Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[Marcus]

Oh come on. These excuses are getting ludicrous. "Re-purposing" a stone to use in a different building is not in any way a phenomenon analogous to what Smith did with the papyrus. These are just post-hoc rationalizations, and they reflect a need to make Smith's behavior look appropriate.

[Kishkumen]

Oh come on. These excuses are getting ludicrous. "Re-purposing" a stone to use in a different building is not in any way a phenomenon analogous to what Smith did with the papyrus. These are just post-hoc rationalizations, and they reflect a need to make Smith's behavior look appropriate.

To the contrary, repurposing is the simple definition of what he did. You can add any other applicable term, but to say that he did not repurpose the papyri? That’s silly.

[Shulem]

But that does not change the fact that he did repurpose them.

re·pur·pose
adapt for use in a different purpose

Joseph Smith claimed to translate the hieroglyphic writing in a literal sense by translating the meaning of characters from Egyptian to English. There is no repurposing from his point of view and the claims he made when he pointed at characters and identified them as the very signature of Abraham.

If anyone had asked the prophet if he was repurposing the characters for a different purpose he would have denied that. I don't see why you have a problem accepting the simple fact that he did not demonstrate he was repurposing the papyri. It absolutely does matter that Smith would not claim to repurpose the papyri because it proves he was a fraud. And that is what matters -- Joseph Smith is a proven fraud because he could not translate or interpret Egyptian as he claimed he could by the Spirit of God and his gift of translation he pretended to possess.

Now, with that said, I can offer an example of when Joseph Smith actually did repurpose the papyri -- he did so knowingly and with the malicious intent to deceive the Latter Day Saints in a coverup. When he had Hedlock scrape off the nose of Anubis on the lead plate in order to convert him into his negro slave it was Smith's intent to repurpose that person. THAT is an example of Joseph Smith repurposing the papyri. The apologetic nonsense of repurposing under a universal umbrella is for the sole purpose of denying Smith's claims and opting for a Catalyst theory -- something Smith would have rejected based on the evidence and everything he said.

Deceit and lying go hand in hand.

PS. I just called Joseph Smith a liar.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Oh come on. These excuses are getting ludicrous. "Re-purposing" a stone to use in a different building is not in any way a phenomenon analogous to what Smith did with the papyrus. These are just post-hoc rationalizations, and they reflect a need to make Smith's behavior look appropriate.

To the contrary, repurposing is the simple definition of what he did. You can add any other applicable term, but to say that he did not repurpose the papyri? That’s silly.

I took it as Marcus just commenting on the absurdity of the con and subsequent apologetics.

The larping gets tiresome.

[hauslern]

Does repurpose mean he just made it up? He did not have a clue what was an accurate description of the facsimiles. Was it fraudulent?
Look at the numbers in facsimile 2 "cannot be revealed unto the world" "ought not be revealed at the present time" "will be given in the own due time" Shows he could not translate the writing and run out of repurposing ideas.

"So fig. 5 of fac. 3 Joseph Smith says, "Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, AS REPRESENTED BY THE CHARACTERS ABOVE HIS HAND." (emphasis added). So Joseph Smith is saying it's a translation and even points to the very text that he's translating. He got it completely wrong, of course".

Joseph Smith also mentions the characters above figures 2 and 4 (which are not as legibly copied as fig. 5) so he's CLEARLY saying that this very facsimile is the one he's translating from the written language that s on that very facsimile. All this "repurposed" BS completely contradicts both Joseph Smith and canonized LDS scripture" Diana McMillan.

[Shulem]

To the contrary, repurposing is the simple definition of what he did. You can add any other applicable term, but to say that he did not repurpose the papyri? That’s silly.

In general terms it was NOT Smith's purpose to repurpose anything unless he had reason to hide something such as Anubis's nose. Smith did NOT repurpose the hieroglyphs above King Pharaoh or the hieroglyphs that spell the name Shulem. He claimed to translate them from Egyptian to English.

re·pur·pose
adapt for use in a different purpose

pur·pose
noun
the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
"the purpose of the meeting is to appoint a trustee"

verb
have as one's intention or objective.
"God has allowed suffering, even purposed it"


Thus we see that Joseph Smith claimed to translate the papyri, not repurpose it!

[Shulem]

Does repurpose mean he just made it up? He did not have a clue what was an accurate description of the facsimiles. Was it fraudulent?

Well, the simple fact that none of Joseph Smith's translations are hung on the wall of any museum seems to suggest that he made it all up and that his work is a proven fraud.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell, I'd say.

[Marcus]

Does repurpose mean he just made it up? He did not have a clue what was an accurate description of the facsimiles. Was it fraudulent?

Well, the simple fact that none of Joseph Smith's translations are hung on the wall of any museum seems to suggest that he made it all up and that his work is a proven fraud.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell, I'd say.

I agree. Repurpose means to use in a different way than intended, and Smith clearly indicated he thought he was translating the papyri. The fact that he failed at that is somehow giving people rhe idea that this opens the door for an interpretation that somehow preserves his role as some divine purveyor of scripture. In other words, a starting assumption must be justified as a result--which is never a valid argument.

It's no different than a student of mine, arguing after an exam has been graded, that they failed to solve a calculus question because they "repurposed" the problem. According to the insupportable idea being argued here, they did "repurpose" it. Do they get credit for the question? Obviously not. Their intent was clear and no amount of post-hoc justification is going to show me they can do that calculus problem, nor does their "repurposing" argument bring anything to the table in terms of understanding their efforts, or believing they can do calculus. Insisting that Smith's activity be called a 'repurposing' is just severity softening. It doesn't accurately portray the event, and it seems to be done with an intent to soften or justify, somehow, Smith's behavior.

[hauslern]

In the restoration of facsimile there is evidence of fraud.

Here is the state of facsimile 2 sketch
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f7Y ... 4Sbbg/edit

The part that appears in the gap in the published in facsimile 2 in the right hand top was taken from the figure bottom right of this papyri.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-87 ... sp=sharing

In examples of the hypocephalus held in the British Museum they all seem to have a figure in a boat with an insect.
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 5hzRooFkQA

[Shulem]

I agree. Repurpose means to use in a different way than intended, and Smith clearly indicated he thought he was translating the papyri.

"INTENDED" being the key word because in order for someone to repurpose something they they have to have purpose in doing it. To repurpose something is to commit acts in that regard and adapt for use in a different purpose.

Repurpose and purpose go hand in hand and what Kish and the apologists suggest does not reflect what Joseph Smith was doing or describe the outcome based on his intended creation.

pur·pose
noun
the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

verb
have as one's intention or objective.