1

THINGS AS THEY ARE, WERE ARE TO COME

Symbolism and Creation
ANTHONY E. LARSON

Symbolism and Creation

Copyright 2008 Anthony E. Larson

THINGS AS THEY ARE, WERE ARE TO COME

The story of creation is at once of our most familiar yet almost completely misunderstood in scripture. Remarkably, creation stories from other cultures share important similarities to those found in Genesis and the book of Abraham. What if all of these accounts were witnessed by human beings living on the earth at the time and involved not the formation of our planet but a new and dramatic change in the heavens above us?

Part 1

n my view, when we fully grasp the story the ancients recorded for us, we begin to see clearly for the first time what in scripture is symbolic and what is literal. Most often, we find out that our perception had to be flipped nearly 180 degrees. What we saw as symbolic turns out to be largely literal, and what we thought to be literal turns out to be mostly symbolic. From that perspective, we have as much to learn about the gospel from its symbolism as we do from its literalism, another concept that completely eluded us before. At one time, we spent all our effort trying to understand the literal while almost completely ignoring the symbolic. Yet, given the sheer weight of symbolism in scripture, one has to wonder how we managed to avoid it so completely? It must be meaningful or God and his prophets would not have put it there. Remember, Joseph said that God would give no revelation without also providing the key to understand it. Its my experience that weve had the keys before us since early in the restoration. Our failure was to not recognize them for what they are. And while all of it is vital to us in our quest to understand the past and the scriptures, the most important element is the local principle, as presented by Kip Farr, a researcher and scholar who coined the

Symbolism and Creation Part 1

term. That is, what we read in the scriptures in general, and Abraham in particular, that God has revealed to his prophets about the heavens pertains only to our small corner of the universe: our solar system. Kolob and the other celestial bodies are not found in distant parts of our galaxy, as most Mormons assume. What is recorded there tells the story only of this creation, (See Moses) not all the creations of God. This is a vital key. Kolob, was and still is right here in our planetary neighborhood, masquerading as a mere planet in our time. All ancient cultures revered it as the God Star, Saturn, though it was given a multitude of namessome descriptive, some titular. Hence, we find the descriptive, Semitic name Kolobwhich probably means something akin to Heart Starapplied to it in the Pearl of Great Price. Even the names the Israelites used lead us to that conclusion. El or Elohim, usually referred to by historians as a Canaanite god because they fail to recognize that many of those Canaanites were actually Israelites, was connected to the planet Saturn. In fact, several ancient sources affirmed that the Israelites worshipped the planet Saturn. Even the name Israel (yis-ra-el) means something akin to People of Saturn or Saturnians. From a gospel perspective, we can explain that circumstance by noting that when the Israelites strayed from the teachings of the prophets, it was to follow the customs and traditions of their neighbors, who were idolaters. But they didnt have to depend on other cultures for that tendency. The progenitors of the Israelites, the Hebrews and their forefathers before them, experienced the actual events that gave rise to those idolatrous symbols and practices in all ancient cultures. Except for the prophets, to whom the true nature and order of the heavens was revealed as it was to Abraham, the rest of the Hebrews created their own traditions to retain the memory of the original heavens and Earth that once existed and what they saw and experienced in the pivotal time period when all that changed. Naturally, those traditions paralleled those of their neighbors, who experienced the very same events. The names changed, but the stories, traditions and rituals created to remember those ancient times became part of their culture, and history tells us that they retained those traditions down through time, even though they might have repented of their idolatrous ways. It was perfectly natural that the prophets draw

Symbolism and Creation Part 1

upon that ancient tradition to teach the gospel in their day and age, whenever it might be. Joseph Smith, a thoroughly modern man, still employed those ancient traditions and symbols. Thus, a widespread, cultural tradition filled with imagery and ritual based on the ancient order of the heavens was preserved, even though later generations hadnt a clue as to what it all meant. Ancient and modern historians readily identify the Israelites as Saturn worshippers when, in fact, they simply employed Saturn symbolism and ritual to teach gospel principles and out of respect to the cultural traditions of their forefathers. We, today, in fact, do exactly the same thing. All our holidays (holy days) are celebrations of astral events, most of them Saturnian. Our Christmas celebration is a full-blown example, since everything from Santa Claus to the Christmas tree draw on celestial symbolism born in the original, Saturn-dominated heavens. The quintessential modern temple, in Salt Lake, is replete with Saturn symbolismincluding Saturn Stones, which were originally intended to be displayed as a planet with two rings around it at the top of the buttresses on the south wall only so one had to face north, the ancient location of Saturn in the heavens anciently, to see them. Moreover, the Big Dipper on the temples west wall is strategically placed so as to point to the pole star, Polaris, the exact location of Saturn in Earths ancient skies. (This confirms that modern prophets knew precisely how to employ such symbolism correctly. Its not mere decoration nor is it haphazardly applied.) Critics have and will continue to insist that Mormonism is a cult, in part because of our prophets affinity for using planetary symbolism, a practice most often associated with paganism in the Christian mind. Yet, with all that, we do not consider ourselves Saturn worshippers. Its just part of our tradition. Nowhere is this key more pertinent than in the creation story and Gods revelation of the cosmos to Abraham.

Symbolism and Creation Part 2

erhaps the first thing that the symbolic images in Josephs explanations of the facsimiles in the book of Abraham tell us is that he is not revealing some deep mysteries known only to the Egyptians. This is the common perception of the Saints who read these, but it is flawed. What he is telling us is what the Egyptians believed about these symbols. This is a vital concept that must be mastered in order to see these images properly. Joseph was not revealing gospel truths here. He was simply interpreting these images to the best of his ability. So, what we are confronted with in his explanations are Egyptian concepts, not gospel concepts. This is implicit in the language he used. For example, of Figure #3, in the hypocephalus, he wrote, Is made to represent God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority, with a crown of eternal light upon his head. The words he chose to explain this depiction of Horus seated in his solar boat made to represent clearly indicates he is interpreting the meaning attributed to it by the Egyptians. The who that made this images to represent things were the Egyptians themselves not God, not Joseph Smith. The phrase can have no other interpretation. Thus, we learn that even Josephs explanations of the facsimiles are nothing but descriptions of the symbolism. If we extend that principle or point of view to the term Kolob, then we must admit that he is also describing something that the Egyptians believed and used in their iconography. He is not describing some distant place, star or planet far from the Egyptians view. It must have been something with which they were very familiar for it to become part of their belief system. This corroborates the local principle. That is, not only did God say he was going to explain to Abraham only those things having to do with our solar system, we can now see that Josephs explanations did not extend beyond the beliefs of the Egyptians. Thus, both concepts point to a local perspective, implying that Kolob was/is a local star or

