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.
You are intellectually dishonest, Kish. You're cheating and I don't appreciate it. You are making a fool of yourself. So stop.
The Britannica Dictionary wrote:repurpose
repurposes; repurposed; repurposing
to change (something) so that it can be used for a different purpose
vocabulary.com wrote:repurpose
When you repurpose something, you use it again in an entirely new way. You might decide to repurpose rinsed-out yogurt containers to grow flower seedlings on your windowsill.
It’s OK if you don’t get it, Shulem. I think it is clear. RI understands it completely. If I were wrong, RI would not let it slide. RI is very exacting on these matters.
"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.
‘Repurposed’ is the wrong word, in my opinion. ‘Misused’ is the correct one.
Yes. Introducing, more than a century later, the argument that the papyri were simply 'repurposed' not only disguises the true story of how they were misused, but it also shows continuing disrespect for what the papyri actually represented.
‘Repurposed’ is the wrong word, in my opinion. ‘Misused’ is the correct one.
Repurpose is not the right word to use in this context because it doesn't describe what Smith was actually doing nor his intention and desired outcome which was something entirely different than what he claimed to do. What matters is what Smith claimed to be doing with the papyri. If someone had asked the prophet if he was repurposing the papyri for another purpose he would have instantly denied that and insisted his translation was literal and a restoral of the original text. Had the prophet admitted to repurposing the papyri then that would have exposed his fraudulent claims.
But in hindsight we know the papyri was not literally translated and Smith got it all wrong. We also know that it was not his intention or claim to repurpose it for another purpose. We know that he grossly misrepresented the text and was perpetuating a fraud. So, as Doctor CamNC4M points out, Smith did in fact misuse the papyri as a prop used for the sole purpose to con his followers. But it was never his intention to represent his work as repurposing Egyptian text into something other than the original meaning.
The use of the word "repurpose" by apologists is a weak excuse to admit that Smith couldn't translate but fails to admit his fraudulent claims.
‘Repurposed’ is the wrong word, in my opinion. ‘Misused’ is the correct one.
Yes. Introducing, more than a century later, the argument that the papyri were simply 'repurposed' not only disguises the true story of how they were misused, but it also shows continuing disrespect for what the papyri actually represented.
The use of the word "repurpose" by apologists is a weak excuse to admit that Smith couldn't translate but fails to admit his fraudulent claims.
Which also means that he did not have the Holy Ghost to inspire him in the ways of truth and right! Smith moved and worked in a spirit of deception. I view the chopping off of Anubis's nose and getting rid of any sketches of the original vignette of Facsimile No. 3 as a clear indication of a coverup.
Last edited by Shulem on Sat Aug 05, 2023 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It’s OK if you don’t get it, Shulem. I think it is clear. RI understands it completely. If I were wrong, RI would not let it slide. RI is very exacting on these matters.
In this case, RI is wrong. Nobody is right all the time and RI blew it this time around.
No worries. It's all good as we work this through.
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...
Shulem, i do not have any problem with saying Smith got it wrong. All the information I am aware of indicates that. I think there are various ways people may say that. One person might say he repurposed the papyri. Someone might say the papyri were a catalyst to help Joseph produce the Book of Abraham. Someone might say Joseph saw in the papyri the opportunity for a good prop.
I do not find myself with a strong preference between these. I do think you are making good observations about the story indicating it may be better to not give the story a lot of trust.
It’s OK if you don’t get it, Shulem. I think it is clear. RI understands it completely. If I were wrong, RI would not let it slide. RI is very exacting on these matters.
In this case, RI is wrong. Nobody is right all the time and RI blew it this time around.
No worries. It's all good as we work this through.
Shulem, I think RI was legally accurate. His observation does not include other consideration which you see as important. I think you are correct those other observations are important.
Is the word repurpose good sugar coating for apologetic purposes? I do not know how believing Mormons would take it. It may not be all that reassuring even to them. I only get a chuckle out of the choice of the term.
As Shulem wants to be sure people do not forget, how Joseph Smith presented the story of the papyri and the book is an important part of the story. It is an important part of the books status in LDS scripture and doctrine. The word repurpose skips over all that.
