction.

The closest examples are found in early Jewish and Christian esoteric thought, literature, interpretation, and ritual. It is ubiquitous in ascent literature and ritual. Many non-Mormon scholars have recognized these phenomena. The fact that you personally don't know about it is a reflection of your personal ignorance, not a reflection on the ancient sources, beliefs, and practices.

I'm attaching an unfinished essay, which contains extensive bibliography to both primary and secondary sources. Read them. Then we'll talk.

http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/celestial-ascent/

Edited September 14, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

One of the peculiar things about trying to understand what happened in the Israelite temple is that the Bible doesn’t actually tell us. The lengthy descriptions of the layout, priestly robes, calendar, and sacrificial ritual is accompanied by neither a description of what should be said by the priests (prayers, hymns, etc.), nor an explanation of the meaning of the rituals. It appears that some of the psalms are temple hymns, but for the most part we do not know what the priests said during the temple ceremonies.

Anciently, the Greeks described their temple mysteries as including:

1- “things done” (dromena), ritual acts or drama

2- “things revealed/shown” (deiknumena), either objects that were unveiled and shown, or esoteric knowledge

3- “things said” (legomena) ritual speech, commentary and explanation

However, like Israelite temple texts, we are left in the dark about many of the specifics of Greek temple rituals--they were simply too sacred to record, but had to be passed orally.

In Israelite ritual we know some of the “things done” from sources like Leviticus, but almost none of the “things revealed” or “things said.” What is important here is to realize that many, indeed, probably most of the things done and said and revealed in the Israelite temple have not been recorded. It was a living ritual system intended for participation, not reading. Scholars have been perplexed by this, and have spent a great deal of effort trying to reconstruct some of the details of Israelite temple ritual, mythos and theology. To better understand what occurred, we need to piece those elements together from hints in a wide variety of biblical and non-biblical texts written over a thousand years.

[Cobalt-70]

The closest examples are found in early Jewish and Christian esoteric thought, literature, interpretation, and ritual. It is ubiquitous in ascent literature and ritual. Many non-Mormon scholars have recognized these phenomena. The fact that you personally don't know about it is a reflection of your personal ignorance, not a reflection on the ancient sources, beliefs, and practices.

I'm attaching an unfinished essay, which contains extensive bibliography to both primary and secondary sources. Read them. Then we'll talk.

http://mormonscriptu...lestial-ascent/

The problem is not you think that Joseph Smith was influenced by Jewish esoteric thought and ascent literature and ritual. Obviously, he was. You are not the first person to propose that. The problem is that you write as if you didn't realize there existed such things as Kabbalism, alchemy, astrology, magic, and Freemasonry in the early 19th century, or that Joseph Smith had the Apocrypha. You are not an equal-opportunity employer of cultural parallels.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[volgadon]

In both cases, read 2 Kings 18:4. It says that the Hebrews offered sacrifices to the bronze serpent until the days of Hezekiah, and that it was Hezekiah who named it Nehushtan.

As Mormons, I think we ought to embrace this. There, in the Temple of Solomon, were three gods, one being the Father (YHWH), the other being Heavenly Mother (Asherah), and the third being the Son (Nehushtan). The Book of Mormon already recognizes Nehushtan as a graven image representing Jesus Christ. (Alma 33:19, Hel. 8:14)

Ok, I'll give you that Hezekiah called it the Nehushtan, but whether it was original to him, who knows. The text, however, speaks of incense, rather than sacrifices, so a slight distinction there. What it does not do is show that the Nehushtan was a pagan god rather than a portrayal of God or his power.

[Bill Hamblin]

Ok, I'll give you that Hezekiah called it the Nehushtan, but whether it was original to him, who knows. The text, however, speaks of incense, rather than sacrifices, so a slight distinction there. What it does not do is show that the Nehushtan was a pagan god rather than a portrayal of God or his power.

