---
title: Improvement Era
description: Monthly periodical of the Mormon church, 1897 onward. This library holds the issues of November 1897 to December 1930.
authors:
  - Webb, Robert C.
collections:
  - periodicals
tags:
  - magazine
  - improvement-era
periodical: Improvement Era
volume: 17
number: 4
published: 1914-02
publisher: Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Associations
publisher_place: Salt Lake City
language: en
type: magazine
reference: "Robert C. Webb, \"Have Joseph Smith's Interpretations Been Discredited?,\" *Improvement Era* 17, no. 4 (February 1914): 313–350."
source:
  url: https://archive.org/details/improvementera1704unse
  transcription: Transcribed from the Internet Archive scan of each issue (the item for each issue is named in the issue's own source); unnumbered advertising leaves are omitted, printed page numbers are kept as page markers.
  identifier: improvementera1704unse
start_page: 313
end_page: 350
rights:
  status: public-domain
  basis: US publication 1930 or earlier (published 1914-02)
  source: https://archive.org/details/improvementera1704unse
  publication_year: 1914
  note: The Internet Archive item metadata carries a blanket "© Copyright by Intellectual Reserve, Inc." notice. The library owner judged it inapplicable because this issue was published in 1914, before 1931; a scan-level notice does not restore copyright.
---

# Have Joseph Smith's Interpretations Been Discredited?

<!-- page:313 -->

Have Joseph Smith's Interpretations Been
Discredited? *
BY ROBERT C. WEBB.
Had this so-called "inquiry" into the merits of Joseph Smith's abilities "as
a translator" been an episode within academic circles; had it been originated
and wholly participated in by persons of attainment in the departments involved, and by methods recognized as scientific, it would undoubtedly have
been inaugurated with a clear, plain statement and discussion of the precise
issues at stake, thus, probably, reaching some approach to decision long since.
Nor would it have included any such variety of "estimate" as was published in
the first number of the new Survey magazine.
Even under the present conditions, it would seem entirely superfluous to
make further attempts to obtain a clear and precise statement or a really scientific discussion of the involved issues, were it not that this astounding "estimate" will be widely circulated as evidence that Mr. Smith was "self-deceived
or an imposter," and this in spite of its plethora of erroneous statements and the
essential rottenness of its logical methods. It is also probable that, if not effectually answered by a calm and scientific analysis, it may, to use its own words,
serve in some cases "to cove'r up the truth and deceive those incapable of judging for themselves."
For the information, therefore, of such people as are unlearned in the
broad fields of Egyptological, Semitic and linguistic research, or who are unfamiliar with scientific and scholarly methods of investigation, it is only fair
to state that this "inquiry" has been no inquiry at all in any real sense, and that,
in spite of plausible arguments and the evident misuse of facts — unwitting and
unintentional, of course — the attempt to discredit Smith's professed translations by any available means has not been -successful. In the first place, the
original pamphlet effort, instead of embodying an honest attempt to present
the involved facts, clearly, calmly, and intelligently, and explain to the reading
public, largely composed of people who "do not know," just how and why the
opinions of several prominent Egyptologists, embodied in personal letters,
should be accepted as a final proof of Smith's incompetence as a translator or
interpreter, presents merely a medley of opinions, apparently contradictory in
several essential particulars, and leaves the general reader to digest them for
himself. It furnishes absolutely no assistance to such a reader, but occupies
the space proper to such with seventeen pages of elaborate argument leading
up to a statement of the conditions under which people should be expected to
"courageously readjust their system of belief," a result for which the author
is evidently somewhat eager.
Whatever may be the real facts at the bottom of the matter in hand, whatever the conclusion to be reached, after exhaustive examination of the claims
and "proofs," or whatever the superficial appearances, no one can be excused
for neglecting to use the scientific method of investigation, before forming an
opinion. This, at any rate, is the only method employed by real scholars, when
sufficiently interested to investigate at all. Such a method, in this case, must
involve the following conditions:
In the first place, for the time being, we must rule out of consideration the
fact that Smith claimed direct divine guidance in this or any other matter; also,
that many of the high lights of modern research declare all revelations impossible. True science need not be afraid to risk establishing the inspiration of
even Joseph Smith. This rule will render us_ less eager to pounce upon the
smallest argument that can be made to help discredit him.
*From the Deseret News, November 15, 1913.

<!-- page:314 -->

314 IMPROVEMENT ERA
In the second place we musl determine to handle this hook, and its included
plates, precisely as we would handle any other that miirht he brought to U for
examination, judging it strictly on evidence that applies directly to it, and ruling out all inference, even the must plausible. Even if we find that its "translator" is. apparently, mistaken in some particulars, we must suppress the temptation to cry "imposter," remembering that science, as well as Hebrew and
Egyptian, has its vocabulary of words and terms, and that this one is not in it.
In the third place, we must confine our examination solely to the issue in
hand: "Is there any shred of evidence that could be interpreted to show that
the man who professed to caption and explain these plates could have known
anything whatever of the Egyptian language?" In adhering to this narrow
issue we must forget that the man, Joseph Smith, had anything to do with the
matter. We must ignore all that we know of his character, his history and his
educational equipment; and this, for the simple reason that, of our direct personal knowledge, we know nothing about the conditions under which this book
was "translated," or otherwise produced. Consequently, we may be justified in
heginning the investigation by supposing that a really competent Egyptologist
— and there were a few in the world, even at the time this "translation" was
supposedly made — might have been engaged to work upon it. Some unknown,
unnamed and, perhaps, temporary associate of Smith's may have mastered
Champollion's principles, read, as suggested, the "Precis du Systeme Hieroglyphique," written in a language as impossible, presumably, to Smith, as the
Latin of the Jesuit Kirscher, also mentioned in this connection, and may
have instructed Mr. Smith in the newly discovered method of translation, or
have been himself the real translator. This is one possibility that should render a careful investigator unwilling to bank too largely on Smith's "ignorance,"
even though such investigator be constitutionally unable to tolerate the idea
of special divine guidance, or of any man's abilitv to find a "key" to the language in any way short of instruction from European savants. Smith, at least,
was a wide reader and and an earnest student of Hebrew and other branches:
perhaps, also, of Egyptian. It would be a sad lesson, indeed, for our pride and
self-sufficiency, if after starting with the confident conviction that the "translator" of this book could have read no word of Egyptian — "because Smith was
so ignorant" — to find that some of his most "evident errors" could be explained
as misapprehension, precisely, of terms and phrases peculiar to this language,
and to be found nowhere else.
In the fourth place, and equally important, we must admit that all consideration of the date, evident or possible, of any of the drawings in discussion is
irrelevant, for the simole reason that we are concerned solely with the professed
"translator's" ability to give any kind of accurate and Egyptological judgment
regarding them, and in no sense with his statements or possible opinions as to
their dates, authorship or authority. The fact that Smith believed these drawings to illustrate a book by a very ancient author, even while they show, or may
be held to show, that his copy, at least, dated from a comparatively recent
period — and we could scarcely call him an "imposter" for not knowing this, or
not mentioning it — has no bearing whatever on the accuracy or defensibility of
any of his interpretations. Many very ancient books appeared in later transcriptions throughout Egyptian history. Notable among these may be mentioned the famous "Precepts of Ptah-Hotep," which has been called "the oldest book in the world," the only known copy of which was found in a tomb of
the eleventh Dynasty, although it professes to have been composed sometime in
the fifth Dynasty, about 1,000 years previous. Its script is archaic, but its sentiments are "strangely modern," in that it extols the virtues of the "ancient
sages." The professed date of its composition, somewhere within 200 years
after 3,500 B. C., would place it over 1,000 years before the earliest date assigned
to Abraham. If, then, in similar fashion, Abraham also wrote a book, there is
no essential absurdity in the supposition that a copv of it was found in the
tomb of some person who died even 1,000 or 1,500 years after his day.
In entering upon a thorough and scientific examination of this professed
"translation" and its accompanying "facsimiles," we enter upon an entirely
new phase of the discussion. The several efforts at elucidation to date have
been merely desultory attempts to present the leading features of the "other

<!-- page:315 -->

\^\\\\\\\W\V^i % g rr^JZX: ( 7 7 /J-L/J_J_Z7 '~? /7TX
MJjMjlUMll
EXPLANATION OF THE ABOVE CUT.
Fig. 1, The Angel of the Lord. 2. Abraham fastened upon an altar. 3. The idolatrous priest
of Elkenah, attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice. 4. The Altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh.
5, the idolatrous god of Elkenah. 6, the idolatrous god of Libnah. 7, the idolatrous god of Mahmackrah. 8, the idolatrous god of Korash. 9, the idolatrous god of Pharaoh. 10, Abraham in
Egypt. 11, Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians. 12,
Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to
this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens, answering
to the Hebrew word Shaumahyeen.
side," explaining involved situations as space would permit, even at the risk of
seeming "verbose," with the view of offsetting some of the issues raised in Dr.
Spalding's "Answer to Prof. John A. Widtsoe," and repeated in his new magazine. Another explanation of the fact that' a thorough consideration of the matter has not yet been undertaken has been published bv Spalding. This is that
anything more than an apparently casual examination of the matter was not
worth the "valuable time" of any of his corresoondents, also that "even less
time could have been expended," in order to enable them to reach their supposed conclusive demonstrations.
Dr. Spalding evidently considered the establishment of his contention so
easy a matter that he neglected even to discuss the issues, as already indicated,
and his correspondents, presumably, rated tne importance of Dr. Spalding's
case at so light an estimate that they disposed of it as summarily as possible.
Nor could one blame them too harshly. All of us have our prejudices, our convictions as to the limits of truth and possibility, and our standards for estimating the value of time.
In proposing such an examination as we have just outlined it must be understood that it is intended in no sense to be an attempt to prove that Smith's
professed translations are, or must be, correct. Such an avowal would expose

<!-- page:316 -->

316 [MPRl >\'l.M ENT ER \
us al once to the chage of prejudice, which is an attitude distinctly unscientific.
IImis, for example, in discussing the first plate of the three, it will be found
far easier to prove what it is nut than to determine precisely what it is. There
are, nevertheless, strong ami impelling reason, for believing that the man who
originated the explanations, as we have them, of these plates knew enough of
the Egyptian language to make his "mistakes," if any. not from sodden ignorance or gratuitous presumption, hut from following the letter of some text in
that language. As we know, very many people can read perfectly books in
Strange languages, ancient or modern, and yet be unfamiliar with some of the
things, persons or events referred to. It is easy, also, to interpret a figurative
reference literally, or a literal reference figuratively. Anyone familiar with
literature about the Bible, for example, understands this. In one notable case,
also, as it would seem, our "translator" showed, either such familiarity with
the Egyptian method of "rebus -writing," as would enable him to appreciate
the humor of the fantastic combinations of signs with which the scribes often
amused themselves, or else his ability to "guess right" amounted to precise
"intuition."
liven on a superficial view of the matter, there is something suspiciously
unusual, to say the least, about several of Smith s most severely-denounced
"errors," which excites curiosity as to precisely why a presumably sane man
should depart so far in these very small points from anything like what, as one
might suppose, would be evident common sense. Such curious "errors" invite
the attention of anyone interested in psychological peculiarities; they also provoke linguistic analysis. For example, as one might reasonably ask, what possible mental quirk could move a man to call a familiar offering table "Abraham in Egypt?" What possible eccentricity could persuade one that the "firmament of the heavens" could be indicated by a mummied hawk apparently propelling a gondola with his outstretched wings? Why should a double-faced
seated figure be identified with the alleged central star of the universe, giving
light and "power" to two others, represented by rampant cynocephali crowned
with horned globes or disks? Coupled with these alleged "identifications," curiously remote from any associations that would occur to the casual observer,
the recognition of Ra, the supreme god in his boat, and that of the four children
of Horus, the Canopic gods, as the "four quarters" of the earth, which even
Spalding's publications admit are "good guesses." There are a few other startlingly unfamiliar statements and identifications, which, as we have seen, have
been, rather precipitately denounced as evidences of "self-deception" or "imposture," or both, but not as yet treated scientifically, even with the interest that
an observant alienist would feel in analyzing the babblings of a lunatic. For
even "babblings" have a scientific significance.
In the Spalding literature the public has been thoroughly indoctrinated on
the sufficiency of scholarly opinions, which, as we read, are "always accepted
without question unless there is grave reason to doubt." In perfect accord with
such a statement, when considered as a general proposition, and affecting matters involved in an exhaustive investigation, we may remark further that, in
the field of Egyptology, the names of Sayce, Flinders-Petrie, von Bissing and
Breasted are prominent, and, within his special field, that of Meyer also.
Peters, although not an Egyptologist, stands well in the lines of his investigations. In addition to these, we have such prominent names as those of Deveria,
Budge and Lythgoe, who appear in the list of the famous "eleven witnesses
against the Book of Abraham" in certain recent missionary literature. Undoubtedly any statement in which such a jury of savants might agree would
have great weight, and would be difficult indeed to controvert. We have no such
unanimous statement, however, with the result that, if desirous of finding the
truth of the matter in hand, we must pursue the investigations for ourselves.
In their treatment of the first plate of the series these nine scientists have
agreed only in endorsing the Egyptian origin claimed for it — and this statement
cannot be made too emphatically — and in proposing names, more or less tentatively, be it said, for several of its figure-elements. They seem to consider
that its general appearance is sufficiently familiar and Egyptian to warrant descriptions that, in view of the outcome, must seem hypothetical. They do not
agree, however, in identifying this scene with any familiar in Egyptological
research, and thus succeed only in leaving the reader in a sad quandary as to

<!-- page:317 -->

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 317
which of the three proposed descriptions is right. "Who shall decide when
doctors disagree?"
We may see, therefore, that, in spite of the ingenious arguments attempting to prove that "there was absolutely no discrepancy in the replies of the
scholars," by the asserted identity of their several figure-references, we find
most radical variations in their identifications of the picture itself. Further, as
we may assert without hesitation, the several variant proposed titles are positively not identical in any sense whatever, nor could they be held to be so by
any Egyptologist whose learning is competent to establish any proposition connected with his science.
Thus, the description, "an embalmer, nriest, or Anubis (whether these
three words be in any sense 'synonymous' or not) preparing a dead person for
the tomb" is proposed by Petrie, von Bissing, Meyer and Peters, also by Dr.
Henry Woodward, F. R. S., of London, writing in 1903.
The description, "Osiris rising from the dead," an incident in the mythological story of the death and resurrection of Osiris (whether "every dead
Egyptian is an Osiris" or not) is proposed by Breasted; also, in a former book,
by Deveria (1869).
The description, "the mummy entombed, with Anubis standing bv its side,"
is proposed by Lythgoe (New York Times, Dec. 29, 1912), and evidently also
by Budge (1903).
In order that there may be no doubt in any reader's mind as to the confidence with which these several authorities make their diverse identifications, it
seems desirable to quote them at length.
In proposing the first identification, Dr. Petrie says: "No. 1 is the wellknown scene of Anubis preparing the dead man."
Dr. von Bissing says: "Figure 1 should be commented upon as follows:
The dead man is lying on a bier under which are standing the four canopic jars
and before which is standing the offering table. The soul is leaving the body
in the moment when the priest is opening the body with a knife for mummification."
Dr. Meyer, on very similar lines, states that these plates are from the Book
of the Dead, calling them "familiar scenes," and sees: "'the body of the dead
lying a ba' [bier]; the canopic jars containing the entrails under it; the soul in
the shape of a bird flying above it, and a priest approaching it."
Dr. Peters says: "Apparently, the plate on page 50 represents an embalmer
preparing a body for burial. At the head the soul is flying away in the form
of a bird. Under the bed on which the body lies are the canopic jars to hold
the organs and entrails removed from the body in the process of embalming.
In the waters below the earth [Deveria calls this the "customary representation of the ground in Egyptian paintings"] I see a crocodile waiting to seize
and devour the dead if he be not properly protected by ritual embalming
against such a fate."
Similarly certain of this description is Dr. Henry Woodward, who says: "I
think all Smith's drawings are very bad copies of early genuine papyri engravings which he must have seen somewhere. * * * Abraham being sacrificed
by Elkanah is an embalmer, knife in hand, preparing to disembowel a dead
body to embalm it; and the gods are a row of mummypots."
In proposing the second identification, the familiar scene from a mythological story, Dr. Breasted writes as follows:
"Number 1 depicts a figure reclining on a couch, with a priest officiating
and four jars beneath the couch. The reclining figure lifts one foot and both
arms This figure represents Osiris rising from the dead. Over his head is a
bird, in which form Isis is represented. The jars below, closed with lids carved
in the forms of animals' heads, were used by the Egyptians to contain the
viscera taken from the body of the dead man. This scene is depicted on Egyptian funeral papyri, on coffins and on late temple walls, unnumbered thousands of times. If desired, publications of fac-similes of this resurrection scene
from papyri, coffins, tomb and temple walls could be furnished in indefinite
numbers." , . . ,,,.,.
It is notable that Dr. Breasted speaks of this resurrection scene, which is
something very different from Petrie's "well known scene of Anubis preparing