Part 2

Symbolism and Creation Part 3

planet. In fact, all the icons Joseph explains can be thus designated, as we will see. This concept is vital to understanding the symbolism of the creation account. Only by understanding the role this symbolism plays in the real events and actors in the ancient celestial drama can we begin to understand the actual astral agents at work in the creation account. Notice, too, that in calling this governing planet Kolob, God was using an Egyptian or Semitic word to name it. Thus, Abraham would have known exactly which planet or star he was looking at. Since Abraham came from an area known for its expertise in astronomy, Ur of Chaldea, he would have known the traditions of that planet, the one the ancients called the best Sun, the one the Babylonians called Shamash, (the Old Testament god Chemosh). God wanted to eliminate any confusion. After all, planets have certain commonalities that make them hard to differentiate unless we know which one were looking at. In effect, God said to Abraham, See this planet? It is the one your people call Kolob. Its the star your traditions say governed all the others in heaven. Next, we will identify the planet Saturn as the Kolob of Abraham and the Egyptians.

Part 3

here is one more bit of overlooked housecleaning that must be done before we can move forward to a discussion of Kolob, and that has to do with the source of our Bibles creation account itself. Most Latter-day Saints who read Genesis come away with the idea that God revealed something to Adam, Enoch, Abraham or Moses that mankind would have no other way of knowing. That is, God alone was present at the creation; man came later. So, if man were to have any knowledge at all of what went on before Adam and Eve were placed on the earth, that information would have had, of necessity, to come through revelation. So, in effect, we believe we are reading revelation when we read Genesis. But, that may not be so. All the major, ancient cultures also have creation accounts. There are some profound differences with the biblical creation account, but there are some striking commonalities.

Symbolism and Creation Part 3

How can that be? How do we account for those similarities? Did God call prophets in each of those cases and reveal the creation to them? Or, maybe we can attribute the similarities to diffusion the process by which cultural traditions are transmitted from one culture to another. After all, most of these same cultures also have a flood tradition, much like the biblical Noachian deluge. The answer is quite simple: They are all eyewitness accounts including the biblical account of the one, singular event the ancients called the creation. Mankind was a spectator when the events recorded in the creation account occurred. Those events subsequently, and quite naturally, became a part of the lore of every ancient culture, each putting their own peculiar twist on the same, basic pageant they saw played out in Earths heavens. This is the impression one receives from reading those accounts with a catastrophists eye, rather than a religionists eye. How can I make such an outrageous claim? The evidence is in the ancient records and cultural traditions of people from all around the world, as I noted above. But the Genesis account, itself, betrays this notion. We have already alluded to the fact that most of the Adam and Eve story is couched in symbolism. I would maintain that Adam and Eve were themselves mythical characters that owe their narrative to the actions of planets hovering over the Earth anciently. Just as our solemn amen, pronounced at the end of prayer and other appropriate junctures, finds its roots in the name of the Egyptian god Amen (Amun), seen in such names as Amen-hotep, Tut-ank-amun and Ammon, so does the name Adam derive from the Egyptian god Atum, the sun of night and Ras alter ego. The very creation of Adam from the dust of the earth is, according to our definition, symbolic, and therefore a metaphor. Eves creation from Adams rib the rib being a type or symbol of the lighted planetary crescent is painfully symbolic. Note that I am not saying that there was no Adam or Eve. Two individuals most certainly did come to this world to become the seed of humanity planted in this vineyard. Their specific story, however, is not told in Genesis. These creation accounts, and many others like them, start to make sense only when seen as mythical or traditional accounts rather than

Symbolism and Creation Part 4

truth dispensed through revelation. Thats probably why Brigham Young called the biblical account a childs tale. The Adam and Eve account was never meant to be a logical, accurate description of what happened in the beginning of the human race. It was a parable designed to teach us something about ourselves and our relationship with God. Thats it. It was never intended to carry the burden of accurate history we impose upon it with our misconceptions. This, of course, demands that God participate in the use of this same symbolism, and there is no doubt that he does so. Look at the revelations given to Joseph in modern times that are loaded with traditional symbolism. This is one of the advantages the restoration gave to the Saints, if they care to employ it. Given the prophets perspective, we can rather easily discern what is symbolism and what is verity. So, whenever God revealed the creation story, he did so in the symbolic tradition of those he spoke to. In other words, he was only confirming to them what their cultural traditions already taught, using those stories to teach a few gospel truths. Thus, we now see Genesis as a traditional account from the Hebrew perspective, designed to carry a few subtle, revealed messages. Ironically, we can also see prophecy as a use of the same literary device. But, thats another whole topic for another time. So, what about the rest of the biblical creation account? How much of it can we trust to be accurate? Well, a little comparison of the biblical creation with the other creation accounts reveals some remarkable details that seem to be rather accurate, though littered with metaphor and symbolism. When the biblical creation account is considered along with the other creation accounts, we gain a rather remarkable picture of what our ancestors saw at the dawn of time. But first, we must return to the Kolob = Saturn equation before moving forward.