The neḥuštān (2 Kgs. 18:4) was one of the relics/signs (ʾôt) of the Exodus (Num. 21:4-9) kept in the temple, along with the tablets of the Law (Dt. 31:26), the staff or Aaron (Num. 7:10), the oil of anointing and the jar of manna (Ex. 16:33). Its name clearly derives from the Hebrew for "bronze serpent" (Num. 21:9a) neḥaš neḥōšet ("serpent bronze," in Hebrew word order for adjectives.) It is clearly not a god. They did not offer blood sacrifices to it. Rather, they "burnt incense before it" (meqatterîm lô). Since it was in the Holy Place, and incense was burned on the golden incense altar in the Holy Place, some people were apparently arguing that they were burning incense to the neḥuštān, rather than to YHWH in a room where the neḥuštān happened to be.

If anything, it was probably understood to be a serāpîm, or a seraph (Isa. 6:2, meaning "fiery one"), that is, one of the Host of Heaven, or Sons of God to whom the Israelites were forbidden to make offerings (Dt. 4:19, 17:3; 2 Kgs. 17:16; 2 Chr. 33:3-5). This is because in Num. 21:8 YHWH command Moses to make a sārāp/seraph and set it on a pole, while in 21:9 that sārāp is called a "bronze serpent."

Edited September 15, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

The problem is not you think that Joseph Smith was influenced by Jewish esoteric thought and ascent literature and ritual. Obviously, he was. You are not the first person to propose that. The problem is that you write as if you didn't realize there existed such things as Kabbalism, alchemy, astrology, magic, and Freemasonry in the early 19th century, or that Joseph Smith had the Apocrypha. You are not an equal-opportunity employer of cultural parallels.

Well you are obviously confused.

1- I did not claim JS "was influenced by Jewish esoteric thought and ascent literature and ritual." The claim is that the Endowment exhibits more and stronger parallels to ancient ascent, temple, and deification literature than to Freemasonry.

2- I reject the claimed influences of "Kabbalism, alchemy, astrology, magic" on JS. The evidence for these claims is extremely weak, as I have demonstrated in excruciating detail.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=8&num=2&id=229

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=6&num=2&id=151

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=12&num=2&id=364

3- Note, also that the texts I cite were contemporary with the Israelite temple and its immediate ideological successors; Kabbalistic sources are 500-1000 years later.

3- JS access to the Apocrypha is irrelevant, since the vast majority of the sources I list are not from the Apocrypha.

4- I have studied the alleged 19th century parallels in great detail, on which see #2 above.

5- I note that you are now changing your argument from "there is no connection to the ancient temple" to "connections to the ancient temple are indirect through Freemasonry, magic, and Kabbalah." That's progress, I guess.

[Robert F. Smith]

I pretty much agree with your secular sources. But they don't even come close to supporting what you are claiming. Where is the evidence of the existence of these "authentic" pre-temple temple rituals? And don't say the bible, because Joseph Smith had access to the bible, too, and the bible was written centuries after the temple of Solomon. If there is an arrow of influence, it goes from the temple of Solomon to the bible, and from the bible to the Nauvoo endowment ceremony, not the reverse direction.

You clearly have not bothered to refer to the sources which I and others have cited above, so I'll mention those and some others here:

Garden Girl said:

I recommend Nibley's "Temple and Cosmos" particularly in regard to the "Prayer Circle." [Nibley, Temple & Cosmos, Collected Works of Hugh Nibley XII (Deseret/FARMS, 1992).]

Kevin Christensen recommended:

Nibley and Eliade on ancient temples. And William Hamblin and David Seeley's recent book on Solomons temple. And perhaps a bit of Frye on archetypal symbolism. Say, The Anatomy of Criticism, page 141.

I recommended and said to you:

These are ancient, even primordial rites. Nibley has a detailed appendix filled with them in his The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, now in a second edition.

Mia Rikala, “Sacred Marriage in the New Kingdom of ancient Egypt: Circumstantial Evidence for a Ritual Interpretation,” in Nissinen & Uro, eds., Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008), 115–144.

