Mistakes In The News About Polygamy And Mormons

[Stephen]

Even Mormon Egyptologist Stephen E. Thompson is in agreement with the vast majority of Egyptologists as you can read at the website I'm leaving a link to.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/thompson_book_of...f_abraham.shtml

I like to use him as an example first and foremost. Because most Mormons I know automatically disregard non-Mormon Egyptologists with the mistaken opinion that they are all involved in some mass conspiracy against the Mormon Church.

I have read all of Paul Osbourne's information regarding the Egyptian papyri scrolls and find his work highly speculative...........he talks about how Joseph Smith used a Urim and Thummim to translate the scrolls and that he received the Book of Abraham text from direct revelation from God and ..............therefore it comes down to.............it was only knowledge that God could extract from the scrolls which knowledge he gave to Joseph Smith. Paul's kind of scholarship is more of a re-writing of history as he attempts to change the facts to try to make the unbelievable believable. I could give you a quote if you wish........ of where Joseph Smith read some of what was on the scrolls to large group of Mormons without the aid of a Urim and Thummin or seer stone. Paul Osbourne disregards statements by Joseph Smith, Parley P. Pratt and others in his attempt to quickly explain away the problem areas of the Egyptian Book of Abraham scrolls. This of course is only my opinion about Paul Osbourne's scholarship. I will check out the other links you left for me and read as well as ponder the information.

Thanks, Stephen

[Outshined]

Fair enough. I'll check out your link.

If we are going to continue the discussion on the BOA, I recommend we start a new thread. We've kind of carved this one up as it is.

-Outshined

[Guest Starsky]

Yes.............The Book of Abraham is a fraud plain and simple because it is not at all what Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church claim that it is. If Outshined wishes to continue to bury his head in the sand on this issue its of no concern to me.

It may be a 'fraud'...but it is a very spiritually beneficial fraud. I think that many expectations were placed upon Joseph Smith...and he was just a man. He proved it often that he was a people pleaser... (Martin Harris and the 116 pages for instance) and it got him into a lot of trouble...

But the 'revelations' and 'insight and knowledge' given in the BofA...is well worth the scandal....if anyone has ears to hear,....let him hear.. :)

[Outshined]

Maureen, your link was very interesting, and served to clear up a nagging problem I had with the Tanners. While I don't agree with their theology or conclusions on the LDS faith, I've always found them to be rather friendly and honest, so I was put off by the report of their shady dealings over Dee Jay Nelson.

I was rather relieved to read their account of what happened, as it sounds like a misunderstanding. I had heard the Browns were planning a book on the Tanners, perhaps they plan to address their error.....

Thanks again for the link.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Stephen@Mar 18 2004, 09:19 AM

All that Snow and Outshined are whining about is the conclusions the Tanners bring forth from the information they expose.

What is this incessant need you have to invent fantasy everytime you talk to me.?

I don't care that they conclude or preclude or inner-tube for that matter. Let em conclude to their bigoted and ugly heart's content. What I care about is that they seek to harm the gospel and Church of Jesus Christ and are big ole giganta hypocrits when they do it.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 18 2004, 05:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 18 2004, 05:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Stephen@Mar 18 2004, 09:19 AM

All that Snow and Outshined are whining about is the conclusions the Tanners bring forth from the information they expose.

What is this incessant need you have to invent fantasy everytime you talk to me.?

I don't care that they conclude or preclude or inner-tube for that matter. Let em conclude to their bigoted and ugly heart's content. What I care about is that they seek to harm the gospel and Church of Jesus Christ and are big ole giganta hypocrits when they do it.

Stephen is a Tanner convert...you can't expect him to see very clearly... Their religion is based upon hate, discontent, sour grapes, and seeking the splinter in everyone elses eyes while theirs is collecting a forrest full of beams...

[Paul Osborne]

Stephen,

As you should know, religion in general is a speculative science and man tries to interpret what information has been given to us in what we call, ‘scripture’. Take the Book of Revelation, for example, or Isaiah, or another prophet who wrote and acted in manners we do not experience-- yet we try to interpret the best we can in a world of speculation.

