Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:By virtue of her royal associations and because of her extensive worship throughout the Mediterranean world, by the time of the Joseph Smith Papyri Isis had come to be identified as the very Pharaoh(ess) of Egypt. In one text from this time period, for example, she is called “the Pharaoh(ess) of the whole land” (tȝ pr-ˁȝt nt tȝ r-ḏr·f).10 Of her additional dozens of epithets and titles, she was also designated, among other things, “ruler of the two lands in the house of joy” (hḳȝt-tȝwy m ḥwt ȝwṯ-ỉb),11 “ruler of gods and goddesses” (hḳȝt nṯrw nṯrwt),12 “the Pharaoh(ess) of everything” (pr-ˁȝt nt tm nb),13 “the queen who seizes office by her power” (nswt ỉṯỉ ỉȝwt m sḫrw·s),14 “excellent ruler” (ḥḳȝt mnḫt),15 “excellent queen” (nswt mnḫt),16 “excellent ruler on the throne of her father” (ḥḳȝt mnḫt ḥr nst ỉt·s),17 “ruler of Egypt” (ḥḳȝt nt bȝḳt),18 and “queen of all Egypt” (nswt nt snwt r ȝw·s).19
The historical extrapolation in the apologetic excuse above given to justify Smith’s mistake in labeling Isis as a pharaoh is not without its own problems and contradictions of what the prophet originally claimed concerning the nature and origin of the papyrus itself. The papyrus was said to be a LITERAL 3500 Year Old Abraham Autograph
, written by his own hand. Abraham’s roll was a sacred writing preserved in a tomb said to have dated that era and was interned with mummies which Smith claimed were royal. All of these claims are documented in official church historical records. Smith identified the papyrus to have been as old as the patriarch himself.
According to Smith, the person sitting on the throne is Abraham, drawn by his own hand. The person behind the throne is said to have been the king of Egypt that was alive during Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt and he too was drawn by Abraham’s own hand. All of the writing on that scroll was written by the hand of Abraham during his ministry. Everything written and drawn on the scroll was a representation of events that occurred during Abraham’s lifetime. The apologists attempt to get their readers to take their eyes of the present and look to a future in which had nothing to do with what Smith said the record represented.
It makes no difference what anyone in the Mediterranean world thought of Isis during Late Egyptian times. The only Egyptian time we need concern ourselves with is Abraham’s time -- an Egyptian dynasty that is far removed from the actual age of the papyrus which Smith mistakenly misdated. The apologists attempt to rationalize Smith’s mistake in identifying a DEAD WOMAN (ISIS) with a living king of Egypt. Smith was wrong. The person he identified as a king was not the man-king Abraham visited and Isis was not alive on planet earth at the time Abraham visited Egypt. Furthermore, Smith makes no allusion or reference to having been visited by an Egyptian goddess representing herself as “King Pharaoh” and neither does the record state that “King Pharaoh” is a representation of a goddess of the Egyptian religion. Those kinds of inferences come from apologists attempting to excuse Smith’s mistakes by applying creative principles of syncretism of the Egyptian religion.
Do note that apologetic twists and turns do nothing to justify Smith’s mistake in identifying Maat (Fig. 4) as a “Prince of Pharaoh”. Never is Maat called or referred to as a PRINCE
of Egypt! She, like Isis, is a woman, not a male. Thus, we see that the apologetic attempt to justify Smith’s mistakes by trying to find obscure representations outside of the historical context of what Smith was originally claiming is a complete failure. They are welcome to ascribe Isis as kingly from a certain point of view if that is what they want but they will have a serious problem with ascribing Maat as prince of Egypt. It’s entirely a losing proposition. MAAT is *NOT*