Martin Nissinen, “Song of Songs and Sacred Marriage,” in Nissinen & Uro, eds., Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008),

S. N. Kramer, Sacred Marriage Rite (Bloomington: Indiana Univ., 1969).

Arnold van Gennep, The Rites of Passage, trans. M. B. Vizedom & G. L. Caffee [1960], from the 1909 Les rites de passage.

I would also add:

Moshe Weinfeld, “Instructions for Temple Visitors in the Bible and in Ancient Egypt,” in Sarah Israelit-Groll, ed., Scripta Hierosolymitana, 28 (Jerusalem, 1982), 224-250.

John A. Tvedtnes, "Egyptian Etymologies for Biblical Cultic Paraphernalia," in Sarah Israelit-Groll, ed., Scripta Hierosolymitana, 28 (Jerusalem, 1982), 215-221. Expanded on in his November 1997 SBL San Francisco presentation.

Serge Sauneron, Esna, I-VI, VIII (Cairo: IFAO, 1959-1975,1982). Includes translation-commentary of a full Creation ritual from the Temple of Esna in vol. V.

David O’Connor, “Architecture of Infinity: In Their Temples, the Ancient Egyptians Followed a Simple Plan that Mirrored the Creation of the Universe,” Archaeology Odyssey, 2/4 (Sept-Oct 1999), 45-47.

Saphinaz-Amal Naguib, “Survivals of Pharaonic Religious Practices in Contemporary Coptic Christianity,” UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, version 1, April 2008, online at http://escholarship..../ item/27v9z5m8 .

S. Meyer, Egypt – Temple of the Whole World/ Ägypten – Tempel der Gesamten Welt: Studies in Honor of Jan Assmann (Leiden: Brill, 2003).

George Michell, The Hindu Temple: An Introduction to Its Meaning and Forms (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1977).

Richard L. Bushman, “Eliade’s Return” [review of Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return, trans. W. R. Trask (Princeton Univ. Press, 2005), from 1934 Rumanian edition], in The Mormon Review, Sept 6, 2009, online at http://timesandseaso...s/?p=76#more-76 . See on temples and cities in the ancient world. See blog at http://timesandseass...-elaides-return .

Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, trans. T. Hallett (Winona Lake:Eisenbrauns, 1997).

Othmar Keel and C. Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, trans. T. Trapp (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998).

Marc J. H. Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon: The Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic Cult Practice, CM 25 (Leiden: Brill, 2003).

David Ussishkin, “Building IV in Hamath and the Temple of Solomon and Tell Tayanat,” Israel Exploration Journal, 16 (1966), 104-110.

John Monson, "The New `Ain Dara Temple: Closest Solomonic Parallel," BAR, 26/3 (May-June 2000), 20-35, 67.

Philippe Talon, “Enūma Eliš and the Transmission of Babylonian Cosmology to the West,” in R.M. Whiting, ed., MELAMMU SYMPOSIA II (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001), 265-277 [Mythology and Mythologies; Methodological Approaches to Intercultural Influences. Proceedings of the Second Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project, Paris, France, October 4-7, 1999 (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project 2001)] http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/ .

G. del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit, trans. W. G. E. Watson (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004).

Donald W. Parry, ed., Temples of the Ancient World (FARMS & Deseret Book, 1994).

John M. Lundquist, The Temple: Meeting Place of Heaven and Earth (Thames & Hudson, forthcoming Sept 2012). ppb.

Hugh W. Nibley, “Ancient Temples: What Do They Signify?” Ensign, 2/9 (Sept 1972), 46-49, which is available online at http://lds.org .

Edited September 15, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

You clearly have not bothered to refer to the sources which I and others have cited above, so I'll mention those and some others here:

Garden Girl said:

I recommend Nibley's "Temple and Cosmos" particularly in regard to the "Prayer Circle." [Nibley, Temple & Cosmos, Collected Works of Hugh Nibley XII (Deseret/FARMS, 1992).]

Kevin Christensen recommended:

Nibley and Eliade on ancient temples. And William Hamblin and David Seeley's recent book on Solomons temple. And perhaps a bit of Frye on archetypal symbolism. Say, The Anatomy of Criticism, page 141.