I’m more than prepared to handle your complaints against my work in supporting the Book of Abraham as an inspired book given to us by God. Since you have read “all” of the information on my website, I will anticipate you to maintain a discussion on a level that exceeds your predecessors who have debated me in the past. The ball is in your court. Open a thread if you like and challenge me. I will take you down very easily, and enjoy it too.

Paul O

[Stephen]

Originally posted by Peace+Mar 18 2004, 05:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Mar 18 2004, 05:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Mar 18 2004, 05:43 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Stephen@Mar 18 2004, 09:19 AM

All that Snow and Outshined are whining about is the conclusions the Tanners bring forth from the information they expose.

What is this incessant need you have to invent fantasy everytime you talk to me.?

I don't care that they conclude or preclude or inner-tube for that matter. Let em conclude to their bigoted and ugly heart's content. What I care about is that they seek to harm the gospel and Church of Jesus Christ and are big ole giganta hypocrits when they do it.

Stephen is a Tanner convert...you can't expect him to see very clearly... Their religion is based upon hate, discontent, sour grapes, and seeking the splinter in everyone elses eyes while theirs is collecting a forrest full of beams...

I'm actually no Tanner convert at all. I don't associate with them attend their church or affiliate with them in any way. I wont go down to your pond slime level though Peace. You drag them down when all they do is expose LDS history that the LDS Church would rather be swept under the carpet for good. If you are blinded by the Mormon Church and believe the white-washed history of the Mormon church they spoon feed you then so be it. It is sad that you mock the Tanners for their honesty and meticulous research on Mormon history and doctrine. You are spewing venom out of your mouth while hypocritically accusing me and others of doing exactly what you are doing. Thanks for another disappointing day on LDStalk message board. Please come by again and spread your gloom. Thanks!

[Outshined]

Good to see you, Paul. I've been reading your posts on the other boards; some good stuff there.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Stephen+Mar 18 2004, 06:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Stephen @ Mar 18 2004, 06:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Peace@Mar 18 2004, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by -Snow@Mar 18 2004, 05:43 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Stephen@Mar 18 2004, 09:19 AM

All that Snow and Outshined are whining about is the conclusions the Tanners bring forth from the information they expose.

What is this incessant need you have to invent fantasy everytime you talk to me.?

I don't care that they conclude or preclude or inner-tube for that matter. Let em conclude to their bigoted and ugly heart's content. What I care about is that they seek to harm the gospel and Church of Jesus Christ and are big ole giganta hypocrits when they do it.

Stephen is a Tanner convert...you can't expect him to see very clearly... Their religion is based upon hate, discontent, sour grapes, and seeking the splinter in everyone elses eyes while theirs is collecting a forrest full of beams...

I'm actually no Tanner convert at all. I don't associate with them attend their church or affiliate with them in any way. I wont go down to your pond slime level though Peace. You drag them down when all they do is expose LDS history that the LDS Church would rather be swept under the carpet for good. If you are blinded by the Mormon Church and believe the white-washed history of the Mormon church they spoon feed you then so be it. It is sad that you mock the Tanners for their honesty and meticulous research on Mormon history and doctrine. You are spewing venom out of your mouth while hypocritically accusing me and others of doing exactly what you are doing. Thanks for another disappointing day on LDStalk message board. Please come by again and spread your gloom. Thanks!

You make way too many assumptions to take serious your word.

Tell me what their examination of Mormon History has done for your Eternal Salvation or their own?

I can say...at first when I read the history exposures...I became discontent...but when I actually took it to the Lord....He didn't think it was all that important.

So....as informed on the true history of the church as I have become...I have only been strengthen in my conmmitment to the church and it's leaders...becauses we all know something that the Tanners will never know or realize until it is too late.

BTW I didn't mock them. I just told the truth about them...as you claim they do about the church. I am no babe in arms....I know these people, their hearts, and their work.

If exposing their work as 'work from a soured heart'....sorry...but that is just what it is...they have worked with venom, anger, and an agenda to try and take down the church....

They don't realize what a mess they have made of their own lives.

