Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[Shulem]

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.

Huck,

I don't think RI is legally accurate and is in error. I further state my case with this:


Vocabulary.com:

Q. Is repurpose a new word?
A. The word first appeared around 1983, from re-, "anew," and purpose, "to have as an objective or intention." "Repurpose."

Q. What is an example of repurposing in linguistics?
A. Another way we tend to develop new words is by taking existing nouns or adjectives and repurposing them as verbs. For instance, where a circle of professional contacts was once a “network” (a noun), now developing such connections is itself a verb: “networking.”

Repurposing is the use of something for a purpose other than its original intended use. Repurposing an item can be done by modifying it to fit a new use, or by using the item as is in a new way.


Joseph Smith the translator is not a qualified candidate in which to apply the term. His objective and intention was to translate the Egyptian characters from the papyri and convert them into the English language. That has absolutely nothing to do with repurposing. Everything Joseph Smith ever said and those who witnessed his work would not accept the modern term "repurpose" for having anything to do with his Egyptian translation. And in hindsight we should not afford the luxury for apologists to apply this term to that work because it doesn't fit. It's just another apologetic trick to wiggle away from the fact that Smith was making stuff up, lying to his people, and was possessed by a lying Spirit.


PS. Hey, Kish, I just called Joseph Smith a liar, again.

[Shulem]

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.

It's the anything goes scenarios which I object to.

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.

Thanks

[huckelberry]

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.

Huck,

I don't think RI is legally accurate and is in error. I further state my case with this:


Vocabulary.com:

Q. Is repurpose a new word?
A. The word first appeared around 1983, from re-, "anew," and purpose, "to have as an objective or intention." "Repurpose."

Q. What is an example of repurposing in linguistics?
A. Another way we tend to develop new words is by taking existing nouns or adjectives and repurposing them as verbs. For instance, where a circle of professional contacts was once a “network” (a noun), now developing such connections is itself a verb: “networking.”

Repurposing is the use of something for a purpose other than its original intended use. Repurposing an item can be done by modifying it to fit a new use, or by using the item as is in a new way.


Joseph Smith the translator is not a qualified candidate in which to apply the term. His objective and intention was to translate the Egyptian characters from the papyri and convert them into the English language. That has absolutely nothing to do with repurposing. Everything Joseph Smith ever said and those who witnessed his work would not accept the modern term "repurpose" for having anything to do with his Egyptian translation. And in hindsight we should not afford the luxury for apologists to apply this term to that work because it doesn't fit. It's just another apologetic trick to wiggle away from the fact that Smith was making stuff up, lying to his people, and was possessed by a lying Spirit.


PS. Hey, Kish, I just called Joseph Smith a liar, again.

Shulem, you are completely correct in my view to point out, emphasize, the large distance between the word repurpose and what Joseph Smith actually claimed, presented and convinced his followers was happening.

In fact the word repurpose may be valuable to make clear that distance between the claim of what happened and and what actually happened. I suppose somebody might try to use the word to smooth over that craggy divide. I doubt the paint is thick enough to make that cover.

[Shulem]

Shulem, you are completely correct in my view to point out, emphasize, the large distance between the word repurpose and what Joseph Smith actually claimed, presented and convinced his followers was happening.

In fact the word repurpose may be valuable to make clear that distance between the claim of what happened and and what actually happened. I suppose somebody might try to use the word to smooth over that craggy divide. I doubt the paint is thick enough to make that cover.

I believe that my case is made in showing that use of the word "repurpose" does not fit this particular situation and really doesn't even work when looking back on hindsight because it doesn't properly take into consideration Smith's intent and purpose in which to apply the word.

Philo Sofee, I would think, would agree as given in the 5th post of this thread:

Hilarious! ANYTHING but what Joseph Smith and the eyewitnesses said. Their revelations didn't give us truth, today's Mopologists know the truth, trust them...

If it's a square peg and a round hole, then round that peg, but pretend it is still that original and true square shape, and mash er in the hole boys...

Sandra Tanner is ENTIRELY VINDICATED. "We won!" she said. The evidence is right before our eyes. Just wow, what a day of celebration!

[Kishkumen]

Repurpose is a perfect word for what Smith did with the papyri. It is only unattractive to those who fear a potential rhetorical win by the apologists. Shulem needs to describe the situation with charged, pejorative rhetoric to be happy. Anything that sounds too neutral risks someone missing how terrible a person Joseph Smith was. The whole thing is quite funny. I appreciate that Shulem sticks by his obvious, heavy bias, which also has to be rewarding for his fellow travelers.

[Shulem]

Repurpose is a perfect word for what Smith did with the papyri. It is only unattractive to those who fear a potential rhetorical win by the apologists. Shulem needs to describe the situation with charged, pejorative rhetoric to be happy. Anything that sounds too neutral risks someone missing how terrible a person Joseph Smith was. The whole thing is quite funny. I appreciate that Shulem sticks by his obvious, heavy bias, which also has to be rewarding for his fellow travelers.

What a dodo you are. Did you learn that in dodo school?

[Moksha]

Repurpose is a perfect word for what Smith did with the papyri.

Would "make up a bogus story about the papyri" be equally as valid or would one take precedence over the other?

[Marcus]

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.

You said you needed a scholar to weigh in. But now, you're willing to let a lawyer set the bar? Why do you assume a lawyer could make a decision on your opinion as an historian or scholar? The inconsistencies in your argument here are immense.

And no, RI made some considerable errors in this discussion in his assessment of the definition of repurposing, please read the comments so that you understand this.

Your personal attacks even as others continue to make arguments on the points are sounding more and more desperate. Please just stick to the discussion at hand and leave your personal biases aside. The scholarly approach would be far more appreciated than these repeated jabs at motive and intent.

[Moksha]

Would RI know if moving the pea in a shell game to a different shell could be considered repurposing (legally speaking of course)?

[hauslern]

If the Book of Abraham is pseudepigraphy which "involves a kind of intentional deceit by an author. This is when an author writes a work claiming to be written by someone else (Abraham?) "My definition of forgery is a writing that claims to be written by someone (a known figure Abraham) who did not in fact write it" (Smith did) Ehrman p.24 Forged.

Lets face it Smith was caught in a bind. He had a reputation of translating ancient writing (Book of Mormon) and his supporters had forked out a lot of money by todays standards. He had the Bible and Josephus as sources. He did not know then that scholars would argue that Abraham was fiction, camels had not been domesticated yet. (See Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed, pp.36-47)