tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post5169033848399499389..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Shulem in the Book of Abraham: Possible Plausibility?Jeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-91390550351704735892013-12-28T11:08:37.798-06:002013-12-28T11:08:37.798-06:00OK, Rogue, here is my next "infinitely facile...OK, Rogue, here is my next "infinitely facile" response to your challenge regarding Isis and Maat. It won't satisfy you, of course, but I think there could be something interesting going on beyond a grotesque blunder by someone who couldn't even recognize a female. See my Mormanity post, "<a rel="nofollow">Isis and Maat in Facsimile 3 of the Book of Abraham: A Horrific Blunder by Joseph Smith?</a>"Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-43502093234679838342013-12-27T18:30:34.540-06:002013-12-27T18:30:34.540-06:00Rogue, that's a fari question. First, it is OB...Rogue, that's a fari question. First, it is OBVIOUS that Figs. 2 and 4 are women, so what was Joseph thinking? If we step back for a moment and recognize that he wasn't blind, and open ourselves to the possibility of meaning beyond immediate, literal representations, then we can explore the possibility that these female figures are serving as representations of something else. Is it even remotely possible that Isis could represent Pharaoh and Maat a prince?<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia's article on Isis</a> provides our first clue:<br /><br /><i>The name Isis means "Throne". Her headdress is a throne. As the personification of the throne, she was an important representation of the pharaoh's power. The pharaoh was depicted as her child, who sat on the throne she provided. </i><br /><br />Interesting, no? The word "Isis" written above Figure 2's head can, without delicate mental gymnastics, be rather directly linked to Pharaoh--rather precisely as stated by Joseph. Again, not literally--obviously not literally, because she is female, of course--but in a rather direct and simple metaphorical link. Isis = throne = symbol of Pharaoh. Not too tricky. In the Turin Papyrus, Isis learns the secret name of Ra and gains power over him. This is a powerful goddess well suited to personify the Pharaoh and his power. <br /><br />Maat is not as readily linked to a prince. Let me look into this a bit more. I'll post what I find, if anything, here at Mormanity. Thanks for asking.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-72299529964735301292013-12-21T00:08:43.023-06:002013-12-21T00:08:43.023-06:00Wow. I look forward to your equally convoluted exp...Wow. I look forward to your equally convoluted explanations of how "Isis, the great god's mother" (what the characters above figure 2 actually mean) really means "King Pharaoh," and how "Maat, mistress of the gods" (characters above figure 4) really means "Prince of Pharaoh." This just goes to show how infinitely facile apologists can be with the facts. Roguenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-74325631065669239032013-12-20T22:17:47.442-06:002013-12-20T22:17:47.442-06:00Also, the reason I give any weight to what James W...Also, the reason I give any weight to what James White says is that I have a fellow Soldier that listens to him regularly. I am attempting to learn as much as I can of our doctrine, documents and such so that, when I have a discussion with this fellow, I have the proper rebuttals to his statements. It's a steep learning curve on my part, as I was inactive for 16 years and only returned in 2010.<br /><br />Knowing White's history with FAIRmormon apologists, his books and postings, I find it to be a challenge to provide accurate statements to spar with my fellow Soldier. I'm finding Calvinism to be, at first blush, very contradictory to our own doctrine.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00730427619382902966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-42105949207026712382013-12-20T22:00:06.727-06:002013-12-20T22:00:06.727-06:00Thanks much for the write-ups that you've done...Thanks much for the write-ups that you've done. You're an inspiration to my own research and desire to enter into apologetics. Every which way I turn, during my own research on critic's claims, my appreciation of the LDS scriptures are reinforced.<br /><br />I find it interesting that, as time goes on and scholarly work continues to expand on our understanding of the scriptures, we find more and stronger arguments for our scriptures.<br /><br />Bear with me, as the two points of the following are inter-related and intertwined with how I approached the issue...<br /><br />On a tangent, but still in the same vein of the BofA and its "detractors", I came upon an interview of Scott Gordon (FAIRmormon.org president) by an interviewer from Issues Etc. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries reviewed the podcast and claimed "Agnostic Mormonism" of Br. Gordon's answers.<br /><br />I became a bit agitated by both the podcast and the AOMin review and wrote up a rebuttal. You can find my rebuttal to the interviewer's points at the end of the podcast on their facebook page (Issues Etc.) under my name, Jarred L. Mitchell, from their November 15 posting.<br /><br />I also went to the AOMin's facebook page with rebuttals against Mr. White's derogatory tone. During the posting debate or flaming, as it were, I was referred to Mr. White's "Min is Not God" write-up from 2012. I find it inflammatory what he stated in the article, as he used quotes or partial quotes from others. Included in this was one from a 1977 book, but was updated in 1994, but not used in the aforementioned article. Whether thi is due to oversight, ignorance or outright ignoring the update, I'm not sure. Since going back to the AOMin's page, I am unable to find the November 22 posting of Mr. White's video and my postings, but the video can still be found on their youtube feed if you look for "Agnostic Mormonism".<br /><br />Included in their rebuttal to my remarks, they stated that anything from Kerry Shirts is laughable at best. Is there something that I missed in Shirts' defense of the faith that may have caused discredit upon him that you might know of?<br /><br />I am currently doing some research on Min, his "cult" and what his role in Egyptian society was. I've found various hypocephali that show him in his ithyphallic state, but there are some that don't show that portion at all on the hypocephali or, in two cases I've noted, without the ithyphallic symbolism (one without any ithyphallic organ and the Fac. 2 where it looks like an arm extended at the elbow).<br /><br />I believe that, as noted by some from the Maxwell Institute's documents, that J.S.jr was inspired to interpret the icons. While it wasn't a direct interpretation of the symbols, there are many key factors, just as you described in this post here, that show many concepts that provide deeper insight into what was revealed to him.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00730427619382902966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-92053603590932756352013-11-22T03:53:42.696-06:002013-11-22T03:53:42.696-06:00Very cool! Shulem could be something other than an...Very cool! Shulem could be something other than an embarrassing gaffe. Interesting. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com