Philo Double Standard: Mithraists can Appropriate and Modify Symbols and Stories of Others, but not Hor Papyrus Author

[drumdude]

If you’re not introspective enough to appreciate the irony then I can’t help you brother. Defending the book of Abraham is deadly dangerous to your faith, I would tread lightly. Just ask Paul…

I've been doing the Book of Abraham as long as Paul has. Nothing is going to change as far as it goes for me. I have a consistent and well-thought ought basis for my positions, all the way down to the core of my transhumanist foundations. I have a reason for everything that I believe, and a foundational argument for everything that I assert. He's the one that has changed. Not me. His foundation is belief in non-belief, and irrational assertions that science has the power to refute metaphysical belief systems. It doesn't.

Mormonism is not derivable from the world around us. That’s why the vast majority of humanity isn’t Mormon. The only reason you believe in Hebrews sailing to the new world and angels with flaming swords appearing to tell Joseph he needs to have 30 wives is because you were told to believe in it. You can try to convince yourself that you derived it from a sound logical foundation, but it does nothing to convince me.

You believed in Mormonism first, then you went backwards to create a special convoluted reasoning to justify such an unreasonable belief. That’s why I pointed out the lunacy of the new apologist position on the book of Abraham as an “ancient document referring to more ancient document.”

You’re building circles within circles to try and make the orbits of the planets perfectly circular, and it shows.

[Ed1]

.

[drumdude]

Mormonism is not derivable from the world around us. That’s why the vast majority of humanity isn’t Mormon. The only reason you believe in Hebrews sailing to the new world and angels with flaming swords appearing to tell Joseph he needs to have 30 wives is because you were told to believe in it. You can try to convince yourself that you derived it from a sound logical foundation, but it does nothing to convince me.

You believed in Mormonism first, then you went backwards to create a special convoluted reasoning to justify such an unreasonable belief. That’s why I pointed out the lunacy of the new apologist position on the book of Abraham as an “ancient document referring to more ancient document.”

You’re building circles within circles to try and make the orbits of the planets perfectly circular, and it shows.

All religion can be reformed and refined. All believers have their own unique take on religion if they belong to a certain religion. I have the right to be a reformer of my own personal beliefs, as it is mine to do with as I wish, and have it be as in sync with TBM Mormonism as I want it to be.

I must have missed that one of the 12 fundamentals of following the prophets.

Mormonism is a fundamentalist religion. Many before you have tried to reform it, and you see what it got them. Look at how well they treated John Dehlin.

You can dress your dog as a cat, and feed it cat food, and give it a litter box, or you can just get a cat…

[Ed1]

.

[drumdude]

I must have missed that one of the 12 fundamentals of following the prophets.

Mormonism is a fundamentalist religion. Many before you have tried to reform it, and you see what it got them. Look at how well they treated John Dehlin.

You can dress your dog as a cat, and feed it cat food, and give it a litter box, or you can just get a cat…

I don't recall asking your permission to do what i do, or asking for your approval for what I do or asking your opinion for what I do, or even asking my bishop for approval of what I do. My bishop doesn't have to interfere with what I do, because his duties are defined in the handbook, and confined to the realm of the temple recommend questions, and whether I can answer those questions truthfully to his satisfaction and to mine and to God's.

You’re extremely defensive about all of this. You can do whatever you want, you’ve chosen to come here and defend the book of Abraham so you’re being engaged on that and related points.

I do think someone that holds unorthodox views like yourself is better off keeping them to himself. That’s what Dehlin’s priesthood leaders told him to do. But your leadership roulette may have rolled a different set of numbers on the dice.

[Ed1]

I don't recall asking your permission to do what i do, or asking for your approval for what I do or asking your opinion for what I do, or even asking my bishop for approval of what I do. My bishop doesn't have to interfere with what I do, because his duties are defined in the handbook, and confined to the realm of the temple recommend questions, and whether I can answer those questions truthfully to his satisfaction and to mine and to God's.

You’re extremely defensive about all of this. You can do whatever you want, you’ve chosen to come here and defend the book of Abraham so you’re being engaged on that and related points.

I do think someone that holds unorthodox views like yourself is better off keeping them to himself. That’s what Dehlin’s priesthood leaders told him to do. But your leadership roulette may have rolled a different set of numbers on the dice.

My personal philosophy is to do what I do until I'm told to stop. I don't need permission, but I will stop if told to stop. Its that simple. Dehlin wouldn't stop, because he valued what he sees as his integrity over his membership, as do many. I value my membership enough to stop when instructed if necessary to preserve it.

[drumdude]

You’re extremely defensive about all of this. You can do whatever you want, you’ve chosen to come here and defend the book of Abraham so you’re being engaged on that and related points.

I do think someone that holds unorthodox views like yourself is better off keeping them to himself. That’s what Dehlin’s priesthood leaders told him to do. But your leadership roulette may have rolled a different set of numbers on the dice.

My personal philosophy is to do what I do until I'm told to stop. I don't need permission, but I will stop if told to stop. Its that simple. Dehlin wouldn't stop, because he valued what he sees as his integrity over his membership, as do many.

Indeed. I think it was a watershed moment for the church, putting him in that position arbitrarily. I was still a member at the time. And now I’m not.

[Ed1]

.

[Kishkumen]

Hey, Ed! Thanks for the challenging post. I know Philo is strong enough to meet the challenge. I am going to turn this back on you. Speaking for myself, I am perfectly happy to see you forward every argument you have in favor of a more traditional LDS belief in Joseph Smith’s translations. But I am going to do you one better, in my opinion. I argue that Joseph Smith is embodying and realizing an ancient pattern of religious charisma, and that this renders the actual chronology of his work irrelevant. That said, I don’t begrudge you your freedom to do what you do. In fact, I am your cheerleader here. Do what you do. I think it is important to you, and it may be important to others.

Still, I hope you can accept that others will see the significance of antiquity in Joseph Smith’s work differently from the way you do. Maybe it is not just an anti-Mormon’s or critic’s challenge to the faithful position that one can find in the arguments but a new way of conceptualizing what Joseph Smith was up to, after all. If we get hung up on our traditional assumptions regarding what he was doing, we can miss the boat. I know you have faced unkind opposition from some fellow apologists who insisted that their view was right. They were not open-minded about what you had to say. Maybe some things that come out of the critics’ challenges will prove to be the lever that will bring about better ways of viewing the Restoration.

Philo is really your ally in all of this more than he is your enemy. He is a seeker and an open-minded person. The question we should be asking here is this: what is being defended here? The LDS Church or the Restoration? You may say (and you can correct me if I am off base here) that those are the same thing, but I say not necessarily. If we are all seeking the truth, it may be that the truth is bigger than one Church, and that a person who is living within the LDS Church and one who is outside of it can still be seeking after the same ultimate goal.

[Philo Sofee]

Damn well said Kish, just damn well said... there is something about a restoration rather than a "true" church that appears to me to be the more probable, especially if it involves ancient mysteries... something I think Ed has spent an enormous amount of time on and has an enormous amount of materials on his website discussing some interesting and intriguing possible if not downright probable connections. Check it out. I think a lot of Ed's linguistic discussions, guesses, mullings, discoveries and analysis are the most fascinating I have read of in years!