<!-- page:318 -->

318 IMPROVEMENT ERA
the dead man." Lest', however, we hear further sophistical "reconciliations,"
we may quote Deveria, whose authority has been accepted by Spalding's publications. In his mind, at least, there is no commingling of the two. He says:
"Fig. 1. The soul of Osiris, under the form of a hawk (which should have a
human head). 2. Osiris coming to life on his funeral couch, which is in the shape
of a lion. 3. The god Anubis (who should have a jackal's head) effecting the
resurrection of Osiris." He is further quoted as saying, "with respect to
this papyrus, that he never saw the resurrection ot Osiris represented in funerary
manuscripts. He is of the opinion that, if it exists, it must be extremely rare,
and that if the present figure be not a modern imitation of the great bas-reliefs
in which this mythological scene is represented, it has at all events been altered,
for Anubis should have a jackal's head." (Deseret News, January 4, 1913.)
Deveria's doubts as to the appearance of this scene "in funerary manuscripts" could not apply to either of the other scenes, thus showing sufficiently
that he had in mind something different from either of them.
In proposing the third identification, the authorities quoted are in all points
equally emphatic, effectually destroying by their own words any hope of arguing that their identifications could be confused with either of the others proposed.    Thus, Dr. Lythgoe is quoted as saying:
"The figure of 'Abraham upon the altar' of the 'Mormon' version, Dr.
Lythgoe explained, was merely the usual scene of the mummy upon its bier.
The idolatrous priest bending over him, to sacrifice him, according to the 'Mormon' version, was, Dr. Lythgoe explained, merely the familiar figure of the god
Anubis, 'protector of mummies.' Dr. Lythgoe pointed out the figure on a
papyrus showing the progress of one Ani of the eighteenth dynasty toward thermal judgment by Osiris, god of the underworld. The picture of the god Anubis
was shown in every picture where the mummy was shown, and always he was
leaning over it in a position as if to keep it from harm."
It is perfectly evident that Dr. Lythgoe is quoted with entire correctness
in this interview, for the very excellent reason that the Papyrus of Ani mentioned by him contains no representation of any such embalming scene as is
supposedly shown in the plate in question, whereas the tomb scene, showing
Anubis protecting the mummy is present in the form of a handsome vignette.
Neither can the scene be identified with a "resurrection" of any kind, since
"the mummy does not rise from the dead, it is the soul which rises/' and the
soul has risen in the world of the dead, leaving the body in the tomb. Lest
anyone should suspect, however, that a newspaper writer, in misreporting the
description of one scene could so accurately describe another, it may be in
place to quote further from the same interview, where Dr. Lythgoe is reported
to have said:
"In the first of the 'Mormon' figures the gr d Anubis, bending over the mummy, was shown with a human and a strangely un-Egyptian head, instead of the
jackal's head usual to such a scene. And a knife had been drawn into the god's
hand. Thus he was made into a shape from which it became possible to glean
the idea of the attempted 'sacrifice of Isaac' [Abraham]."
It is quite evident that the alleged addition of this knife also made it possible for at least one critic (von Bissing) "to glean the idea" of an embalming.
Even on the supposition that Smith's interpretations are entirely gratuitous, the
presence of the knife may be held to be established, since it is nearly the only
feature that would suggest that this was a real "sacrifice," and not some one
or other of a score of different interpretations. In this point, at any rate, we
see a very good case of disagreement as between Lythgoe and von Bissing.
Dr. Budge, who has translated the Book of the Dead, and written on it
extensively, also prepared for publication the beautiful fac-similes of funerary
papyri issued by the British Museum, is equally positive that this is the tomb
scene, which is very familiar in papyri of the Book of the Dead. He writes,
under date October 10, 1903:
"No. 1, is an imitation of the scene from the Book of the Dead in which
Anubis stands by the side of the deceased on his bier."
It is notable that the Doctor makes no remarks to the effect that the god is
either "embalming" or "resurrecting" the dead.
In addition to the fact that no ingenuity could suffice to mutually identify

<!-- page:319 -->

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED?
319
the three Egyptian incidents mentioned in these descriptions— unless every time
we have an erect figure standing by, or approaching, a reclining figure on a
bier or couch, we have a scene that may stand for any one of these three diverse
descriptions according to preference, which is evidently not the case, even on
the terms of our critics own statements— every one of them involves, by direct
expression or evident implication, based on comparison with supposedly identical scenes, some change more or less radical. Thus, Dr. Petrie calls the standing figure Anubis, but he does not refer us to genuine examples in which that
god is shown with a human, instead of a jackal's head. Dr. Breasted's note
mwflTUiMflnni^
EXPLANATION OF THE ABOVE CUT.
1. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon
his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with
the sceptre of justice and judgment in his hand.
2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given* in the characters above his head.
3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt; referring to Abraham, as given in the ninth number of the
Times and Seasons. (Also as given in the first fac-simile of this book.)
4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
5. Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his
hand.
6. Ulimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.
Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of astronomy, in the king's court.
on the attempted "reconciliation" between the diverse judgments, "Anubis" and
"priest," stating that "the officiating priest wears the head of a wolf or jackal
to impersonate Anubis," adds nothing to our enlightenment, because the figure
in question is wearing no such head. Nor, seeing that this was the regular
custom, as he states, is either proposed identification valid, for precisely
the same reason. Also, while Dr. Deveria states that we have here "Anubis
effecting the resurrection of Osiris," he asserts with equal confidence that
Anubis "should have a jackal's head." He states again that the flying
bird "should have a human head." Further, while Dr. Lythgoe goes
to great length in his interview to identify this scene with the familiar
Egyptian picture, "Anubis guarding the entombed mummy," he states with
equal confidence, as reported, that this figure, as here shown, has a "human
and strangely un-Egyptian head," also that "a knife has been drawn into the
god's hand." This knife, in the opinion of Petrie, von Bissing and Meyer, involves no suspicion of "falsification," since, as seems evident, it furnishes a
valuable confirmation of their description, "the dead being prepared for embalming."    Dr. Budge, agreeing in his judgment with Dr. Lythgoe, evidently

<!-- page:320 -->

320 IMPROVEMENT ERA
believes thai thi« scene has been altered, since he remarks, "No. 1 is an imii.ition of the scene from the Book of the Dead," etc. Such a judgment he expresses directly on the third plate of the series, when he says, "It is a falsified
copy." A perfectly similar implication seems to be involved in Dr. Peters'
remark thai these plates are to be considered "a very poor imitation of Egyptian
originals, apparently not of any one original, but of Egyptian originals in general."
Now, in view of these evident contradictions, we require only a very meagre
knowledge of Egyptian to understand that an attempt to state that the three
events described must be identified because of the common feature in the pictures, an erect figure beside a reclining figure, which is either dead or resurgent,
would involve only an insult to the intelligence of the public. In the history of
art criticism, similarity of pose or composition in several paintings, or even
identity of the figure-elements, do not suffice to establish the identity of subject in the two paintings. As well might wc compare one of Murillo's numerous
paintings of the "Immaculate Conception" with the "Assumption of the Blessed
Virgin," and assert that these two supernal events were one and contemporaneous, because of the common element in the two, an erect female figure, known
to be Mary, standing upon the clouds of heaven.
Nor does the demonstration of these evident disagreements among these
several noted authorities in any way impugn their competence to speak on
matters Egyptian, so far as these are known. As real scholars, no one of
them would argue that he could not be mistaken, misled by certain resemblances, etc., nor, in view of the evidently contrary opinions advanced by other
capable Egyptologists, would he attempt to do more than to state reasons for
preferring the opinion published over his own name. Anyone attempting to do
more could serve no end better than to argue that several of these gentlemen
must have been unable to express themselves with the clearness and exactitude
proper to people of scholarly attainments.
Another significant element in the criticism of the first plate is the silence
of Dr. Sayce, as quoted in Spalding's pamphlet. Until we hear further, his
silence may reasonably be construed to indicate his uncertainty as to the precise identification of this scene, and his consequent unwillingness to label it.
In this view his act was that of a careful scholar, and distinctly an argument in
favor of the present writer's contention in a former article, "that this plate is
not familiar to Egyptologists and that no duplicate is known." Whether this
conclusion be warranted or not, it is perfectly evident that several of these
Egyptologists, if not all of them, are not telling the public just what this plate
is, as it stands, but rather what, as they state, it should be, provided sundry
changes were made to render it "correct."
If, then, this scene represents an "embalming," as is held by four prominent Egyptologists and one Semitist, the difficulty remains that the erect figure
has a human head, hence is not evidently "Anubis," as Dr. Petrie insists, nor
yet an embalming priest who should wear the head of a wolf or jackal to impersonate him, as Dr.- Breasted states. If the flying bird represents the dead
man's soul, as several hold, and should, for this reason, have a human head, as
Deveria declares, with considerable show of accuracy, it evidently could not
indicate "Isis" or the "Hawk of Horns," to follow either Breasted or Petrie,
since Isis in the death chamber regularly has the hawk's head while the
human-headed bird indicates the "soul," and is not identified with Isis in any
exact and universal sense. If. again, we remove the knife from the hand of
the erect figure, in obedience to the demand of Dr. Lythgoe, we remove also
ihe essential element distinctly mentioned by Dr. von Bissing, who would,
therefore, be obliged to revise his statement that this "priest" is "opening the
body with a knife for mummification."
The deeper we go into these attempts at "demonstration," the greater
must be the uncertainty involved in this situation in the mind of the general.
un-Egyptological reader, whom Spalding seeks to convince. How could such
a person decide that Smith's explanations must be erroneous, on the authority of people who can give no better description of it? Would he not be
merely more confused after Dr. Petrie has shown him some of his "dozens of
examples" to prove it to be "Anubis preparing the body of the dead man,"

<!-- page:321 -->

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 321
and after Dr. Breasted has referred him to examples inscribed on "funeral
papyri, on coffins and on late temple walls, unnumbered thousands of times "
to prove it to be "Osiris rising from the dead?" Then, again, although Dr
Meyer, evidently holding this scene to be an "embalming," and mentioning a
"priest," not "Anubis," we find that Dr. Budge, who was, as nearly as any
man, a specialist on this ancient work, states that this scene represents that
"in which Anubis stands by the side of the deceased on his bier," the tomb
scene, which is as familiar in manuscripts' of the Book of the Dead as the other
is not This, then, is the kind of complete assurance on the identity of this
drawing to be derived from the examinations made by ten scholars competent
to speak on Egyptian matters. They agree, to be sure, in denouncing Smith's
captions, but this is not surprising — denouncing Smith is a sort of, habit —
but they disagree in all other points. It seems fair, then, to hold, tentatively,
at least, that if these experts succeed so poorly in demonstrating what this
scene is, they have not perfectly established the competence of Egyptological
science to tell us all that it is not, and cannot be.
It may be argued, however, that this scene cannot represent the "attempted
sacrifice of Abraham," as Smith stated, because of certain elements seen in
it; notably, the Canopic vases, which do not seem to be the gods mentioned in
the caption. While, as may be admitted, a certain cogency attaches to this
objection, it applies with some force to other identifications, as proposed by
some of the gentlemen already discussed. Thus, as we have seen, five of our
witnesses state that this scene represents some god or priest in the act of embalming a dead man, but they overlook the fact, apparently, that the Canopic
vases, closed and disposed in order beneath the bier, regularly indicate that the
embalming has been completed and that the mummy is in its tomb. This may
be gathered from the pictures shown in many papyri dealing with the embalming of the dead. If, then, these vases have been added in the one case, through
misapprehension or habit, there is no insuperable objection to supposing that
they have been added in the other, or, at least, that they represent some original feature, modified as we see them here. This furnishes some justification to
the hypothetical explanation offered by the present writer in a former article:
"The copyist of some later day [engaged in copying the manuscript and drawings in question], finding the images of the 'Canopic gods,' or of any similar
animal-headed gods, for that matter, shown 'after the manner of hieroglyphics,' as previously stated, naturally disposed them in the order familiar in his
day." Apart from this, it may be asked, properly enough, how else such a
"sacrifice scene" as is decribed in the text of this book could be represented.
Even considering the difficulty of the "Canopic vases," as just mentioned, the
"sacrifice" explanation is the only one that does not involve more or less radical changes to make this drawing a consistent representation.
Foremost, probably, among the changes that should be made, to bring this
picture into harmony with the usual line of those found in funeral papyri, is
the painfully agitated pose of the reclining figure. This pose, taken in connection with the other elements of the picture, and its occurrence in a funeral
papyrus, seems quite exceptional. The "estimate" article, however, contains
the following statement: "There are a few scenes which are more like the
mummy at all It is the body of the dead awaiting the embalmers, and is the
first of a series of five pictures showing the ritual embalming process in
symbols This first one shows a nude figure lying upon a couch or bier. In
order probably to indicate that it is a dead man, the limbs are shown in contorted positions. It lies on the right side, the right arm being under it the
left leg and arm raised, the elbow being shown flexed, with the forearm and hand
extending downward toward the face. The picture also shows Isis and
Nebhat at the foot and head, respectively, evidently lamenting, but there is
shown no priest, nor yet an offering table, Canopic vases or even a bird in the
air or elsewhere. The second scene shows the winding of the mummy; the
third, the mummy with a hawk's head borne away by the four sons of Horns:
the fourth the mummy wearing the plumed crown of Osiris, and saluted by

<!-- page:322 -->

322 IMPROVEMENT ERA
Horus wearing the double crown; the fifth, the mummy on its bier, the Canopic
vases beneath, and Anubis, jackal-headed, standing beside the bier in an attitude of protection. The case is in no sense one in point in this discussion, the
picture on the wall of the J'hilae temple resembling that shown here only in
the fact that it shows a reclining figure with limbs in contorted positions.
The vigorous "estimate" article in the bishop's magazine attempts to justify, as far as possible, the former "reconciliations" on this scene, saying: "In
reply to Dr. Webb, it is sufficient to say that, according to Egyptian theology,
the mummy does not rise from the dead, it is the soul which rises. The difference between the expressions 'dead person' and 'Osiris rising from the dead,'
in the interpretation of the scholars, is one of a very short duration of time."
This argument is monumental; also, it is nonsensical. With all due allowance
for Webb's alleged efforts "to cover up the truth and deceive," the reader must
not forget that the discussion of these points involves precisely the divergence
between the opinions of several men who call the reclining figure a "dead man"
and of another who calls it "Osiris rising." If, then, the latter gentleman sees
here Osiris rising bodily, he is evidently speaking of an event quite different
from that in which "it is the soul which rises." The confusion is of our critic's
own manufacture. But what a climax we have in the statement, "the difference * * * is one of a very short duration of time." The length of time
involved is not the important point to consider; rather are we concerned with
the events occurring in the period. In the case of the Egyptian dead this "very
short duration of time" elapsing between the "moment when the priest is
opening the body with a knife for mummification" to that which "represents
Osiris rising from the dead" is a mere matter of about ten weeks, according
to most authorities, during which "that which was once a man," disemboweled
and stuffed with spices, lies immersed in its bath of sodium carbonate (natron).
After this the body is wound in lengthy bandages, which are smeared with
asphalt to make successive folds adhere, and is then ready to be placed in the
heavy mummy case intended to protect him to the end of time. Although, comparatively speaking, the time occupied with the entire process is not long, it
outrides, nevertheless, the duration of a single "session," thus effectually separating the events at its beginning and at its end, no matter how similar representations of them might seem in pictures. This is the very point on which
we have been insisting hitherto, and here we see it involved in the words of
our intrepid champion of scholarly inerrancy: "the difference * * * is one
of a very short duration of time."
In regard to the difference between the "soul" and the "ka" in Egyptian
theology, and the use of "the word 'soul' in its non-technical Egyptian sense" —
whatever that may be — which has emerged in this "estimate" article in the discussion of the identification of the flying bird, it is necessary only to quote such
a passage as the following from Professor Erman :
"The difference between the living and non-living was from the earliest
times regarded by the Egyptians to be this, that the former were imbued with
a special active force, which they call the Ka. Every mortal received this Ka
at birth, if Re commanded it, and as long as he possessed it, as long as he is
'lord of a Ka,' and 'goes with his Ka,' so long is he one of the living. The Ka
is seen by no one, but it was assumed that in appearance it was exactly the
counterpart of the man. * * * When the man died, his Ka left him, but it
was hoped that it would still concern itself with the body in which it had dwelt
so long, and that at any rate it would occasionally reanimate it. And it was
probably for the Ka that the grave was so carefully attended and provided with
food, that it might not hunger or thirst.
"In addition to this Ka, which always remained a vague and undefined
conception, notwithstanding the constant allusions to it, the Egyptians dreamed
also of a soul, which might be seen under various forms. At death it left the
body and flew away, thus it was naturally a bird, and it was only probable
that when the mourners were lamenting their loss, the dead man himself might
be close at hand, sitting among the birds on the trees which he himself had
planted." ("Handbook of Egyptian Religion," English translation, 1904 pp
86-87.)
From the foregoing we may see that the real question before us has not

