Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[Res Ipsa]

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.

Kish is attempting to deflect and distract by taking our eye off the ball and rousting up contention among us when such is not needed.

All we need is the facts and a clear definition of terms. The bluster and nonsense Kish raises is nothing but wind. There is little if any scholarly approach coming from him.

You've been cited the definition. Repeatedly. It's both clear and applies to the facts. You may want to narrow the definition in some way, but that doesn't change the definition itself.

[Res Ipsa]

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

I mean, if we’re nailing down the ‘right word’ to describe what he did with the papyri then I’d suggest he “abused” what I understood to be a sacrosanct religious artifact.

- Doc

I don't think there's any one "right word." I think "mistranslated" and "repurposed" are both perfectly good words that correctly described what Smith did with the papyrus. I wouldn't use "abuse" myself, given that it's what we've done with nearly all Egyptian tomb artifacts.

[Marcus]

Still wrong about your conclusions re: residential parking and the money belonging to a specific person, RI, both legally and by economic definition. We'll have to just agree to disagree, so as to not derail.

[Shulem]

I haven't "retreated" from anything.

So here you are, you're back. Okay.

You haven't added anything to the argument in several posts.

Anything? Nothing? Zip?

You're wrong again, sir. That's twice and I'm counting.

Egyptian art, text and structures have been repurposed throughout history -- by later Egyptians, by Christians, by Europeans, by Americans. Mummies had a sacred, religious significance to them. Egyptian tombs had a specific purpose in guiding the dead through the afterlife. We dug these sacred objects up and put them on public display in museum. That's repurposing.

Apples and oranges -- you make comparisons that don't work or match what we are talking about! We are not talking about tombs or monuments. We are talking about hieroglyphic text that was suppose to be translated from Egyptian into English. What part of that do you not understand, RES?

It's irrelevant that the word didn't exist in Smith's time. Or in medieval times. Or Egyptian times. It's a perfectly good word that describes taking text or art or buildings that had one purpose when they were created and later giving them a different purpose. What Smith did literally fits within the definition. That you want to use a negatively loaded term to describe what he did doesn't mean that "repurpose" is not an accurate term.

It is entirely relevant and it's entirely relevant to understand exactly what the word (repurpose) means which I have fully described in this thread. But you don't care what it means. You're making unfair comparisons and cheating the issues at hand. I don't appreciate it. I think this whole thing has gone over your head. You don't even see it!

Amazing. Just wow.

[Res Ipsa]

Still wrong about your conclusions re: residential parking and the money belonging to a specific person, RI, both legally and by economic definition. We'll have to just agree to disagree.

I harbor no illusions about changing your mind. But you and I aren't the only people participating in this discussion. You have a whole internet at your fingertips. If you can find examples that support your application of the term, go right ahead. Here's a good jumping off point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repurposing

I'd suggest that a genuine example of repurposing money would be to use it in an artistic collage. Or, you could repurpose a parking space as part of outdoor dining. In both cases, you'd have changed the use.

[Shulem]

There is nothing about the definition of the word repurpose that requires intention of any kind.

Read the thread more carefully! And you're a lawyer?

My God.

[Res Ipsa]

I haven't "retreated" from anything.

So here you are, you're back. Okay.

You haven't added anything to the argument in several posts.

Anything? Nothing? Zip?

You're wrong again, sir. That's twice and I'm counting.

Egyptian art, text and structures have been repurposed throughout history -- by later Egyptians, by Christians, by Europeans, by Americans. Mummies had a sacred, religious significance to them. Egyptian tombs had a specific purpose in guiding the dead through the afterlife. We dug these sacred objects up and put them on public display in museum. That's repurposing.

Apples and oranges -- you make comparisons that don't work or match what we are talking about! We are not talking about tombs or monuments. We are talking about hieroglyphic text that was suppose to be translated from Egyptian into English. What part of that do you not understand, RES?

It's irrelevant that the word didn't exist in Smith's time. Or in medieval times. Or Egyptian times. It's a perfectly good word that describes taking text or art or buildings that had one purpose when they were created and later giving them a different purpose. What Smith did literally fits within the definition. That you want to use a negatively loaded term to describe what he did doesn't mean that "repurpose" is not an accurate term.

It is entirely relevant and it's entirely relevant to understand exactly what the word (repurpose) means which I have fully described in this thread. But you don't care what it means. You're making unfair comparisons and cheating the issues at hand. I don't appreciate it. I think this whole thing has gone over your head. You don't even see it!

Amazing. Just wow.

Wow, yourself. Yes, you've told us over and over what you want repurpose to mean. What you haven't shown is a single definition or example from another source that supports your proposed narrowing of the term's meaning.

[Shulem]

He desecrated and appropriated the papyri.

And he manhandled the mummies and the very bones in which were attached to their bodies in a most disrespectful manner while making money showing them off.

The whole thing is disgusting and disgraceful.

[Shulem]

Wow, yourself. Yes, you've told us over and over what you want repurpose to mean. What you haven't shown is a single definition or example from another source that supports your proposed narrowing of the term's meaning.

I'm sticking to the data and story at hand which apparently you can't handle. I zero in like a laser on the very point and the only thing that matters: We are talking about Joseph Smith's intentions and purpose in translating the papyri -- from Egyptian to English.

[Res Ipsa]

There is nothing about the definition of the word repurpose that requires intention of any kind.

Read the thread more carefully! And you're a lawyer?

My God.

So, ridicule is what you've got.