The sample (15) characters (both the proposed hieratic, and Ptolemaic Ah-meh-strah-an "clutch plate" composite characters, e.g. "Zub Zool eh" with all its components: pp. 6, 11, 14, 18, 21) seem to correlate with the 1835 manuscript portion to which they are assigned. See Abraham 1:25-26:

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus ["Egyptes", Mitsraymah, Hamah], the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. 26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood. (Abraham 1:25-26)

←or possibly . Doubleappear in the restored Egyptian text (above). Hence more than one Hor or Horus → "Pharaohs" (Abraham 1:27). These are proposed hieratic characters that sample (16) may draw from. Sample (16) also includes the Ptolemaic Ah-meh-strah-an "clutch plate" symbols "Toan tau ee" , "Iota" •, and "Zub Zool" . "Zub Zool" could be an arcane Semitic reference to the flow of time from a relative beginning (זוּב צוּלָה).

"Zub" (זוּב) possibly indicates an upward flowing, or being carried up (possibly related to Gardiner's P2), a "time for going up", "being caught up" sunward, "pointing to that which is to come, pointing to any fixed period", as "pointing to that which has been created". By analogy: the upper Nile flowing from headwaters; "Zool" (צוּל) indicating, "From any fixed period of time back to the beginning [i.e. deep time]". (Ecclesiates 1:9-10) See Ah-meh-strah-an Degrees pp. 6, 7, 11, 14, 18, 22, Aleph-Beth ...

or may be seen as representing mortal Pharaoh as the sky god Horus - a male descendent ,(מַת) of "hamah" (feminine), or Ham (masculine).

The sample (16) characters (proposed hieratic and Ptolemaic Ah-meh-strah-an "clutch plate" symbols "Toan tau ee" , and "Zub Zool": pp. 6, 11, 14, 18, 22) seem to correlate with the 1835 manuscript portion to which they are assigned. Ah-meh-strah-an "Iota" • in this case may seem to correlate only with the hieratic sun, and thus hebraically with Ham and hamah. Reference to "seeing" does not appear in the text selection. The Ah-meh-strah-an "Iota" • does, however, correlate with the twofold appearance of the first person personal pronoun "I" near the beginning and end of verse 28. See "Iota" in Ah-meh-strah-an Aleph-Beth, and see Abraham 1:27-28:

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry; 28 But I shall endeavor, hereafter, to delineate the chronology running back from myself to the beginning of the creation, for the records have come into my hands, which I hold unto this present time. (Abraham 1:27-28)

Ah-meh-strah-an "Zub Zool"can apparently be seen in a variety of combined hieratic characters including:

from character sample (15).

from character sample (16).

is another possibility seen in character sample (16); corresponding to "Pharaohs" (plural, more than one Hor or Horus) referenced in Abraham 1:27.

(Book of Breathings, Louvre 3284) interpreted as (Book of Abraham manuscript, 1835) character sample (3) from a lost hieratic portion in the Hor Book of Breathings. See "Kiah broam = Kiah brah oam = zub zool oan", 5th Degree, pg. 3.

Joseph Smith also associated "Ki-ah-bram, Ki-ah-bra-oam - Zub-sool-oan" with the hieratic characters appearing with the first vignette of the Hor Book of Breathings Made By Isis, the vignette redacted as Book of Abraham Facsimile No. 1. Similar looking representations of the hieratic characters were made at Kirtland:

. This Kirtland version is equivalent to the following hieroglyphic characters:

These standard Egyptian hieroglyphs may be interpreted to signify "great (elder) king of upper Egypt", or "Osiris the Great". An Ah-meh-strah-an may see in the symbols, "Exalted Father (Avram) back to an Ancient of Days" (Daniel 7:9) - “first born, or the first man, or father of fathers”. (Abraham 1:2-3, 8-10, LDS Doctrine & Covenants 107:54-56)

The references to Hebrew and Greek symbols and terms in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are consistent with the Ptolemaic times of the mummy scrolls. The Hebrew and Greek symbols and terms are not consistent with the idea that the Prophet Joseph and his brethren handled and viewed an original papyrus document featuring the "raah-li-nes" (ראה- לי- נס) handwriting of Abraham (Avram) in Egypt. (Abraham 1:14)

The Ptolemaic Ah-meh-strah-ans were the custodians of a version of the ancient Sepher Avram (Book of Abram), which they supplemented with Egyptian art, and text. They likely tried to provide a meaningful Egyptian replacements for at least one lost illustration that had featured "hieroglyphics" (Abraham 1:12, 14).