Symbolism and Creation Part 4

Part 4

ince we are taking a new look at the creation from the perspective of the restored gospel, lets begin the next phase of our discussion with statements attributed to the First Elder of this dispensation, Joseph Smith, in which he makes a stunning declaration. We begin here because it is a core concept upon which depends the entire interpretation of the scriptural creation accounts we are about to examine. Orson F. Whitney, in September of 1889 wrote the following in his Collected Discourses. It has been taught that it was the object of the people who built the Tower of Babel to reach heaven, to attain to one of the starry planets, one of the heavenly bodies. This sounds, indeed, like a fairy tale; and for one I cannot conceive now although I once believed it how a race of people, out of whose midst a Zion had arisen, a generation so intelligent as to have produced such a city, intelligent enough to build a great tower of which the world has not since seen the counterpart, that we are aware of, could cherish the idea that they could actually reach the sun, moon, or one of the stars simply by piling brick upon brick and stone upon stone. But the Prophet Joseph Smith, whose job it was to shed light upon the darkness of this generation, is said to have declared that it was not their intention to reach heaven, but to reach Zion, which was then suspended in mid-air, between heaven and earth, or at such a height as to render the project feasible. This certainly is more reasonable. (emphasis mine)

Thats right. According to Brother Whitney, its more reasonable to think, as he claimed Joseph said, that a planet once stood above the Earth, close enough that humans thought a tall, sturdy tower might enable them to reach it. Where do you suppose a prophet of God and an Apostle came up with such a heretical concept? In all that has been written and said of the Babel story since Gutenberg first published the Bible in 1457, no one else has ever suggested such a thing. This is truly a novel

Symbolism and Creation Part 4

10

concept one not easily accepted by the rational, scientific mind or seemingly even provable. Yet, Brother Whitney not only wrote this once, he wrote it twice. Earlier, in 1885, in a book entitled Elias, he broached the subject. According to the Bible, the people who built the Tower of Babel did so that its top might reach unto heaven. (Gen. 11:14.) Joseph Smith is said to have declared that the heaven they had in view was the city of Enoch, then suspended within the sight of the earth. Theres that word suspended again. What does all this mean? How are we to consider such a radical notion? Well, in order to make sense of such an idea, the concept requires further commentary. This starry planet didnt rise and set as the sun and the moon appear to do. Whitneys use of the word suspended is specific and emphatic. In order for the Babylonians to conceive of connecting to a planet, it must have hung motionless in the sky suspended. They would have correctly deemed that reaching a moving body that drifted across the sky daily, however slowly it might travel, would prove problematical. But, a body that seemingly sat fixed in one place, appearing close enough to almost touch might just make the Herculean construction project practicable. Ohand just in case you might think that Brother Whitney, one of the Twelve, was alone in his attribution of this notion to the Prophet, think again. Orson Pratt, also an Apostle, said the same thing in an 1873 discourse. About the time of Abraham, the Tower of Babel was built. The people being of one language, gathered together to build a tower to reach, as they supposed, the crystallized heavens. [The crystallized heavens is an ancient notion that all the heavenly bodies the sun, moon, planets and stars were imbedded in a series of nested, transparent spheres that encircled the earth.] They thought that the City of Enoch was caught up a little ways from the earth, and that the city was within the first sphere above the earth; and that if they could get a tower high enough, they might get to heaven, where the City of Enoch and the inhabitants thereof were located. Clearly, Joseph taught of a condition in Earths ancient heavens of which our science and our tradition knows nothing. More amazing still is the fact that when we turn to the mythology

Symbolism and Creation Part 4

11

and religious beliefs of ancient cultures, we find virtually the same thing, except in that case they were speaking of their pagan gods. For example, in a hymn to their god, Ra, the Egyptians say, O thou firstborn, who dost lie without movement, who rests on his high place. Atum, another personification of Ra, was called the Firm Heart of the Sky. The Coffin Texts say: The Great God lives fixed in the middle of the sky. In the Papyrus of Ani, the honored decedent is compared to the god of resurrection or rebith, Osiris: O thou who art without motion like unto Osiris. That all these gods had a planetary aspect almost goes without saying. I will not herein cite the voluminous evidence for my claim that these gods were planets, but you may read all I and many others have written on the subject for more background. Suffice it to say, that the gods of the ancients were originally planets, hovering near the Earth, producing prodigious celestial displays that made an indelible impression on our ancestors. That is the only reasonable interpretation of both the above citations from ancient Egyptian texts and the beliefs attributed, anecdotally, to Joseph Smith. Thus, when the Mesopotamians wrote of this bright planet, Like the midst of heaven may he shine! O Shamashsuspended from the midst of heaven, they were talking about a god who was a planet. (More about Shamash later.) When you think about it, there is only one place in Earths skies where a planet, moon or star could reside without moving. Its that place in the northern skies where the star Polaris or pole star sets today. And in fact, thats what all the ancient traditions say about the gods that once dominated the heavens. They were all said to inhabit the polar sky. Hence, they were called the immovable ones. In India, it is Vishnu who takes a firm stand in that resting place in the sky. It is the celestial pole, the exalted seat of Vishu, round which the starry spheres forever wander. A Vedic text says of Vishnu, fiery indeed is the name of the steadfast god. Read again the Egyptians descriptions of their god cited above. In the context of a polar god, they become still more meaningful. Clearly, Joseph, teaching of the Babel story, referred to the same reality as these ancient traditions. Both speak of a star, planet, orb or city hovering in a fixed position in Earths northern skies.

Symbolism and Creation Part 5

12

The payoff and clincher for this idea among Mormons is the stunning illustration produced by Philo Dibble, a faithful Saint, close confident and bodyguard of the prophet. Dibble claimed that in 1842, Joseph drew this picture of the Earth and gave it to him. There is much to be gained from a careful examination of this drawing. But for now, we will restrict our observations to the simple and prominent fact that the Prophets conception of Earths ancient condition involved other planets or orbs in close proximity, locked into position along a shared polar axis that would have made any orb above the Earth seem to hover, suspended in the heavens. There is much, much more evidence for these things than I can cover in this venue. Next, we will see how this unique planetary positioning plays into the creation story.

Part 5

o understand the creation story, we must first understand the vision of the creation given to Abraham. Every Latter-day Saint has read about Kolob in Abraham from the Pearl of Great Price. Many have speculated about it; most have given it little thought. Kolobs possible location and identity in our universe seems to be the primary focus of such speculation. A careful review of this bit of revealed knowledge in light of the Saturn traditions may prove informative. In chapter 3, it appears that God reveals to Abraham information about a star named Kolob that is physically located nearest to where he, the Lord, actually resides in the universe. An amplified explana-

