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

[huckelberry]

The key word here is "adapt". Mithraism adapted preexisting traditions, and quite radically so. The Papyrus of Hor, in contrast, is entirely explicable as a typical Book of Breathings. Its main deviation is somewhat unusual iconography in the vignette that became Facsimile 1. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that it is a "lost record of Abraham" or an Abrahamic text of any kind, and if the papyrus had never fallen into Joseph Smith's hands, nobody would be suggesting any such thing. Claiming that the Papyrus of Hor secretly encodes a book attributed to Abraham is no different from taking a Christian book — say a missal or something — and claiming that its bog-standard Christian text is actually a cipher for a lost work attributed to Hermes Trismegistus.

The consistency of Joseph Smith's explanations in light of what is found in the Greco-Roman world won't change just because you people don't believe in it. It doesn't "encode" the Book of Abraham if some of its symbols had a secondary association to that story of that Book. It doesn't "contain" the text of the Book of Abraham, and the text of the Book of Abraham cannot be mechanically extracted from the Hor text in some reproducible manner. To use symbols in a secondary association besides its primary usage does not consititued a process of "enconding" information in those symbols that they do not contain.

Philo's disbelief in it doesn't invalidate it. It only makes Philo now an unbeliever in something he used to believe in. And of course, the mockery and the disrespect of the "mopologists" has to be added for effect, because it comes with the territory, to be one of the cool kids.

Ed, I think Manetheo has perhaps more clearly asked the question I was asking. I can understand the ideas of inspiration being started by an Egyptian scroll but that its validity depends upon inspiration not the scroll. It appears that you are saying something different here but I find myself confused as to your meaning. It may be a simple tangle in the wording. What is the "it" that Philo does not believe? Your previous paragraph is a series of denials of "its" leading to the expectation that you and Philo are in complete agreement.

But I do not think you agree with Philo so there must be two different versions of it that you have in mind. I am hoping you could clarify.

[Ed1]

.

[Kishkumen]

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 like this view.

[sock puppet]

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.

Understood.

But then why would your view of it be relevant or interesting to anyone else if it is so paricularized, so subjective to be just yours?

[malkie]

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.

Understood.

But then why would your view of it be relevant or interesting to anyone else if it is so paricularized, so subjective to be just yours?

Whether they admit it or not, I believe that every Mormon is a cafeteria Mormon. Every single member of the church, including TBMs, has an idiosyncratic view of orthodoxy.

For example, I know a woman who would describe herself as a believing Mormon: obedient, TR-holding, calling-accepting - all the regular boxes checked.

But when President Nelson says that it would be good for members to be vaccinated, she says that she doesn't mix her religious views with her belief that vaccination is an evil to be avoided if at all possible, and so chooses to ignore him.

When reminded that one of the articles of faith talks about upholding the law, she says that she has the right to encourage illegal behaviour if it fits with her political (RWNJ) beliefs.

Yet someone else that I know let their TR lapse in part because they do not feel that they can sustain everything that Pres N says.

So I disagree with Ed here in his implying that there is such a thing as TBM Mormonism, but otherwise would say that his beliefs are unique, just like those of everyone else.

[Kishkumen]

Whether they admit it or not, I believe that every Mormon is a cafeteria Mormon. Every single member of the church, including TBMs, has an idiosyncratic view of orthodoxy.

For example, I know a woman who would describe herself as a believing Mormon: obedient, TR-holding, calling-accepting - all the regular boxes checked.

But when President Nelson says that it would be good for members to be vaccinated, she says that she doesn't mix her religious views with her belief that vaccination is an evil to be avoided if at all possible, and so chooses to ignore him.

When reminded that one of the articles of faith talks about upholding the law, she says that she has the right to encourage illegal behaviour if it fits with her political (RWNJ) beliefs.

Yet someone else that I know let their TR lapse in part because they do not feel that they can sustain everything that Pres N says.

So I disagree with Ed here in his implying that there is such a thing as TBM Mormonism, but otherwise would say that his beliefs are unique, just like those of everyone else.

So, basically what you are saying is that everyone is, at heart, an individualist, whether they fully acknowledge that fact or not. This is true, of course, of most people in any system of thought or religious belief. No one agrees with anyone else completely, but people more or less conform to community or relationship consensus anyway. TBM Mormonism is the desire to identify as TBM Mormon. It is a conscious decision to do what is required to be acknowledged as such by others. A lot of Ed Goble's fellow religionists have no idea what he is talking about, but the important thing is that he does what is required to stay in the community of faith in such a way that he can honestly feel he is a TBM.