I recommended and said to you:

These are ancient, even primordial rites. Nibley has a detailed appendix filled with them in his The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, now in a second edition.

Mia Rikala, “Sacred Marriage in the New Kingdom of ancient Egypt: Circumstantial Evidence for a Ritual Interpretation,” in Nissinen & Uro, eds., Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008), 115–144.

Martin Nissinen, “Song of Songs and Sacred Marriage,” in Nissinen & Uro, eds., Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008),

S. N. Kramer, Sacred Marriage Rite (Bloomington: Indiana Univ., 1969).

Arnold van Gennep, The Rites of Passage, trans. M. B. Vizedom & G. L. Caffee [1960], from the 1909 Les rites de passage.

I would also add:

Moshe Weinfeld, “Instructions for Temple Visitors in the Bible and in Ancient Egypt,” in Sarah Israelit-Groll, ed., Scripta Hierosolymitana, 28 (Jerusalem, 1982), 224-250.

John A. Tvedtnes, "Egyptian Etymologies for Biblical Cultic Paraphernalia," in Sarah Israelit-Groll, ed., Scripta Hierosolymitana, 28 (Jerusalem, 1982), 215-221. Expanded on in his November 1997 SBL San Francisco presentation.

Serge Sauneron, Esna, I-VI, VIII (Cairo: IFAO, 1959-1975,1982). Includes translation-commentary of a full Creation ritual from the Temple of Esna in vol. V.

David O’Connor, “Architecture of Infinity: In Their Temples, the Ancient Egyptians Followed a Simple Plan that Mirrored the Creation of the Universe,” Archaeology Odyssey, 2/4 (Sept-Oct 1999), 45-47.

Saphinaz-Amal Naguib, “Survivals of Pharaonic Religious Practices in Contemporary Coptic Christianity,” UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, version 1, April 2008, online at http://escholarship..../ item/27v9z5m8 .

S. Meyer, Egypt – Temple of the Whole World/ Ägypten – Tempel der Gesamten Welt: Studies in Honor of Jan Assmann (Leiden: Brill, 2003).

George Michell, The Hindu Temple: An Introduction to Its Meaning and Forms (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1977).

Richard L. Bushman, “Eliade’s Return” [review of Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return, trans. W. R. Trask (Princeton Univ. Press, 2005), from 1934 Rumanian edition], in The Mormon Review, Sept 6, 2009, online at http://timesandseaso...s/?p=76#more-76 . See on temples and cities in the ancient world. See blog at http://timesandseass...-elaides-return .

Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, trans. T. Hallett (Winona Lake:Eisenbrauns, 1997).

Othmar Keel and C. Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, trans. T. Trapp (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998).

Marc J. H. Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon: The Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic Cult Practice, CM 25 (Leiden: Brill, 2003).

David Ussishkin, “Building IV in Hamath and the Temple of Solomon and Tell Tayanat,” Israel Exploration Journal, 16 (1966), 104-110.

John Monson, "The New `Ain Dara Temple: Closest Solomonic Parallel," BAR, 26/3 (May-June 2000), 20-35, 67.

Philippe Talon, “Enūma Eliš and the Transmission of Babylonian Cosmology to the West,” in R.M. Whiting, ed., MELAMMU SYMPOSIA II (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001), 265-277 [Mythology and Mythologies; Methodological Approaches to Intercultural Influences. Proceedings of the Second Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project, Paris, France, October 4-7, 1999 (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project 2001)] http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/ .

G. del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit, trans. W. G. E. Watson (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004).

Donald W. Parry, ed., Temples of the Ancient World (FARMS & Deseret Book, 1994).

John M. Lundquist, The Temple: Meeting Place of Heaven and Earth (Thames & Hudson, forthcoming Sept 2012). ppb.

Hugh W. Nibley, “Ancient Temples: What Do They Signify?” Ensign, 2/9 (Sept 1972), 46-49, which is available online at http://lds.org .