Symbolism and Creation Part 5

13

tion of Kolob can be found on page 37, opposite facsimile no. 2, the Egyptian hypocephalus Joseph Smith found among the papyri that came into his hands. The first thing we see upon reading Josephs explanation is that some of these terms are authentic Egyptian. This should not be surprising since he is gleaning this information from an Egyptian document. The question is: Where did he learn these ancient Egyptian terms? For example, Joseph names one figure Hah-ko-kau-beam (Pearl of Great Price, Fig. 5, p. 37.) It is reasonable to assume, given his lack of formal training in the Egyptian language, that he first heard the word spoken during a revelation, since his rendering of the name is clearly an attempt to write it phonetically (something any of us might be forced to do when attempting to write a word from a foreign language we had only heard spoken). A close look tells us that the hyphenation does not conform to the way the Semitic word is actually written. A more proper hyphenation of the word would have been: Ha-kokab-im. The Egyptian kakab is the word for star. Typically written in consonants, without vowels, it is rendered: KKB. Modern scholars choose the vowel sounds that are implied by their use in equivalent words in related modern languages. In effect, they make a guess as to the vowel sounds. Thus, Josephs kokab (or kokob as it is in Abraham) may be more accurate than the scholarly version, kakab. The preceding ha is a determinative, meaning the, and im is a plural ending, the equivalent of the letter s in English. Thus, Joseph Smith correctly wrote, albeit phonetically, the Egyptian words ha kokab im, meaning the stars. Kolob continues this same pattern. Written KLB, it is clearly closely related in meaning to KKB, kokab. So, Kolob has star as part of its meaning, but Nibley and others assert that it is closer in meaning to the Arabic word qalb, meaning heart. Yet, the Arabic-speaking peoples routinely use qalb as part of star names: qalb al-asad for Regulus, for example. The verb form of the word also means to turn upside down, to turn over and over. (This will become more meaningful in a moment.) The Egyptians thought of Canopus as the premier heart-star. Atum, the Egyptian creator god, was called the Firm Heart of the Sky. Indeed, Egyptians conceived of their creator/king or sun god, who we

Symbolism and Creation Part 6

14

will identify as the planet Saturn, as having two hearts the hat-heart was female, Tefnut, and the ab-heart was male, Shu one within the other, although translators rarely concern themselves with the distinction. Also, Horus was said to be ab en hat, heart of the heart. It is likely that the use of ab in those words is the reason why scholars also point to heart as one meaning of kolob and kakab. Ironically, Shu is also the one who sits in the midst of the Eye which is the seat of his Father. Thus, the eye and the heart of the sun god, Re, are virtually synonymous in Egyptian lore, an unexpected and curious association.

Part 6

n order to understand gospel symbolism, one must understand its ancient origins. No one has done more in modern times to make this understanding possible than Dave Talbott, comparative mythologist and researcher extraordinaire. Rather than rehearse his findings here, I refer the reader to his writings, beginning with his Saturn Myth. Others of his writings can be found in the online newsletter, Thoth, which can be found at www.kronia.com, along with some more recent publications. For those who have my books, you can find a summary of his views and their value to our understanding of gospel symbolism in volume 3 of The Prophecy Trilogy, And There Shall Be A New Heaven And A New Earth. Talbotts principle thesis presents us with an entirely new view of Earths ancient heavens, one that explains all gospel symbolism. When the ancients looked up into the heavens, this is what they saw during an early period of the evolution of the grand constellation of worlds, as Apostle Orson Hyde put it a concept he undoubtedly learned from Joseph Smith. The larger of the three orbs was Saturn, the turquoise-colored orb in the middle was Venus and the smaller, red orb was Mars.

Symbolism and Creation Part 6

15

Here is yet another view so there is no confusion about the planetary arrangement were talking about, the polar configuration also pictured in Josephs illustration given to Dibble (see Part 4). When Josephs facsimiles and the Book of Abraham are considered in light of Talbotts Saturn thesis, we see that Kolob may be simply another Egyptian name for the Saturn/Venus/ Mars assemblage of planets during Earths earliest epoch. Those three are likely the three planets Joseph Smith drew for Philo Dibble. The evidence for this is: Earth shared a common axis of rotation with those three, as pictured in the Dibble illustration, there were three planets in both scenarios and the Dibble illustration, if you look closely, even includes the plasma connections between the three. These commonalities are impossible to explain away. In the Egyptian tradition, Re/Atum is Saturn. He is the father-god, the fixed, immovable sun god. The hat-heart is Venus, the female goddess who is everywhere in ancient mythology identified as the mother goddess. The ab-heart is Mars, the male warrior/hero/child who resides in his fathers eye, the apple of his fathers eye. (Again, see Talbott for a thoroughgoing explanation of these concepts.) The entire polar configuration was seen to rotate once every 24 hours, due to Earths rotation. Hence, the verb form of qalb, meaning to turn over and over is most appropriate. Additionally, the Latin Venus was called Verticordia, the turning or whirling heart. In fine, Josephs declaration that Hah-ko-kau-beam (ha-kokab-im) are stars was accurate. The etymological connection between kokab and Kolob indicates that both have the meaning star. Kolob also has the additional meaning of heart, an otherwise odd association with the word star, except in the context of the Saturn myth and the Polar Configuration.

Symbolism and Creation Part 7

16

Part 7

urning now to Joseph Smith, we can see that what he described and explained in the Pearl of Great Price matches the Egyptian traditions and the Saturn myths. Josephs explanation of Kolob as First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time, fits Saturns ancient role perfectly. It was perceived as the primary governing power in the heavens. Everything else appeared to move or revolve around it. While it appeared to fully rotate once daily, it also remained in a fixed heavenly station. Additionally, it was the timepiece par excellence. In the role of Kronos (Cronus), Saturns appearance was commensurate with the beginning of time. That is, the ancients had no way of telling time or differentiating night from day until they could see Saturn and its rotating crescent. Thus, its early appearance in the creation was said to mark the beginning of time or timekeeping. What is more exciting is that a reading of Abraham, chapter 3, from the standpoint of Talbotts polar configuration of planets reveals what was, undoubtedly, the fundamental meaning of the Lords explanation to that ancient prophet. He used Semitic words such as kolob and ha-kokab-im because that is the language Abraham spoke. He described the original planetary configuration that existed before the Flood because it served to teach Abraham the core truth behind traditional beliefs and practices, as well as provide a teaching tool for spiritual truths, which he expounded later in that same chapter. In fact, to someone well versed in the arrangement of the Polar Configuration, it becomes apparent that this is what God revealed to Abraham the ancient order of the heavens that existed before the Great Flood. The closer one looks, the more apparent this becomes. One must force fit the present arrangement of the planets and stars, as so many LDS scholars have attempted to do, in that described in this revelation. On the other hand, given what we know about the polar arrangement, it accommodates the description remarkably well. In verse 2, we learn that Abraham saw very great stars near the throne of God. To the ancient mind, Saturn was perceived as the throne of god, if not god himself. The other planets in the arrangement,