Joseph Smith's original introduction to the Book of Abraham published in the March 1, 1842 edition of the Times and Seasons newspaper.

Everything Joseph Smith learned about Ah-meh-strah-an symbols and methods of interpretation, he learned by revelation. The Prophet did not have an earthly, academic means of interpreting Egyptian characters. To the Prophet, the scripture "purporting to be the writings of Abraham ... called THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM" was a work of "present revelation" (Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, 1842, March 1, pg. 704, and September 1, pg. 902).

The Prophet had performed an earlier, revelatory translation of another ancient document, a document which he also did not hold in his hands. (LDS Doctrine and Covenants section 7) Similarly, Joseph received the text of the Sepher Avram, in English, by revelation. He supplemented the revealed Book of Abram with redactions and reinterpretations of Egyptian art and symbols; the kinds of things the Ah-meh-strah-ans had done to their version(s) of the Sepher Avram.

In other words, guided by higher intelligence, Joseph went to work correlating, in Ah-meh-strah-an fashion, the revealed scripture, with Egyptian funerary art and texts that came into his hands at Kirtland Ohio. The Book of Abraham correlates with the Hor Book of Breathings, and the Shishaq (Sheshanq) Book of the Dead, and other resurrection works; but none of these funerary works contain the Abram scripture's word-for-word written source.

Joseph Smith tells us that the Egyptian portions of the Book of Abraham were "A TRANSLATION Of some ancient Records [plural] that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs [Catacombs] of Egypt ..." This does not mean that the main text of the Book of Abram (his name while in Egypt), which was "written by his own hand, upon papyrus", existed in any obvious, written form on the papyrus scrolls that Joseph Smith received.

It was Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith's less informed assistant, who made the claim that writings of Abraham and Joseph of Egypt were recorded on the papyrus rolls. (Messenger and Advocate, "Egyptian Mummies - Ancient Records", December 1835, pp. 233-237)

We now know that the ancient papyrus records that Brother Cowdery described, contain the kind of funerary texts that one expects to find accompanying Egyptian mummies from Ptolemaic times. No writings on papyrus from Hebrew patriarchs came with the mummies to Kirtland.

Finding Additional Meaning in the Lost Hieratic Portions - Ah-meh-strah-an Style

Imagine the Hebrew names associated with the restored Egyptian characters (above) converted into a Hebrew string. The name "Avraham" appears in the string. With a little inspiration, the string of Hebrew words and letters can be rearranged into meaningful expressions which relate to the Book of Abraham. In the conversion below, highlighted letters ("mem", light blue) are converted to their final form (postexilic Hebrew/Aramaic) in the final string. This conversion is not necessary when writing the same strings in very ancient Hebrew - which uses "raah-li-nes" (ראה- לי- נס) "hieroglyphics" that can be described as phonetic reformed Egyptian (seen below):

The Hebrew string can be interpreted to read:

"Abraham shuti crowned upon the ivory throne of Pharaoh(s) (Horus, sign of the falcon - doubled), the mouth of Ham (patriarchal sun)." Compare the above with Book of Abraham Facsimile No. 3, Figure 1. The sacred name of the Eternal Elohim can also be spelled with letters present in this Hebrew/Egyptian string.

A second Horus may be added to the above (as in Rhodes' restored Egyptian text), thus suggesting a line of "Pharaohs" descendents of Ham. An Ah-meh-strah-an component of the throne symbol, Su-Eh-ni may be interpreted to raise the question of another [king] besides the first. E.g. 5th Degree pg. 5. The terms "eh" and "ni" refer to first and second (one and two).

The following analysis considers Ptolemaic time period Koine Greek drawing from, for example, the Septuagint (LXX) and the New Testament (NT):

(8) (7) (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)

(8) (7) (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)

oar(8)  feather(7) (falcon on a stand - Horus, 6)  mouth(5)  tusk(4)  (falcon on a stand - Horus, 3)  sun(2)  throne(1)

κωπας(8)* πτέρυξ(7) Ὧρος(6) (στόμα, ατος, τό, 5) (οδοντων ελεφαντινον,4) Ὧρος(3) (ἥλιος, ου, ὁ, 2) (θρόνος, ου, ὁ, 1)

* In Greek an oar is an implement that "cuts" the water. Compare Ezekiel 27:6 (Hebrew/English) with Jezekiel XXVII.6 (LXX), G2871, Noun.

Ptolemaic Ah-meh-strah-an "Iota" Explained

One may imagine seeing Greek letters in the Book of Abraham character samples. Is it a coincidence that the capital Greek letter Eta (Η), as in the word for sun "Helios" (ΗΛΙΟΣ), resembles the Ptolemaic Ah-meh-strah-an "Zub Zool eh" ?