As far as a disappointing day for YOU at the LDStalk board....well you get what you give. If you got gloom...maybe you should go back and see what you all brought here.

[Paul Osborne]

Originally posted by Outshined@Mar 18 2004, 06:35 PM

Good to see you, Paul. I've been reading your posts on the other boards; some good stuff there.

Actually, I really don’t like fighting about it with my own LDS brethren-- but I am desperate to ascertain what really happened by exploring the possibilities based on the facts at hand. The answers are obtainable. Stimulation of the mind is...

:)

Paul O

[Outshined]

Well, it's not so much the fighting that I've been learning from as the facts presented during the disagreements. Even when the discussions were a bit unfriendly, I still learned new things from them, so they had value.

There is a reason that I have a link to your site on my site, you know...... B)

[Paul Osborne]

Outshine,

I love your positive attitude. :)

Truthfully, I learn more about the mysteries of the papyrus when I am challenged and have to think these things through.

By the way, do you think we are about to catch Bin Laden? It will be one of the happiest days of my life and I will take my wife out for dinner on the day we catch or kill him. It will be like the wicked witch of the west being drenched in water. I have prayed many times that he be brought to justice very soon. I hope the Lord answers this prayer with a "yes".

Paul O

[Outshined]

I'm with you there, brother! The day we got Hussein was one of the happiest of my life. After fighting in two wars there, I felt like I had a bit of closure, and that I'd played a small part in freeing that country.

The day we get Bin Laden will likewise be a high spot.

[Paul Osborne]

Indeed! I have dozens of pictures of soldiers I downloaded from A SOLDIERS BLOG. I use them for screen savers. US soldiers are awesome!

Paul O

[Cal]

Originally posted by Stephen+Mar 18 2004, 10:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Stephen @ Mar 18 2004, 10:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Outshined@Mar 18 2004, 10:02 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Stephen@Mar 18 2004, 10:52 AM

The Book of Abraham is an absolute proven fraud

This is a shining example of a false statement. Some hold the opinion that it is false, but I've seen no credible source who claims to have proven such.

Egyptologists are in agreement on what the scrolls actually are and what they say. They are common funeral burial scrolls.

Joseph Smith claimed to be able to read Egyptian......whether he meant by God revealing the knowledge to him on what was on the scrolls....or he meant that he had the knowledge and physical ability to read and translate the Egpytian hieroglphic characters it does not matter.........the end result should be the same. Joseph Smith should have been able to accurately write down what was on the scrolls. Joseph Smith in his life time challenged people to prove him wrong about what was on the scrolls. Well Joseph Smith has been proven wrong although long after his death. The Book of Abraham text is not anywhere on the scrolls and yet it was Joseph Smith that claimed he got the Book of Abraham text from off the scrolls. The facts remain that the Book of Abraham text is not on the Egyptian scrolls and the scrolls actually talk about somebody named Horus that goes to the underworld to be judged by the Egyptian god Osiris, ect.

Yes.............The Book of Abraham is a fraud plain and simple because it is not at all what Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church claim that it is. If Outshined wishes to continue to bury his head in the sand on this issue its of no concern to me.

Stephan--you are right that the scolls that JS used to "translate" the BoA are not about Abraham or even written in his period. However, mormons BELIEVE, without evidence, that JS WAS a prophet of GOD

AND...

You born-agains BELIEVE without evidence, that Jesus was resurrected (which is what had to have happened to make your faith believable). It is ALL based on FAITH. Quit jerking us around with your side-stepping.

Mormons also believe Jesus was resurrected, but we have something MORE, there is AT LEAST some evidence that Jesus visited the americas---I will admit the evidence can go either way--but it IS something, and more than you have.

One other statement you made--to the effect that nothing in the bible has been disproven. Actually, there is plenty of evidence that many of the events of the New Testament NEVER took place. For one, there was no town called Nazareth at the time JEsus was supposed to have lived. Archaeologists have found that, what is now Nazareth, was just a grave yard at the time of Jesus, and it is well known that the Jews did not build towns on graveyards. It is also a fact that the narative gospels were almost certainly heresay, as they were written a good 50 to 100years after Jesus. And, even the epistles were written as though they had no CLUE as to the historical Jesus.

