Book of Mormon Notes– How deep can you dig?

2008, December 25

“Joseph Smith on the Sun (from the Book of Abraham)” by grego

“Joseph Smith on the Sun (from the Book of Abraham)”
by grego

From the description of Facsimile 2 (found at )
“Fig. 5. Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob.”

I have heard many people ridicule this as just absolute nonsense and stupidity. “Everyone knows the sun is self-powered, and the earth has no power at all, and no relationship with another celestial body–other than gravity, which is an external force.” Of course, that might not be the truth, but that is what is taught in basic science education… Then, I was reading a little, and found just a few interesting quotes from a few books about science (and mythology). There is much more I’m not putting in here, but I have listed sources for those interested in finding out more. Here are some exerpts.

From “The Healing Sun Code” by William Henry (some very interesting and/or cooky stuff much of the time, in my opinion, but this is scientific reporting here):
“In 1932, Karl Jansky, a Bell Telephone Laboratories engineer, was investigating sources of interference to recently opened trans-Atlantic short wave radiotelephone circuits… Noise always increased when Jansky pointed his rod at the stars. By using a star map, he discovered that the waves came from the center of our Milky Way Galaxy at 26 degrees of Sagittarius.
What lurks at the center of our galaxy that produced the hiss that caught Jansky’s ear? From the vantage point of some 23 thousand light years away it is difficult to determine. A cloud of dust obscures the Core, making it invisible to the human eye and even to optical telescopes. But not to Jansky’s radio telescope.
During the early 1960’s astronomers began to realize that the massive object that forms the core of our Milky Way Galaxy periodically becomes active.3 The cores of all spiral galaxies cycle through a similar phase. During its active period, our galactic core is a cauldron of chaos. It spews out fierce quasar-like barrages of cosmic rays, with a total energy output equal to hundreds of thousands of supernova explosions.4 In 1965 A.A. Penzias and R.W. Wilson were conducting radio astronomy experiments with the ultrasensitive horn antenna at Crawford Hill, New Jersey but were frustrated by a noise in its receiving system, a background noise that remained constant no matter which direction they scanned. This made no sense and they suspected that it came from bird droppings on the antenna, but after a careful cleaning the noise remained. They then realized that the noise corresponded exactly with the “background radiation” posited by cosmologists who favored the Big Bang theory of creation. Penzias and Wilson had discovered the “afterglow” of the cosmic Big Bang. They had heard the Echo of Creation, and were awarded a Nobel Prize for their discovery.
Today radio astronomers monitor the activity of the Galactic Core on a daily basis. They also study explosions from the cores of neighboring galaxies. Galactic Core outbursts are the most energetic phenomenon taking place in the universe.8
The active, quasar-like core of spiral galaxy PG 0052+251, for example, is seen to radiate 7 times as much energy as comes from all of the galaxy’s stars. Most of this is emitted in the form of high energy cosmic ray electrons accompanied by electromagnetic radiation ranging from radio wave frequencies on up to X ray and gamma ray frequencies.
When Karl Jansky discovered that the Galactic Core ‘hissed’ he was affirming a belief long held by ancient mystics and shamans that our galaxy was an egg surrounded by a serpent. This egg has a heart, a Central Sun that beats and sends divine vibrations that spread through the galaxy. In other words it hisses. In a league of their own apart from the X-ray and gamma ray radiations, these cosmic vibrations were considered to be a tremendous source of vital spiritual energy that could heal the body and soul and bring immortality. The Central Sun or Spiritual Sun, said these medicine people, is, in fact, the Healing Sun.”

Then, this, from David Wilcock’s “The Divine Cosmos” (
Kozyrev’s work and others have shown us that all matter harnesses torsion waves to sustain its existence… Again, the key is that these geometric forms are being created by vibration. In order for this vibration to occur, an atom must be constantly absorbing and radiating aetheric energy at the same time… 
This is another valuable piece of data, as it shows us that the center of the galaxy is actually our primary source of instreaming torsion wave energy. In this case, the torsion waves appear to be propagating in tandem with the X-ray wavelengths of the electromagnetic energy spectrum. Even though the activity of the Sun can increase or decrease the strength of torsion waves coming into the Earth, without the input from the Galactic Center we will have much less energy available to us.

