Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[Marcus]

Lol. I thought about formulating a response, but seriously, this is just an inane comment.

I’m struggling to understand Res here as well. Joseph linked the papyrus to the book and undoing that link destroys the historicity argument. Unless someone knows of any instance in recorded human history where someone produced an authentic ancient text out of thin air with the help of God, I think we are safe to say it’s not historical without some actual mechanism for it to be.

Yes, you are exactly correct. In my original statement I specified this:

I am wondering if the apologist foray into defining what Smith did with the papyri as "re-purposing" is a step toward defining Smith's [whatever?!] with the gold plates as "repurposing."

Can you imagine what that could do to the historicity argument?

The historicity argument is moot if the source is "re-purposed," as per the apologetic argument under discussion in this thread.

[drumdude]

I’m struggling to understand Res here as well. Joseph linked the papyrus to the book and undoing that link destroys the historicity argument. Unless someone knows of any instance in recorded human history where someone produced an authentic ancient text out of thin air with the help of God, I think we are safe to say it’s not historical without some actual mechanism for it to be.

Thanks for asking. You are correct about what destroys the historicity argument for the Book of Abraham. The label that you or I or Marcus or Skousen or McGuire choose to describe what Smith did changes nothing. It's the facts that counts, not the labels. Getting tied up in knots over the label "repurpose" simply distracts from the facts that show the material on the scrolls is not what Smith claimed it was.

Should LDS apologists lose their minds and claim that Joseph Smith repurposed a fictional story on non-existent plates, use of the word would not change the overwhelming evidence against historicity one iota.

With such strong evidence on the critic's side, spending effort splitting hairs over a label that changes nothing is a waste of time.

When I think about these issues, I often keep in mind the different perspectives of the believers and critics. The critics obviously don’t think it’s historical, for starters it’s widely thought that Abraham couldn’t possibly have been a historical person. That’s an external problem.

But the Mormon believer starts with the assumption that Abraham was real, and Joseph was a prophet. If the church takes the position that Joseph wasn’t translating, while saying and believing he was, that’s an internal problem.

That’s why you see more Mormons like Hanna Stodard coming out against the seer stone and against the catalyst theory. They realize that these are inconsistent with a coherent Mormon narrative:

"If we accept that Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon using a dark occultic seer stone he presumably found from an alleged career in treasure digging, scrying, and magic, this means the Book of Mormon was revealed through an occultic instrument and not by revelation and instruments provided by God."

Seer Stone v. Urim & Thummim: Book of Mormon Translation on Trial by Hanna Stoddard & The Josesh Smith Foundation

The same argument applies to the catalyst theory of the Book of Abraham. Was Joseph deceived into thinking he was translating? How can we be sure of anything if he wasn’t sure himself? It’s a big internal problem.

[huckelberry]

"repurposed"
line out of a comedy.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks for asking. You are correct about what destroys the historicity argument for the Book of Abraham. The label that you or I or Marcus or Skousen or McGuire choose to describe what Smith did changes nothing. It's the facts that counts, not the labels. Getting tied up in knots over the label "repurpose" simply distracts from the facts that show the material on the scrolls is not what Smith claimed it was.

Should LDS apologists lose their minds and claim that Joseph Smith repurposed a fictional story on non-existent plates, use of the word would not change the overwhelming evidence against historicity one iota.

With such strong evidence on the critic's side, spending effort splitting hairs over a label that changes nothing is a waste of time.

When I think about these issues, I often keep in mind the different perspectives of the believers and critics. The critics obviously don’t think it’s historical, for starters it’s widely thought that Abraham couldn’t possibly have been a historical person. That’s an external problem.

But the Mormon believer starts with the assumption that Abraham was real, and Joseph was a prophet. If the church takes the position that Joseph wasn’t translating, while saying and believing he was, that’s an internal problem.

That’s why you see more Mormons like Hanna Stodard coming out against the seer stone and against the catalyst theory. They realize that these are inconsistent with a coherent Mormon narrative:

"If we accept that Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon using a dark occultic seer stone he presumably found from an alleged career in treasure digging, scrying, and magic, this means the Book of Mormon was revealed through an occultic instrument and not by revelation and instruments provided by God."

Seer Stone v. Urim & Thummim: Book of Mormon Translation on Trial by Hanna Stoddard & The Josesh Smith Foundation

The same argument applies to the catalyst theory of the Book of Abraham. Was Joseph deceived into thinking he was translating? How can we be sure of anything if he wasn’t sure himself? It’s a big internal problem.

Oh, I agree. Once it became clear that the Book of Abraham was not a translation of the writings on the scrolls, internal consistency became a huge problem. I think they mostly try to avoid the problem by equivocating on what a “prophet” is.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

"repurposed"
line out of a comedy.

