Benjamin McGuire wrote:It simply suggests that the facsimiles were appropriated - repurposed - by Joseph Smith.
Dodo McGuire is attempting to sew new buzzwords into Mormon apologetics in a vain attempt to excuse what Joseph Smith CLAIMED to be doing. But what's next? Will he also try and convince less informed members of the church that Smith was appropriating and repurposing Egyptian history into a narrative that Egyptology and science has proven false?
Wake up, McGuire! Surely you must know that chapter one of the Book of Abraham does not tell the truth about *when* and *how* Egypt came to be. You are more than welcome to engage me on this topic. I'll show you just how weak your argument is and whether you can stand the test of truth.
Or how about you challenge the BYP (wicked witch of the east) and go on his show? Do you think you can handle that kind of heat? He is much nicer than me (wicked witch of the west) when it comes to debate.
You mean these images were not repurposed by Smith? The Egyptian creator had one purpose for them. Smith applied another purpose to them. I would call that "repurposed." What, exactly, is wrong with that description?
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
You mean these images were not repurposed by Smith? The Egyptian creator had one purpose for them. Smith applied another purpose to them. I would call that "repurposed." What, exactly, is wrong with that description?
re·pur·pose
adapt for use in a different purpose.
Joseph Smith did not intentionally repurpose the roll of Abraham and the contents therein outside the bounds of translating exactly what was supposedly recorded in the hieroglyphs -- he claimed to translate and interpret the images and iconography within the vignettes as understood ("called" or "said") by the Egyptians. The use of the word "repurpose" is a modern day construct offered by apologists who are attempting to conjure up BS excuses in defending Smith's failure to translate as *he* claimed.
From a critical point of view I could say that Smith did in fact repurpose the papyrus because everything he said about them was false -- the rolls in his possession were funerary spells designed to bless the Egyptian dead and offer praise to the gods of Egypt and glorify its pantheon.
But the modern day apologists are stuck with Smith's original claim that he wasn't repurposing anything but was restoring the lost knowledge of what was actually on those rolls.
Yes, but in point of fact he did repurpose the images. They were made for one purpose, and he put them to another purpose.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
You mean these images were not repurposed by Smith? The Egyptian creator had one purpose for them. Smith applied another purpose to them. I would call that "repurposed." What, exactly, is wrong with that description?
re·pur·pose
adapt for use in a different purpose.
Joseph Smith did not intentionally repurpose the roll of Abraham and the contents therein outside the bounds of translating exactly what was supposedly recorded in the hieroglyphs -- he claimed to translate and interpret the images and iconography within the vignettes as understood ("called" or "said") by the Egyptians. The use of the word "repurpose" is a modern day construct offered by apologists who are attempting to conjure up BS excuses in defending Smith's failure to translate as *he* claimed....
Yes, it really does just read as post-hoc excuse-making. Under this bogus 'repurposing' umbrella, when my students get a calculus problem completely and totally wrong and then use that to incorrectly analyze a public policy, their utterly meaningless and nonsensical responses could be interpreted as simply a valid 'repurposing' of the calculus and a justification for why the resulting policy conclusion, though incorrect, is simply a different variation on how calculus problems are interpreted.
Yes, but in point of fact he did repurpose the images. They were made for one purpose, and he put them to another purpose.
*He* did not claim to repurpose anything! For example, he claimed there was a king's name written in the writing in which an Egyptian would be able to read and understand.
What part of that do you not understand? The business of "repurpose" is a modern construct to attempt to justify Smith's deception. It proves he was making crap up. It proves that he was not telling the truth. It proves that his claims about what were on the papyri were 100% false.
Yes, it really does just read as post-hoc excuse-making. Under this bogus 'repurposing' umbrella, when my students get a calculus problem completely and totally wrong and then use that to incorrectly analyze a public policy, their utterly meaningless and nonsensical responses could be interpreted as simply a valid 'repurposing' of the calculus and a justification for why the resulting policy conclusion, though incorrect, is simply a different variation on how calculus problems are interpreted.
Um, no. What a ridiculous excuse.
Post-hoc being key to show that it's the apologists that are attempting to repurpose Joseph Smith! Hence they run him over with a bus.
*He* did not claim to repurpose anything! For example, he claimed there was a king's name written in the writing in which an Egyptian would be able to read and understand.
What part of that do you not understand? The business of "repurpose" is a modern construct to attempt to justify Smith's deception. It proves he was making crap up. It proves that he was not telling the truth. It proves that his claims about what were on the papyri were 100% false.
That is what I care about.
But that does not change the fact that he did repurpose them. I don't see why you have a problem accepting the simple fact that he did repurpose the papyri. With this complaint, you would reject the application of any modern term to a phenomenon in the past on the grounds that the word was not around at the time, or some such nonsense. People use modern terms for historical phenomena all the time. I could use the term terrorism of an ancient event and do so accurately, and it would be silly to say that I couldn't do so based on the fact that the word had not been invented.
It also does not really matter that Smith did not claim to repurpose the papyri. What matters is that this is what he did. It is perfectly possible for him to believe that he was translating when he was in fact repurposing the document. All that repurposing means is to take something that was intended for one purpose and turn it toward another purpose. Punkt.
Last edited by Kishkumen on Thu Aug 03, 2023 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
Indeed. And this is not an isolated kind of phenomenon. People took stones from old temples, reshaped them, and put them in the foundations and walls of Christian churches.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