 Parr found that this sudden increase of energy leading to pinch-off would occur most reliably every year on Dec. 13-16, and his measurements were taken over a 13-year period. Eventually, Parr discovered that at this time, the Earth’s orbital path was intersecting an imaginary line that could be drawn between the Sun and the belt stars of Orion. This led Parr to conclude that an active energy conduit of some sort exists between the Sun and the stars of Orion’s belt. This also falls in line with our expectations related to torsion fields, as there will be streams of aetheric energy connecting all the stars together and flowing between them. The closer we are to a star, the stronger the stream will be, and in the case of Orion’s belt we have three central stars in close proximity with four other close stars surrounding them in a giant “X” shape. Thus, the shape of the stars in the Orion constellation forms a passive torsion generator in its own right.”

Seems like he’s there again, that ol’ Joseph Smith, getting there earlier than he should have! Is there more, from any others, that give credence to what Joseph Smith wrote?

Bookmark and Share


  1. Is there more, from any others, that give credence to what Joseph Smith wrote?

    How about this?

    Comment by LDS Anarchist — 2008, December 25 @ 9:37 pm

  2. Cool, more to read.
    I’ve got some comments and questions about some of that post, though:
    “The LDS scriptural view is one of a connected circuit, each body receiving power from the previous one or ones and sending on the power to the next one or ones in line, but none of the bodies being the central power source (God being that source.)”
    grego: Is there a source for the last four words?

    “Another interesting aspect of Figure 5’s interpretation by Joseph Smith is that the planets in Abraham’s day were fixed. The Lord stated that in Joseph’s day the courses of the planets were fixed (D&C 88:43.) But in Abraham’s day, not just their courses were fixed, but the planets themselves were fixed. Currently, when we look at the planets of our solar system, we see nothing fixed. Before continuing, it may be helpful to look up the word fixed in Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary, which was the dictionary in use at the time of the Abrahamic facsimile interpretation:
    FIX’ED, pp. Settled; established; firm; fast; stable. Fixed stars, are such stars as always retain the same apparent position and distance with respect to each other, and are thus distinguished from planets and comets, which are revolving bodies. (from
    So, these fifteen planets, during the time of Abraham, were fixed, meaning that these planets always retained the same apparent position and distance with respect to each other, just as stars do now today. I stress that these were planets, not stars, in a fixed position, which does not correlate to what we see today.”
    grego: This is based on a premise that “planets” is used in the same way as “the 9 planets”. Perhaps, notwithstanding this, also from Webster’s 1828 dictionary: “planet PLAN’ET, n. [L. planeta; Gr. wandering, to wander, allied to L. planus. See Plant.] A celestial body which revolves about the sun or other center, or a body revolving about another planet as its center. The planets which revolve about the sun as their center, are called primary planets; those which revolve about other planets as their center, and with them revolve about the sun, are called secondary planets, satellites or moons… They are so named from their motion or revolution, in distinction from the fixed stars, and are distinguished from the latter by their not twinkling.”
    The reason is from the explanation of the facsmilie itself:
    “Fig. 5. Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is *one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun*, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs *fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions*. *This planet receives its power* through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, *the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob*.”
    because, is the sun a planet? Well, by definition, somewhat; it revolves around something, I imagine, and it gets its light from somewhere else; but is it a planet as commonly spoken, and as Webster defines? I don’t think so. So which are the fifteen planets or stars that are spoken of? They aren’t defined, though a few are listed–as we know them: some planets, and one star. Does that mean planets on one hand and stars on the other, or planets–you know, stars? So I see a lot of unclarity and ambiguity here, and I’m not too apt to get into LDS cosmology beyond what seems pretty clear. It does seem clear that “this planet” refers to the earth, as a different source is given for its power–in other words, this planet earth receive its power from a source that’s not the sun. (It doesn’t say anything about whether it receives light or heat or whatever else from it.) Or, maybe I’ve missed something–too much eggnog or such…

    “Secondly, plasma mythology teaches that in antiquity the planets were not as far away as they now are. This is one of the reasons why the ancients knew so much about these now distant bodies, knowledge that is impossible to obtain without either the technology we now have or the planets themselves being much closer to Earth.”
    grego: Possibly. It could be for many other reasons, too–even, perhaps, a U&T.

    I did find the Saturn article interesting, but I wonder if the mythology refers to this solar system, or the original one (by Kolob?).

    I strongly hope that “science” will get stood on its head soon, and everyone will see more about what Joseph Smith and others taught.

    Comment by grego — 2008, December 26 @ 5:07 am

  3. Ha! Synchronicity strikes again–just saw “The Golden Compass”. DUST.

    Comment by grego — 2008, December 26 @ 3:37 pm

  4. hi, grego,

    The source of the first quote is D&C 88: 12. (Read the surrounding verses, too.) Facsimile 2, Figure 5 shows that heavenly bodies are linked in a circuit.