Exactly. In a sense, they’re admitting defeat and are now, as Marcus has stated repeatedly, “severity softening.” When the very foundation of your worldview is cracking up due to the weight of reality, all that’s left is either accepting it or pretending it’s not happening.

Repurposed = Making crap Up



- Doc

[Shulem]

Exactly. In a sense, they’re admitting defeat and are now, as Marcus has stated repeatedly, “severity softening.” When the very foundation of your worldview is cracking up due to the weight of reality, all that’s left is either accepting it or pretending it’s not happening.

Repurposed = Making crap Up



- Doc

"Making" is another word in showing what one is doing when purposing something into existence. It is the creative act of bringing into "purpose" whatever it is they are specifically or generally purposing. When someone "repurposes" something into existence through their creativity then they are making something new while consciously and knowingly abandoning the original purpose of the original design. Smith could not have repurposed the papyri because he claimed to restore the original and so nothing was new in that respect -- there was no "repurpose" -- only in the limited minds of apologists and those in this thread who fail to acknowledge the rules of definition. They are cheaters!

So screw them. I'm done arguing.

[Res Ipsa]

Exactly. In a sense, they’re admitting defeat and are now, as Marcus has stated repeatedly, “severity softening.” When the very foundation of your worldview is cracking up due to the weight of reality, all that’s left is either accepting it or pretending it’s not happening.

Repurposed = Making crap Up



- Doc

"Making" is another word in showing what one is doing when purposing something into existence. It is the creative act of bringing into "purpose" whatever it is they are specifically or generally purposing. When someone "repurposes" something into existence through their creativity then they are making something new while consciously and knowingly abandoning the original purpose of the original design. Smith could not have repurposed the papyri because he claimed to restore the original and so nothing was new in that respect -- there was no "repurpose" -- only in the limited minds of apologists and those in this thread who fail to acknowledge the rules of definition. They are cheaters!

So screw them. I'm done arguing.

The “rules of definition” do not include changing the definition simply because you do not want it to apply to a specific situation. The definition of repurpose does not include the requirement that the repurposer be aware of the change. It is a functional description of the change — not a description of someone’s internal mental state.

[deleted at request of Shulem — RI]

[Shulem]

The definition of repurpose does not include the requirement that the repurposer be aware of the change.

Oh but it does. One can't purpose something anew unless they aware that there was something old or original to the design and idea. Look up the definition of "repurpose." You don't get to make up the rules. That's cheating.

It is a functional description of the change — not a description of someone’s internal mental state.

It is a functional description of someone knowingly and consciously making the said change. What part of that can't you seem to understood? Do you understand the meaning and definition of purpose? I've explained it several times in this thread using the rules of definition but it goes over your head.

The definition is clear and down contain the internet requirement you want to impose simply because you hate Smith.

Shut up and please remove your hate comment down to telestial. Don't do that again here in Terrestrial.

I don't hate Smith. So shut up, please.

[Marcus]

The definition of repurpose does not include the requirement that the repurposer be aware of the change.

Oh but it does. One can't purpose something anew unless they aware that there was something old or original to the design and idea. Look up the definition of "repurpose." You don't get to make up the rules. That's cheating.

It is a functional description of the change — not a description of someone’s internal mental state.

It is a functional description of someone knowingly and consciously making the said change. What part of that can't you seem to understood? Do you understand the meaning and definition of purpose? I've explained it several times in this thread using the rules of definition but it goes over your head.

The definition is clear and down contain the internet requirement you want to impose simply because you hate Smith.

Shut up and please remove your hate comment down to telestial. Don't do that again here in Terrestrial.

I don't hate Smith. So shut up, please.

I'm sorry he brought up that tired old ad hom attack yet again.

I reported it, we'll see what happens. When Kishkumen tried the same type of attack in this thread earlier, the thread was split and his personal attack was moved to Telestial. By--guess who. You would think he knew the rules better than that, but everyone's human, i suppose.

Carry on, Shulem! : D

[Res Ipsa]

The definition of repurpose does not include the requirement that the repurposer be aware of the change.

Oh but it does. One can't purpose something anew unless they aware that there was something old or original to the design and idea. Look up the definition of "repurpose." You don't get to make up the rules. That's cheating.

It is a functional description of the change — not a description of someone’s internal mental state.

It is a functional description of someone knowingly and consciously making the said change. What part of that can't you seem to understood? Do you understand the meaning and definition of purpose? I've explained it several times in this thread using the rules of definition but it goes over your head.

The definition is clear and down contain the internet requirement you want to impose simply because you hate Smith.

Shut up and please remove your hate comment down to telestial. Don't do that again here in Terrestrial.

I don't hate Smith. So shut up, please.

You keep