We could just as easily be talking about any other intersection between belief and community and make the same observations.

[Ed1]

.

[MG 2.0]

Whether they admit it or not, I believe that every Mormon is a cafeteria Mormon. Every single member of the church, including TBMs, has an idiosyncratic view of orthodoxy.

For example, I know a woman who would describe herself as a believing Mormon: obedient, TR-holding, calling-accepting - all the regular boxes checked.

But when President Nelson says that it would be good for members to be vaccinated, she says that she doesn't mix her religious views with her belief that vaccination is an evil to be avoided if at all possible, and so chooses to ignore him.

When reminded that one of the articles of faith talks about upholding the law, she says that she has the right to encourage illegal behaviour if it fits with her political (RWNJ) beliefs.

Yet someone else that I know let their TR lapse in part because they do not feel that they can sustain everything that Pres N says.

So I disagree with Ed here in his implying that there is such a thing as TBM Mormonism, but otherwise would say that his beliefs are unique, just like those of everyone else.

I would say that there is something called TBM Mormonism. It is the type of Mormonism that is typified by Rod-Meldrum and Wayne-May Heartlandism. Appeals to ignorance and pseudoscience to continue to uphold things that are obviously false like the global flood, things that the Church itself takes no position on, while maintaining belief in core truth claims and following the prophet. That is classic TBM Mormonism.

I am a TBM by what I would say is my own reductionist stance. And by that I mean in my own mind I have boiled down things to their bare bones to analytically deal with that set of bare-bones ideas to comply with them, to have all my essential boxes checked. And by that, I mean, can I hold a temple recommend, because I can answer all of the questions to my own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of my bishop, so that I can remain a temple worker? Do I pay tithes? Do I keep my covenants? Do I follow the prophet? Yes, I do. Do I believe in the core of Joseph Smith's claims, that all the essentials are true? Yes. Do I believe that the Book of Mormon is not just true, but historical? Yes. Do I believe that the Book of Abraham is not just true but historical? Yes.

Now, where do I differ from the classic TBM position in pseudoscientific stances? I differ on the global flood. I believe that the flood was local to America, and that Noah launched the Ark from America, and had a sea voyage to Asia. He didn't land on a mountain, but instead, the coast of the Persian Gulf. His sea voyage after the local flood in America was global, instead of a global flood. There is a difference, where a global sea voyage is required by scripture, not a global flood, because of where Noah launched from (America), and where he ended up (Asia). That voyage is the essential. That Noah was a real, historical person is another essential. Whether the ark ended up on a mountain is not an essential. I differ on the creation of animals and plants, where I believe in a degree of directed Evolution. I believe Adam and Eve were born of Heavenly Parents and somehow there was intermixing with humans already on the earth at some point. I believe that native Americans are a mixture of Asians and people from the middle east that came on boats, and that someday the DNA evidence of that will be made plain and vindicated. I don't pretend to have the evidence for that right now. I believe in science, and that its discoveries constrain certain things in the gospel, and set up the limits to where these things can be reliably true.

I don't believe exclusively in science in my personal beliefs, and I reserve the right to inject things from the gospel into the mix, even if there isn't good evidence for something yet. That is my right, because my personal beliefs are mine. And where issues are unsettled, where the Church has no position, I am free to inject my own thinking, and bring science into the mix. This is my personal right, to craft my own personal beliefs, and my core is TBM Mormonism, without heartlander-style psudoscience. That is the difference. And in its essentials, it is still TBM.

Call this what you want. If this is cafeteria to you, so be it. It is TBM in its essentials, rejecting heartlander-style young-earth-creationist TBM-ism. It is James-Talmage/Henry-Eyring/BH-Roberts style TBM-ism.

Furthermore, the word "belief" doesn't really describe my personal stances well, because they are more like favored ideas to the degree that they seem rational to me, but the word "belief" implies that I have a commitment to these ideas somehow. I have no commitment to these ideas, to the degree that I will abandon them instantly if I happen upon better information. Who determines if the information is better? That would be me, not by other people trying to thrust their own beliefs on me.

Well said. I like this. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Whether they admit it or not, I believe that every Mormon is a cafeteria Mormon. Every single member of the church, including TBMs, has an idiosyncratic view of orthodoxy.

For example, I know a woman who would describe herself as a believing Mormon: obedient, TR-holding, calling-accepting - all the regular boxes checked.