In character sample (15), is followed by what can be seen as a Lambda (Λ) and an Iota (Ι) . Look closely, and you may become convinced that Omicron (portrayed as the Egyptian), and Sigma (Σ, turned 90° ccw → ) are also present in character sample (15) in a kind of monogram that spells ΗΛΙΣ.

The Greek letter Iota is literally in the midst of the Greek word for sun (ΗΛΙΣ), as is the Ah-meh-strah-an "Iota" • in the middle of the hieratic. This helps explain why the Ptolemaic Ah-meh-strah-ans chose the Greek letter "iota" (ι) to designate the "ishon" (אִישׁוֹן) • at the center of the Egyptian sun symbol .

What is more, the Greek Eta (Η) is the equivalent of the Semitic letter Het (ח), as in Ham, and the poetic feminine Hebrew word for sun (חמה). Rotated 180°, and read right to left as a Semitic word (spelled with Greek letters), the Ah-meh-strah-an character sample (15) monogram reads "ΜΗ←" or "Η[Α]Μ" (switched left to right). "HAM" is spelled with Eta (Η) and Mu (Μ) in this case. It should be noted that the name "Cham" (son of Noe) is spelled χαμ (ΧΑΜ) in the Septuagint. See Genesis V.32 (LXX). The Hebrew letter Het (ח) makes a sound somewhere between the Greek letters Eta (Η) and Chi (Χ).

The Egyptian word or name associated with the sun symbolis "Ra". See Gardiner's N5. "Ra" sounds like a Hebrew word meaning bad or evil. But the name of the Egyptian sun god also sounds like a Hebrew root meaning see, "raah" (ראה).

Of course, there is obvious association between the presence of the sun and the act of daytime seeing outside. The Ptolemaic Ah-meh-strah-ans seem to have synthesized the center of the Egyptian sun symbol "Ra", with the pupil of an Eye of Horus; the small central letter (iota) in the Greek spelling of the word for sun, "ἥλιος", and the fact that Egyptian "Ra" sounds like the Hebrew word for see, "raah" (ראה).

NT Greek use of the word "iota" (ι) implies the Hebrew letter "yod" or "yud" (י, appearing, for example, in a Hebrew version of Matthew 5:18, see B'sorot Matti 5:18). Biblically, yod placed at the beginning of the Hebrew "re" (רא) yields a third person masculine spelling of the word for "saw", i.e. "and Elohim saw ..." (Genesis 1:4). The letter yod at the end of a word can denote the first person singular (I, me, my). See for example Psalm 23:1. Thus a possible explanation for the Ptolemaic Ah-meh-strah-an meanings associated with "Iota" (by implication, Yod). See Ah-meh-strah-an Degrees pp. 2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, Aleph-Beth ...

Relativity of Simplicity

“… he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men …” (2 Nephi 26:33)

What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that everything that he (the Lord) does is plainly understood by all humans? This is clearly not the case; for “great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways.  And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God.” (Jacob 4:8) Moreover, “… my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9)

Then does 2 Nephi 26:33 mean that “… he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men, unto whom he revealeth a thing; …” (possible implied words in italics)? This is actually closer to the intent of Amos 3:7 which states, “Surely the Lord GOD [the Lord JEHOVAH] will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.”

Even the resurrected Messiah did not succeed the first time in communicating to all the gathered Nephites, some things which he was commanded of the Father to speak to them. (3 Nephi 17:1-3)

According to scripture, whether or not a thing is considered “plain” or simple, or easy to understand, is relative. (1 Corinthians 2:14) That is, plainness, or simplicity depends on one’s understanding and points of view:

“Wherefore, hearken, O my people, which are of the house of Israel, and give ear unto my words; for because the words of Isaiah are not plain unto you, nevertheless they are plain unto all those that are filled with the spirit of prophecy…” (2 Nephi 25:4)

“… For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.” (2 Nephi 31:3)

On the relativity of what is esteemed “great” or “small”; regarding what was likely a subatomic source of radiance prepared for the Jaredites, we learn that the Lord is “able to show forth great power, which looks small unto the understanding of men.” (Ether 3:4-5)

Albert Einstein is credited with saying:

“Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. When the solution is simple, God is answering. Three Rules of Work: Out of clutter find simplicity. From discord find harmony. In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.” (The Ultimate Quotable Einstein, Edited by Alice Calaprice, Princeton University Press, pg. 480)