Symbolism and Creation Part 7

17

Venus, Mars and the 7 small moons that were seen to orbit Saturn, were called stars. They were the governing ones that dominated Earths ancient heavens. The name Kolob may well apply, in this account, to Saturn itself because it is referred to as the one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest. Saturn was the apparent anchor or governor of all the heavenly host in antiquity, including the Earth. The issue of night and day was very different under those ancient skies, dominated by Saturn. The light that ruled the day was the same light that ruled the night, though each was given a different name in most cultures. Janus, (ya-an-us) depicted in the Joseph Smith papyri as the two-headed god, represented the day and night duality of the same orb one face for day, one for night. Significantly, it is this figure that the prophet identified as Kolob, the very orb that weve identified as Saturn. In the period of time we would call day, Saturn was very subdued in appearance, washed out, if you will, by the brightness of sunlight. However, when the sun set, it grew brighter until, at the time of day we would call midnight, it was at its brightest. So when the Lord relates to Abraham that the planet which is the lesser light, lesser than that which is to rule the day, even the night, is above or greater than that upon which thou standest in point of reckoning, he is only reiterating what he already declared in verse 3, except that this time he calls this orb a planet instead of star. He was simply being more accurate in his description. Indeed, the Lords description to Abraham of one planet standing above another until one comes to Kolob answers to the illustration drawn by Joseph Smith, and published by Philo Dibble, of the Earths antediluvian state, much better than it answers to the present arrangement of planets moving in distant orbits. (See Part 4 for this illustration.) So we see that what was revealed to Abraham was quite different from what most Latter-day Saints believe, yet it serves to further substantiate this authors thesis that the Polar Configuration, as Talbott explains it, was the actual state of the heavens in antiquity, and that understanding that fact illuminates the scriptures as nothing else. The word Kolob is a construct of the Egyptian religion, based on

Symbolism and Creation Part 8

18

the ancient heavens and not a present physical reality. What God revealed to Abraham was actually the order of the planets during the earliest epoch in our solar system, the Patriarchal Age, the time before the Flood known to Egyptians as Tep Zepi, or Golden Age, when our world and the heavens above it were vastly different than they are today. Both Abraham and Joseph Smith used Egyptian terms to describe the images they saw Abraham saw it in vision, Joseph saw it on the papyri. It should be gratifying to Latter-day Saints that modern research into Egyptian traditions, myth and legend has given credibility to the teachings and writings of this dispensations founding prophet and aided us tremendously in our efforts to comprehend scripture.

Part 8

ow, that we have a better perspective of the Earths ancient heavens, lets take a good look at the many creation accounts themselves. But, before we do, let me give you the lay of the land at this point in our quest so you will not enter this phase without your spiritual and temporal bearings. After a lifetime of struggling to interpret the creation accounts in terms of our present views of cosmology and cosmogony a frustrating exercise that often left us scratching our heads and wondering what the scriptures meant we now have the promise that the concepts of the Polar Configuration of planets and the Saturn traditions will allow a much clearer, comprehensible and reasonable interpretation that virtually eliminates the questions we once had. If true, this would be a monumentally positive development, especially if the basis of this new interpretation easily and informatively integrated with the rest of the restored gospel. This would be wonderful news for Latter-day Saints and a vital key to understanding our religion, our founding prophet, the ancient prophets and the scriptures. Thus, what we are about to examine and explore has the potential to expand our gospel comprehension far beyond anything we may have heretofore considered. Moreover, it puts the lie to the argument that this information is peripheral and therefore inconsequential. Rather, it goes to the very core of our gospel understanding, to enlighten our minds and lift our spirits. This promises to be the most exciting bit

Symbolism and Creation Part 8

19

of gospel study you have ever done. As with the universal flood stories, all ancient cultures have creation stories. At first blush, they seem to have little to do with the creation stories we find in the scriptures. But, upon closer inspection and with the aid of our knowledge of the ancient polar configuration of planets and the Saturn traditions, we begin to see fascinating similarities that escaped us before. For example, from accounts written by other ancient cultures, we learn that they all considered the creation to be the act of a god or gods. The Egyptian creator god was a solitary being called Atum or Ra. As we have seen, this was the planet Saturn. Ra was seen by the Egyptians as a solitary god, and ancient sun that had no companions. I am Atum, when I was alone in Nun, he is made to say. He also declares himself to be The God One, or the Only God except who at the beginning none other existed. As in the Old Testament account, Atum is the uncreated creator. I was the maker of myself, or I came into being of myself. In Genesis we read, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Reading the scriptural accounts of the creation leaves one with the impression that God related those events to Moses and Abraham who lived long after the actual event. That is, Genesis begins with the creation because the assumption is that it was the first thing to happen, long before Adam and Eve were placed on the Earth, which was the last act of God in the creation accounts. But, upon reading the creation accounts from other ancient cultures, one cannot assume that they came by that information via revelation, as in the scriptures. So, where did the creation accounts told by other cultures come from if God revealed this information to only his prophets? Here we come face to face with the concept that ancient man was a spectator to the events as the One God created the heavens and the earth. Unlike the Hebrew prophets Abraham and Moses, who leave the impression that God revealed the events of the creation, other cultures unabashedly assert that their ancestors observed the creation. In fact, many accounts recall a time before the creation. These are most intriguing, and further emphasize that the event that

Symbolism and Creation Part 9

20

all cultures recall as the creation was not the actual creation at all. This concept cannot be overemphasized in our discussion here. That is, the creation that mankind observed and remembered was not the creation of this Earth at all. Rather, it was the creation of the heavens, Gods habitation, they recall, even though they consistently referred to it as earth. Furthermore, if that is true, then the Genesis account may fall into the same category as the creation accounts from other cultures. That is, our assumption that it is a re-telling of the creation events by the Creator himself to his prophets may be incorrect. In fact, when we compare Genesis with those other accounts, it becomes apparent that it is simply another version of one event, another telling of those things remembered by all cultures as the creation. Did each invent its own story? The answer is: Yes and no. Each account from separate cultures has its own, curious take on that creative event, but they are remarkably similar in the story they tell. In fact, by taking a larger view of all these accounts, we come to the conclusion that it is the One Story told round the world. While they differ in many respects from the Genesis, Abraham and Moses accounts, they have remarkable similarities so much so that by comparing our scriptural accounts to those from other cultures, a more accurate and complete picture of the event known as the creation emerges.

