It is well documented that facsimile #2 in the Book of Abraham has a drawing of Min, an “ithyphallic god,” or in other words, a sexually aroused male deity.
What is not so well known is that for a time in the early 1900’s the church removed the “offending member” from object number 7 in facsimile #2. I was rummaging through some old books I have and found a 1921 version of the Pearl of Great Price. And to my surprise, Min had lost his phallus.
Below is the 1974 version, which is consistent to what we have today in the current published version. (item 7)
And this is the 1921 version I found on my book shelf
What this means is that sometime before 1921, somebody figured out that item 7 was not “God sitting upon his throne”, but was some man that was obviously in a state of arousal. I would love to have been in the room when this was brought to the brethren’s attention, and listened to the ensuing discussions. There was probably a vote: “all in favor of removing the phallus raise your right hand, those opposed by the same sign”.
But then it gets more strange. Sometime later, they again met, and decided to put the phallus back in! (all in favor of putting it back………..)
So the reason for taking it out was obvious, but why put it back in? Were they found out? Did somebody leak it to the press and they tried to cover it up by putting it back? (it took all my power of decorum to not make cheap jokes about this very serious matter!)
Wheat & Tares 
I can’t seem to think of any reply that does not involve a joke. This is an interesting though.
The ins and outs of this hard subject is beyond my ability to grasp. I too best leave it alone.
Who has a phallus where their navel should be?
I thought the revision was fairly well known. I might be mistaken, but I thought the revision dated to the 1981 edition of the triple combination. According to the October 1981 Ensign, “reproductions of the facsimiles in the Pearl of Great Price had lost some of their clarity over the years, so the reproductions in the new triple were made from earlier versions for improved accuracy. “
Left Field, the scan I did above is the 1974 addition, so it was put back before then. I have no older versions to figure out exactly when it was put back. Does anybody else out there have an old version ?
Indeed left field. it’s a little high for a phallus. The picture in Facsimile 2 looks a bit more like this picture of Buddha (see the first picture at the link):
https://www.thespruce.com/buddha-hand-gestures-1275278
Having spent all of my professional life in advertising, marketing and national account sales ( in the VERY clinical healthcare industry) I perceive this phenomena for exactly what it is: you withhold the most damaging information from your “customers” until YOU ABSOLUTELY have to divulge it.
Forr, by the time a “user” discovers the truth (and the seriousness) of the “side effects” – more than likely, they are already using, and are hooked, on your product.
Pretty cynical isn’t it ?! But, unfortunately it’s true.
Lemuel . The location of the phallus may not seem correct to you but if you have a chance to go to Luxor or the Valley of the Kings you will see multiple images of Min all over the place. In all of those images his phallus is located in the same spot. Maybe having lost his leg has something to do with it .
There might not have been a single point at which it was “put back.” I have a Doctrine and Covenants / Pearl of Great Price printed in 1979 that does not have it.
On the other hand, I have a Quadruple Combination printed in 1977 that does include the phallus. The quad is an unusual edition, in that the Vision of the Celestial Kingdom and the Vision of the Redemption of the Dead (now in the Doctrine and Covenants) are included as an integral part of the Pearl of Great Price, with a modified PofGP cover page and table of contents. Most scriptures printed right after those visions were canonized just have a printed insert (sometimes bound, sometimes loose).
It may be that they revised the facsimiles for the 1977 quad at the same time they made the appropriate revisions for the new canonization. My 1979 PofGP only has an insert of the new visions, and still has the previous versions of the facsimiles. I don’t know about the 1974 printing. Was it part of a triple/quadruple combination, or is it a D&C/PofGP combination?
In any case, I think it’s a mistake to think of “restoring the phallus” as something done deliberately and in isolation. Every edition that has that “restoration” also has better resolution, cleaner lines, and a variety of other subtle differences (as suggested in the Ensign article for the 1981 revision). I think for the new printings/editions, they simply went back to a more accurate and cleaner copy. That being the case, the phallus was one of many things that changed as a result of substituting a more accurate version. I doubt there was a vote on that one element. It’s plausible that at least some people who were involved in the decision didn’t even notice that it was there. And since it’s not very anatomically accurate, they might not have thought of it as a phallus. It could be interpreted as the (also not very anatomically correct) right forearm, as a symbolic representation of an umbilical cord, a spear to the gut, a right-side armrest of the chair, and so on.
My 1948 published edition does not have it.
It’s not in my 1963 addition.
Straining at knats and swallowing camels….
Notice the bird flying around with a lustful smirk upon its face. The bird is about the same size and is at eye level. This disappearing phallus is pointed right at her lower regions. I think he is going to mate with the bird. This begs the question, does God sitting upon his thrown mate with birds?
Notice the same bird is flying above Abraham laying on the sacrificial altar in facsimile # 1 much more prominent than here. Notice that knife pointed sort of towards the bird. The knife looks more like a phallus or even a knife could be a symbol of it . Mating with a bird at death. Cool.
They should have gotten rid of the bird. And the knife.
I know as much about reading Egyptian hieroglyphics as Joseph Smith ever did. Which it is safe to say- awfully damned little..
I wonder if you notice the snout of the “slave”in Fac 3 has been chiseled out
http://book-of-abraham-facsimile-no-3.my-free.website/
I wonder if you notice the snout of the “slave”in Fac 3 has been chiseled out
http://book-of-abraham-facsimile-no-3.my-free.website/
It’s NOT a phallus! There are no sitting hieroglyphics with an erect phallus (that I’ve ever seen). Also, it’s coming out of his belly! There are many hieroglyphics like that showing an arm or both arms coming out of the person’s belly. Look at the many hieroglyphics with an erect phallus and you’ll see they get it right-it originates at the groin, not the belly. Also (as if all that wasn’t enough) if you’ve been through the temple, you’ll recognize the positions of the arms). It’s not a phallus, it’s his right arm!
This is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Hopefully it displays.
IMG_5934.PNG
Maybe this will work.
https://share.icloud.com/photos/0U0vWvYG-O0cRqPZx-c-cYWiQ