Is that all you've got?

[Robert F. Smith]

The timing says that it did--that he had a renewed interest in the Genesis story just at the time he was developing the temple ceremony. Also, the Book of Abraham contains new elements that are only also found in the temple version of the Genesis myths, such as reference to multiple "Gods," the statement by the gods that "We will do x," followed by x being done in accordance with orders given, and the phrase "let us go down" in the context of the creation.

Creation was a quotidian matter for Joseph and his brethren, so that this "renewed interest" in it seems petty on your part, aside from the fact that it is not part of the masonic rite. As to multiple gods in the creation narrative, Joseph had already studied Hebrew formally in Kirtland and certainly knew the plural meaning of 'Elohim. Moreover, "Let us go down" is a well known KJV phrase from Gen 11:7, and certainly not far from "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Gen 1:26).

However, Smith's journals were not written after his death. Why would a scribe say that Smith was recommencing the translation of the Book of Abraham if he wasn't. And wouldn't the scribe keeping Smith's journal have known? And CFR for an example in which Smith's scribes used the word "translate" to describe editing or mere transcription from one English manuscript to another English manuscript.

Of course they weren't written after his death, and I didn't say they had been. You need to pay closer attention: The manuscript history of the Church was being created from a wide variety of sources long before Joseph died, including his journals (kept by the clerks on a daily basis), news articles, and various accounts of speeches and activities by others. I thought that you understood this.

At least your CFR is rationally stated: In his book The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (Kofford, 2011), 5 n. 8, Brant Gardner explains that both Martin Harris and Joseph Smith "appear to have used 'translation' instead of 'transcription'." He cites D. Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, 2:336 n. 2, and David Sloan, JBMS, 5/2 (1996), 62-69. This should be no surprise in view of dictionaries even now demonstrating the confusion in the meaning of these two terms. A couple of examples follow:

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed. (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000/2009).

transcribe “6. To translate or transliterate.”

Collins English Dictionary, Complete and Unabridged (HarperCollins Publishers, 2003),

transcribe “3. to transliterate or translate.”

Edited September 16, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Cobalt-70]

Ok, I'll give you that Hezekiah called it the Nehushtan, but whether it was original to him, who knows. The text, however, speaks of incense, rather than sacrifices, so a slight distinction there. What it does not do is show that the Nehushtan was a pagan god rather than a portrayal of God or his power.

The Hebrew doesn't say anything about burning, specifically, incense. It just says that they made burnt offerings to Nehushtan. Even if they burned incense to Nehushtan, that is still a burnt offering. The idea of burnt offerings is that you turn something valuable (meat, grain, incense) into smoke, so that the fragrance and vapors can be enjoyed by the god to whom the sacrifice is made.

[Cobalt-70]

The neḥuštān (2 Kgs. 18:4) was one of the relics/signs (ʾôt) of the Exodus (Num. 21:4-9) kept in the temple, along with the tablets of the Law (Dt. 31:26), the staff or Aaron (Num. 7:10), the oil of anointing and the jar of manna (Ex. 16:33). Its name clearly derives from the Hebrew for "bronze serpent" (Num. 21:9a) neḥaš neḥōšet ("serpent bronze," in Hebrew word order for adjectives.) It is clearly not a god. They did not offer blood sacrifices to it. Rather, they "burnt incense before it" (meqatterîm lô). Since it was in the Holy Place, and incense was burned on the golden incense altar in the Holy Place, some people were apparently arguing that they were burning incense to the neḥuštān, rather than to YHWH in a room where the neḥuštān happened to be.

I give you points for creativity. But come on. If Nehushtan were not a god, then it would not have been included among the gods (such as Asherah) that Hezekiah destroyed in a fit of pro-Yahwist zeal. 2 Kings 18:4 says that Nehushtan was destroyed because the Israelites had been offering burnings to it. If Hezekiah did not consider Nehushtan to be an idol, then how do you explain his treatment of it?

