huckelberry wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2023 4:52 pmShulem, 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.