Part 9

o, if all these creation stories, including those in the scriptures, are but various tellings of the One Story, then a valid approach to learning what happened in that first epoch would be to make a comparative analysis of the information or beliefs they provide. This is the basis of our approach here in order to give a fuller, more comprehensive understanding of the scriptural creation accounts. In the Genesis account we read, And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. In the Moses account, apparently the same event or condition is described thus: And the earth was without form, and void; and I caused darkness to come up upon the face of the deep; and my Spirit moved upon the face of the water;

Symbolism and Creation Part 9

21

for I am God. The Abraham account says: and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters. The Egyptian version of this story declares that this face of the waters or face of the deep was an inert, watery mass located in the heavens or sky in which Atum, the sky and creator god, the god One sat, alone and in an inactive state. I was the Primeval Waters, he who had no companion when my name came into existence. That is, this water of creation was not the ocean, as most understand the reference today. It was an astral phenomenon, something seen in the heavens. This explains why, later in the creation story, we are told of waters which were above the firmament. This puzzling reference has perplexed biblical exegetes down through the ages. None have had a believable explanation for it. Yet, when seen through the perspective of other creation stories, a more plausible and practical explanation emerges. So it will be with the entire Genesis account as we move forward with our analysis. Interestingly, a simple wavy line is the Egyptian hieroglyph for water. The sound given this wavy line hieroglyph is the n sound, as in Nile. In fact, this seems to be true of all very early cultures, because this n sound is part of the name of several creator gods. For example, the Sumerian creator was An or Anu; the Greek was Ouranos (Our-an-os); and the Roman was Janus (J-anu-s). Of course, all these creator gods can be traced back philologically to the planetary god, Saturn, who was also said to be a creator or father of the many gods that came later. Thus, it becomes apparent from reading other creation accounts that these enigmatic waters or deep were part and parcel of the creator god himself as he sat in the heavens. His very name referred to the primeval waters in which the creation occurred. Once again, Joseph Smith casts great light upon the subject. In the his facsimile No. 1 we see this firmament illustrated as water near the bottom of the panel, above the pillars of heaven. The firmament or heavens is not a place where one normally looks to see a watery expanse. Yet, if these waters of creation were a heavenly phenomenon, such a placement above heavens pillars would be natural. Note that the crosshatch lines in the panel are but a variation of the wavy line

Symbolism and Creation Part 10

22

ideogram or hieroglyph for water, further reinforcing the idea that this firmament was water. Moreover, a crocodile is pictured in this firmament. Crocodiles are seen in the water, not in the sky. But, if our assertion is correct, the seemingly incongruous juxtaposition of the sky and the crocodile above the pillars of heaven make perfect sense. These are the waters of creation, the deep spoken of in the scriptures. So, as weve seen in so many instances in the past, Joseph Smiths revelatory power comes to our rescue. These facsimiles and his accompanying explanations are invaluable keys to our understanding of the restored gospel and the creation. So, what the ancients saw was something very different than the picture we get from reading Genesis. Analysis of the content of the creation story told in the scriptures does not tell the whole story. Only by referring to outside sources contextual analysis can we get the fuller picture. This is true with everything in scripture.

Part 10

ow that weve ascertained that the astral waters of creation were called the deep, we have a key to understanding several other such puzzling and mysterious references in scripture. For example, in Revelation, Chapter 13, we learn of a beast that rises out of the sea. Could this be the same reference to heavenly waters of creation as we have found in Genesis? Again, in Daniel, Chapter 7, we find four beasts rising out of the great sea. Curiously, Ezekiel, too, saw these same four beasts, which appears to indicate that he saw the same thing as Daniel before him and John after him. Except, in Ezekiels story the sea is described as a cloud. Actually he affirmed that the beast came out of a whirlwind out of the north, a great cloud. Of course, the north is where all things significant are said to happen in ancient lore. At the risk of repeating myself, I must point out that all the creator gods were located in the celestial north, where our thesis places the planet Saturn. As we shall see, these three references to water recall the creative waters in heaven from which all things were created, as all creation myths assert. It also strongly suggests that words such as the deep and the abyss from which such beastly images are said to emerge

Symbolism and Creation Part 10

23

was an astral phenomenon, not something on or beneath the Earth. It further strengthens our assumption that the beasts themselves were originally astral in origin. Thus, we see that even the symbolism used by the prophets to describe what they saw in vision was dictated by the metaphorical symbolism derived from antiquity. As in Ezekiels account, these waters of creation were more than an amorphous water-like phenomenon. They were a whirling, broiling, cloud-like phenomenon, looking much like a tumultuous whirlpool in the sky. Hence, the ancients refer to this swirling, churning mass as water that surrounded and enfolded the creator god. This was the original Cosmos, the creative cosmic sea from which the first astral gods emerged. The Egyptians called it the Pai-land, the Island of Fire and the divine emerging primeval island. This was the island of Hetep (rest). That is, while it slowly churned in place, that central place did not move. This is the Greeks lost island, which they called Ogygia, which they envisioned in the north. This island was said to have floated on the sea of heaven. It is the aether (again, a fiery sea) of the Orphic Hymns and Mysteries from which came the revolving, golden egg, out of which came the creation. In the Egyptian coffin texts we read: I was he who came into existence as circle, he who was the dweller in his egg. I was the one who began everything, the dweller in the primeval waters. Envision, if you will, a slowly rotating whirlpool of seething, boiling clouds not those we see in the sky on a summer day, but those that roil and entwine. Moreover, these clouds seemed to have a life of their own, and they must have glowed or appeared to smoldered, as does thick smoke from hot coals. Another way to envision this creative whirlpool is to visualize an artists rendering of a black hole, then flip it upside down in your minds eye so that it is above you in perspective. This is where the concept of the witchs cauldron comes from, a boiling, churning mass of creative energy from which emerge fantastic creatures or powerful magic spells. Japanese legends recall a similar celestial island to the Greeks Ogygia. They called it Onogora, the drifting land. It was the island of the Congealed Drop, that is, the island emerged from these celestial waters. This was the white island of Zeus, which revolved in