[wenglund]

It is clear that Cowdery was making his conclusions based on what was "apparent upon the face" of the papyri, such as the figures he identified as Lucifer and Eve, and the "Pillars or Enoch." We know exactly what figures he was referring to, and they are from the part that was supposed to be the Book of Joseph, which was never translated.

First, given all that was said about the Book of Joseph in Cowdery's letter, there is good reason to believe that the Book of Joseph was translated, in part, by that time. You, of course, are free to believe otherwise.

Second, the Pillars of Enoch aren't related to the creation/garden story.

And, third, the "evidence" that was "apparent on its face" that the author of the papyrus was "acquainted with the history of the creation, the fall of man," consisted of far more than just the glyph with the walking serpent and the woman, but also included "the language in which this record is written," which was "very comprehensive," as well as "many of the hieroglyphics." In order for Cowdery to have known that the language (the hieretics) and the many hieroglyphs contained a comprehensive history of the creation and fall, and not just the conversation between Eve and the serpent, required translation of at least a portion of the face of the papyrus. Obviously.

Again, that translation is clearly implied in Cowdery's mention of "when the translation of these valuable documents will be completed."

His statement that the translation was not yet completed is not at all an indication that his above conclusions were based on translation. It just means that the Smith had only started translating by the end of 1835. By that time, he only had translated chapters 1-2, and possibly part or all of 3.

To me, the "evidence on its face" suggests far more. Again, you are free to conjecture otherwise.

The "system of astronomy" is associated with the KEP and with Chapter 3 of the Book of Abraham. Even if Smith had got to chapter 3 by the end of 1835, the genesis myth chapters are chapters 4-5.

The "system of astronomy" is covered in Chapter 3. However, the "formation of the planetary system," is dealt with in Chapter 4. And, in case you may not be aware, Chapter 3 provides substantial interpretive meaning for Chapters 4-5, which supports what we have been contending all along.

So what if the KEP that contained references to Adam. That doesn't mean that Smith had already translated Abraham 4-5 by 1835. It just means that, like Oliver Cowdery, Smith thought that the papyri had some connection to the Genesis myths.

It lends some credence to the hypothesis that portions of Abraham 4-5 may have been initially translated as early as 1835--though retranslated in 1842. However, at the very least it gives strong reason to propose that Joseph had a rather developed interpretive understanding of the creation and garden narratives as early as 1835, your baseless opinion to the contrary notwithstanding.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill Hamblin]

The Hebrew doesn't say anything about burning, specifically, incense. It just says that they made burnt offerings to Nehushtan. Even if they burned incense to Nehushtan, that is still a burnt offering. The idea of burnt offerings is that you turn something valuable (meat, grain, incense) into smoke, so that the fragrance and vapors can be enjoyed by the god to whom the sacrifice is made.

CFR on everything you claim here. You are simply making this stuff up.

[Bill Hamblin]

The Hebrew doesn't say anything about burning, specifically, incense. It just says that they made burnt offerings to Nehushtan. Even if they burned incense to Nehushtan, that is still a burnt offering. The idea of burnt offerings is that you turn something valuable (meat, grain, incense) into smoke, so that the fragrance and vapors can be enjoyed by the god to whom the sacrifice is made.

The Hebrew MyîrVÚfåqVm meqatterîm means "to turn incense into smoke." Incense in Hebrew is qěṭōret. It is almost always used in reference to the smoke that arose when incense was placed on the coals of the golden altar in the Holy Place before the veil of the Holy of Holies. It has nothing to do with burnt offering, which is an entirely different term, hDlOo ʿōlāh, which means "to cause [smoke] to ascend." That is when the carcass of the animal was burnt on the fire of the altar in the courtyard outside the temple. The two ideas are entirely distinct in Hebrew. The confusion is entirely yours.

[Bill Hamblin]

I give you points for creativity. But come on. If Nehushtan were not a god, then it would not have been included among the gods (such as Asherah) that Hezekiah destroyed in a fit of pro-Yahwist zeal. 2 Kings 18:4 says that Nehushtan was destroyed because the Israelites had been offering burnings to it. If Hezekiah did not consider Nehushtan to be an idol, then how do you explain his treatment of it?