<!-- page:323 -->

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 323
been conclusively answered. A perfectly conclusive treatment should inform
us definitely Just why this first plate may not, positively, represent the "attempted sacrifice of Abraham," and would spend no time telling what it may be
held to represent after sundry more or less radical changes have been made.
Nor is there any particular scholarship involved in such a line of "explanation,"
as that we have read, since the charge of "falsification" positively has not been
established. If it be still urged, it is only fair to insist that we be told in
precisely what particulars the changes have been made from the assumed original form. We have not heard this as yet, and, in view of the several apparently haphazard "identifications" proposed, a conclusive demonstration is
the only thing that can serve to offset, not only the assumed changes made by
Smith and his associates, but also at least two of the diverse proposed identifications of the scholarly critics.
Even with the most plausible explanation or identification, however, there
could be no decisive settlement of the issue, .since, as with all Egyptian pictures, the present form, as appearing in a given papyrus, furnishes no certain
indication of the form of the "copy" from which it was supposedly drawn. The
Egyptian artists, like the scribes, seem to have allowed themselves considerable latitude as to details, and, while the various drawings of a given scene, such
as the judgment of the dead before Osiris, agree in certain main features, it is
safe to say that no two of them are precisely alike. Nor do they differ merely
in treatment, but also in composition and in the identity of the several figure
elements. Thus, sometimes it is Anubis who leads the dead before the judge,
again it is some goddess, such as Maat, even Horus figures in this role on occasion. Why such variations were made is not always clear. The fact that they
exist is evident, however. Assuming that such a book as the present one purports to be, were brought to an Egyptian artist for illustration, it is very probable that, seeing a copy of such a scene as the first plate professes to be, he
would have concluded that it should represent some such scene as has been
mentioned among our learned critics, and transform the gods described in the
text into Canopic vases, and have placed the crocodile god in a more "orthodox" location. Similarly, in the third plate, such inevitable association of ideas
with familiar scenes of similar composition may be called in to account for the
Pharaoh and the Prince who look more like women. Why these figures were
not changed by the wicked wood-engraver who, as we have heard already, "ignorantly copied" the hieroglyphics, changed heads and other details, for the
purpose of making the pictures look more like what is described in the captions, it would be difficult to say. Sufficient is it to say that the known habits
of the ancient Egyptian artists have not yet been taken, into consideration, although, obviously, as relevant as the other issues raised.
In this third plate, despite the peculiar appearance of figures 2 and 4, we
have as yet no explanation for fig. 6, nor any examples of similar figures in
other papyri. One identification makes it Anubis, but with the evident implication that changes must be made in it to accommodate the description. Dr.
von Bissing identifies it with the "shadow of the dead," but neglects to state
that the shadow is regularly, or occasionally found in either the judgment or
adoration scenes The shadow of the dead or of tne soul is one of the many
obscure elements of Egyptian art and religion, which have no clear explanation.
It is usually represented as a black and somewnat indefinite sort of bird, closely
suggesting Dickens' remark on one of his characters, who had "the rudiments
of a profile " Cases in which it is shown in human form are certainly rare. In
addition to' these two evident guesses, without references, or attempts at demonstration   we have also the remark of Dr. Lythgoe, as reported in the New
ment In his identification, also, Dr. von Bissing remarks scholarly enough:
"6 onlv may be interpreted in different ways, but never as Smith did. In this
statement he is speaking with perfect accuracy if, as he assumes, this scene
fenre^ents any occurrence in the Osirian court but that is the very point that
has not been demonstrated. His remark would seem to apply with equal force
o the identification proposed by Lythgoe, and, seemingly, also, to that pro-

<!-- page:324 -->

324 IMPROVEMENT ERA
posed by himself. In this point, also, a few examples of unmistakeable parallel- to this figure in such a situation arc in order, in the place of guesses, even
of the learned. The headdress of fig. 5, apparently a lotus flower on a circlet,
is by ii" means usual in Osirian scenes.
With what appears to be a complacent willingness to make the most of
every bit of evidence that may he forced into an argument against the claims
made for this hook, our critics confidently proceed to make the most of the
Fact that no translations are offered for the hieroglyphics on the second plate
of the series. This fact, as is held, shows that the professed "translator" of
this book knew no Egyptian at all. Thus:
"Here indeed the Prophet's inspiration gave out. It does not even save
him the blunder of numbering the hieroglyphics upside down. As remarked
before, some of the more usual signs can he identified but they are very poorly
and ignorantly copied, and his numbering the lines upside down shows that
the Prophet did not know Egyptian. Deveria's attempted translation can be
partly verified, [by whom, pray? J but the copying is far too poor to warrant a
definite translation. It has been asked why the Prophet did not pretend to
render the hieroglyphics if he was an imposter. It may be answered that there
are usually some limits to imposition. [Is it possible! Strange that we never
heard that before.] Besides, why should his inspiration have failed him when
he came to pure hieroglyphics? The interpretation of common figures is quite
a different matter from the translation of a hieroglyphic text which evidently
did not mean anything to the Prophet." {Survey, page 24.)
It is only the evident forcing of conclusions that gives this passage a title
to quotation, and this, merely in order to bring out the following facts:
First, as to the order or inversion in numbering the hieroglyphic lines and
columns, there is no evidence before us that bmith is responsible for it. Had
he had before him a papyrus written in hieroglyphic character, he would have
had no difficulty in determining which was top and which was bottom of a
given line or column. Even having only an ordinary hypocephalus in hand,
this matter is none too obscure, owing to the frequent repetition of animal
figures. Any knowledge that he may have had on this matter need not have
been shared by his friends who superintended, or by the wood-engraver who
did, the work of transferring this plate to the printing block. Such notes as he
made on these several lines and columns need not have involved inversion or
false order of numbering.
Second, as to the translation. Even if our "translator" really could read
Egyptian writing of any variety, that is no guarantee that he could entirely
comprehend all references in the text — modern Egyptologists cannot do that.
Thus, assuming him able to translate the left-hand panel, in which Deveria finds
the name "Osiris She. senq," and Dr. Petrie, "Shish-ak," one could scarcely
blame him for failure to understand the reference. If, in addition, he believed
this to be a sacred document, a supposition entireiv correct, the caption, "writing that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the noly temple of God," is perfectly consistent. The further remark (9, 10, 11) "ought
not to be revealed at the present time," seems a perfectly consistent comment
on the passage rendered by Deveria, "O great God in Sekhem: O great God,
lord of heaven, earth and hell." Very similar sentiments have been read on
other hypocephali, but their relevance to the work of interpreting the figure
elements is not evident.
Third: On the assumption that the inscriptions on this chart resembled in
any way those translated on other hypocephali, it is evident that tneir translation would throw very little light on the pictorial significance, which is the
matter at issue in the mind of the "translator." How the rendering into English
of a lot of prayers, formulae and magical pass-words, evidently intended for the
use or benefit of the dead could assist the public in understanding these pictures it would be difficult to see. Prominent Egyptologists, attacking the
problem of the real significance of these figures, have been obliged to attempt
explanations by references to passages in the Book of the Dead, of which no
sure indications exist on the hypocephalus itself, and, in some cases with indifferent success. Dr. Samuel Birch, commenting on a similar, but much fuller,
document of this order, confesses on one point, at least, tnat "the esoteric mean-

<!-- page:325 -->

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 325
ing of these scenes is unknown." (Proc. S. B. A., vi. 185.) Other authorities
question the identifications of figures considered firmly established by most
commentators. Nor do the contained inscriptions assist matters in any way.
Fourth: Even on the supposition that the "translator" could not read these
hieroglyphics, entirely, at least — for his comments may seem to indicate some
variations of judgment on the several lines — we have two possible good alternatives to the precipitate theory that his "ignorance" in this matter is evidence
of "imposture:"
(1) The inscriptions on the originals from which these plates were copied
may have been as bad and as unintelligible as we find them here. We learn in
Petrie's "Abydos," part 1, that similar unintelligible or apparently meaningless
inscriptions have been found on some hypocephali. Such a condition of affairs might reasonably be expected to lead one assuming the sacred nature of
such a document to assert that this illegibility must clearly indicate the fact
that these inscriptions should not yet be given to the world. The sole difference, then, between Smith and modern scholars, in this matter of illegible inscriptions, is that he invokes the providence of God to explain the condition,
while they blame Smith and the wood-engraver.
(2) As was indicated by the present writer in a former article, we have in
this connection no proof of the "translator's" inability to translate a book like
that in discussion, for the reason that "the illegible inscriptions which he did
not pretend to translate furnished no clue to the character of the text which he
did profess to translate. Hence we are at the end of the discussion [of this
matter of hieroglyphic translation] precisely where we were before we began
talking." In order to demonstrate the accuracy of this argument, it is necessary only to say that, like hypocephali, the larger drawings, at least, in funerary
documents regularly contain the necessary inscriptions and explanations in
hieroglyphic character, no matter whether that character be used in the text or
not. Noted examples of this fact may be found in the hieratic papyri of Kerasher and of Queen Netchmet, both handsomely illustrated with drawings
inscribed in hieroglyphics, as shown in the facsimile reproductions published
by the British Museum in the large volume with the hieroglyphic papyrus of
Hunefer. The hieratic character is very different in appearance from the hieroglyphic, although largely a cursive form of the same signs and letters, which
appear in the explanations of the larger pictures. This difference seems to indicate the fact that these larger drawings and their inscriptions were supplied
by a hand other than the one that wrote the text, which practice seems to have
been so usual as to be called the "rule."
The inference from this is, then, that, as a man who can read hieroglyphics
may be puzzled w'th hieratic — just as a man who can read German, Greek or
Russian printed text might be entirely unable to read the cursive script in any
of these languages — so, also, a man familiar with hieratic might balk at hieroglyphics. The identity of the characters is not always entirely obvious, and
in some forms of such script it is quite obscure. There are other differences
in the practice of expressing words that might render the reader of one text
uncertain of his ground in the other. Because of the various difficulties involved in mastering the reading and writing of hieroglyphics— and that evidently quite apart from their "sacred character"— we find, first, the invention
of the earlier and later forms of the hieratic, and, finally, the production of
the several forms of the demotic writing, the "writing of the people." This latter character appears on the Rosetta Stone, and other tablets, along with similar  inscriptions in the hieroglyphic style, which most Egyptians could not
That the professed "translator" of this book, then, could not— as they insist,
because he did not— translate the hieroglyphics on the second and^ third plates
of this series is no certain demonstration of his "ignorance" or imposture.
This is true for the simple and evident reason that the presence of hieroglyph
i'cs on these pictures gives us no clue whatever to the nature of the charactcr
which he professed to have translated, whether that be hieratic Egyptian or
some Semitic writing. The fact that this papyrus has been described as written in "hieroglyphics" is no clue to the real nature of the writing in a critical
sense, since the word "heiroglyphics" was used in Smith s tune as now, in the

<!-- page:326 -->

326
IMI'K< >\T.M ICNT ERA
EXPLANATION OF THE FOREGOING CUT.
Fig. 1. Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or residence of God.
First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according
to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a
thousand years, according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians
Tnh-oh-eh.
Fig. 2. Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides; holding the key of power also,
pertaining to other planets; as revealed from God to Abraham, as he offered sacrifice upon an
altar, which he had built unto the Lord.
Fig. 3. Is made to represent God sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority;
with a crown of eternal light upon his head; representing also the grand Key- Words of Floly
Priesthood, as revealed to Adam in the Garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchisedeck,
Abraham, and all to whom the priesthood was revealed.
Fig. 4. Answers to the Hebrew word Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament of
the heavens; also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying 1,000; answering to the measuring
of the time of Oliblish, which is equal with Kolob in its revolution and in its measuring of time.
Fig. 5. Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and
is said by the Egyptians to be the sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of
Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs 15
other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the moon, the earth and the sun in their annual
revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kliflos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kaubeam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob.
Fig. 6. Represents God sitting upon his throne revealing through the heavens the grand Keywords of the Priesthood; as also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove.
Fig. 8. Contains writing that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the
holy temple of God.
Fig. 9. Ought not to be revealed at the present time.
Fig. 10. Also.
Fig. 11. Also. If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be. Amen.
Figs. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 will be given in the own due time of the Lord.
The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time.

<!-- page:327 -->

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 327
popular sense, as indicating any kind of obscure ancient text. (Thus we read of
"hieroglyphic inscriptions" made by American aborigines.)
Fifth: Even on the theory that the "translator" could read the inscriptions
on this plate, and that they were, in a way, relevant to the interpretation of
the pictures, or even supposed to be so, there appeears to be no imperative
reason why he should have published a direct translation, when the sense of
the pictures is given in his own words. There may have been several references
that would not be clear to him, even if he could read them perfectly — and even
scholars find some references that are not perfectly clear — and a confession
of this fact would seem to add nothing to the force of the identifications which
he professed to give.
As will be seen in the discussion of this plate, the point at issue is not
why Smith _ did not translate these hieroglyphics — his remark, "the above
translation is given as far as we have any right to give it at the present
time," may be held to refer to the explanation of the figure elements, and
not to the text — but as to whether there is any evidence adducible to uphold
the contention that he could read them, and used them, even with some
possible misapprehensions as to reference, in interpreting the figure-elements.
In proposing his interpretations of these figures, in spite of apparent digressions and the use of words of doubtful or obscure etymology, there is strong
evidence that Smit.h used something other than, mere guesswork, and that his
judgments may be defended on Egyptological grounds.
In the study of hypocephali one finds only meagre assistance, since comoaratively few Egyptologists have seriously attacked the matter of their
interpretation, and but few thorough studies have been published. Prominent
among those who have written on the subject are Dr. Samuel Birch of Lon-
'na, P. J. de Horrack of the Louvre Museum, Paris, Dr. C. Leemans of the
Royal Museum of Leyden, and Dr. William Pleyte. Nothing in the line
of a general discussion of this type of document has appeared beyond Dr.
I.eeman's contribution, "Hypocephale Egyptien du Musee Royal Neerlandais"
in the "Actes du Congres des Orientalistes a Leide" (1883) and the series of
reproductions from the British Museum collection, with comments by Reynolds and Birch, in the "Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology,"
vol. 6. From the data furnished by both these authorities it is evident that
no two known hypocephali are entire duplicates, wide divergences being apparent both in the number and character of the figure elements and in the
tenor and contents of the contained inscriptions. All, however, seem to be
of the same general import.
As to the total significance of the hypocephalus, considered as a type of
document, there is no fully demonstrated conclusion, although Dr. Birch's
theory that its circular shape indicates that it pictures "the eye of Shu or
Plorus," the middle portion representing "the retina of the eye. and the narrow concentric ring between the center and the edge, the iris" (Proc. S. B.
A. vi 40), has recevied some favorable consideration. He quotes certain inscriptions to prove his contention; but these may be held to indicate a theory
of the ancient scribes, based on its shape, rather than an indication of the original  idea involved in its first production.
The arrangement of the figure elements within the circles, in inverse order.
is held by most writers, following Horrack, to indicate the "two celestial
hemispheres," those of night and day, or of the upper and the nether worlds.
The funerary and magical— not to say, also, the esoteric— significance is argued
by inscriptions, and by citations of apparently illuminating passages and rubrics in the Book of the Dead. That there is also an astronomical or cosmoloscical significance involved has been argued. Thus, Dr. Pleyte remarks:
"The entire composition relates to the god Amon-Ra with the four rams
heads, who occupies the center of the painting." ("Chapitres Supplementary
du Livre des Morts." p. 62.) Dr. Birch also says: "Part of it alludes to the
opposition of the sun and moon (as above, p. 40), referring possibly to a
group on one specimen showing the barks of the sun and moon apparently
coming into collision. M. de Horrack states in a letter to Birch, in, which
he discusses a specimen, shown at Paris: "Other specimens represent the
celestial and eternal generation of the sun, by the goddess Nut, or heaven,