So don't be so smug about how much EVIDENCE you have for the accuracy of the bible (no person insult intended)

[Paul Osborne]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 18 2004, 07:48 PM

However, mormons BELIEVE, without evidence, that JS WAS a prophet of GOD

Cal,

<span style=\'color:red\'>You’re wrong!!

I submit evidence to show that Joseph Smith used the Hypocephalus (Facsimile No. 2) as a sign to show his wisdom and understanding of Egyptian things as he connected them to the true gospel of Abraham. I challenge you to refute it, if you think you can. Otherwise, you loose your argument.

for Critics of the Hypocephalus

See also:

Four Sons of Horus

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id12.htm

The Crown of Light

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id13.htm

The Lunar Crown

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id46.htm

The Composite Scepter

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id47.htm

The Eyes of God

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id48.htm

Star Ship 1000

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id49.htm

The Key of Power

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id65.htm

The Dove of God

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id66.htm

Abraham's Alter

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id67.htm

Oliblish

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id68.htm

Kolob

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id69.htm

Throne of God

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id76.htm

Star Cow

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id71.htm

Power of God

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id523.htm

Paul O

[Cal]

Originally posted by Paul Osborne+Mar 18 2004, 07:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Paul Osborne @ Mar 18 2004, 07:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Mar 18 2004, 07:48 PM

However, mormons BELIEVE, without evidence, that JS WAS a prophet of GOD

Cal,

<span style=\'color:red\'>You’re wrong!!

I submit evidence to show that Joseph Smith used the Hypocephalus (Facsimile No. 2) as a sign to show his wisdom and understanding of Egyptian things as he connected them to the true gospel of Abraham. I challenge you to refute it, if you think you can. Otherwise, you loose your argument.

for Critics of the Hypocephalus

See also:

Four Sons of Horus

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id12.htm

The Crown of Light

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id13.htm

The Lunar Crown

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id46.htm

The Composite Scepter

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id47.htm

The Eyes of God

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id48.htm

Star Ship 1000

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id49.htm

The Key of Power

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id65.htm

The Dove of God

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id66.htm

Abraham's Alter

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id67.htm

Oliblish

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id68.htm

Kolob

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id69.htm

Throne of God

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id76.htm

Star Cow

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id71.htm

Power of God

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id523.htm

Paul O

Pure wishful thinking, IMHO. There is NO refuting that JS used the Small Sen Sen to "translate" the first part of the BoA, and that papyrus is nothing more than a funary text--pure and simple. End of story. Whether JS knew MORE about Eqygpian figures than some claim is IRRELEVANT. The fact is, JS himself claimed to translate that part of the papyrus, if not all, and the papyrus was NOT what he claimed it was. It wasn't from the 'hand of Abraham' and didn't contain the information he said it did. You have to really be desperate to defend JS not to see it.

[Paul Osborne]

Cal,

The sensen is not in question here. I’m talking about the Hypocephalus and the things Joseph Smith revealed which are in agreement with modern Egyptology. Joseph Smith could not have done those things unless he was an Egyptologist or inspired of God. You have not refuted anything I have submitted. You have dodged the issue and failed to show how Joseph Smith was wrong in the many points I have raised. These matters are not wishful thinking but FACTS and I have laid them nice and neatly so even a simple thinking person such as yourself can understand it. Apparently you are not up to the task or perhaps, you are afraid. I’m not afraid. I’ll take you on at every point and every turn. I’ll devote my every muscle and fiber into showing you up. You will lose.

Paul O

[Cal]

Originally posted by Paul Osborne@Mar 18 2004, 09:10 PM

Cal,

The sensen is not in question here. I’m talking about the Hypocephalus and the things Joseph Smith revealed which are in agreement with modern Egyptology. Joseph Smith could not have done those things unless he was an Egyptologist or inspired of God. You have not refuted anything I have submitted. You have dodged the issue and failed to show how Joseph Smith was wrong in the many points I have raised. These matters are not wishful thinking but FACTS and I have laid them nice and neatly so even a simple thinking person such as yourself can understand it. Apparently you are not up to the task or perhaps, you are afraid. I’m not afraid. I’ll take you on at every point and every turn. I’ll devote my every muscle and fiber into showing you up. You will lose.