This brings us to the subject of what the Book of Mormon simply calls “the plainness of the truth”. (2 Nephi 33:5-6) It’s not enough for something to be plain and simple to the understanding of human beings. We should also, if at all possible, try to be plain and simple without compromising truth. That is, even if we believe that others can’t handle the full truth; we should try to communicate the truth as we understand it. If we don’t harness plainness and simplicity to the truth, we may start to think we can “lie a little” and be justified. (2 Nephi 28:8, Ether 3:12)

As valuable as “peace”, and being “one” are to the Lord, these are not acceptable at the expense of vital truth. (Genesis 11:5-8, Matthew 10:34-37, ST John 14:6) These scriptures, and others, show that there are limits to the virtues of unity and being a peacemaker - even for the Lord. (Exodus 15:3)

What scripture calls “the plainness of the truth” actually suggests that “plainness” alone is not sufficient; that it is possible to be plain and simple in our communications, even to the understanding of all men, and yet not be completely accurate or true. We should be plain while holding to the truth with exactness. This is what “plainness of the truth” means. Otherwise, we might be inclined to propagate emotionally stirring stories that are not really accurate, or shortcut and trim uncomfortable doctrine in order to better engage, as we might suppose, a world wide audience - all with the best intentions.

Here is an example:

It is evident, is it not, that the sun goes around the earth in a perfect circle as a perfect creator intended? That the moon is comparable in size to the sun, and on occasion gets in front of the sun, causing an eclipse. That God commanded the sun to go back in its motion around the earth in the days of King Hezekiah in order to lengthen out the day. (Isaiah 38:8)

Is this not a plain and simple explanation suitable to the understanding of many through the centuries? And yet the Book of Mormon seems to avoid a geocentric model in clarifying that “surely it is the earth that moveth [e.g. accelerateth about a barycenter due to another presence] and not the sun.” See Helaman 12:14-15 in contrast with Job 9:7, and Joshua 10:11-13.

Let's consider another case, a doctrinal one, in which human “plainness” or “simplicity” may be preferred by many over the complete truth? Here is an example of a popular unscriptural teaching that could be placed in a category called “committee religion”:

It is a plain, simple and fundamental teaching of the Church, is it not, that all human beings are children of God Most High in a full and complete sense?

This is not what LDS scripture teaches (the Standard Works of the Church). LDS scripture teaches that as a consequence of the fall’s spiritual death (Helaman 14:16), sinful, unrepentant human beings (natural men and women) are “no more worthy” to be called the children of GOD. They have become enemies of God. (Mosiah 3:19) Though all human beings are the “offspring of God”, only those who are led by the Spirit of God qualify as the “children of God”. (Romans 8:4; 9:8) See the section titled “... no more worthy to be called thy son.” (Luke 15:21), in Son of Elohim and Man. Consider also ST John 1:12-13, 3 Nephi 9:17, LDS Doctrine and Covenants 11:30; 34:3; 35:2; 39:4; 42:52; 98:15, Moses 6:64-68; 7:1.

You see, according to scripture, not all offspring are counted as children. (Romans 9:6-8, ST John 8:32-44) Some offspring have become spiritual “bastards”. (Hebrews 12:8) Some human beings have chosen to become “children of the devil”, “without God in the world”. (Alma 5:39-41; 11:23; 41:11, 1 John 3:10, Ephesians 2:12, Moses 7:32-37; 8:20-21) In light of the Savior's statements recorded in ST John 8:41-47, indicating that not all human beings are “worthy” to be called “children of God”, the 1995 Proclamation on The Family might be amended to read, “... Each is [was] a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, ... each has a divine nature and destiny [if they repent].” (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 20:18-20; 25:1)

It may seem socially easier and sweeter to the point of being saccharine, and we may suppose that it comes across as magnanimous to teach that all human beings are children of the Highest, but it is not scripturally true. (Luke 6:35, Psalm 83:18) It may seem more difficult to teach fallen human beings the correct scriptural principle that they were once spirit children of God (Abraham 3:23, Job 38:4-7, Psalm 82:1-7; verse 6: “I said ...” in the pre-mortal existence; thus 7), and that they may be reborn to become the children of Gods again. (Mosiah 27:25-26) Until human beings are led by the Spirit of God (suffering them to overcome their imperfections, Romans 8:13-23) they only qualify as “offspring” of God. (Moroni 7:48; see also 1 John 3:1-3; 10, Mosiah 18:21-22, LDS Doctrine and Covenants 34:1-3)

It should be clear then that Psalm 82:6 is not saying that all human beings are worthy to be called “children of the Most High.“ On the contrary, this verse should be read in context: Psalm 82:1-7. See also Septuagint Psalm 81. To whom was God speaking, and when, when he said, “Ye are gods; and all of you children of the Most High“ (LXX, Psalm 81; and Masorah, Psalm 82:6)?