<!-- page:328 -->

328 IMPROVEMENT ERA
leaning with outstretched arms over a scarabeus, the masculine principle of
generation. This emblem refers, more particularly, to the material reconstruction of the being." (Proc. pp. 127-128.)
Although the presence and significance of several of the figures has been
explained, comctly or not, by quotations from the Book oi the Dead, the
reason for the total juxtaposition is not fully- established, and some "identifications" have been severely criticized. Whatever may be the apparent meanings in any case, there can be no doubl of a secret significance not always
discoverable, The assumed magical character of the group seems to be
established by the presence of the mystical cow, in several specimens, also
by numerous lunar baboons of esoteric odor, but, especially by the constant
repetition of the figure of the talismanic Uzat or Utza eye, the symbol of
health, perfect equilibrium, mastery of evil influences, resurrection, etc.
In any examination it is fair to assume that the "hypocephalus" under
discussion was used for the same purpose as others known, to us. This
might be held to involve that, in its contained inscriptions or picture elements,
it could have had no connection with any papyrus book that might have
been found with the same mummy. It is only fair to insist, however, that
such assumption involves only that, whatever may have been the "translator's" knowledge of the Egyptian language, his supposition that this plate
belonged with the book — erroneous, perhaps — argues merely that he was not
Egyptologically omniscient. His evident approximations to the meanings,
or at least to the partial significances, of most of the pictures may be held to
be a reasonable presumptive evidence that he really had such knowledge of
Egyptian as would enable him to interpret them in the terms of the included
inscriptions, if these, indeed, resembled those on. other known hypocephali.
The first point that must impress one, in beginning an examinaton of
this plate, is that it differs from other documents with which it is classed in
several notable particulars. Among these may be mentioned the two faces,
instead of the customary four, shown on the central seated figure (1), the
unique design of the boat and its occupant (3) — most hypocephali have two
boats shown here, the boat of the soul and the boat of Ra, the one above the
other, in separate panels — and the entirely exceptional appearance of the
"dove" figure in group 7. These departures from the usual cannot be made
to argue modern changes for obscure reasons, apparently, since they represent no greater variations than, are found among other documents of the
kind. Thus, as mentioned by Dr. Leemans, in his catalogue and discussion
of known hypocephali, two such, both at Paris, show a double-faced figure
at 1, one also having wings, instead of the usual four-faced figure. Also, as
regards the peculiarity of group 7, which Deveria declared had "certainly been
altered." there is no clear departure from the Egyptian style of drawing, and
n,o greater variation from the usual than is found in the specimen shown in
Petrie's "Abydos," in which there is neither "serpent" nor "dove" before the
seated figure of "Horus-Min." Even on the supposition that the explanations
offered for these plates are entirely gratuitous and groundless, it is far easier
to believe that this group was originally as at present shown, than that anyone had changed a serpent into a dove to fit a description that would ordinarilv have occurred to no one. The composition, of the figures in panel 3
differs from other familiar hypocephali, although in general treatment this
picture seems to be no evident departure from the Egyptian style. If it has
been, altered, the work has been done so well that the "ignorant copying"
of the Iveroglyphics and other points criticized seem all the more incomprehensible.
In the consideration of the central figure of the present plate, it is to be
o'-scrved that most descriptions and discussions, hitherto published, apply to
it only partially, principally because such describe a four-headed crowned
figure while the one shown here has only two heads and no crown* As a
good example of the figure usual to this panel, we may quote the following
''escr'ntion from Or. T.eeman's paper: "We see here in the middle the God
Num-Ra iAmon-Ra), crouching or seated, with four rams' heads; the bodv
clothed with the cerements of a mummy, and composed of two bodies backto back, each having two heads. He wears the head-dress, called atf or atef

<!-- page:329 -->

, , HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 329
in the hieroglyphic texts. This head-dress is composed of four sheaves of
plants, each surmounted by the solar disk and set evenly on a disk; these
sheaves being (each) flanked by an ostrich plume, and the whole set upon two
goat's horns. The god holds on his knees the divine sceptre, with the emblems
of the life divine and of stability * * * On either side a cynocephalus rampant, his head surmounted by a disk within a crescent, addresses his adoration
to the god with raised hands. On either side of this panel a hieroglyphic inscription of four horizontal lines contains the prayers uttered by the cynocephali."
As may be seen, the figure on our plate is only partially described in these
sentences. Not only does it have, apparently, but two faces, looking in opposite directions, instead of four, but it lacks all of the elaborate head-dress, except the horns that should support it. In most hypocephali the head with
four faces attaches directly to the top of the body, above the mark "X,"
and the symbolical sceptres stand on the knees on either side. In the present
case the head and body seem to be offset to the right, and the sceptre, showing the sign of "stability," is held ini an outstretched hand and arm. From the
shoulders, also, start branchlike ornaments, somewhat resembling the "apmatennu" shown on the standing figure in panel 2. These may indicate
win»gs, such as appear on a hypocephalus in Paris, which are described as
''extended in the length of the outstretched arms." As to what these variations  may indicate, we have no sure means of determining.
According to general agreement, the seated figure in this panel represents
the god Amen.-Ra in one of his numerous aspects, but as to the significance
of the four rams' heads there is less certain agreement. On this point Leemans says: "It is the god Num-Ra, or Araon-Ra, identified with Ra, the sun.
The four rams' heads, according to Champollion, characterize the god as the
principle and motive [force] of the four elements of which he composes the
created world, or the great spirit containing in himself these four gods, Phre,
Su, Tmu and Osiris. We see there, with M. de Horrack and Dr. Pleyte, the
spirit of the four cardinal points, the soul of the terrestrial world." Dr.
Pleyte explains his interpretation as follows: "Anion with the four rams'
heads [is] god of the cardinal points, because at the period with which he
concerns himself the winds were represented by rams." Although Champollion
figured and described this god among the deities of Egypt, the general sense
of authorities is that its representation is peculiar to the hypocephalus. This
seems to reduce the question of its functions and significance to what may
be gathered int the inscriptions on documents of this type.
Decribing a figure such as we have in the present instance, Champollion
says: "In the center of this disk is shown the pantheistic god Anion Ra
double-faced, winged, surrounded by the emblems of the four elements. The
legend makes Amon-Ra 'lord of the zones of the material world.'" Dr.
Leemans translates the inscriptions on the Leyden hypocephalus, with the
following: On the right-hand panel, "O venerable soul, who dost shine
in the heaven, who does illumine the two worlds;" on the left-hand panel:
"O thou who dost rise in Nun" (the abyss of the celestial ocean,) "who dost
illumine the worlds." Pleyte quotes a passage of similar import: "O Anion
of the Amons, who art in heaven, turn thy face to the body of thy son. Make
him healthy in the lower heaven." Dr. Birch, translating the circular inscription around the edge of a very elaborate hypocephalus in the British Museum,
finds: "I am Amen, who is in the secret place: I am the accomplished spirit
of the even of the sun, going in an:d coming forth from the accomplished
multitude; I am the great soul whose form is clear; I am coming out of the
Abyss at will: I have come; I proceed from the eye; I come forth from the
abyss of Hades with the sun from the great house, a chief in Annu; I am
the spirit coming from the Abyss of Hades * * * I proceed from the
eye." He also renders the inscription on the right of the_ central group: _ O
soul engendering his transformations, hiding his body at his births, dissipating
turning back light transformed as the two eyes, transformed as the soul itself
* * * who gives terrors to his adversaries, etc." That on the left: O
soul, greatest of afflicters, terrible lord, greatest of victors transforming into
the warmth of the very symbolic eyes, doing away with the transformations
of the mother (death), placing his body, hiding his body, by the life of his

<!-- page:330 -->

330 IMPROVEMENT ERA
form assuming the type of the lion, the greatest of victors, supplying the ceremonies," etc.
On another hypocephalus shown in the S. B. A. Proceedings, the following inscription is found on the ring around the figure: "O box (of Turn)
in the roofed house tall, tall spirit spirit, bull great god, Hying over the
gods, creating his terrors, give thou life," etc. In the inscriptions on either
side of the central figure are the following: "O god Kepra, in the midst
of the boat; O great type in it. who gives all life and health to those gods
dwelling in Hades forever;" and "O great soul producing the transformations
of the flames, the transformations of the two symbolic eyes, the god, king, the
ruler." On still another, Dr. Birch reads: "Oh the great god, living in the
air, coming from the water, the sun goes to hear his word" (right-hand panel),
and "Oh the noble god; the great god living in heaven; his power is; he
prevails living; he gives all life, stability and health" (left-hand panel.) Similarly, Leemans, describing a hypocephalus in Paris, says: "The hieroglyphics
seemed to describe him as 'Amon-Ra, lord of the throne of the two worlds.' "
It would seem needless to seek for further translations from hypocephali, in order to enforce the lesson found in those already quoted. As must
be evident, these prayers and ascriptions are addressed to a "soul of souls," the
"Amen of Aniens," who is above the material sun. As such, the Egyptians
undoubtedly believed that they were addressing in him the Supreme Being.
If such a dignity is to be denied him, the description "signifying the first creation nearest to the celestial," or the first delegated source of power, light and
"government," is by no means inapplicable, and certainly indicative of ability
to understand the significance involved in the figure, even if not the language
itself of the inscriptions. Since the panel containing this group is in the
center of the figure, the relevance of the text to describing it is not altogether
an inadmissible conclusion. This conclusion has been reached by several
prominent authorities, at least, in dealing with hypocephali. As to the other
remarks, about the measurement of time, etc., they must be from some other
source; also the name Kolob, which will be discussed later.
In regard to the two cynocephali shown in/ this same group, it may be
said that the truth regarding their nature and function has not yet been brought
out in this discussion. The present writer in his first article in the present
series, although remarking on the fact that there were several differences in
the figures of these apes, or baboons, in hypocephali, as compared with other
types of document and inscription, quoted the explanations, as given in Petrie's
"Abydos," which seem to have been ignored by other writers on hypocephali.
Here, commenting on a hypocephalus showing only two of these figures, as
does the present one, the author makes the following statements: "Two small
apes, the final degradation of the eight adoring cynocephali [shown often in
pictures representing the rising sun] may be noticed. These represent the
four primeval pairs of gods of chaos, whose names were Nun and Nunt
(moisture), Helm and Hehut (air), Kekui and Kekuit (darkness), Gereh and
Gereht (rest); being called collectively Khemenu."
This explanation seeems to be as inapplicable to the consideration of
hypocephali, as the other one quoted, which identified the four-headed god
with any concept uniting the "spirits of the four elements, Ra (fire), Shu (air),
Geb (earth) and Usar (water)." Why should the spirit of moisture, for example, pray to the god of water, in behalf of a dead man, or in way of showing
forth the "eternal and celestial generation of the Sun?" Apart from the fact
that such characters as these figure in folk tales, fairy stories and "sunrtnyth"
theories, it is fairly evident that, admitting the authority of such statements
as the above, they indicate most forcibly the existence of an esoteric meaning.
The Egyptians, like other ancient peoples, were much given to punning, and
very frequently used words with a "double meaning" in dealing even with the
mysteries of religion. This may partially explain the fantastic names of these
"transformed openers of the eastern portals of heaven," to use Dr. Budge's
words in referring to them.
As a matter of fact, there is no need of speculating as to the significance of
any such names, since it is by no means certain that we have to deal with
any such concepts in the present case. The cynocephalus. or baboon, is one

<!-- page:331 -->

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 331
of the- frequently recurring figures in Egyptian mythological pictures, although
not so frequeat as the hawk or the jackal, for example. In general, it is supposed to be one of the symbols of Thoth — he of the ibis head — particularly
when he figures in his character as the moon god. The baboon also figures
in. astronomical charts, which often show two such animals, designating often
the north and south. . In hypocephali such animals are frequently shown, not
only in the central figure, as in this document — where two, four, six, and in
one case, at least, eight appear in the attitude of adoration — but also in groups
showing the lunar boat, etc., which do not appear here.
Speaking of a hypocephalus showing such a boat, as above mentioned,
Dr. Birch says: "This boat (of the sun) meets another having in front a
drapery on which is seated Harpocrates (a baboon) naked, holding a flower
in the right hand and a whip in the left; in the center of the boat is an ark,
in which is a cynocephalus of Thoth, wearing a lunar disk, seated facing to
the left; another cynocephalus is seated in, front of the ark offering a symbolic eye." (Proc. S. B. A., vi. 122.) In a letter already quoted M. de Horrack, commenting on a similar scene, says: "A second boat carries a cynocephalus seated in a shrine; he is another symbol of the Uza, or perfect
equilibrium, but also an emblem of Thoth, whom he replaces very often, when
this god is identified with the mooni." Similarly, Dr. Birch, in another similar
connection, says: "A boat with a cynocephalus in a shrine, probably Thoth,
adored by a cynocephalus holding the right symbolic eye, with housing at the
prow, meeting the solar boat * * * * The esoteric meaning of these
scenes is unknown.." (S. B. A., 185.)
In the opinions of the Egyptologists above quoted the cynocephalus is evidently the symbol of Thoth, or the moon. In commenting on the appearance
of these animals in the central panel, however, there is a slight diversity of
opinion, due evidently to variations in the accompanying text, or to confusion
of symbolic references. Thus, Dr. Birch finds the seated double figure "adored
four times, scp ftu, by four cynocephali wearing lunar disks." (S. B. A., vi.
184.) His apparen.t supposition that the number of these animals shown
indicates the number of times that adoration is made to the seated figure
seems, in this case, at least, to be borne out by the text. Dr. Pleyte sees in a
hypocephalus showing only two, as in the case before us, "the genii of the
west and east saluting Amon-Ra, the sun. They are represented by cynocephali erect on- their hind paws and raising their fore paws in the attitude of
prayer." (Chap. Sup.) This reference is admissible, of course, for a document showing only two such figures, but must be confusing where more
appear. Judging, however, from the fact that very many of the best-made
examples of hypocephalus have only two such figures, as has the specimen
under discussion, leaving panels on either side for inscriptions, as shown here
also, it may be assumed that such was the original arrangement, and that
further cynocephali, four, six, and eight, were added, partly to fill these inscription panels, partly from a confusion, of their significance with that of the
"four pairs of the primeval gods of chaos," as mentioned in Petrie's work.
As has been indicated already, the latter, in the character of the "transformed
openers of the eastern portals of heaven," are not shown crowned with the
lunar disk.
As to the ultimate significance of these figures, therefore, there seems to
be no clearly demonstrated conclusion among the learned, beyond the fact
that they evidently indicate some reference to the moon, as do the familiar
companions or alternates of Thoth. Whether they indicate here the "genii
of the west and east," the rising and setting of the moon, or the night sky,
symbolizing the netherworld in some sense, it is quite certain that their
appearance indicates some lunar idea twice repeated, or the idea of two moons,
svmbolic, or otherwise. Such facts, coupled with the references in the text,
as frequently used, to the "lord of the throne of the two worlds," as appears
on a somewhat similar hypocephalus in Paris, or to the one "who illuminest
the two worlds," could very readily be supposed to warrant such a description
as "stars represented by the numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the
revolutions of" the body "signifying the first creation." Had such an explanation been offered in any book by a person known to possess a reading

<!-- page:332 -->

332 IMPROVEMENT ERA
knowledge of Egyptian, we should read attempts to explain or justify it from
Ihe text.
The figure shown in the second panel, evidently human in body, having two
faces looking in opposite directions, and, as drawn, walking toward the left,
strongly resembles that shown in most familiar hypocephali, except for the
fact that, in several such cases, we have, evidently, two bodies with two pairs
of arms and two pairs of legs, drawn, side by side, somewhat as youthful
artists attempt to represent a line of marching soldiers. As in many other
cases, the figure shown here carries in his left hand a form of sceptre, or
symbolic staff, surmounted by the figure of an animal resembling the nearly
ubiquitous jackal. Although some hypocephali, according to descriptions,
show other variations, occasionally radical ones, the figure as we have it here
may be taken as the type for this order of document. As to its description,
we have the following, quoted from several authorities.
Of such a double-bodied figure on the Leyden hypocephalus, Dr. Leemans
writes: "We see, with M. de Horrack and Dr. Pleyte, in the two gods united,
Anion, the supreme god of Thebes, who is identified with Ra." ("Actes du
6me congres," etc.) Similarly, Dr. Pleyte: "Between these barks one sees
an upright god, with two human heads, four arms and four legs, crowned with
the diadem of Anion. It is the sun god going from the east to the west, and
looking toward the south and the north; the heads of the Apmatennu, gods
protectors of the south and of the north coming forth from his shoulders."
("Chap, sup.") M. de Horrack states similarly: "It is Amon, the supreme
god of Thebes, identified with Ra, the sun, under the name of Amon-Ra. As
such, he receives all the qualifications attributed to the two deities, and represents (according to the late M. Deveria) the unseen and mysterious principle of Amon and the visible and brilliant power of Ra combined." (S. B. A.,
vi. 128.) Deveria, commenting on the figure in the present book, states:
"Rammon-Ra, with two human heads, meant probably to represent both the
invisible or mysterious principle of Amnon, and the visible or luminous principle of Ra, the sun; or else the double and simultaneous principle of father
and son, which characterizes divinity in the religion of Egypt."
In view of the evidently mystical or magical significance of the entire
hypocephalus, it is fair to assume that the figurative interpretation of this
figure, which is accepted, to a considerable extent, by most commentators on
this type of document, is to be preferred to the "literal" interpretation given
by Dr. Pleyte, as above, and by Petrie's "Abydos." The latter book sees here
merely the "double god who personified the risin.g and the setting sun." The
figure is not familiar, however, in Egyptian art, seeming to be, to a considerable extent, at least, proper to hypocephali, as remarked of No. 1 by Dr.
Leemans, as above. The rising and the setting sun are also represented, in
many hypocephali, at least, by the boats shown in( the space here occupied by
panel 3. It is reasonable then, to assume that this figure represents some
aspect of Amen or Ra, not indicated by either No. 3 or No. 7. Even, in
default of direct proof of this contention, there is no clear reason for adopting
a common-.place and literal interpretation. The two figures unified, or walking side by side, closelv suggest representations of a man and his Ka, as
shown in. several Egyptian pictures. Such an analogy would seem to argue
directly that this, also, is a representation of the visible and invisible manifestations of the sun god, the sun and his Ka: one yet separate. In this
particular it represents another aspect of the supreme principle of the universe
from that represented by Fig. 1., and may be separated from it, just as are
Figs. 3 and 7, in the interpretations of Egyptologists. In some aspects also,
it strongly suggests the discrimination made by Hindu thinkers, as found in
the Upanishads and in the later philosophical formulations, between Brahman,
the Absolute, and Brahma, the soul of the universe, the creator; "god withdrawn and god made manifest." It suggests also, the discrimination between
the Logos Endiathetos and the Logos Prophorikos. the Word withheld and
the Word expressed, as found in, Philonic and Neo-Platonic literature. These
examples are merely partial analogues, but serve to illustrate the idea of the
essential doubleness involved in contemplating the idea of God's being and
activities; it is what Deveria probably intended in his mention of the "double

