Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[Kishkumen]

Time to go back to church and pay your 10% and confess your sins.

Kishy goes first!

Thank you for illustrating the nature of the false dilemma PERFECTLY.

[Res Ipsa]

You guys are talking in circles. Smith most definitely repurposed the papyri. In antiquity the papyri had one purpose. He put them to another purpose. What gets you guys worked up is that he did not explain to others that this is what he was doing. That is because he called what he did translating. I really don’t care what anyone believes or does not believe about any of that. You are free to surmise that his process is evidence of dishonesty or fraud. You can also believe that whatever his process was should be understood as part of the act of translation. In either case, Smith objectively did repurpose the ancient papyri by modifying them and reinterpreting them in an idiosyncratic way.

Perhaps resistance to the label "repurpose" is tied to an assumption that it somehow legitimizes what he did. I think "repurpose" is a literally correct label for what he did with the material on the scrolls. What he was thinking when he repurposed them and whether he was honest with others about what he did are, in my opinion, completely separate questions.

I have a negative gut reaction when I hear the Book of Mormon described as pseudepigrapha. I think it's the notion that giving the book a Latin label somehow makes it authentic. But the book literally fits the definition -- a book whose actual author attributes it to a figure from the past.

[Shulem]

Time to go back to church and pay your 10% and confess your sins.

Kishy goes first!

Thank you for illustrating the nature of the false dilemma PERFECTLY.

I've got a deal just for you!



Joseph Smith Sr. & Son

[Kishkumen]

Perhaps resistance to the label "repurpose" is tied to an assumption that it somehow legitimizes what he did. I think "repurpose" is a literally correct label for what he did with the material on the scrolls. What he was thinking when he repurposed them and whether he was honest with others about what he did are, in my opinion, completely separate questions.

I have a negative gut reaction when I hear the Book of Mormon described as pseudepigrapha. I think it's the notion that giving the book a Latin label somehow makes it authentic. But the book literally fits the definition -- a book whose actual author attributes it to a figure from the past.

Exactly. I agree. Ideally, scholars are interested in understanding, not applying distracting pejoratives. The need to apply such pejoratives is attractive to a person seeking to reaffirm the rejection of their former religious convictions.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hrm. If con man, pious fraud, and fraud don’t work, then what does?

- Doc

There are other models to look at for comparanda. Shamans are good to look at. But the point here, at least for me, is that real understanding does not emerge from a rush to find a convenient label, especially an obviously pejorative one.

Friend, there was absolutely no rush to find a label on my part. with regard to to Joseph Smith specifically, you would apply shaman to him and the production of the Book of Abraham?

- Doc

[Kishkumen]

Friend, there was absolutely no rush to find a label on my part. with regard to to Joseph Smith specifically, you would apply shaman to him and the production of the Book of Abraham?

- Doc

It is definitely one kind of religious expert I would use as a comparandum. As I said, though, I don’t think understanding comes from a rush to apply labels.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Friend, there was absolutely no rush to find a label on my part. with regard to to Joseph Smith specifically, you would apply shaman to him and the production of the Book of Abraham?

- Doc

It is definitely one kind of religious expert I would use as a comparandum. As I said, though, I don’t think understanding comes from a rush to apply labels.

I can see where someone would ascribe shamanic behaviors to Joseph Smith. In my own experience with acid and mushrooms the mind tends to broaden a bit with regard to how it perceives reality both during and after the experience. I can see how, creatively and philosophically, Joseph Smith might view the papyri as a catalyst toward biblical scholarship - for ex. the GAEL.

That said, the Book of Abraham is so structured and narrative driven that, again for me, it’s obviously a fictional account. My pragmatism leaves me with that, even though my understanding is that Joseph Smith was totally infused with a folk magic worldview. Perhaps Joseph Smith believed his own BS; it’s easy to go down the woo road, especially with hallucinogens being a part of one’s life. And I can see how people might believe Joseph Smith was a pious fraud. I’m too cynical for that because the fruits of Joseph Smith’s behaviors were, at their core, selfish.

- Doc

[Shulem]

It seems that everyone pretty much agrees the Facsimiles should be removed from LDS canon and Skousen has affirmed that. I think it's safe to say that McGuire would also approve such action in getting rid of the Facsimiles.

Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya

So, I have to think that everyone in this thread is fine with that. But how about chapter one of the Book of Abraham? Shouldn't the church get rid of that too seeing it's obviously a fraudulent representation of *how* and *when* Egypt was first established? It's one thing to make up stories about pretended people such as Job or even Abraham but to maintain made-up stories about how and when a nation was founded when science proves otherwise is not an honest approach, let alone a healthy one.

Kishy? Are you in favor of the idea of the Church pulling chapter one?

All in favor, please manifest...

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

[Shulem]

I never questioned his great contribution to Egyptology. He was also bigoted against Mormonism and a class-A Book of Abraham critic. Indeed, the best ever. The GOAT, as it were.

Now you're just being vicious.

[Marcus]

A distinction needs to be made, if the insistence is going to continue that Smith objectively did "repurpose" the papyri. What he actually did was "repurpose" the writings on the papyri. And if he had translated them accurately, what he did wouldn't be called a 'repurposing' because he would have used them properly.

So, in that sense, using the term "repurposed" inherently must include the discussion about why. It's not a simple, objective definition, in that sense, it's a term that must include a discussion on motives and intent, which Shulem and others have pretty clearly covered.

My point remains that calling "repurposing" an objective term is incorrect. The term 'repurposing' describes an action (unlike the noun pseudepigrapha), and insistence on defining this use as an objective descriptor only *softens the severity of what actually happened. It is a stand-alone term that obfuscates rather than clarifies.


(*In the movie, LA Story, Steve Martin's ATM cash withdrawal is repurposed by the person standing next to him. i.e. He was robbed.

*Parking is at a shortage in Manhattan. Commercial vehicles that park in residential areas are repurposing parking spots. i.e., truck was slapped with a $300 parking ticket.

*The examples of such obfuscation as severity softening are endless.)