    The second quote: “planets” and “stars” are the same thing. Modern man makes distinctions, but the ancient Egyptians (and other civilizations) all saw these heavenly bodies as stars. Joseph likewise uses planets and stars interchangeably. In truth, planets and stars really are the same thing. They are celestial bodies in various stages of existence or energetic states, so it is possible for what we call a planet to shine like our current Sun (e.g. Jupiter and Saturn are can be thought of as merely unignited suns). But all planets are capable is one of the three plasma dischages: glow, arc and dark modes. It all depends where they are in the power circuit. Celestial bodies (like our current Sun) are in the proper spot for glow discharging, but if you took any one of the planets around it and swapped them, the planet would glow discharge while the Sun would dim down to the point where we moderns would call it a planet and not a star. In other words, the Sun is a glowing discharging star, while Earth and other planets are non-discharging stars, but their discharge state can change (and has changed in the past). To the ancients (and in reality) all these heavenly bodies were the same species. Joseph, then, when using the words planets and stars, was using the definitions of both the moderns and also the ancients, so that we understood that planets and stars were the same to the ancients and so that mention of a star in the scriptures could refer to what we moderns think of as a planet, and vice versa.

    All the talk of light in the facsimile is not talking about sunlight or visible light, but of power, in other words, what makes these things function. (See above D&C quote.)

    Re: the third quote, a Urim and Thummimm was available to ancient seers, but many of these civilizations were pagans, yet their descriptions of the stars/planets were accurate. It is doubtful they had access to a U&T. It is more reasonable, especially according to their own descriptions as to where all the stars/planets were in the heavens, that the stars/planets were much closer to Earth.

    Comment by LDS Anarchist — 2009, January 2 @ 8:24 pm

  5. One more thing: D&C 88: 43 also talks about fixed planets. (See the surrounding verses, too.)

    Also, as an aside, in the same section the Lord refers to the planets as kingdoms and then proceeds to give a parable concerning the kingdoms/planets.

    Comment by LDS Anarchist — 2009, January 3 @ 1:47 am

  6. Hi, thanks for sharing interesting information.
    That’s one possibility. I also see other possibilities for civilizations to have known:
    1. Adam knew (from God, from knowledge, from visions, etc.), and taught his children, and they took it with them when they left;
    2. it’s possible as with Abraham and Egypt, that a seer (Abraham, Enoch, etc.) taught others (faithful and/ or pagans),
    3. and then they taught others;
    4. it’s hypothesized that the ancients also had technology (such as optic/ telescopic lenses: ) or could have used other unknown means;
    5. and then, it’s possible that what seems like pagan worship might not be so pagan, at least in some cases (as they say, how would we know if a Nephite city were ever found that it was Nephite?).

    By the way, that linked website also starts out like this:
    “The ancient Greek Pythagoreans of the 5th century BC believed that the sun was a gigantic crystal ball larger than the earth, which gathered the ambient light of the surrounding cosmos and refracted it to earth, acting as a giant lens.”

    I guess Joseph Smith was just a thief after all! Man, that bookmobile sure made its rounds! Whoops–a correction, from the site: “the crystal sun idea was overlooked, and has never been described in any books on the history of science or philosophy.”

    It continues:
    “Thus, we know that magnification technology was in use in Egypt in 3300 BC… In fact, on the jacket of my book the reader will encounter an ancient image of someone looking through a telescope. This is a photo I took of a fragment of a Greek pot excavated about twenty years ago at the Acrocopolis in Athens, and dating to about the 6th century BC.”

    Quote: “One more thing: D&C 88: 43 also talks about fixed planets. (See the surrounding verses, too.)
    Also, as an aside, in the same section the Lord refers to the planets as kingdoms and then proceeds to give a parable concerning the kingdoms/planets.
    Comment by LDS Anarchist — 2009, January 3 @ 1:47 am”

    grego: I read D&C 88:43 as “fixed *courses*”, not “fixed planets”–to me, a big difference. And as one reads in D&C 88:42, “by which they *move* in their times and their seasons”.
    Yeah, it’s very possible that other planets are/ will be kingdoms–we know that this earth will become a celestial kingdom, and all of us have to go somewhere. That also means there would certainly be life on other planets, too. But of course LDS already believe that, though it does give more meaning to that–I guess another one of those things science needs to catch up in…

    Comment by grego — 2009, January 6 @ 5:31 am

  7. Interested in learning about the ALMA Telescope or the Book of ALMA?
    MOST popular search engines will only allow you to search for one or the other but not for BOTH at the same time.

    Comment by Vinn Howard Beazell — 2015, April 11 @ 5:14 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: