Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[Res Ipsa]

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!

I disagree. The original purpose of the scrolls was for use in a an Egyptian funeral rite. Smith repurposed them to tell the story found in the Book of Abraham. That’s the change in purpose. That he was mistaken about their original purpose doesn’t change the fact that he used them for a purpose that differed from their original purpose.

[Marcus]

The definition of "repurpose" is "adapt for use in a different purpose."

So, since Smith did not know their original purpose, Smith could not have 're-purposed' them.

It's becoming more and more clear that the use of this term is an apologetic, post-hoc attempt at softening the severity of Smith's behavior. It requires more and more tangled definitions, sub-definitions, and totally unique definitions of definitions in order to keep pushing this idea, and it's not helpful in understanding the events.

[Shulem]

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.





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!

I disagree. The original purpose of the scrolls was for use in a an Egyptian funeral rite. Smith repurposed them to tell the story found in the Book of Abraham. That’s the change in purpose. That he was mistaken about their original purpose doesn’t change the fact that he used them for a purpose that differed from their original purpose.

No. No. No! You are wrong.

Smith didn't know the original purpose of the scroll and therefore he could have not knowingly repurpose them because he claimed to represent them in their original meaning. But he invented a story out of whole cloth while pretending to translate Egyptian into English. That was his intent and that was his purpose. Period! Smith did not claim to change anything! He claimed to restore what was on the papyri in the same way that the Egyptians understood it. There was no repurposing coming from Smith -- only fraud and deceit through his own creative thinking.

[Shulem]

The definition of "repurpose" is "adapt for use in a different purpose."

So, since Smith did not know their original purpose, Smith could not have 're-purposed' them.

It's becoming more and more clear that the use of this term is an apologetic, post-hoc attempt at softening the severity of Smith's behavior. It requires more and more tangled definitions, sub-definitions, and totally unique definitions of definitions in order to keep pushing this idea, and it's not helpful in understanding the events.

Yeah, the misuse of the word "repurpose" as an apologetic is pretty bad. I've done my best to try and explain it but if people want to be dumb, so be it.

Jesus.

[Shulem]

That’s the change in purpose. That he was mistaken about their original purpose doesn’t change the fact that he used them for a purpose that differed from their original purpose.

But it wasn't Smith's purpose so he is not a qualified candidate for the term "repurpose."

[Shulem]

So, since Smith did not know their original purpose, Smith could not have 're-purposed' them.

His only PURPOSE was to restore them to their original meaning. That was his purpose. There was no repurpose on his behalf. The idea of a repurpose comes from those a hundred years later who know he got it wrong. But Smith did not repurpose anything -- he PURPOSED it as the original.

I'm glad you're here, Marcus.

[Marcus]

So, since Smith did not know their original purpose, Smith could not have 're-purposed' them.

His only PURPOSE was to restore them to their original meaning. That was his purpose. There was no repurpose on his behalf. The idea of a repurpose comes from those a hundred years later who know he got it wrong. But Smith did not repurpose anything -- he PURPOSED it as the original.

I'm glad you're here, Marcus.

Thank you! I'm glad you are here too. : D

[huckelberry]

Ben is giving me a headache He latest contribution on the MAD board

"1: In their original context, I don't think that there was anything to do with Abraham on the papyri. I think that we could speculate endlessly about why Joseph Smith connected the papyri to Abraham - but, once he did so, he repurposed the material and images to a new purpose."

Does anyone make sense of this?

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75 ... /#comments

Ben is acknowledging what anyone who is not a BYU Egyptologist or fan of them, already knows or is willing to say, the papyri say nothing about Abraham and Smith didn't know how to translate any foreign language. He does not want to guess why Smith said the papyri was connected for obvious reasons. All rational explanations challenge Smiths roll as a prophetic translator as currently believed by the faithful and lead to even more uncomfortable conclusions.

Faithful scholars publicly saying this stuff represents a big move away from legacy of Hugh Nibley. I am seeing more and more of such admissions regarding Smiths actual ability to translate.

Fence Sitter you seem to have an accurate take here. It is almost comic how this tread misses this and frets and worries about the inaccuracies that appear in what Joseph Smith made up. Kishkumen sees inaccuracies as permitted when making stuff up and Shulem does not like the idea of such permission.
//////////
Joseph Smith repurposing the papyri was introduced from Ben. Shulem was horrified that that would mean Ben believed some of the unrealistic history. I did not see reason to think Ben believed the literal history but I do not follow him to know. I cannot imaging repurposing means the result is true literal history. All it means to my understanding is that the origian purpose was to help dead indivdual handle being dead. Joseph Smith made a new purpose as cover or catalyst for creating the Book of Abraham so LDS would have scripture to keep the priesthood from Africans ( people living in America with dark skin)

[Shulem]

Kishkumen sees inaccuracies as permitted when making stuff up and Shulem does not like the idea of such permission.

My biggest concern is that we don't allow the word repurpose to become a new apologetic buzzword which as Marcus explained only serves to soften the blow on Smith's mistakes and doesn't rightly show intent to repurpose on Smith's part. That concerns me. Now, I realize that from a certain point of view looking backward in time as a historian that it could be construed in a way that Smith repurposed the meaning of the papyri because his interpretation was different than the original. But as historians we don't have the right to do that because the original intent and purpose that Smith had doesn't reflect Smith's intention on making a change other than lopping off poor Anubis's nose.

So, with that said, we have to approach things from the same way that Oliver Cowdery and the Latter Day Saints of that time and conclude that Smith did not repurpose anything but claimed to restore the original. So there was no repurpose performed by Smith and it was understood that his translations and interpretations were direct and correct restorations of what the Egyptians believed.

Why can't we just say, "Smith got it wrong?"

I'm trying to be fair about all this...

[Kishkumen]

I disagree. The original purpose of the scrolls was for use in a an Egyptian funeral rite. Smith repurposed them to tell the story found in the Book of Abraham. That’s the change in purpose. That he was mistaken about their original purpose doesn’t change the fact that he used them for a purpose that differed from their original purpose.

Yep! Simple as pie. The rest of these mental gymnastics are hilarious.