<!-- page:333 -->

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 333
and simultaneous principle of father and son," the idea evidently reached after
in such ancient formularies of Christian belief as the Nicene Creed.
This figure in panel 2 may then be held to signify an entirely distinct and
new aspect of divine activity— that ini which the invisible first becomes visible,
as when the body is considered as animated by the spirit of the man, or by his
Ka. It is, therefore, a manifestation one step further removed from the ultimate source of life and power. It is scarcely remarkable, then, that one understanding the Egyptian language and the symbolism of its people should
propose to explain this figure in the words; "the next (after Fig. 1) grand
governing creation near to the celestial, * * * holding the key of power
also." Whatever may be the source or significance of the other terms and
descriptions found here — for their Egyptian source is not clear— it seems quite
certain that the essential idea of this figure is expressed in this description.
Like the Aeons of the Gnostics, the several grades of creation evidently contemplated in this description, involve the idea of succession in the out-working
of the creative power.
In. the description proposed for the plate in this book we find that figure 3
is "made to represent God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and
authority; with a crown of eternal light upon his head; representing also the
grand Key-Words of the Holy Priesthood." Although, as previously indicated, this figure differs from the representations found in the general run of
hypocephali, it is not difficult to recognize here the sun god Ra in his boat,
which was the Egyptian figure for the Supreme Being. This judgment is
upheld by M. Deveria, who says: "The god Ra, the sun, with a hawk's head,
seated in his boat. In the field the two symbolic eyes figuring, according to
M. de Rouge, the fixed points of an astronomical period." Dr. Lythgoe of
New York also states: "The representation is the most common of all in
Egyptian papyri. It is the view of the 'Sun god in his boat.' The Mormon
version is right in that this is the picture of a god, but it is the chief god of
a polytheistic people instead of God, who was worshiped by monotheistic
Abraham." Of course, the last sentence expresses the doctor's personal
opinion, of the matter, and need not be considered in this connection, where
the important matter is to show that the "interpreter" of these plates may
have had some basis of Egyptological knowledge back of his identifications.
This seems to be plainly indicated by the recognition of the sun's disk above
the head of the seated figure and the sceptre of "power and authority" in his
hand. The objection has been made recently that this identification involves
only considerations of the most obvious character, since, "who would not guess
that a person, apparently sitting upon a throne, would be most likely to be
possessed of 'power and authority'? It is only such persons who are accustomed to sit upon thrones." This objection is very well taken, provided we
assume it an established fact that the seat shown is obviously a throne in the
eyes of all observers. There can be no doubt but what the usual idea among
us of a throne connotes some kind of large and heavy arm chair with a high
back, as is shown in the familiar pictures of our school days. This seat,
although the conventional Egyptian picture of a throne, more closely resembles the uncomfortable chair described by Dickens, "the seat of which was
very hard, angular, slippery and sloping." There are, however, some Egyptian
pictures whose meaning is obvious, and on which an Egyptologist can say
little more than the casual observer.
The group marked 7 in this plate is also identified as "God sitting upon
his throne revealing through the heavens, the grand Key-Words of the Priesthood; also, the sign of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove." In this connection, again, the argument based on obviousness, might be urged, but it
would scarcely reach the symbolical meaning of this group, as given by all
comentators, hitherto. This group appears on most hypocephali, and may be
considered to be an essential part of their symbolism. It is interpreted, as
follows by several authorities:
The seated figure is identified with Horus-Min, because of the fact that
his person evidently combines the characteristic signs of these two deities,
the bird body of Horus and the flail or whip of Min, the latter regularly represented as held aloft on the tips of the fingers of one hand. This sign is

<!-- page:334 -->

334 IMPROVEMENT ERA
represented in hypocephali l>y the umbrella-shaped object extending upward
from the rear of the seated figure; the fingers of the hand regularly support it
at the bend or hinge. This Min was originally, as it seems, a phallic god of
the desert, of husbandry, etc., who was regularly represented with a head-dress
composed of two upright palm plumes, and one hand supporting the flail or
whip. He was later identified with the supreme god, Amen, and became his
"avatar" in the capacity of creator or generator of the universe. Some authorities contend that this identification arose primarily from the fact that both
Min and Amen were represented with the same head-dress of upright palm
plumes, but this is a matter that need not concern us here.
In most hypocephali this seated figure is opposed by a standing, serpentbodied, hawk-headed personage, offering him a sacred eye. Many commentators agree in calling this figure Nehebka, Nahbka or Nahab-Ka, quoting as
authority certain passages from the "Book of the Dead." Whatever may be
the truth of the matter, it is certain that this Nahab-Ka is not so important in
Egyptian mythology that a certain conclusion, may be reached. This, however, is less important than the further interpretation of the group.
Dr. Birch, commenting, says: "Behind the goddess with the (Uzat) eye
in a disk, holding a lotus, the serpent Nahab-Ka, offering the right symbolic
eye to a seated pantheistic type of Amen-Ra as Amsi, figures of part of the
vignettes of the 162d and following chapters of the Ritual." (S. B. A., vi. 184.)
M. de Horrack similarly says: "The seated deity, half man and half hawk, is
a type of Amon, the generating principle; he holds the whip in his hand, and
an ithyphallic serpent, with a hawk's head and human legs, offers him the
mystical eye. All these different symbols represent on the on,e side the
female, and on the other the male element, to express the idea of the eternal
generative power." (S. B. A., vi. 127.) In similar effect, Dr. Leemans states:
"The god with hawk's body is a form of Amon-Generator; he holds the arm
with the whip in the sacred attitude, (which is) the masculine symbol of this
same generation. This is why the serpen.t also offers to him the Utza. This
serpent with the head of a hawk and the human legs is a variant of the same
symbol, making allusion to the creative power. One sees therefore in this
scene, on the one side the female principle, and on the other the male, expressing together the idea of eternal generation." ("Actes," etc.)
At another place, Dr. Leemans explains and discusses the proposed. identification of this serpent god, saying: "This hawk-headed serpent with human
legs is met with in the Book of the Dead, in the vignette of Chap. xvii.
above lines 38-42. M. Pleyte gives him the name Nehebka. In the chapter
cited, 1, 16, the dead calls himself 'eternally with the protection from destruction, like the serpent Nehebka,' or Nehbka. In Chap, xxx, 1, 3, the dead 'shall
prosper through Nehebka;' in Chap, cxlix, 1, 3, he is asked about the 'crown
of Turn established upon the head of Nehbka,' and, i, 42, the dead names himself
Nehebka." ("Actes," etc., p. 123.)
If, then, the identification in these scenes is correct, as Dr. Leemans seems
inclined to doubt, it may be understood that the reference of this group is
altogether benign and favorable to humanity. The significance of the serpent
is, for the Egyptians, wholly sacred and benevolent, being the symbol of Isis,
also, as the Urseus, a mark of royalty and god-like descent. It appears, further,
in other honorable associations, as the symbols of gods, etc. It seems safe to
say, therefore, that the proposed interpretation of this group is certainly
strongly borne out by the facts stated in regard to it. In the first place, it
represents God, as the Creator. It also represents such part of the "eternal
generation" of the worlds as may be imaged by the "feminine principle," the
element of motherhood and nurture, which is a concept by no means foreign
to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, as set forth in the Bible. In one point,
however, this interpretation seems to be at fault, and this is in speaking of
the "form of a dove." As recognized by Egyptologists, as we have seen, the
head is rather that of a hawk, but, upon the question of this identification, we
can furnish no further arguments. Even if the wrong bird is named, through
association of ideas, perhaps, we see here no vitiation of the gen.eral identification, which is strikingly in accord with what science has demonstrated regarding this group.

<!-- page:335 -->

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 335
It has been remarked that the identification of the "bird" figure as the
"Holy Ghost" is an anachronism. This is, of course, the very point at issue
between. "Mormonism" and other bodies. The data of the science of comparative religion, however, seem to argue with clearness to a pure primitive
religion among mankind, which has been obscured and degraded throughout
historic time, although never free from the traces of the purest and highest
concepts, which we are accustomed to hear were not given to the world in
any form until a late period. This judgment applies to a consideration of the
religion of ancient Egypt as fully and accurately as to any other, despite the
thick overlay of fantastic fable and misapplied parable. Of course, we have
only traditional misapprehension and prejudice, on the one hand', and the
monstrous theory of evolution, on the other, to prevent the clear recognition of
the fact that, in every "dispensation" God's truth has been, given to the world,
although most people have "loved darkness rather than light."
In both groups, 3 and 7, we find mention of the "grand Key-words of the
Priesthood," but have, as yet, found no clear justification for the statement.
On the supposition, that the "translator" of this document might have had a
working knowledge of Egyptian, one might propose, as explanation of his
statement that he had reference to the Uzat eye, which is shown in both
pictures. Although the full mystical symbolism of this object is not fully
known, it seems to possess a sufficiently large number of known significations
to warrant, in some measure, at least, the statements made on these two
pictures.
On the use of the eye as an amulet, Erman remarks: "To the eye, the
amulet that occurs most frequently, it is impossible to assign a meaning; is
it the eye of Horus, the model of all good gifts?" ("Handbook," p. 44.) As
already seen., however, the shape of the hypocephalus, on this theorv a type of
amulet, has been ascribed to its significance as the pupil of the divine eye.
Also, Amen is represented as saying in one inscription, "I proceed from the
eye." The Book of the Dead describes Mehurt, the cow of heaven, as the
"eye of Ra." In connection with the use of the eye symbol on. hypocephali,
we have the following: "According to the late M. de Rouge, the mystical eye,
called Utza, conveys the idea of the renewal of a period, like the full moon, the
solstices, the equinoxes, etc., and it designates here the accomplishment of the
period of resurrection, always assimilated with the daily and annual revival
of the sun." (S. B. A., vi. 127.)
In other connections, "the sacred eye or the eye of Ra, or heaven, is the
sun, a poetic symbolism used by poets throughout time. * * * * Horus
says, I am he who resides in the middle of the eye. But there are usually
two eyes represented, and called the eyes of Horus, the left and the right.
They sometimes represent, the right the sun and the left the moon; but some
other meaning must be inferred when it is said of Ra, 'Thou openest the two
eyes and the earth is flooded with light.' " Again, as Erman records, "Horus
and Set fight and Set puts out the eye of Horus. Thoth, however, separated
the assailants and healed them. He spat on the eye of Horus and it became
whole; Horus, however, took the eye and gave it to his father to eat, and by
this offering of filial affection, Osiris became animated and mighty."
As seen therefore, there are recognized among the significations of the
Uzat eye some of the following: protection from evil influences, "the model
of all good gifts," "perfect equilibrium," "renewal," "accomplishment," "resurrection," a symbol of divine power and presence, also of "filial devotion." It
is altogether certain that, in this list, we have several terms very properly to
be described as "key-words of the Priesthood," or service of God. Also, they
are drawn from admitted significances of this symbol, which, in such connections, at least, is peculiarly Egyptian.
The proposed explanation of Fig. 4, "answers to the Hebrew word Raukeeyang" [no matter about the poor transliteration], "signifying expanse, or
the firmanent of the heavens," invites consideration at once, and establishes a
strong suspicion in the perfectly unbiased mind that something quite other
than guesswork has been employed in its formulation. On re-reading the sentence, however, the question naturally occurs as to whether this figure is stated
to correspond to the idea of the "expanse, or firmament of the heavens," thus

<!-- page:336 -->

336
1MPRI IVEMENT ERA
ti dicating "the heavens," or as to whether the word by which it is supposedly
described answers in sounid or meaning to the Hebrew word mentioned. In
either case we have a statement which demands careful investigation, before
launching the judgmenl that we have lure only an example of purely imaginative invention.
Taking the two suppositions in order, we find much to justify either of
them, and to support the suspicion that the author of this explanation knew
something of the Egyptian language and symbolism. A casual examination
of this figure reveals no trace of the idea "expanse," except in the "spreadingout" of the bird's wings; nor, of "firmament of the heavens," except in the
fact that it is a bird that flies, hence figures in the "firmament." Surely, these
reasons are insufficient to support the statements quoted. From the Egyptological point of view, however, every fresh element of investigation, furnishes
fiesh justification for the proposed interpretation.
I n the first place, not only this figure, but also Nos. 1, 2, 3, 22, 23, are in
the half of the hypocephalus which Egyptologists have agreed to call the
"celestial hemisphere" or the "upper heaven." Consequently, even if this
figure have no other definite assignable meaning it may be characterized in
the above terms. The explanation may be held to show, therefore, that its
author possessed some critical knowledge of matters Egyptian, and that, also,
before the same had been acquired by raanv Egyptologists.
In the second place, the explanation is justified to the extent that, in all
that may be said of this figure, it indicates an inhabitant of heaven, par excellence, and, hence, may be used, by metonomy, to indicate the "firmament"
itself. This will be shown by an examination of the opinions of Egyptologists
touching it, or in describing and commenting on precisely similar figures on
HYPOCEPHALUS IX THE I'.RITISH MUSEUM.

<!-- page:337 -->

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED?
337
other hypocephali. Thus, Dr. Birch: "In the lower compartment is the mummied akkar, hawk of Socharis in a boat." (S. B. A., vi. 184.) Again, he calls
it "a boat with a phenix, rekh, with expanded wings and five lines of hieroglyphs:    'The rams and souls inviolate.'" (Ibid, p. 38.)
The identification of this figure with that of Sokar or Socharis involves
the use of a definite symbolic reference. This god, the ancient Memphite god
of the dead, who is also largely identified with Osiris in the later papyri, in the
form of Ptah-Seker-Ausar, and other compounded deities, appears in Egyptian
mythology most particularly as a leading resident of the dark subterranean
caverns, through which the sun passes during the fourth and fifth hours of the
night. His caverns communicate direct with his place of burial in the upper
world, through whose sides he daily thrusts his head "to get a view of the
sun." He is conventionally represented as a mummy with a hawk's head, but
ib also identified with the mummied sparrow hawk, which was borne around on
the bark called "hennu," particularly on the occasion of his great festival at
the time of the winter solstice. Beyond this, he is of little importance in later
periods, except in such combinations of persons, signs and functions as the
one mentioned above. His identification with Osiris, however, clearly settles
his office as that of the "god of the resurrection," particularly of the resurrection of the soul into the heavenly life of the justified. As a type of this life,
therefore, and of the soul's resurrection into it, there is an eminent fitness in
the Egyptian symbolism, which places his bark in heaven. It is the symbol of
the life in heaven; consequently, also, of heaven itself. These conclusions are
amply justified by the inscriptions found in connection with this figure in
other hypocephali.
Thus, Leemans, describing the Leyden hypocephalus, says: "To the left of
the central compartment (is) a third bark" — there are two on the right — "with
the emblamed hawk, its wings extended, accompanied by the legend, amchi,
'justified' (declare digne), the title of the justified dead." ("Actes," etc.)
Pleyte sees, also, "another (bark) with the embalmed hawk, the soul of the
resurrected Osiris." ("Chap. Supp.") Similarly, M. de Horrack says of a
Paris hypocephalus: "On the left, a mummified hawk expanding his wings
over a boat symbolizes, more especially, the resurrection of the soul. Above
the hawk is a hieroglyphical sign for Ba, the soul, and the forepart of a ram,
both followed by plural terminations, and often used to express the same
idea." (S. B. A., p. 128.) Identifying similarly, Dr. Birch mentions on another hypocephalus, "the six rams and three birds, emblem of the soul, and
the hawk of Socharis." (Ibid, p. 185.) Mentioning sundry variations among
hypocephali, Leemans mentions one in the Museum of Florence, in which are
found "above the embalmed hawk, on the third boat, the hieroglyphics, 'the
soul of the west (?)'"
Discussing this "embalmed hawk,"
which he finds "symbolizing particularly the resurrection of the soul,"
Leemans has the following references,
in accord with the findings of Birch
and others: "In Chap, lxxi of the
'Book of the Dead' this hawk is represented in the vignette face to face
with the cow Mehert. In the text he
is addressed as, [one] 'come forth
from Nun, the celestial abyss, the
lord of Mehert,' and by the dead identified with himself, 'in order that he
may be safe and that he may be able to recommence his life upon the earth.' "
(Expressions like the latter may be held to refer to the resurrection of the
body, since there are no clear indications of any such doctrine as reincarnation
in Egyptian theology.)
The passage cited from Chap, lxxi of the "Book of the Dead" reads as
follows: "O hawk gone out of Nu, Lord of the cow Mehurit! May I be safe
as thou art safe, who revealest thyself; may I free myself, may I be placed on
earth, may I be loved by my Lord, the only face to me. I am a hawk in its
VIGNETTE FROM CHAPTER 71 OF THE
BOOK OF THE DEAD.

