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

[Moksha]

So can Philo tell us the harm in pretending that this scene at Abraham's Grill was set in motion by the Prince of Pharaoh having Shulem the waiter taking the burger order to Olimah (who is forced to be a grill cook)? How is this substantively different than a professional photographer taking an image for an Applebee's ad? Like, get with the symbolism!

By the way, is there any way for Mithra to alter the beer to water so Ed can use this argument on the Saint forums?



"Let's go grab a nosh at Abrahams."

[Ed1]

.

[Ed1]

.

[Ed1]

.

[Kishkumen]

Sorry Kish. I missed this somehow when I originally stepped away from the thread.

No worries! I was not offended.

I am with you here, mostly.

I say we build on the overlap and not get hung up on the differences. There are differences, but is that a bad thing? I say no.

This is why I am allied with you on the front of Western Esotericism, because I see things like you do in a lot of ways as being significant. Nevertheless, where you see only truth in the sense of Joseph Smith's restoration having preserved the essence of Western Esotericism as a thing that represents or brings forth a certain kind truth, but that truth is not some thing that is a transfer of genuine information from the ancient world, I see that differently because I defend both the mantle of the prophet and the historic truth of the ancientness of the Book of Abraham, and I intend to reform the apologetics, if not start a new kind to be sort of a competitor to the current strain.

Great stuff there, Ed. So, to clarify my position, I would say that Western esotericism provides a useful framework for re-contextualizing the Restoration. Through this framework, we can see Mormonism's relationship to the West's spiritual tradition more clearly. What was once occluded by the foundational narrative as interpreted by those who were ignorant of that larger tradition is now able to be understood much better.

Philo, my buddy, is nevertheless aiming his guns at the root of the tree that is at the root of my research. If we can't agree on these things, and are only allies on certain fronts, Philo can expect a little pusback from me on fundamentals that are fundamentals to me. We are all big boys with our big boy pants, and need peaceful coexistence, but understanding of where we differ in these fundamentals. I am not attacking Philo, or don't want to be attacking him, and its not my intent, but instead, to push back on very fundamental and key things, although Shulem continues to attack me personally, and I gave back as strongly as he gave, unfortunately, in my irritation, although has now claimed to have put me on his ignore list.

Yeah, I can see how this happens. There is a lot of personal emotion and personal history tied up in these things. In some ways I don't think you and these guys are ever going to see eye to eye. Up to now, Shulem in his post-LDS phase doesn't appear to place much of any value on the Book of Abraham. I think the value is to be found in the text itself, and I also see value in the process whereby it was created. What I do not invest much concern in is precisely what you are investing so much time in--the precise details of alleged historical connections that could only have come from a certain kind of revelation.

In other words, I'm with you that the critics' challenges bring out a healthier view of Mormonism, but as I see it, the hand of the Lord was in it, and the ancientness of it needs to be defended or continued to be brought forth as an option as strong as the option you adhere to. In other words, not only is what you believe true, but that ancientness is a key element, which you don't believe in, and that ought to be an option, and that option ought to have representation. I'm still trying to figure out how to give pushback to my friends without attacking them. Please help me figure that out. Philo, please help me figure this out.

I certainly do not begrudge you that search. It is a quest that is valuable to you and many others. At the same time, for me the bigger question is what the word ancient signifies beyond "factually happened in the deep past." I think the word means much more than that, and in certain contexts may not really mean that at all.

I now am trying to talk to Bill Reel (and perhaps RFM if I can figure out how to contact him), to see if I can appear on either of their podcasts on the issue of the Book of Abraham, my new book that incidentally is now going to be actually published, and how Grammatomancy, etc, may relate to Western Esotericism, and Western Esotericism in general. I would appreciate it of Philo and yourself could appear with me for moral support, or maybe, to keep Bill and RFM from being too harsh on me. You guys know me personally to a degree. Bill and RFM do not, although I've had some contact with Bill

I can certainly see Philo doing that, in theory, and yet I think he may not make a good ally in that situation because of his persona there. My problem is that I choose not to be a public persona. Thus far I have cherished my anonymity because it keeps me from doing harm to my professional and personal life. Sunstone is something one has to really look for. Mormonism Live is a little too public for my comfort. I'll have to think about it. I like the general idea; it is my participation in it that makes me nervous.

[Ed1]

.

[Kishkumen]

Then I won't ask you to do it. I'll ask Philo to do it, and maybe he won't be an ally there, but the chips will fall where they may.
Or maybe its a bad idea to begin with. I have to accept maybe that these guys would just go for the jugular and not entertain any amount of openness to what I'm trying to get at.

I like the Mormonism Live crew, but I am not confident that this is the place to go to find a sympathetic forum for what you are trying to achieve. Part of me shares Yahoo Bot's skepticism of Bill Reel. Bill is a very smart guy, but he is sort of like a secular ex-Mormon apologist. He is really interested in reaffirming to himself and his audience his conversion away from Mormonism to his secular world view. I say this not to insult him. He has a lot of laudable qualities, and he is good at what he does, but when it comes to the subject of Mormonism he has gapingly huge blindspots.

[Ed1]

.

[Kishkumen]

I have sent Bill a couple of emails so far, and asked him directly if he is going to just go for the jugular, and not entertain a sympathetic or charitable view of any kind, or at least charitable treatment. I guess I can expect what the response will already be, and it was a bad idea to contact him again in the first place.

John Dehlin just had Rod Meldrum on, and was fair to him, but Dehlin doesn't answer my emails anymore. Yet he says that Mormon Stories is for all Mormon Stories to be told. Perhaps my Mormon Story is not good enough or significant enough for Dehlin or Reel to be represented by either of them on their forums.

I guess this is just a lamentation, more than a request for help or intervention. I think maybe I'll just let this go, and only do my Sunstone presentation that I hope to do, if they let me do it. I have signed up to do it. Maybe you guys might think of having something to do with my Sunstone presentation this year?

I don't mean to be a wet blanket. You should do what you feel is necessary. I'm just leery of Bill Reel in this kind of scenario. He thinks the idea of belief in miracles is just silly. He repeatedly ridicules any idea of the divine and miraculous. Look at his treatment of Kwaku when Kwaku was on his show. Now, I think he puts on the appearance of fairness and respect, and I honestly think he believes he is being respectful, but at the end of the day his epistemology really has no room or tolerance for things that can't be externally verified by a scientific experiment.

I say that knowing exactly how that looks. To most people here and elsewhere, that sounds kooky. Well, of course Bill insists on what one should insist! I am just saying that there is an epistemological divide between you and Bill, and Bill will not be able to help being condescending about your epistemological position. Secularists are incapable of being truly sympathetic to a position like yours. Your position is, in their eyes, primitive and childish. One can try to hide that with all the appearance of respect in the world, but it will color everything.

[Ed1]

.