But when President Nelson says that it would be good for members to be vaccinated, she says that she doesn't mix her religious views with her belief that vaccination is an evil to be avoided if at all possible, and so chooses to ignore him.

When reminded that one of the articles of faith talks about upholding the law, she says that she has the right to encourage illegal behaviour if it fits with her political (RWNJ) beliefs.

Yet someone else that I know let their TR lapse in part because they do not feel that they can sustain everything that Pres N says.

So I disagree with Ed here in his implying that there is such a thing as TBM Mormonism, but otherwise would say that his beliefs are unique, just like those of everyone else.

I would say that there is something called TBM Mormonism. It is the type of Mormonism that is typified by Rod-Meldrum and Wayne-May Heartlandism. Appeals to ignorance and pseudoscience to continue to uphold things that are obviously false like the global flood, things that the Church itself takes no position on, while maintaining belief in core truth claims and following the prophet. That is classic TBM Mormonism.

I am a TBM by what I would say is my own reductionist stance. And by that I mean in my own mind I have boiled down things to their bare bones to analytically deal with that set of bare-bones ideas to comply with them, to have all my essential boxes checked. And by that, I mean, can I hold a temple recommend, because I can answer all of the questions to my own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of my bishop, so that I can remain a temple worker? Do I pay tithes? Do I keep my covenants? Do I follow the prophet? Yes, I do. Do I believe in the core of Joseph Smith's claims, that all the essentials are true? Yes. Do I believe that the Book of Mormon is not just true, but historical? Yes. Do I believe that the Book of Abraham is not just true but historical? Yes.

Now, where do I differ from the classic TBM position in pseudoscientific stances? I differ on the global flood. I believe that the flood was local to America, and that Noah launched the Ark from America, and had a sea voyage to Asia. He didn't land on a mountain, but instead, the coast of the Persian Gulf. His sea voyage after the local flood in America was global, instead of a global flood. There is a difference, where a global sea voyage is required by scripture, not a global flood, because of where Noah launched from (America), and where he ended up (Asia). That voyage is the essential. That Noah was a real, historical person is another essential. Whether the ark ended up on a mountain is not an essential. I differ on the creation of animals and plants, where I believe in a degree of directed Evolution. I believe Adam and Eve were born of Heavenly Parents and somehow there was intermixing with humans already on the earth at some point. I believe that native Americans are a mixture of Asians and people from the middle east that came on boats, and that someday the DNA evidence of that will be made plain and vindicated. I don't pretend to have the evidence for that right now. I believe in science, and that its discoveries constrain certain things in the gospel, and set up the limits to where these things can be reliably true.

I don't believe exclusively in science in my personal beliefs, and I reserve the right to inject things from the gospel into the mix, even if there isn't good evidence for something yet. That is my right, because my personal beliefs are mine. And where issues are unsettled, where the Church has no position, I am free to inject my own thinking, and bring science into the mix. This is my personal right, to craft my own personal beliefs, and my core is TBM Mormonism, without heartlander-style psudoscience. That is the difference. And in its essentials, it is still TBM.

Call this what you want. If this is cafeteria to you, so be it. It is TBM in its essentials, rejecting heartlander-style young-earth-creationist TBM-ism. It is James-Talmage/Henry-Eyring/BH-Roberts style TBM-ism.

Furthermore, the word "belief" doesn't really describe my personal stances well, because they are more like favored ideas to the degree that they seem rational to me, but the word "belief" implies that I have a commitment to these ideas somehow. I have no commitment to these ideas, to the degree that I will abandon them instantly if I happen upon better information. Who determines if the information is better? That would be me, not by other people trying to thrust their own beliefs on me.

For sure there are 'flavours' of TBM-ism, each with followers who believe in substantially the same set of ideas. (excuse my use of "believe" here - I think/believe that it is justified ) Also that the ability to honestly answer the TR interview questions to the satisfaction of presiding officers is a good, though imperfect, standard for core beliefs. Of course, Bishop roulette plays a part here too. The person I referred to earlier who let their TR lapse originally offered to return it to their Bishop, after explaining that they had substantial disagreements with the president of the church. The Bishop refused to take it back. I had a similar experience with my Stake President. I told him that I was an almost complete disbeliever, and he encouraged me to go to the temple.

Clearly a lot of people (including the Bishops of heartlanders) feel that heartlanders are not any less TBM than anyone else.

You have come up with an interesting set of subsidiary beliefs. I've never, for example, heard of TBMs who share your ideas about Noah's flood. And of course you are correct that it is your personal right to craft your own personal beliefs. Good for you.

[Ed1]

.