CFR on everything you claim here. You are making it all up.

I am providing the standard academic interpretation of the neḥuštan. There is no god anywhere in the ANE called neḥuštan. Please point to the evidence if you think there is. The word means "the bronze thing" and refers to the bronze serpent Moses raised in the wilderness. I actually have a photograph of one. Hezekiah is destroying all the gods and cultic accouterments associated with Canaanite worship that has been introduced into the Israelite temple. Since YHWH forbids offering incense to idols, and the Israelites are offering incense to the neḥuštan, Hezekiah destroys it because of its association with forbidden Canaanite cultic practices.

[Bill Hamblin]

Here are the photos:

1- A bronze serpent (it's four or five inches long

2- small thin bronze serpents (used as apotropaically against snakebite?).

Edited September 18, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[volgadon]

The Hebrew doesn't say anything about burning, specifically, incense. It just says that they made burnt offerings to Nehushtan. Even if they burned incense to Nehushtan, that is still a burnt offering. The idea of burnt offerings is that you turn something valuable (meat, grain, incense) into smoke, so that the fragrance and vapors can be enjoyed by the god to whom the sacrifice is made.

Where did you get your Hebrew from? I would recommend going back to the lexicons for a much needed refresher, as this doesn't pass muster. Here is the essential passage on ketoret. http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0230.htm

[Cobalt-70]

The Hebrew MyîrVÚfåqVm meqatterîm means "to turn incense into smoke." Incense in Hebrew is qěṭōret. It is almost always used in reference to the smoke that arose when incense was placed on the coals of the golden altar in the Holy Place before the veil of the Holy of Holies. It has nothing to do with burnt offering, which is an entirely different term, hDlOo ʿōlāh, which means "to cause [smoke] to ascend." That is when the carcass of the animal was burnt on the fire of the altar in the courtyard outside the temple. The two ideas are entirely distinct in Hebrew. The confusion is entirely yours.

This is derailing the discussion a bit, but no, the root of מְקַטְּרִ֣ים is קָטַר (qatar), which refers to "smoking." Translators refer to incense offerings when that is appropriate in the context, but not always. See, e.g., this ("'karar' is used as an entirely general term for the burning of any gift on the altar (comp. Amos iv. 5; Hosea iv. 13, xi. 2)."). There is often an assumption when the text refers to "smoking to a god" that this means incense, but that is just an assumption.

The word "olah" invokes the image of smoke ascending, but the word qatar also references smoke. Either way the sacrifice is described, and regardless of which term is used, a valuable item such as incense or meat is burned so that the god to whom it is offered can enjoy the sweet fragrant smoke of the animal or incense. (Gen. 8:21, Ex. 29:18)

The sacrificial practice to the god Nehushtan in Solomon's temple very well could have been incense offerings. But it doesn't really matter what kind of sacrificial burnings were being made to Nehushtan. That is beside the point.

[Cobalt-70]

Where did you get your Hebrew from? I would recommend going back to the lexicons for a much needed refresher, as this doesn't pass muster. Here is the essential passage on ketoret. http://www.mechon-ma...p/pt/pt0230.htm

Your link isn't very helpful. It's just a parallel translation. Check here or here instead.

[Cobalt-70]

Since YHWH forbids offering incense to idols, and the Israelites are offering incense to the neḥuštan, Hezekiah destroys it because of its association with forbidden Canaanite cultic practices.

So you admit that Hezekiah destroyed the Nehushtan because the Israelites were offering incense to it, and you admit that Hezekiah was operating under a command from YHWH, the jealous god, who did not permit offering incense to gods other than him, but you deny that the Nehushtan itself was worshipped as a god. Why? Why not just give the old apologetic Rube Goldberg contraptions a rest and accept the most obvious reading this time? Other apologists are okay with the Nehushtan having been worshiped by the Israelites as a god [1] [2] [3].