Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[Kishkumen]

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 B.S.; 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

Yep. I hear you. I think your response is reasonable, even though I am not in 100% agreement with all the particulars.

[Kishkumen]

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

I am not in favor of removing any part of the present LDS canon. No part of the Biblical canon need be removed just because it does not conform to current views. The same goes for Mormon scripture. Removing the facsimiles and/or chapter 1 would be a colossal mistake.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

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 B.S.; 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

Yep. I hear you. I think your response is reasonable, even though I am not in 100% agreement with all the particulars.

That's cool. To help me and the board and lurkers understand your nuanced view of the issue, would you mind just writing out a few sentences to 'summarize' your nuanced view of the matter?

- Doc

[Shulem]

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.

Exactly, in order to repurpose something there has to be intent to objectively do so. To change the purpose of something that already exist in order to meet the needs of something else there must be intent to objectively do so. The only person who could have done so was Joseph Smith. But Smith said nothing about repurposing and changing the meaning of hieroglyphic texts and images to represent his version of translation.

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.

Right. The ridiculous assertion by Kish and apologists that Smith repurposed the papyri flies in the face of the very definition of "repurpose" which requires the conscious effort and intent to change something for a new purpose. I don't understand why someone of such academics (Kish) fails to understand this. He's stuck in some kind of tunnel vision and does not grasp it.

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.

To repurpose requires action on the part of the person who intends to change whatever it is they are changing. Smith did not claim to change anything. He did not claim to repurpose anything. He claimed to literally translate the papyri from Egyptian to English and restore the original. In order to apply the word repurpose to Joseph Smith's work it requires showing how he purposed to do so!

Kish and the apologists fail to do that.

[Marcus]

In looking at some articles about hieroglyphs, this popped up. Published in 2019. Mormons mis-educating Mormons.

Meridian Magazine

The Miraculous Translation of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs
By Jeffrey Marsh · April 3, 2019

Joseph Smith was the first person in modern history to translate a complete book from ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters. The hieroglyphic Egyptian script was an extinct, dead language at the time of the Restoration. Even the Egyptians had lost the ability to read the hieroglyphics etched into their ageless temples and tombs. In fact, no one on earth could read the Egyptian markings on the famous Rosetta Stone (see photo below) when it was discovered in 1799, by Napoleon’s soldiers, in the Nile Delta at Rosetta, Egypt.

Egyptian hieroglyphic writing was an untranslatable, lost language—but the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, and the deciphering of its Egyptian characters in 1822, was the key that ultimately unlocked an understanding of ancient Egyptian. It took French scholars 20 years to translate one paragraph from the Rosetta Stone. At the same time, the Prophet Joseph Smith translated the 531-page Book of Mormon from ancient Egyptian characters—but he finished his translation in just two months.

The Prophet has never been recognized nor given academic credit for the miraculous feat of being not only the first person to translate an entire tome from ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, but to complete the translation in so short a time. It was a miraculous achievement. It happened precisely as the Savior declared to Isaiah that it would—that the translation of the Book of Mormon would be a miracle, done by the Savior Himself: “I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, yea, a marvelous work and a wonder” (Isaiah 29:14 and 2 Ne. 27:26).

As mentioned, it took French scholars 20 years (1803-1822) to decode a single paragraph of the ancient Egyptian writing inscribed on the Rosetta Stone (the top third of the characters on the stone).

Here are some quick Wikipedia facts about the Rosetta Stone....

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/the-mirac ... eroglyphs/

[Bolding added.]

My eyes can't roll enough.

[Res Ipsa]

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 resedential 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.)

I disagree. The definition of "repurpose" is "adapt for use in a different purpose." Nothing in the definition implies consideration of subjective intent. As an example, evolution "repurposes" structures for different uses than they were originally adapted for. Evolution has no subjective intention.

In your examples:The stolen money is still being used as money. The parking spot is still being used as a parking spot. Neither involves repurposing.

I don't think there is anything wrong with describing what Joseph Smith did as claiming to translate the scrolls while actually repurposing them.

[Shulem]

I am not in favor of removing any part of the present LDS canon. No part of the Biblical canon need be removed just because it does not conform to current views. The same goes for Mormon scripture. Removing the facsimiles and/or chapter 1 would be a colossal mistake.

Canonizing the modern day Book of Abraham with its false history of *when* and *how* Egypt came to be along with the slanderous Explanations of the Facsimiles is a travesty. It's time for the Church to make amends and apologize. It's time to repent and make things right. It's time to restore Anubis's nose and stop mocking sacred writings and iconography of another religion.

Kish, you are wrong, very, very, wrong. You should be ashamed.

My 13-minute Facsimile No 3 Podcast explains rather thoroughly what Facsimile No. 3 is all about.

[Shulem]

I disagree. The definition of "repurpose" is "adapt for use in a different purpose." Nothing in the definition implies consideration of subjective intent. As an example, evolution "repurposes" structures for different uses than they were originally adapted for. Evolution has no subjective intention.

In order to repurpose something their must be *purpose* and intent in doing so -- it requires action coupled with conscious intent. It is the person or persons who repurpose things not people in the future looking back and saying they repurposed something without original intent to do so.

What part of that do you not understand?

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.

I don't think there is anything wrong with describing what Joseph Smith did as claiming to translate the scrolls while actually repurposing them.

But he did not repurpose them. He got it wrong. He falsely misrepresented the papyri and was in error. He claimed his whole purpose was to translate them correctly and restore the original meaning. There was no repurpose!

[Marcus]

...*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....

In your examples... The parking spot is still being used as a parking spot. Neither involves repurposing....

I see you have never parked in Manhattan. Try telling the residents that their residential parking spot that is now illegally occupied by a commercial vehicle is still being used for its intended purpose. Be sure to stand well back as you inform them of this!

Same for Steve Martin's cash. The point of Steve's money is for Steve to be able to spend it. Steve Martin isn't spending his cash if his thief is. Your argument also fails for Smith. His 'translation' is still words, so the papyrus is technically not being 'repurposed', right?

Eta: I see shulem has covered this with his comments about intent, purpose, and re-purpose.

[Shulem]

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

verb
have as one's intention or objective.

• Joseph Smith created the Book of Abraham by translating the papyri from Egyptian into English

• Joseph Smith's intention or objective was to translate the papyri from Egyptian into English

verb
adapt for use in a different purpose.

• Joseph Smith did NOT repurpose the papyri.