Paul O

How can I lose when you already have? You have in effect admitted that JS WAS wrong about the Small Sen Sen. What else do we need. The rest of what you have sited is pure wishful thinking and speculation.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Stephen@Mar 18 2004, 06:31 PM

I wont go down to your pond slime level though Peace. You drag them down when all they do is expose LDS history that the LDS Church would rather be swept under the carpet for good. If you are blinded by the Mormon Church and believe the white-washed history of the Mormon church they spoon feed you then so be it. It is sad that you mock the Tanners for their honesty and meticulous research on Mormon history and doctrine. You are spewing venom out of your mouth while hypocritically accusing me and others of doing exactly what you are doing. Thanks for another disappointing day on LDStalk message board. Please come by again and spread your gloom. Thanks!

Lessee,

Stephen is propping a "ministry" (odd choice of words for something created to attack) that seeks to harm the gospel and then he attack Peace (and me) cuz we think that such ugly behavior is reprehensible.

Stephen, you ought to have your noggin dehisced and defenestrate whatever is causeing you to side with such repulsive and rebarbative daddock. You act like it is our fault that people like the Tanners sink to such depths.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Stephen@Mar 18 2004, 09:52 AM

What Mormons believe that can be proved false is what is disconcerting and troublesome. The Book of Abraham is an absolute proven fraud..

If I were interested in showing that the Stephen was just a big a hypocrite as the Tanners, I think I might start out something like this:

AP 11:45PM

In a stunning development it has been learned that Jonah was really swallowed by a whale and donkeys really do talk...

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 18 2004, 07:48 PM

From Cal:

Stephan--you are right that the scolls that JS used to "translate" the BoA are not about Abraham or even written in his period. However, mormons BELIEVE, without evidence, that JS WAS a prophet of GOD

AND...

You born-agains BELIEVE without evidence, that Jesus was resurrected (which is what had to have happened to make your faith believable). It is ALL based on FAITH. Quit jerking us around with your side-stepping.

Mormons also believe Jesus was resurrected, but we have something MORE, there is AT LEAST some evidence that Jesus visited the americas---I will admit the evidence can go either way--but it IS something, and more than you have.

One other statement you made--to the effect that nothing in the bible has been disproven. Actually, there is plenty of evidence that many of the events of the New Testament NEVER took place. For one, there was no town called Nazareth at the time JEsus was supposed to have lived. Archaeologists have found that, what is now Nazareth, was just a grave yard at the time of Jesus, and it is well known that the Jews did not build towns on graveyards. It is also a fact that the narative gospels were almost certainly heresay, as they were written a good 50 to 100years after Jesus. And, even the epistles were written as though they had no CLUE as to the historical Jesus.

So don't be so smug about how much EVIDENCE you have for the accuracy of the bible (no person insult intended)

Awesome points Cal!

[Paul Osborne]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 18 2004, 09:47 PM

How can I lose when you already have? You have in effect admitted that JS WAS wrong about the Small Sen Sen. What else do we need. The rest of what you have sited is pure wishful thinking and speculation.

Cal,

The sensen argument is irrelevant to this facet of the BofA discussion and can be handled separately. Stay on topic, Cal. Whether Joseph Smith was wrong about something else makes little difference to whether he was right about the points in question.

Aside from the sensen issue, you say that the "rest" of my material is pure wishful thinking and speculation on my part; prove it! You're just talk and don't know what you're talking about! Show me how Joseph Smith was wrong in demonstrating his keen insight of things Egyptian within the Hypocephalus as he tied it to the gospel. Let’s start with the Four Quarters-- YOU show me how Joseph Smith got it wrong and I will concede that he was a false prophet and you have shown me up here on the board. Otherwise, you automatically withdraw your claim against the prophet by default seeing you have nothing to say other than you think he got it wrong based on the idea that he got something else wrong. You have a big bark but no bite, Cal. Now is your big chance to show how Joseph Smith got it wrong and was duped in giving us a sign through the Hypocephalus as confirmed by expert testimony given by Egyptologists.