Notwithstanding the greatness of some pre-mortal spirits at the time they were called “children of the Most High”, as they become mortal and spiritually fall, they die as “the children of men”. (Psalm 8:4-5, lower than gods; 5) Though the unrepentant may confidently call themselves “the sons of God”, God and his messengers nevertheless refer to wicked humans as “the children of men” (Moses 8:20-22) or worse, “children of the devil”.

A case in point is the prince of Tyre mentioned in Ezekiel 28:2, 3-10, the king (Ithobaal III) mentioned in verses 12-19. “These I will make my rulers”, God said. That was before the king of Tyre became a natural man and iniquity was found in him. (Ezekiel 28:14, 15) Because so many spirits who were once called “children of the Most High”, fail to judge righteously after they become mortal, God himself must arise to “judge the earth” and “inherit all nations”. Hence LXX Psalm 81; or Masorah Psalm 82:8. See also LDS Doctrine and Covenants 121:39-40.

Elder Neil L. Anderson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, taught scripturally correct doctrine on this subject in April 2022 General Conference, when he stated, "As we do our part, His promise is that we will be called the “children of God.” Every person on earth is the “offspring” of God, but to be called the “children of God” means much, much more. As we come unto Jesus Christ and make covenants with Him, we become “his seed” and “heirs of the kingdom,” “children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters.”" (“Follow Jesus: Being a Peacemaker”, Saturday Morning Session, April 2022, pg. 18)

This is how we are born again to become children of “the Most High”. (Isaiah 63:16) As children of men repent and are led by the Spirit of God, at some point they will choose to enter into the “new covenant” of the Eternal Messiah (Jeremiah 23:5-6, 6, Psalm 22:8, ST John 5:43, LDS Doctrine and Covenants 109:1-4, 34, 1 Kings 8:23; Yehoshua ha-Mashiah), becoming his children (not just his siblings, Hebrews 2:16-17, Ether 3:14, Isaiah 9:6; 64:8). His Father then becomes their Father in a full and complete sense. (ST John 20:17, LDS Doctrine and Covenants 76:54-61; LDS Scripture, e.g. LDS Doctrine and Covenants 109:29-34, and the 1845 Proclamation indicate that the name Jehovah comes from the Eternal Father. Moses, for example, was born again as his son. See Moses 1:3-6; 6:65-68; 7:1.)

Compare this understanding to the Catholic interpretation that “... because everyone is made in God's image and likeness ... all human persons can be said to be children of God.” The Book of Mormon teaches that it is not enough for the children of God to have the outward “image of God”. (Alma 5:14-19, 22-25, 39-41, Moroni 7:48; consider also Romans 2:28-29 - the meaning of Jew.)

There were things in Jewish scripture that were “plain and pure, and most precious and easy to the understanding of all men” (1 Nephi 14:23) before they were edited by “that Great and abominable church” among the Gentiles. (1 Nephi 13:25-26) There were also things in Jewish scripture that “were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God”, that is, when he spake plainly to their understanding. (1 Nephi 13:29, ST John 16:28-29, 29)

There is a “plainness of the truth” and a “plainness of the word of God” which is not always well received, or even comprehended by darkened minds. (1 Nephi 15:3; 19:7, 1 Corinthians 2:9-16) Consider the Savior’s seemingly condescending teachings, and overall “hard” handling of public relations in ST John 6:32-63. Not everything the Savior said was made easy for others to digest. (ST John 10:24-25)

Why did the Savior speak in parables? Was it because the Lord does nothing except it is plain to the understanding of the children of men? (Matthew 13:10-15, Psalm 78:2) Why then did the risen Lord not speak in parables (allegorical stories) to the Nephites? (Mark 4:9-12, 33-34, 3 Nephi 17:2-3, Isaiah 6:9-12, 2 Nephi 25:6-8)

Natural human perceptions of plainness and simplicity may be neither informed, nor precise nor accurate. Nevertheless, GOD risks compromising the truth in efforts to communicate with us. (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 1:24; 29:32-34) In this, we should not supposed that the Gods are in everyway pleased with our weakness in thought and expression, our plainness and simplicity:

For “Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying, How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?” (Proverbs 1:20-22)

Letter of Gratitude for Ed Goble

Esoteric Egyptian in the Margins of the Book of Abraham