<!-- page:338 -->

338 IMPROVEMENT ERA
small hands; 1 shall cross over earth, through the wall of Horus, the sun of
Isis. May I be safe as thou art safe thyself, who revealest thyself, may I free
myself; may I be placed on earth; may I be loved by my Lord, the only face
to me. I am the hawk in the South-sky, and Thoth in the North-sky, making
the flame touch the rebels and making truth go up to the Master of Truth."
("Book of the Dead," Davis' Ed., p. 107.) Similarly, in another passage: "The
Osiris N (the just dead) says, I go out towards heaven; I go across the brazen
firmament, I kneel among the stars; salutations are given to me in the bark
(Sekhti). I am invoked in the bark Maat, I gaze upon Ra in the naos (of his
bark) for I join, myself with his disk every day." (Ibid, p. 75.)
The real significance of such passages appears to better advantage in some
earlier texts, in which the imagery is bolder, also more definite in its references. In illustration, we may quote the following from Erman: "The
Egyptian could watch the stars as they sailed at night in that untroubled splendor
which is exhibited by the gorgeous sky of his country. Of these he knew several
which shone with especial brilliancy, the dog star, Orion, the morning star,
and thought these must assuredly be gods who, like the sun god, had left the
earth. But what about the innumerable host of nameless stars that surrounded
even the least of these? Doubtless they were the dead, happy souls, who had
found their way to heaven, and who now wandered in eternal glory with the
gods. 'The great god, the lord of heaven' (i. e. the sun god) had held out his
hand to them, or the goddess of heaven had taken them to herself, and had
ranged them among the imperishable stars of her body. * * * Like a bird
the dead flies up to heaven; 'he goes to heaven like the hawks and his feathers
are like those of geese' ('Pyramid Texts,' 251); 'he rushes to heaven like a
crane, he kisses heaven like the falcon, he leaps to heaven like the grasshopper' ('Pyr.,' 248): 'thus he flies away from you, ye men; he is no more upon
the earth, he is in heaven' ('Pyr.,' 248) : 'with his brethren the gods,' where
the goddess of heaven stretches out her hands to him. 'He ascends to heaven,
to thee, O Re, with the head of a falcon and the wings of a goose * * *
he moves his arms as a goose, and flaps his wings like a bird.' 'He who flies,
flies, O ye men, and this one flies away from you' ('Pyr.,' 91). In heaven,
however, the Goddess Nut 'places him as an imperishable star which is upon
her' ('Pyr.,' 215); 'she it is who makes his life, she it is who gives birth to
him. In the night he is begotten, in the night he is born; he belongs to those
who are behind Re, to those who are before the morning star' ('Pyr.,' 3). 'He
journeys to the east side of heaven, to the place where the gods are born, and
where, with them' ('Pyr.,' 56). he will 'be born, renewed, rejuvenated.'
"The sun god takes a kindly interest in the new inhabitant of heaven: 'I
give thee,' he says, 'thy speech and thy body, and thou receivest the form of
a god' ('Pyr.,' 206) ; 'he causes his body to become bright like those of the
heavenly ones;' he takes him as an oarsman, in his ship ('Pyr.,' 248), or assigns
him a place 'in the forepart, and the crew who row Re, they row him also'
('Pyr.,' 193). Or he even makes him the commanding officer of his oarsmen
('Pyr.,' 252), yea, he displaces his own celestial scribe, and sets the deceased
man in his place ('Pyr.,' 257), so that he 'judges and is arbitrator, and gives
commands to one that is greater than he,' ('Pyr.,' 193). * * * The exaggerated conceptions of the power of the illuminated dead in heaven, which find a
place in many of the quotations already given, come even more prominently
forward in others of these formulae. 'The dead is called a god outright; he is
Thoth, 'the strongest of the gods' ('Pyr.,' 297), or he is 'Weneg' (i. e. Shu).
'the son. of Re, who supports heaven, leads the earth, judges the gods' ('Pyr.,'
257)." Dr. Erman then relates that the final glorification of the departed
consists in devouring all the gods, the hosts of heaven, his own fellows, if not
the universe itself. This similitude he characterizes as "cannibalistic," but it
may not be impossible to see here a crude or unusually picturesoue statement
of the doctrine of the ultimate union of the human soul with the divine, like
the Moksha or Nirvana of Hindu thinkers. It certainly lends confirmation to
the idea that a representation of the "resurrection of the soul," a flying bird in
a god's bark, closely suggests a fitting metonomy for the "firmament of the
heavens." It certainly suggests the "home of the soul."
In discussing this figure, the question has been raised as to whether the

<!-- page:339 -->

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 339
boat shown is the boat of the sun, the "bark of millions of years," and not
simply the boat of Sokar, known as "hennu." While there is no indication
that these two boats are identical in, any sense, there is good reason, as found
in some of the passages quoted above, for believing that, as the symbol of
the resurrected soul, the bird of Sokar would be represented in the boat of
the sun. This is not however, essential to our argument.
As noted above, there may be said to be somewhat of uncertainty as to
the precise reference of the sentence proposing to describe this figure in the
captions ascribed to Smith. The expression, "answers to the Hebrew word,"
etc, may mean either that the idea indicated "answers to," or is the same,
or similar to, the idea expressed by the Hebrew word named, or that the
word in Egyptian presumably describing this figure is similar to the Hebrew
v/ord, in sound merely. We have already discussed the possibility that similarity or identity of meaning may be involved, having drawn from the
opinions of noted authorities that the picture indicates the "resurrected soul,"
hence the proper inhabitant of heaven, the home of the stars and of the gods,
hence, by no very remote figure, heaven, or the heavens. The argument from
word similarity is also interesting.
By agreement among the Egyptologists quoted above, we have seen that
this figure indicates the "resurrection of the soul," under the "type of the
hawk of Sokar, as a form of Osiris. The employment of such a bird figure
to indicate this idea is strongly suggestive of another similtitude of the
Egyptian mythology, which is quite as striking. It is that of the Phenix.
According to the story, a beautiful bird, having scarlet and golden plumage,
was wont to appear at periods centuries apart at the temple of Heliopolis,
where, having lighted a fire upon an altar, it immolated itself. Immediately
it was reduced to ashes, however, it would resurrect, with renewed youth and
beauty, and return to its home in the distant interior of Arabia. Because
of this periodical renewal of its youth, its rising from the dead, it became
the symbol of longevity, also of the resurrection, and was held a sacred
type of Osiris risen.
One word for Phenix in Egyptian is Bennu, which has been rendered
with the meanings "rising sun" and "returning;" the latter in reference to its
periodical reappearances in the temple, for self-incineration.. The "period of
the Phenix," accordingly, became important in Egyptian chronology, and was
also considered the indicator of a renewal of happy and prosperous conditions.
Hence, as we read, also, the Phenix became the type of Nile inundation, the
sole source of plentiful crops and material prosperity in Egypt. This period
has been variously specified as between 487, or 500 years, on. the one hand,
and 1461, even to several thousand years, on the other. The period of 1,461
years is usually called the Sothiac Cycle, or three Phenix periods.
The Phenix has also been called Rekh or Rekhu, the "burning one," the
"firebrand," a term equally appropriate to its habit of burning itself or to
its fiery plumage. This Egyptian word means "to burn," "to glow;" also as a
noun, "the brand," "the glow." Although entirely unrelated, it strongly suggests the Hebrew word mentioned, whose first syllable is raq. If it was to
some such similarity as this that the sentence above-quoted intends to call attention, we must conclude that its author knew enough of Egyptian to appreciate even a casual similarity of sounds. If we can establish this, indeed,
there is no need to say more.
There is also a word rek, with the meaning "time," "epoch," but there is
no clear evidence making it 1,000 years. It may be that the writer estimates
the Phenix Period at this duration. If so, he has the word, as above. There
is also a word closely like recht (reht), which signifies "number," enumeration,"
"that which is counted, listed, etc."
The Egyptian word for 1,000 is cha, (ha), which signifies also "numerous,"
"to be numerous," etc. The connection of this word with the figure shown in
the plate may be held to be problematical, but may be traced, hypothetically
r\t 1 P?l st*
The Phenix bird, Bennu, is called Rekhu, the "brand," as just seen, also
Cheper Tes-F, which means "Cheper (the sun) himself;" hence by no wide variation  of idea, he admits the description, "that which shines, beams," "the

<!-- page:340 -->

340 IM PR( >VEMENT ERA
glorious appearance," or the "diadem," which meanings we find subsumed
under the word cha, which, although spelled with different characters from that
meaning 1,000, is sufficiently near to it in sound for the purposes of an Egyptian
pun, of which there were many with less resemblance.
W r may thus sec that, whether in the character of the Phenix or not —
the phenix is more like the heron — this figure in the boat is certainly the
"shining one," as representing the glorified soul, whose destiny is to win
a place among the stars. Thus, whether as the "shining one" or the symbol
for 1,000, a transference perfectly Egyptian, it is represented by a word closely
like cha. If our "translator" had this correspondence in mind, we may see
hew consistently it is reason.ed. If the reference is to some other line of
symbolism, we have not as yet discovered it. The resemblances above noted
certainly go some way toward justifying our suspicion that Smith knew
Egyptian.
The discussion to this point has shown that the explanations offered by
Smith for the pictures on this hypocephalus diagram strongly suggest the fact
that he was sufficiently acquainted with Egyptian matters to give perfectly
possible and verifiable explanations of their meanings, although without
mention of the fact that the total significance of this document is that of
a funerary amulet or magical chart. As may be understood, however, the statement of this fact could add nothing in particular to the accuracy of any description of the figure elements, nor yet constitute a ground for a just charge
nf error. With all due allowance for such knowledge of Egyptian language
and figures as he may have posessed, this may have been one thing which he
did not understand. There is no need, however, in speculating further on
this point, since he offered no explanation of the total significance of the plate.
Consequently we have no means of judging what he knew or did not know.
In the figures numbered 4 and 5 in this. plate we have evidently the representation of the cow Hathor, as the goddess of the west, who receives the
setting sun, to whom, as the goddess of the dawn, she gives a new birth on
the following morning. Before her stand the four sons of Horus, as the
Canopic gods, evidently in the position of supplicating her for the privilege
of a new birth to the soul of the deceased. This latter judgment is borne
out, seemingly, by the fact that at least one specimen of hypocephalus shows
at this place, instead of these genii, the figure of the soul itself, pictured as a
bird with human head and arms, in the attitude of supplication to the sacred
cow. It must be admitted, however, that the intercession of these Canopic
gods is not perfectly apparent, although the fact that they are represented
as mummies strongly suggests some mission in, behalf of the deceased. They
still continue to be the "gods of the four cardinal points" — or of the four
"quarters," which is the same thing, as shown in any dictionary — and this is
a fact that is, postively, not obvious to anyone not possessing a knowledge
of Egyptian symbolism. The fact that they are not described in these captions as equivalent to any group of four stars, or to the "four seasons," or
any other tetrad, is significant in the way of enforcing our conclusion that the
"translator" of this book really possessed a knowledge of Egyptian.
Explaining the cow figure at this point, M. Horrack says: "The cow
represents the goddess Hathor, who fulfils the important role of the celestial mother, and personfies the lower hemisphere of the heaven into which
the sun sets in the evening, to issue from it the next morning, as after a
new birth. She is supposed in that character to receive the deceased on his
arrival at the gates of the Occident." (S. B. A., vi. 127.) Similarly, M. de
Horrack is quoted as saying: "The attributes with which the cow is crowned
make evident in her the goddess Hathor. of whom she is the ordinary emblem.
This divinity had the important role of celestial mother, and symbolized the
inferior hemisphere, or the sky of night. It is in her womb that the sun. descends, in order to go forth on the morrow, after having there taken a new
birth. In this quality she received, under the form of a cow, the deceased
arriving at the west, and under this type, she received the name of Noub. Here
[at the gate of the west] the deceased demands to be reborn, in the womb
of the celestial mother. The vignettes of chapters 71 and 162 of the Ritual
represent the figure of this cow, and the text prescribes * * * the placing

<!-- page:341 -->

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 341
on the neck of the deceased an image of her made in good gold, and the
painting of it also on the hypocephalus. In chap. 17:1, 13, she is called
Mehur, the Utza of the sun. This symbol is the symbolic eye of Horus."
(' Actes du 6me Congres," etc., p. 121.)
_ These descriptions give, of course, onlv the account of Hathor's functions in the "lower hemisphere," or world of the dead. It cannot be pretended
that they sum her activities or exhaust her significances in the mythology of
Egypt. While failure to mention them may be held, therefore,
to argue that the -translator" of this book either failed to recognize the funerary character of this hypocephalus, or at least,
ignored it, there is no reason to argue that he did not understand the other,'
and older, significances of this figure. Thus, although he states of this cow,
"said by the Egyptians to be the sun," which may be called in question by
sundry commentators, he is speaking of an object and a personage, suggesting
in all phases of description close relation, to the idea of the sun and his
doings. As the "celestial mother" she is the alternate of Nut (or Nout), who,
as the cow of heaven, gives birth to the sun each morning, and to the moon
in the evening; upon whose belly, also, the stars moved across the sky of night.
When represented in human form, she is shown bending over the earth supported on her feet and finger tips, leaving her body to represent the sky, along
which the sun, moon and stars move in similar fashion; being reborn of her
each morning, or each evening. As the sky of the morning, Hathor is the goddess of the dawn, hence, of beauty, "love," etc., the prototype of Astarte,
Ashtoreth, and other goddesses of similar significance. As the sky of the
evening, the western sky, she receives the setting sun, also the souls of the
departed. As the sky of the daytime, she is Hathor, properly Het-Her, the
"house of Horus," which is to say "house of the sun." It may be seen,
therefore, that in all her functions, she is intimately associated with the sun,
including in herself all the phases of his manifestation in the visible sky, and
very many of his hidden and "spiritual" activities. Thus, for example, she
is called in the Book of the Dead, Mehurit, the "eye (or Utza) of Ra, or
of Horus," a mystical similitude indicating probably that she is the type
of the sun's eternal generation, and daily "resurrection." We may readily understand, therefore, how that an expression so apparently identifying her with
the sun, as in the present case, may be said to be defensible on the terms
of Egyptian symbolism. That it is outside the references of these terms may
not be asserted, until, at least, the mythology of Egypt be reduced to something more closely like exact statement — if that ever becomes possible — and
we understand accurately all the apparent contradictions, inconsistencies and
confusions of functions and persons that now seem to confront us. If, then,
one claim that Hathor may indicate the sun "by rhetorical figure only," we
may hold that we have as accurate a statement as is needed, since the figure
itself, with all its significances, is only a similitude, and a very elastic one, at
that.
We have, to the present time, made intelligible arguments and offered
intelligible evidence to support the conclusion that, even if the "translator"
of this book deviated from what may be held to be "strict accuracy" in his
interpretations of the figures on this second plate, he did so through misapplying, perhaps, the facts of Egyptological language and symbolism, with which
he may be assumed to have been familiar, to some extent. Some of his interpretations are entirely correct; others are defensible; all evade the suspicion
of gratuitous invention or even of the cleverest "guess-work." This man is
"nearly right" too many times to be merely a good "guesser." Even if he be
held to have known "nothing of Egyptian," he had some very good working
substitute for that scriptural faculty which can "understand all mysteries."
It is easier to suppose, merely, that he "knewsome Egyptian." Nor, are we
devoid of means to establish the suspicion that this was the case.
Among the most astonishing "identifications" offered us in the captions to
these plates is that calling the "simple offering table," so familiar in Egyptian
pictures, "Abraham in Egypt." Had it been called any one of a thousand
other things, one might have sought for some possible explanation in the
dark depths of symbolic interpretation, without seeking to justify an inter-