The prophet gave this sign to all the world and YOU can’t refute it:

FACSIMILE No. 2 FIGURE 6, EXPLANATION

"Represents this earth in its four quarters." (Joseph Smith)

Egyptian iconography of the four sons of Horus (son of Osiris) is portrayed in figure six of the LDS papyrus Facsimile No. 2, from left to right:

1. Imseti (man headed)

2. Hapy (baboon headed)

3. Duamutef (dog headed)

4. Qebehsenuef (hawk headed)

QUESTION

How does the image of four Egyptian gods represent the "four quarters" or rather the four cardinal points of north, east, south, and west, as explained by the prophet Joseph Smith?

PAUL'S ANSWER

The coffin of the deceased was a symbolic representation of the physical world which encased or surrounded the body of the blessed dead. Under the coffin was the earth god called Geb and above the coffin was the sky goddess (wife of Geb) called Nut. The four sons of Horus were guardians of the world coffin and each god was posted at a corner of the coffin as divine sentinels of the world. This imagery is also paralleled in John's Book of Revelation when the four angels control the four directional winds of the earth at the four corners thereof (Rev 7:1). Some Middle Kingdom coffins demonstrate the religious four cardinal points of the four sons of Horus that take their place at the four corners of the coffin. EGYPTOLOGY PROVES JOSEPH SMITH'S INTERPRETATION

"The Four Sons of Horus had various other relationships. Geographically, Imsety was linked with the South, Hapy with the North, Duamutef the East, and Kebehsenuef the West." (The Ancient God's Speak a Guide to Egyptian Religion; Aidan Dodson, edited by Donal B. Redford, p. 134)

"In the panel nearest the head end on the left side of the box the painted eyes look out over the bolted doors of the dead man's eternal dwellings…the house coffin and its deceased occupant were thought of as ringed about and protected by a special set of tutelary divinities, whose individual stations and responsibilities had already been established by ancient tradition...The four corners of the coffin are watched over by the so-called Genii of the dead, Imsety and Hapy paired on either side of the shoulders of the mummy, Dewau-mautef and Kebeh-snewef flanking the legs" (The Scepter of Egypt; Egyptologist William C. Hays, former Egyptian Curator of NY Metropolitan Museum; p. 314)

"A further strip of text usually extended along the (coffin) lid. This invoked the goddess Nut, the sky-deity whose body spanned the heavens, and who swallowed the sun at evening, giving birth to it again at dawn. It was significant for the conceptual interpretation of the coffin, which came to be regarded as a microcosm of the world, its lid symbolizing the heavens." (The Mummy in Ancient Egypt; Egyptologist Salima Ikram & Aidan Dodson & Illustration; p197)

"Connected with one of the forms of Horus, originally, were the four gods of the cardinal points, or the 'four spirits of Horus,' who supported heaven at its four corners; their names were Hapi, Tuamutef, Amset, and Qebhsennuf, and they represented the north, east, south, and west respectively." (Egyptian Ideas of the Afterlife; E.A. Wallis Budge p. 107)

"The four pillars of the sky in still later times represented the Four Cardinal Points, and the pillars were thought to be kept in position by the four gods who stood by them. These four gods were the Children of Horus, who were called Amset, Hap, Tuamutef, and Qebhsenuf. Each god ruled over one quarter of the world". (The Book of the Dead; E.A. Wallis Budge, p. 130,131)

"In one passage they are called the four Khu's of Horus and originally they represented the Four Horus gods, who held up the four pillars which supported the sky, or their father Horus. Each was suppose to be lord of one of the quarters of the world, and finally become the god of one of the cardinal points, Hep represented the north, Tuamutef the east, Amset the south, and Qebhsenuf the west." (E.A Wallis Budge; The Book of the Dead, p. 192)

Paul O

[Guest Starsky]

Paul you have some good information...and you have done a lot of work and research...but you should present it with less agressive and mean attitudes...don't you think?

Not everyone is going to see things the way you do...