Symbolism and Creation Part 10

24

the midst of the sea. The Hindus also remember this white island (Shweta-dwipa), which was located at the polar center. The Toltecs of Tula, Mexico, told of this white island, calling it the center of the world. This is undoubtedly the same mythical island that Plato learned about from the Egyptians, which he called Atlantis. Although he embellished the myth greatly, the description of that legendary island civilization has all the hallmarks of a Saturn icon. It is no less an authority on things Egyptian than Budge, who summarized the Egyptian version of the creation thusly: The first act of creation began with the formation out of the primeval watery mass of an egg, wherefrom issued the light of the day, i.e. Re. This was their Island of the Egg. He also wrote, From various passages found in the religious, mythological and funeral texts of all (Egyptian) periods, it is abundantly clear that in primeval times, at least, the Egyptians believed in the existence of a deep and boundless watery mass out of which had come into being the heavens, and the earth, and everything that is in them. Thus we see that in the ancient mind, the land that arose from the heavenly waters was equated with an egg. Why? Because, that egg eventually opened as the embryonic cloud gradually dissipated, revealing the heretofore shrouded planet Saturn with its golden seed, the two planets Venus and Mars. The Earth, of course, was located at the base, if you will, of these polarly aligned or stacked planets. In the Babylonian creation myth, called the Enuma Elish, we read, When on high the heaven had not been named, firm ground below had not been called by name, there was naught but primordial Apsu, their begetter, and mother Tiamat, who bore them all, their waters commingling in a single body. The name Apsu is also written Abzu, from whence came the Greek abyssos and the Roman abyssus, and subsequently our word abyss, the deep of creation and prophecy. So, the heaven and the earth of Genesis are nothing more than allusions to different parts of this astral whirlpool or nebular disc that hovered overhead. That is, the firmament was the island or earth. The waters surrounding that heavenly land were said to be the waters which were under the firmament and the waters which were above the firmament. The egg, island, land, earth or firmament therefore divided the waters, since it sat in the very middle.

Symbolism and Creation Part 11

25

This also explains the otherwise contradictory use of the term firmament for the sky or the vault of the heavens. Dry land can be called firm, but not air and sky. Yet, when the island or land emerged in the center of the slowly rotating nebular disc, it could rightly be called firm or firmament. So, it is to the planet emerging in the heavens that the ancients referred when they used that term. Of course, where the Egyptians saw an egg emerging from the waters and the Greeks saw an island, the Hebrews saw dry land appear when the waters were gathered together unto one place. Of course, God called this dry land earth. This was Saturn and its companions emerging from the plasma or gaseous envelope (Cardona calls in a placental cloud) that had previously hidden them from the gaze of earth-bound observers.

Part 11

hus, when we read in Moses version of the creation in the Pearl of Great Price, the imagery makes perfect sense. And again, I, God, said: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and it was so, even as I spake; and I said: Let it divide the waters from the waters; and it was done; And I, God, made the firmament and divided the waters, yea, the great waters under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament, and it was so even as I spake. And I, God, called the firmament Heaven; . The above creation event from Moses was not to be confused with the next in that the former had occurred in the heaven while what is spoken of next involved the Earth we now stand upon. And I, God, said: Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and it was so; and I, God, called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, called I the Sea;And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself upon the earth, and it was so even as I spake. So, thanks to the clarifications of Joseph Smith and our revised view of the creation accounts, we find that the Moses account is far more accurate and much less confusing than the Genesis account, even though it maintains the symbolic imagery of ancient tradition.

Symbolism and Creation Part 11

26

These verses speak eloquently for the validity of our claims. They conform to the proposed model outlined above as well as clarifying the more laconic Old Testament account. This is no coincidence. Rather, it is a direct result of the comparison of creation accounts from all ancient cultures to flesh out the original intent of the Genesis author. Only allowing the accounts to speak for themselves rather than forcing them into some preconceived model of our own invention or from popular convention produces this amazing result. At the same time, that knowledge allows us to understand revealed scripture as never before. Thanks to the perspective provided by an unorthodox view of ancient history and the resulting imagery, Latter-day Saints can fully comprehend the imagery of this account, as revealed in these latter days. What was once a bit puzzling and confusing in this account, due to our formerly flawed paradigm, now becomes crystal clear detail with astounding accuracy. This realization will only become more profound as we proceed with this analysis. This gathering process, into what Cardona calls the placental cloud, that is, the swirling plasma that looked like a whirlpool or a tornado in the northern sky, allowed the first glimpse of the glowing ball of light at the center of the waters to more fully emerge. This also allowed what had been only a dim glow in the whirlpool of clouds to now cast much more light on our planet. So, the scriptures relate that then there was light to follow what had been darkness. The creation had begun, and mankind was there to watch it happen. Of course, in this darkness there was never a total absence of light, as one might believe from reading the scriptural accounts without further corroboration. Though it was probably dim, there was enough light to make out these features in the sky and to simply maneuver about. If our parent planet, Saturn, were actually a brown dwarf star, as Thornhill speculates, then the light from Saturn that reached the Earth in this earliest epoch was probably much dimmer than the white light we receive from the Sun, our captor star, today. Hence the reference in many accounts to significantly reduced light, which can only be described from our perspective as a diffuse glow, akin to our twilight. The spectrum of light was probably quite different than what we experience today. It was probably more shifted toward the infrared

Symbolism and Creation Part 12

27

spectrum, which accelerated plant growth but also gave a very different, darker look to our world. Also, there was no day/night cycle, as is the case today, and the Earth would have been equally warm at the poles as at the equator. These two factors would have provided a very different environment than that which exists today, making the entire world a Garden of Eden. Thanks to that wholesome environment, all humans needed was provided for them without any effort on their part. This is implied in the creation accounts following Adam and Eves expulsion from the garden when they are told that the Earth is cursed, that in place of the easily obtained foodstuffs there would now be thorns and thistles Thereafter they will be required to work to eat, in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. They are told, By the sweat of thy face shall thou eat bread . Even more significantly, the accelerated aging process, which we now endure, was not a problem for them. The environment, dramatically different as it was, proved beneficial to life rather than harmful, as it is now. Thus, statements from other cultures about that first epoch provide us, again, with much more information. Hesiod, the Greek philosopher wrote: First of all the deathless gods who dwell on Olympus made a golden race of mortal men who lived in the time of Kronos when he was reigning in heaven. And they lived like gods without sorrow of heart, remote and free from toil and grief; miserable age rested not on themThe fruitful earth, unforced, bear them fruit abundantly and without stint. They dwelt in ease and peace upon their lands with many good thing, rich in flocks and loved by the blessed gods.