<!-- page:342 -->

342 IMPROVEMENT ERA
pretation half so well calculated to provoke curiosity. It seems an in.teresting psychological situation, even if unwarranted in Egyptian language or symbolism.    We will proceed, therefore, to discuss it.
In a former article, the present writer pointed out the fact that a partial
justification might be found for this interpretation! in the fact that the sign
for this "offering table" is regularly used in hieroglyphic inscriptions as an
equivalent of the syllable "ab." Two examples of this are shown herewith,
taken from Budge's interlinear translation of the Rosetta Stone. As a matter
of 'fact, this syllable "ab," indicated by the "offering table," may be the
equilavent of any word, with any meaning, that may be represented, wholly or
in part by this sound. Champollion gives the meaning "east" or "orient," as the
most familiar sense; Erman's grammar gives "left" (German "links"), as
the most familiar. We see in one of the Rosetta lines, herewith, that the
meaning "desire" is assigned to it, as indicated by the determinative figure,
a man with one hand pointing to his mouth , indicating actions
of the person, as of sense, thought, speech, etc. It is noteworthy, however, that the graven text of the Stone shows at this place
the same determinative figure that appears in the group next but one before
this, a man with hand upraised, the determinative of "worship," also, apparently, of "people." Consequently, one translation renders this word as
"purified," another "ab." The identification of this syllabic significance, in
connection with a proposed rendering "Abraham," etc., is interesting, if not
significant. Webb suggested, therefore, that, with the further fact that the
lotus flower is a common symbol for Egypt, or Lower Egypt, the group
might stand the interpretation "Ab(ram) and Egypt," etc. We find, however,
the following comment in a certain "sincere and scientific" output of recent
date.
"His whole symbolical statement is full of errors and is its own refutation. To the layman it is unintelligible and to the expert it is ridiculous. * * *
Anyone who can equate an offering-table and a man is clever indeed."
It is interesting to read these statements; but, without pausing to inquire
as to how the author of them is qualified to speak for either "laymen" or
"experts," we will state for the benefit of the public that Webb's statement is
not "full of errors," is not "its own refutation," a phrase which sounds
well, merely, and that it is not "ridiculous." As to whether there
is any essential "cleverness" involved in the act of "equating" an offering table and a man, we need only refer the reader to the
constant practice of Egyptian scribes and artists. Here we will find that the
process attributed to Webb — the "equating" — is a widely followed one. One
example will suffice. In Egyptian books, bas-reliefs, etc., one will often see a
female figure whose head is surmounted with an elongated rectangular object,
having a short projection extending upward from one upper corner. We are
told that this figure represents the goddess Isis. And how do we know this?
The curious object on her head is the conventional representation of a throne,
which is called in Egyptian "ast." It is used here in its phonetic value as an
indicator of the name of the goddess Isis, which is, in the same language, "As"
or "Ast." Clever people those Egyptians, who could "equate" a throne and a
female deity!
In his first article, although knowing the usual hieroglyphic value, "ab,"
of the object in question, Webb made a mistake in giving the equivalent,
"hawt," an "altar," instead of the recognized "iab" or "ab," an offering table —
that shows that no one should trust his memory in such matters, even if he
is "sure." Webb offers no excuse or "explanation" for this. His error, however, does not vitiate the conclusion to which he was attempting to argue.
The sound indicated by this object is "ab."
Now, in explaining the evident meaning of the "translator" in calling this
object in these pictures, "Abraham in Egypt," it is not necessary to assume
that the Egyptian draughtsman,, or scribe, had any intention of using it as a
hieroglyphic group. It is of less value in determining what these ancients intended to indicate, than in establishing the strongest kind of suspicion that Joseph Smith understood Egyptian. Unless, in the words of this "estimate"
article, people "decide beforehand what they want to see, and then see it in

<!-- page:343 -->

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED?
343
spite of all common sense," we must conclude that the "translator" of this
book knew Egyptian signs and their values well enough to "play with" them,
precisely as did some of the Egyptian, scribes before him. This may be explained, as follows:
Knowing that the offering table has the hieroglyphic value "ab," and that
the lotus is used hieroglyphically as the ideogram of Egypt, or of northern or
lower Egypt, an acrostic naturally occurs to a mind interested in symbolic
interpretations — and there were plenty of these to be made in the Egyptian
texts. Examining closer in plate 1, we may see on the "floor" to the right
of the offering table an elongated oval object, resembling to some extent the
leaf of a willow. Such an object appears in hieroglyphics as the sign for "r,"
but is a picture of the human mouth and lips. This letter, rendered usually
as "er," has among other significations, the meanings, "to, into, on, in," etc.
It is not essentially absurd, therefore, to say, in, effect, "this group may
mean 'Ab(ram) in Egypt.' " To say this merely indicates that we know the
values of certaini signs having certain definite shapes. In the third plate we
see this oval figure in the libation vase set upon the top of the table. Consequently, judging by appearances, we have the same possible reading here, also.
There are, however, further interesting situations connected with this
group, which may be held to show further that the man who wrote the words,
"Abraham in Egypt," knew -Egyptian. The lotus flower, although regularly
appearing in hieroglyphics with the phonetic value, "h" or "ha," is also used
ideographically to indicate "Egypt" or "Northern Egypt," the hieroglyphic
T
Sekhent
peri.
enli sen \ nh J s-aha malet
the people, those who desire [it] to set up a copy of
,i the middle of Sekhent Crown this
JSi
9
!,L
Icara ten en neterper neb neferu
shrine this of the God Epiplianes, lord of beauties
papyrus on
SECTION OF LINE 10 OF THE ROSETTA
STONE.
\ iii
th:
i>" ■■■•'->>
their house[s
], likewise
[and] to make it to he ii
SECTION OF LINE 13 OF THE ROSETTA
STONE.
~u A
aq-s em nb en aim nit
It hath entered into the heart of the priests of
i f f[=3;
i i i
dlerti Reset Meld ma .ash-sen
tl>e temples theSouth andNorth, however many tliey
of may be,
SECTION OF LINE 5 OF THE ROSETTA STONE.
Selected lines from Budge's translation of the Rosetta stone, explaining some points mentioned
in the text, and illustrating the general character of hieroglyphic writing, which is, however,
written from right to left, as is Hebrew and other Semitic languages. In selection from line 10
may be seen the table of offering used with the syllablic signification of "AB," as explained in the
text. The hook before it is regularly the letter "S," here used as a determinative. It is regularly
a verbal determinative. This line shows also the sekhent crown of the two Egypts. In line 13 may
be seen another case in which the table is used with the value "AB," this time with a verbal
sense. This line also shows the sign for "R." In the section from the fifth line may be seen the
ideograms for upper and lower Egypts, with the values "reset" and "meht, respectively. In the
13th line is seen the word "neferu," indicated by three lutes, and translated beauties. It suggests the Hebrew word from which was derived the name "Nauvoo."

<!-- page:344 -->

344 IMPROVEMENT ERA
for the papyrus reed indicating "Southern Egypt." Many of the earlier translators of hieroglyphics, notably Champollion, translated this figure^ to indicate
"Egypt," without qualification., and gave it the value "hm" (Coptic "chem"), the
traditional name for the country. Later translators, notably Dr. Budge, as
shown in the accompanying reproductions from his book, render it "meht" or
'■mini," north, as indicating Lower Egypt. We have, therefore, a new possible
rendering of the lotns, giving us some such possible combination as Ab-r-hm,
on the one hand, or as Ab-r-m, on the other. In the second case, of course, the
first letter ("m") of the word "mhti" is used, after the nsual fashion in the
use of such figures as hieroglyphic letters.
Lest, however, we hear further accusations of "errors" and "self-refutation," in this matter of using an ideogram with the phonetic signification of
the thing or person indicated, we may quote the following from Dr. Erman's
Egyptian grammar (Breasted's translation):
"Sec. 70. Unusual Styles of Orthography — Sportive methods of writing, in, which ideograms serve as simple consonants, determinatives and unprecedented signs are used as ideograms are found as early as the middle
empire, cf. e. g.,
— msdmt, 'cosmetic,' wherein (1) as determinative of ins, 'child,' represents this
^0 syllahle, (2) dw 'mountain' represents
D, (3) mwb 'mother,' the syllable
mt>. — But this wanton method first
attains importance from the fact that
^¥'4^1
Ml
such an orthography gradually superseded the old hieroglyphs in the Greek
period. A summary of these signs may be found in Brugsch, 'Verzeichniss der
Hieroglyphen mit Lautwert' (Leipzig 1872)."
"Wanton method" this may be, but it is Egyptian, also it is defensible.
We have, therefore, another good evidence of the fact that Joseph Smith
was able, to this extent, at least, to read Egyptian. If, however, he could
read it "to this extent," he probably knew very much more, else the suggestion
to make this interpretation would scarcely have come to him.
On completing its remarks on the first plate of the series in hand, Dr.
Spalding's "estimate" article "winds back again" to the irrespressible issue
of Smith's transliteration, particularly of the already-familiar "raukeeyang"
and "shumahyeen," with "Jah-oh-eh" following in full force three pages later.
Why the author of this article insists in harping on this matter is not easily understood, particularly since he does not favor us with the correct renderings.
It may be that he wishes it to be understood that, as he says of Joseph Smith,
he knows "some Hebrew." "Scholastikos (i. e. a 'scholar' or 'pedant') having a house to sell, used to carry around a stone from it as a sample." (So
says Hierocles.)
Lest, however, anyone unfamiliar with ancient languages should suspect
that some very serious lapse from an understanding of Hebrew had been
committed in these words, presumably, also, in all others, it seems desirable
to explain just what is involved in this matter of "correct transliteration." In
a language like Hebrew, for example, in which a "k" sound may represent
any one of three letters, Kaph, Qoph, and, sometimes, Cheth; which has
four "s" letters, Samekh, Sadhe, Sin, and Shin,; two "t" letters, Teth and Taw,
and a ""g" sound in both Gimel and Ayin, it is quite necessary to adopt some
system of arbitrary "diacritical marks" in order that a Hebraist, reading a
word spelled in English letters, may know precisely which Hebrew equivalents
are indicated. Such diacritical marks consist in dots, accents, ligatures, etc.,
placed above or below the consonant letters, and, by common consent among
scholars, constituting such letters the indicators of the proper characters in
the Hebrew. Of course, there is no other known device by which one could
know which one of the two "t" letters or two "k" letters, for example, had
been used in the original, but it would seem quite unnecessary to introduce
it into a book intended to be read by those who are unfamiliar with Hebrew,
and would have no occasion to consult a lexicon of that language. In the
case of Joseph Smith's renderings of Hebrew words, as has already been indicated in a previous article, he was evidently more concerned with represent-

<!-- page:345 -->

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 345
ing the pronunciations, as they had been taught to him, or as he understood
them to be, than to "transliterate" in any sense proper to scholarly literature.
As the present writer indicated in a previous article, Smith's renderings of
accepted Hebrew sounds are correct, or admissible, with the sole probable
exception of the hard ("ng") sound for Ayin, which, nevertheless, shows that
he had been trained to discriminate carefully between the sound of this
"guttural breathing" and that of Aleph, thus avoiding the common error, followed also by the translators of the Bible, of rendering both by "a" or some
other simple vowel sound, according to Hebrew pointing. That he had been,
taught to render these respective Hebrew characters by the indicated sounds
seems evident — what else could be the explanation of "errors" of this description?— and that his instructor was a Sephardic Jew, as Dr. Peters has
suggested, seems a reasonable explanation*. The hard sound of Ayin also explains his "Gnolaum," as indicated by the "estimate" article, being proposed for
a word beginning with Ayin, but often rendered "olam." As to his explanation for "Shaumau," "to be high or the heavens," which our commentators
consider worthy space in their magazine, we need remark only that we are
concerned here more properly with defective English than with bad Hebrew.
There is a verb shamah having the meaning "to be high." There is also a
noun Shamayim, the "heavens," of which this word is evidently proposed as a
singular form. Regarding the faulty transliteration, of the Hebrew name for
God, yhzvh, as alleged, it may seem, as already indicated, to express the sound
of the word, rather than the spelling. After substituting "y" for "j," as
previously indicated, we have a pronunciation closely like "Yao-way," which
is so close to the accredited "Yahweh" (pron. "Yah-way") "that it is needless
to quibble over the difference."
However, in his probable eagerness to make the most of even the smallest
point against Smith's statements, Dr. Spalding consents to publish the following:
"The word Jah-oh-eh is not an Egyptian word. This, be it understood, is
the important point at issue. The Prophet showed by that one statement, 'called
by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh,' that he did not know the Egyptian language.
That in itself was sufficient to prove the contention of the scholars that Joseph
Smith was either self-deceived or an imposter." ("Survey," p. 22.)
Now, although, as we are told, this "estimate" article is formed up "as
sincerely and as scientifically as possible" — and there are always limits to
possibility — it evidently lacks two very essential elements of true scientific
treatment. These are fairness and the careful analysis of conditions. Any
product lacking these elements, among others, is in- no sense really scientific.
The constantly repeated conclusion to which it professedly argues, that Smith
is in this matter, and then in that, shown to have been self-deceived, or worse,
is more properly the premise with which it starts. Because the assumption
that Smith might have read Egyptian — however he may have learned it — is intolerable to our friends, they will not consider for one moment what it might
involve. Had they been willing to do so, their favorite conclusion would not
leap so easily and so constantly to the fore.
We have here a book and some explanations of pictures, professedly translated from the Egyptian language, or, in any event, from some language
spoken among the Egyptians, although ascribed to a Semitic author. That
this author might use Semitic words, particularly Semitic names, although this
possibility seems to be denied in the discussion of the word "kolob," seems
evident, provided such words could be expressed in Egvptian* letters. If the
translator of this book, happening upon such a Semitic name, should fail to
recognize its origin — a thing done occasionally by the best-equipped linguists —
he might reasonably enough suppose it to be an Egyptian word, no resemblances being considered conclusive to the contrary, and would remark, as
here, "called by the Egyptians," etc., as in the cases of the other strange
words introduced by this same phrase, if, on the other hand, he recognized
the actual origin, alleged for this word, he might consistently use the same
form, intending, in this case, at least, to emphasize the peculiarity of its rendering in the Egyptian text. In neither case could he be justly charged with
either "self-deception" or "imposture."

<!-- page:346 -->

346 IMPROVEMENT ERA
Whatever may have been the actual facts of the matter, however, it seems
that the form of this word, as here given, furnishes an unusually good argument for the contention that it had been actually transcribed from an Egyptian
text. This is true because there has been some real uncertainty as to the
actual value of the hieroglyphic character which would be used to represent
the Semitic letter Waw ("w"). The earlier Egyptologists, following close on
< Coptic analogies, usually rendered it as "o," or "oil," but some later authorities
prefer "u," while others again, following Semitic analogies, hold that it has
no proper vowel sound, being a true correlative of Waw. (See, z. b. Ernian's grammar). If, then, we assume as a fact, that the "h" in the second
syllable is inserted to indicate the long sound of the "o" — as must be the case
if we are dealing with the name Yahweh — we may see that this name in
Egyptian letters could easily be read in the form given by Smith. Since,
also, the letter "e" is not expressed in Egyptian hieroglyphic, being always
understood, where correct — although some have transliterated it from the
characters usually rendered "a" and "i" — we may further understand, from the
same conditions, the true Egyptian origin of the form Yahoh, as transcribed
into Hebrew characters by Gesenius, familiar in Greek letters as the iao of the
Alexandrian Gnostics.
The whole question involved in the presumed appearance of a foreign
word in the text in any language is as to whether it may be expressed in the
characters, sound-equivalents, of that language. Thus, for example, there must
be considerable difficulty in representing in English many Russian words,
since some of the characteristic sounds composing them are unknown or inexpressible in English. It is similarly difficult to express the English "th,"
or even "j," in German, or the German "ch" in English. Although, in the
Egyptian, several familiar sounds seem to have been unknown, while others
are not clearly discriminated — thus "1" and "r," if known as separate sounds,
are frequently represented by the same character, as in some Greek transliterations— there seem to be no words mentioned by Smith that might not have
been found, or at least read, in a hieroglyphic manuscript. Even "Kolob"
might have been read there.
The Egyptian, scribes, however, had the evil habit of indolently, or purposely, botching words and sentences, making all kinds of unintelligible combinations, especially noticeable in. later times. Thus, there are words in Egyptian manuscripts which have no discoverable etymology, no apparent meaning
or derivation. Some such state of affairs is referred to in Petrie's "Abydos,"
when it is said that the sign combinations on some hypocephali "correspond
to no known words." If, therefore, Smith translated this book from an
Egyptian papyrus, the presence of words having no apparent derivation — we
find mention of "Oliblish," "Shagreel," etc. — is no conclusive proof that such
words were "improvised." The name Egyptus might fall into this class to the
extent, at least, that it was read as the possible rendering of an obsure combintion of characters, of which we find not a few, suggesting a familiar form — for
few names are perfectly transferred from one language to another, particularly
in ancient texts: thus we have the Egyptian "Ptulmis" for the Greek "Ptolemaios," etc.
Several of his unfamiliar words, however, seem to have some suggestions
of an etymology. Thus the word "rahleenos," said to mean "hieroglyphics,"
suggests a combination of some such roots as are found in the Hebrew raah
"to see," liyn or lun, as nearly as we can transliterate here, "to abide,
tc remain;" thus giving a rendering like, "things seen and remaining," a perfectly intelligible description of drawn or graven pictures. His Kae-e-vanrash is
also interesting, suggesting an etymology that is both consistent and significant. Assuming that the "k" in this word is to be represented by the Hebrew
Kaph ("k"), the, matter seems almost clear. As a correspondent, then, of the
Hebrew Kaph Yodh Waw Nun (kywn), for which Gesenius proposes the meaning "image" or "statue," the first part of this word would be equivalent to the
apparent name chiun of Amos v. 26. This name, however, is rendered into Greek
letters by the translators of the Septuagint version as raiphan — whence the
Remphan or Repham — of Acts vii. 43 — showing that a carelessly formed kaph had
given them a rcsh ("r") in the manuscript, but particularly, that the pronuncia-

