Abraham is Osiris: A Historical Meditation on Facsimile 3

[_Kishkumen]

But the buck stops with Anubis. You can't turn an Egyptian god into a slave and publish that on sacred papyri in any Egyptian dynasty. This is why Joseph Smith's Explanation of Anubis being a slave by the fictitious name of Olimlah turns everything on its head. Some things can simply never be. Hence, Joseph Smith's blasphemy can't create new history.

Well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by history. Obviously there is nothing historical about any of this if one is speaking of history in the modern scholarly sense. To me that’s beside the point. I said that, according to my vision, a new apologetics should be as audacious and creative as Smith’s original work. The difference is that it should make full use of our greater abundance of resources.

I don’t see why Anubis cannot be an African slave, particularly if we identify and exploit the resonances between post-colonial popular myth about African slaves and Anubis. Look, for example, at how Anubis is handled in Gaiman’s American Gods. There are so many possibilities. It would be a mistake to look at the Facsimiles as static artifacts instead of the polysemic playgrounds they are. One does not have to be an Egyptologist or a traditional Mopologist to have fun here. Smith’s misprision of the text is not the final say either.

[_Gadianton]

The cogs are moving slower than usual this morning, I've poured a cup to move things along, but not entirely sure I understand your point. Sans the details, are you saying that the image of Osiris could have been reinterpreted within a Hebrew tradition and thus, the figure could be Abraham?

Is there a Mopologist theory about this somewhere?

I know there's the mnemonic theory, but that's just it could be anything.

[_Philo Sofee]

The cogs are moving slower than usual this morning, I've poured a cup to move things along, but not entirely sure I understand your point. Sans the details, are you saying that the image of Osiris could have been reinterpreted within a Hebrew tradition and thus, the figure could be Abraham?

Is there a Mopologist theory about this somewhere?

I know there's the mnemonic theory, but that's just it could be anything.

Y es, that was one of my all time favorite mopologist defenses of Joseph Smith on my Mormonism Researched page when I was into the Book of Abraham as evidence for Joseph Smith. Kevin Barney has also discussed it in his writings.

[_Gadianton]

Philo, to be clear, I think the mnemonic defense is unimaginative and cannot be taken seriously. I do not think this is what Kish is talking about. A re-interpreted symbol is potentially a valid defense, and so I'm curious if the apologists have a theory about this or is Kish the first one to think of it? One would think they should have -- the mnemonic theory I'm saying doesn't count. Smoot should be reading and getting some ideas.

[_Philo Sofee]

Philo, to be clear, I think the mnemonic defense is unimaginative and cannot be taken seriously. I do not think this is what Kish is talking about. A re-interpreted symbol is potentially a valid defense, and so I'm curious if the apologists have a theory about this or is Kish the first one to think of it? One would think they should have -- the mnemonic theory I'm saying doesn't count. Smoot should be reading and getting some ideas.

Agreed. I thought you were talking about Abraham as Osiris. John Tvedtnes himself in light of the critique Klaus Baer gave him of the Mnemonic theory ended up not going with it either. Thank goodness Tvedtnes didn't pull a Nibley and just ignore the peer review eh?

[_Kishkumen]

In conjunction with that is the paper I wrote last year that extensively deals with this precise issue and what Joseph Smith really thought the papyri were. See here
http://drpepaw.wixsite.com/backyardprof ... e-Evidence

Thank for sharing that, Philo!

[_Kishkumen]

Philo, to be clear, I think the mnemonic defense is unimaginative and cannot be taken seriously. I do not think this is what Kish is talking about. A re-interpreted symbol is potentially a valid defense, and so I'm curious if the apologists have a theory about this or is Kish the first one to think of it? One would think they should have -- the mnemonic theory I'm saying doesn't count. Smoot should be reading and getting some ideas.

Well, Dean Robbers, the idea I’m toying around with is this: Let’s put aside dead-end arguments about bullseyes and whether Joe was a genuine prophet of God and start looking at this as a tradition with its own unique trajectory and place within the Western tradition. What do we get when we put together what we know about the Book of Abraham with some of Joe’s mythological obsessions (Joseph, Egypt)—as supplemented by other things in the Western esoteric approach to them? If we are not constrained by what Joseph did, but take what he did as the building blocks for a mythological “language”, what kinds of interesting things emerge? I say lots. That is not said by way of proving Joseph was a prophet or the “church is true”, but to suggest that not only was Smith working within a framework, but people can continue to work in it with interesting results. In a way, it’s perhaps crazy, but on the other hand it is a lot more honest and rich than anything Mopologetics has produced or articulated, at least, thus far.

[_Shulem]

Well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by history. Obviously there is nothing historical about any of this if one is speaking of history in the modern scholarly sense.

I don't think Joseph Smith would agree with you on that point AT ALL. I can only imagine some good member of the church or even one of his closest associates challenging Joseph Smith's historical declarations of the papyri. It's easy to imagine that a prophetic rebuke would be the result of questioning the prophet -- and a call for repentance for the insubordination of one of his lieutenants.

No, Kish, everything Joseph Smith revealed through revelation was a restoration of true history of ancient Egypt and the dealings had by the Lord's covenant people during that age.

[_Kishkumen]

I don't think Joseph Smith would agree with you on that point AT ALL. I can only imagine some good member of the church or even one of his closest associates challenging Joseph Smith's historical declarations of the papyri. It's easy to imagine that a prophetic rebuke would be the result of questioning the prophet -- and a call for repentance for the insubordination of one of his lieutenants.

No, Kish, everything Joseph Smith revealed through revelation was a restoration of true history of ancient Egypt and the dealings had by the Lord's covenant people during that age.

So you would argue that Smith understood academic history and believed what he was doing was perfectly in line with it?

by the way, I admire your fervent conviction, Shulem!

[_Philo Sofee]

The nice thing about Shulem's fervent conviction is, it actually is grounded on real evidence in real time in our real world, unlike faith Gee invokes which has no sticking power.