Part 12

he creation accounts explain that light was created to dissipate the darkness on the first day or event of creation. Let there be light; and there was light. This introduces yet another puzzle. We learn later in the accounts that the sun, moon and stars were not present until the fourth day of creation. How can that be? If the sun is our primary source of light,

Symbolism and Creation Part 12

28

with the moon and the stars bringing up a distant second and third place, where did the light of the first creation period come from? Its a small leap of logic to infer that the light came from the emerging planet at the hub or center of the abyss, tornado or whirlpool. Further, the present source of all our light, the sun, the moon and the stars did not appear until that plasma fog around that emerging body fully dissipated. This is why the lights of heaven did not appear in the scriptural scenario until the fourth day that is to say, until later in the sequence of events. So, while the creation story may be fully symbolic, it also generally preserved the sequence of events as well as remarkably accurate observations of the realities behind or beneath the symbolism in many instances. Of course, there is much, much more in the Genesis account that could be explored. Indeed, explanations and implications of the creation and garden stories alone could fill a thick book. But, this should suffice to demonstrate the symbolic nature of these stories. And, what can be said about the first part of Genesis also holds for the rest of it. Indeed, this is true of most scripture, right on through the New Testament. Naturally, the further back in history we go, the more symbolic the accounts, making Genesis the most symbolic of all the only exception being the dreams and visions of the prophets all the way down to Johns Revelation. As a conclusion to this series, I point out one, last area of interest not often connected with the creation. Lets begin with a direct quote from Cardonas recent work, God Star, which is most revealing. He quotes the first chapter of Genesis substituting English words with the original Hebrew at critical junctures: In the beginning Elohim create the shemayim and eretz. And eretz was tohu wa bohu, and darkness was on the surface of the tehom. And the ruach of Elohim moved upon the face of the mayim. Elohim was one of the ancient names of Saturn. Shemayim are the heavens in the plural. Eretz is the word usually translated Earth, but it more properly means land. The words tohu wa bohu are traditionally translated as without form and void or void and empty. The tehom is understood as a watery abyss the deep. Ruach means spirit or soul, but also wind, while the mayim are merely the waters also in the plural.

Symbolism and Creation Part 12

29

the words of Genesis actually tell usthat, in the beginning that is, as far back as man can remember Saturn fashioned the land which originally meant the land of the gods [Elohim] which was formless and empty, while the spirit, or wind, of the same Saturn moved over the darkened waters. Following that, the Egyptian texts tell us of the next phase of creation, left out by the rabbinical scholars because it smacked of polytheism: Atum [Saturn], the All, spits out or exhales the female power Tefnut and the masculine power Shu and from one god I became three, say the texts, noting that the All, the One, the Creator-god repeated himself . All three together are Atum-Re (the archaic sun god, whom we now know to be Saturn), the god Shu (first form of the warriorhero, identifiable astronomically with Mars) and the goddess Tefnut (first form of the divine mother, the planet Venus). Talbott summarized this creation event thusly: What follows this phase is the displacement, departure, or spitting out of Mars and Venus as the first forms of the hero and goddess, who now become quasi-independent, highly active figures in the creation events. That is, the very speech of the first god became the stuff of the other two. These other two planets, then, were perceived to be the result of the creative words uttered by Atum, the self-created god; these words were seen and heard. The words of the creator actually became his two alter egos or two other parts (planets). But, the concept of a god actually creating two others has endured since that astral event. Hence, John, the apostle alludes to that fundamental doctrine in the opening verse of his gospel, which reads, In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. This is just another version of the three-gods-in-one doctrine that dominated religion long before it became early Christian belief and, ultimately, Catholic dogma. But, we have to look to the Egyptian creation accounts and those from other cultures to understand Johns intended meaning. Thus we see that the prophetic symbolism of our scriptures retains the essence of all those ancient archetypes and subsequent elaborations. Of course, without a firm and thorough grasp of the origin of that symbolism and its proper use, we stumble around in the dark

Symbolism and Creation Part 12

30

as we attempt to understand our own scripture. We are as blind men and women, groping in the dark. This same principle applies not only to the Bible, but to scripture revealed by Joseph Smith as well, since it all retains that same, timehonored symbolism. Moreover, it applies equally to modern temples, their architecture, adornments, rituals and furnishings. Without this vital understanding of its symbolic meaning, we misunderstand and misinterpret all that has been restored in these latter days. Though we give homage to the restoration, we turn a blind eye to all its symbolism: It is a mystery to us. Thus, we turn a blind eye to fully half of the truths restored to us. How, then, can we still claim to be children of the light, as the Savior said? So, this is as much a call to repentance as an exposition of gospel symbolism. To those Saints who read this, it should be a wake up call. If I were a prophet, I would say something like this: Repent, all you who have been given the truth. You have treated this truth, this pearl of great price, as though it were dross and refuse, trampling it under your feet, for which cause you have brought condemnation upon yourselves and your children. Repent! And learn that which God, in his infinite mercy, has deigned to reveal to you through his servants, the prophetseven the prophet Joseph Smith. Turn your hearts to your fathers, as the fathers turned their hearts to you, their children. Despise and ignore not that which your fathers sought to bequeath and teach you under the direction of your God. Turn away from the worldly knowledge you so ardently embrace that brings only darkness and confusion, making you and your children deny God and his works. Repent, oh, repent ye, Latter-day Saints! But then, Im no prophet. Im just an average Latter-day Saint.

Symbolism and Creation Part 12

31

For more essays from this series: http://mormonprophecy.blogspot.com/ For online classes, videos, newsletters and published books exploring this material in depth: http://www.mormonprophecy.com/ Your questions or comments are welcome: anthonyelarson@gmail.com