<!-- page:347 -->

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 347
tion. of the word was probably KeYWaN or KeY VaN, a clear correspondent
of the Arabic Kef Ye Waw Alif Nun, the name of a star worshiped among
the ancient Semitic peoples, and supposed to be Saturn, a star of evil influence, to be propitiated by sacrifices, etc. The identification of this word
as a star-name is shown by the translation of the Septuagint Greek rendering
of the Amos passage: "And ye brought up the tabernacle of Moloch and the
star of your god Raiphan, the images of them which ye had made for yourselves."
The last syllable of this word closely suggests the obsolete Hebrew root
RaASH, corresponding to the Arabic Re Ain Shin, and meaning "to move, to
tremble," etc. (Whence the Hebrew ReSH "head," referring to its "moving
or nodding"). <(The meaning of the total word would, then, be the "moving
image" or the "moving Keyvan," which might apply to Saturn, or some other
planet, or to such a fixed star as Algol (al Ghul, the "ghoul," the "demon"),
which is noted for its rapid variations in magnitude (from the third to the
seventh, in a few hours), and was also worshiped anciently as an influence
to be propitiated. Some such discussions of names and terms would be undertaken by scholars in the case of any other book, presumably translated from an
ancient language, and, perhaps, with no better demonstrations.
This brings us to the word "Kolob," which has been frequently mentioned in, the present "inquiry." In the "estimate" article we find the following
statement: "Sayce declared that the word is unknown to the Egyptian language. This is the important point, because Joseph Smith is commenting upon
a text which, according to himself, was written in the Egyptian language."
The inference is, of course, that here we have another "coined word" — hence
Smith was an "imposter," etc.— but it is somewhat hasty. TJie word "Kolob,"
in spite of the evident misconception in this passage, is used as a proper name
in the book under discussion, as is definitely stated (Chap. iii. 2). Consequently, its occurrence in an Egyptian text is not impossible; the sole question being as to whether it could be represented in the characters of that
language. It would be absurd to argue that a foreign proper name could not
appear in an Egyptian text, or that its alleged presence would argue the book
a forgery. This, however, seems to be the clear implication in the above
passage — for we assume that the author of this "estimate" article has read
the book, which he undertakes so confidently to criticize: that is the only
"scholarly" method of procedure. But, if this book is to be condemned because of the presence of proper names, not of Egyptian* origin, we must judge
by the same canons that the Book of Esther is also a forgery. (What prototypical "Smith" perpetrated this "imposture?") In this book (Chap. ix. 6-10),
we find a list of the names of certain "Agagites," several of which Gesenius
supposes to be of Persian origin, but which closely suggest Sanskrit etymologies, particularly those having the familiar endin.g datta, "given." Thus, we
have Aspatha, suggesting Asvatha (the name of the "holy fig tree" of heaven,
the oriental correspondent of the Ash Ygdrasil of Norse mythology), although Gesenius suggests Asvadatta (" 'given by the horse' or Brahma in that
form"); Aridatha, perhaps Haridatta ("given by Hari, or Vishnu, the "lotuseyed Hari, the remover of sin") ; Parmastha, perhaps Paramastha ("he who
stands highest"); Poratha, perhaps Bharata ("he who should be helped");
Parshandatha, perhaps Varshandatta ("given by the rain," or the god of the
rain), etc. These probable identifications are interesting in the present connection, since it is certain that the Sanskirt-reading Hindus were quite as "remote in language, religion and locality" from the Babylonians and Hebrews as
were the Chaldeans and Egyptians, or as are "American and Chinese."
In spite of the plain truth of all such arguments, the author of the "estimate" article delivers himself, as follows:
"It is quite evident that 'Kolob' is used bv the Prophet as the name of the
greatest of all the stars ('Kokaubeam'). That is, 'Kolob' is the name of a star
or a word equivalent to 'star.' Now, 'Kolob' never means 'star' in Arabic,
neither has it such a meaning in any other Semitic language. It is neither
Egyptian nor Semitic in the sense in. which Smith used it."
The statement that this word is not Egyptian is indicated, apparently, by
its construction. A Semitic affinity might be admissible, however, precisely

<!-- page:348 -->

348 tMPROVEMENT ERA
on the ground of its construction* When we consider that Smith's transliterations arc not always exact — wc have contended that they were meant to indicate the sounds pf the words, rather than their spelling — as has been sufficiently indicated, we may conclude that this word might be correctly rendered
'Kalab,' a spelling closely suggesting a Semitic affinity. But, after having
identified a word as Semitic, determined its derivation, meaning, etc., what
nonsense it would be to say that it could not be Semitic "in. the sense in
which Smith used it." The misuse of a word by Smith, or anyone else — and
words are habitually misused in all languages — cannot divorce it from its
proper affinities. But, as a matter of fact, Smith did not misuse this word.
Neither is the word used by him "as a word equivalent to star," or as a word
meaning "star," any more than the word "Mars" may be taken to mean
"planet." Why will a "trained orientalist" stoop to this kind of "argument?"
Smith used this word percisely as the "name of the greatest of all the stars,"
and no otherwise. Under some conditions, this prelatical "estimate" argument
might seem like an attempt to "cover up the truth," as others have been,
accused of doing.
In order, however, that the reader may not be deceived by any such
nonsense, it seems desirable to discuss the matter. The use of an ordinary
word as a proper name, for stars, persons, etc., is common. Nor does
it argue that a word so used is divorced from its proper affinities. Thus,
in the Hebrew text of Psalms, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, we have the word
Kesil, used well over sixty times in its primitive meaning of "fool," or "foolish
person" — such a man as "hath no delight in understanding," etc. — and were
our knowledge of Hebrew confined to these books, we might scout the idea
that this word could be used as the name of a star or constellation. Yet, in
Job (ix. 9 and xxxviii. 31) and Amos (v. 8), we find that precisely this thing
is done. When, in the first passage, we read "canst thou * * * loose the
bands of Orion?" we have this very word. The constellation of Orion is
called m Hebrew, Kesil, the "fool," referring probably to the wickedness
ascribed to him in mythological story. So with the word "Kalab," or a word
identical in spelling and pronunciation with it: it has been used repeatedly
as a star name, or as the component of star names, among Semitic peoples
from very early times. Thus, the Arabian astronomers used the word kalab, a
dog, and qalab, "heart," as a component in the names of several stars— the
difference between the two words being that on.e begins with Kef ("k") and
the other with Qaf ("q"), the latter sign being usually transliterated by "k"
with a subscript dot. Thus, we have Al Kalb al Akhbar, "the greater dog"
designating the constellation Canis Major, and Al Kalb al Asghar "the lesser
dog, designating the constellation Canis Minor. Three different stars, one in
Cepheus, one in Hercules and the third in Ophinchus, have been known as Al
Kalb al Rai, "the shepherd's dog." One star, at least, the Beta of Canis
Major has been called Al Kalb "the dog," according to some authorities. Thus
m addition to other designations, "Brettman asserts that it also was Al
Kalb, the dog, run.nmg in front of Sirius (the "Dog Star"), but this must
have been from early times in the desert." ("Star Names," etc R H
Allen, N. Y., 1899. p. 129.) ...
In Similar fashion, the Arabians also used the word Qalb "heart " in star
names Thus we have Al Qalb al Akrab, "the scorpion's heart," for Antares
(the Alpha of Scorpio), and Al Qalb al Asad, "the lion's heart," for Regulus
(the Alpha of Leo) The author above quoted says also of the constellation
Perseus, The Celeub. Cheleub and Chelub of the 1515 Almagest, Alphonsine
fables, and Bayers Uranometria, probably are from the Arabic Kullab the
Heros weapon (1. e., Perseus'), although Grotius referred them to Kalb, a
dog. (Ibid. p. 330). He also reminds us, in discussing the name of Canis
Major, that "Al Biruni quoted the Al Kalb al Jabbar, the 'Dog of the Giant'
Tone of its alternate designations] directly from the Greek conception of the
hgure. Similarly it was the Persian's Kelbo Gavoro." (pp 407-408) These
examples suffice to show that "Kolob" (or "Kalab") or any one of several words
closely like it— for the "bad transliterations," of which we have heard so much
must prevent us from conclusively determining its root and orthography— is entirely Semitic in the very sense in which Smith used it, as the name of a star

<!-- page:349 -->

HAS JOSEPH SMITH BEEN DISCREDITED? 349
Furthermore, such usage goes very much further back tnan the Arabian astronomers.
In the study of this word "Kolob" there emerges a very strong suggestion
of something quite foreign to mere "invention," or even clever guesswork.
Even by the admission of his critics, Smith evidently "guessed right" so often
that one is nearly tempted to believe that he did not guess at all. We always
come upon some interesting situation by following with this book precisely
the method adopted with other books and documents. For example, we may
find something of this kind by studying one passage in which "Kolob" is mentioned.    This is Chap. iii. 3, and reads as follows:
"And the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near to me, for I
am the Lord thy God; I have set this one to govern all those which belong to
the same order as that upon which thou standest."
Now, had this passage been found in any other ancient work, or presumed
ancient work, we should inevitably conclude that the clause, "because it is near
to me," may be held to explain the relevancy of the name on the basis of its
etymology. Hence, we should seek for some meaning that would seem to
admit the explanation implied in the passage just quoted. Judging from the
appearance and sound of this word, from the familiar suggestion in this passage
in which it appears, and from the nomenclature of astronomy in all ages, we
might be justified in assuming the meaning "dog" to apply to it. And this name
is altogether familiar from very early times, as applied to certain stars and
constellations, apparently "following" greater constellations or stars. Furthermore, it is found in name-combinations designating the star Sirius (the "Dog
Star"), the largest and brightest of the fixed stars, truly the "great one," also
the constellation of Canis Major, in Assyrian-Babylonian inscriptions, written
in the native language of Abraham.
The Assyrian word for dog is Kalbu, which appears also as the name of the
constellation Canis Major (the "greater dog"), and in such combinations as
Kalab-Samsi ("Dog of the Sun"), Kakkab Kalab-Mituti (Star "Dog of Death")
and Kalab-Me (Constellation Canis Minor?) In a learned work, "Primitive
Constellations of the Greeks, Phoenicians and Babylonians," by Robert Brown,
Jr., F. S. A., M. R. A. S. (London, 1899), we find the following, in the discussion
of the star and constellation of the "Dog."
"In the W. A. I. ('Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia') II. vi. 19,
where the Accadian name is lost, we have the Assyrian equivalent Kalab-Sam^i
('Dog-of-the-Sun'); and in the W. A. I. II. xlix, 63, we find the Kakkab-Likudu
('Star Dog-of-the-Sun'). In W. A. I. II. xlix 43, the 'star' or 'constellation' of
the Dog, is said to betoken that 'forces are in the country.' Canis Major appears on the Euphratean boundary stone in exactly the same attitude as in our
modern star maps, and on other boundary stones, e. g., those figured in W. A. I.
III. xlv., the stellar Dog is a prominent object." (Vol. I., pp. 277-278.)
At' another place the same author, discussing the Dog Star, writes as follows :
"It is Seirios, brightest of fixed stars, the 'star of summer, that above all
others glitters bright after he has bathed in ocean' (Iliad v. 5-6), 'the star that
comes forth at harvest-time, and plain seen his rays shine forth amid the host
of stars, in the darkness of night,' this is the star 'which men call by name the
Dog of 'Orion' (Iliad xxii. 26-29). Whilst the Orion-sun is blinded in the Underworld, Seirios keeps watch above his head; and, 'brightest of all,' guides him,
as it were, towards the healing east. And so, when Orion becomes a constellation Seirios attends the mighty hunter as his faithful hound. In Egypt of old,
'Sahu and Sodpit, Orion and Sirius, were the rulers of this mysterious world of
nio-ht and stars;' and Sahu was a 'wild hunter' who chased 'the very gods themselves' (Maspero, 'The Dawn of Civilization,' 1894, pp. 96-97). Probably Sahu,
like Orion, is a reduplication of an Euphratean original." (Ibid, pp. 255-256.)
In the' last passage we may see that others than Smith have postulated an
interchange of ideas, religious and mythological, between the peoples of the
Euphratean region and Egypt, even though, as we are told in the present connection these peoples (Chaldeans, and others) were "as dissimilar and remote
in language, religion and locality as are today American and Chinese." It all
depends upon who says a thing. But, in this same discussion we are to find

<!-- page:350 -->

350 IMPROVEMENT ERA
that, not only the name of a star, as used by our "translator," but also the dignity ascribed to him, was, in a very real sense, a part of oriental tradition
1 hus, further:
"In Homer the Dog (of Orion), whether also a constellation or not, is certainly a single star, Seirios, in whose name Aryan and Semitic derivations coalesce. On the Aryan side he is the 'Scorcher.' * * * On the Semitic side
he is the 'glittering,' 'the burning one,' 'Lamp,' etc., as connected with the
Phoenician 'Sirion,' a name given by them to the snow-crowned Mount Hermon (Deut. iii. 9), and with the Arabic siraj. * * * But this [i. e., the
Greek] view of the star is not Asiatic. Thus, to quote the cosmogony of Zarathustra, as related by Plutarch (Peri Is. xlvii), doubtless on the excellent authority of Hermippos: 'Oromazes [Ahura-Mazda] adorned the heaven with
stars, and one star before all he appointed as a guard and overseer, Seirios ' as
being the brightest of the fixed stars. So, in the Avesta, Tistrya (Sirius) is ''the
bright and glorious star, that gives happy dwelling' (Tir Yast., I. ap. Darmesteter), and that heads the stars against the 'glooms and planets' [which
latter are considered to 'walk disorderly'] arranged by Angra-Mainyu (Ahriman, the 'Dark' or 'Hurtful' spirit, Zad. Sparam iv, 3)." (Ibid. pp. 275-277.)
The discussion of this book and its plates could readily be enlarged to a
considerable extent; but at the present time it is necessary only to notice a few
of the numerous ill-grounded criticisms made against it, with the evident intention of creating a show of strong evidence. Some of these criticisms are of
such a character as to be readily discounted, as, for example that there was no
such Egyptian person as the "priest of Elkanah." On reading the text, one
may easily see that the author represents this priest to have had his residence
in Chaldea. As seen already, the fact that he is mentioned in an alleged Egyptian book does not make him Egyptian. Also, the argument based on apparent "hopeless mixing together" of Egyptians and Chaldeans is offered for
considerably more than it is worth, as may be shown later.
At one point the bishop's vicarious "estimate" rather oversteps itself in its
desire to be destructive to the claims of Mr. Smith. Thus, rather confidently:
"He makes the usual mistake of the common people of his time in using the
word 'Pharaoh' as a proper noun." Dr. Spalding ought to be ashamed of himself for publishing such a sentence as this. This word "common" is very much
misused, particularly by the class that is likely to Episcopalize, because of its
love for elegance, dignity, and tinseled pretence. As used here the word means
simply the kind of people who have small education and are compelled to
labor for a livelihood — Christ himself came of such a stock. It is a pleasure,
therefore, to find that this childish jibe is as ill-founded in fact as several others
of the bishop's most confidently used arguments. The "error" making the
word Pharaoh a proper noun, apparently, is far older than Mr. Smith, or any
of the "common people of his time." Thus, in the Bible we read of "Shishak
King of Egypt," and of "Hiram King of Tyre," Shishak and Hiram, being
of course, proper names. We have also in several passages the expression'
"Pharaoh King of Egypt" (Gen. xli, 46; Exodus vi, 11, 13, 27, 29; xiv 8" Deut'
vii, 8; xi, 3; I Kings iii, 1; ix, 16; xi, 18; II Kings xvii, 7; Isa. xxxvi, 6; Acts vii
10). However, when men are "convinced" of the truth of this "higher criticism'''
fad, which makes of the Bible a mere crazy patch work of antiquated error and
ignorance, we may expect to hear them state that the Bible also was written Ly
very "common people." What a grand thing it must be to be uncommon!
Of very similar value is the attempt to noly the "canons of higher criticism" to the book itself. Thus we read that the book must have been made
up by a person having the text of the King Tames translation before him, because it states that the Creator finished his work on the "seventh day," whereas
certain older manuscripts of the Book of Genesis state that it was on the "sixth
day." The assumption, of course, is that the manuscript giving "sixth" must be
nearer the original reading than that giving "seventh," because older. This is
a favorite argument of destructive criticism, and although tenable in many cases
cannot be made to apply here, at least with the certainty of a demonstration.
Considering the passage from the standpoint of the Hebrew text, there are
several good reasons for believing that the reading "seventh" in Gen. ii. 2 is
the original and proper one, in spite of the fact that it occurs in manuscripts