Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[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.

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.

I already did. And the definition is 'intended use.' I've provided sufficient examples, for which there is significant legal and economic policy support but feel free to comb the internet yourself.

Back to the topic.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

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

He desecrated and appropriated the papyri.

I agree. If we’re interested in getting the best descriptions of what he did, then those work well.

- Doc

[Shulem]

That's fine. But please don't accuse me of running away from a discussion simply because I have real life things to do.

It seemed that you had.

Now, I need to get back to my real life things too.

Ta!

[Marcus]

There's nothing to get, Shulem. You're playing Humpty Dumpty -- changing the definition of a perfectly good word because you don't like the fact that it applies to what Smith did.

Then we will just have to agree to disagree. Right?

Have a nice day.

The humpty dumpty argument cracks me up. Fraud, con, and fakery were perfectly good words to describe Smith's activities, but apologists don't like the fact that they apply to what Smith did-- and viola, a new, severity-softening word emerges: 're-purposing.'

[Shulem]

The humpty dumpty argument cracks me up. Fraud, con, and fakery were perfectly good words to describe Smith's activities, but apologists don't like the fact that they apply to what Smith did-- and viola, a new, severity-softening word emerges: 're-purposing.'

Yeah, like it was never Smith's intention or purpose to repurpose the text other than to simply convert it from Egyptian to English.

It's hard to conceive the stupidity I've witnessed in this thread....

[hauslern]

Maybe Ipsa should join Trump's legal team and "repurpose" Trump's Jan 6th speech. It was free speech not inciting a mob to go and stop Pence from processing the transfer. Someone once said to me that Nibley was more a lawyer than a scholar trying to get his client off the hook.

[Res Ipsa]

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.

I already did. And the definition is 'intended use.' I've provided sufficient examples, for which there is significant legal and economic policy support but feel free to comb the internet yourself.

Back to the topic.

No, the definition of "repurpose" is not "intended use." Here are several examples:

Oxford: adapt for use in a different purpose.
Merriam Webster: to give a new purpose or use to
Collins: If you repurpose something, you use it for a different purpose from that for which it was originally used.

Nothing in the definition requires that person who repurposes something even understand what the original purpose was. Here is an example of repurposing Egyptian hieroglyphics as a writing system for a different language. No knowledge of what the hieroglyphics meant was necessary to repurpose the existing symbols.

All that is required is to give something (the writing and figures on the scrolls) a new purpose (the contents of the Book of Abraham) that differs from the original purpose (Egyptian funeary text).

Yes, you've asserted that there is "significant legal and economic policy support" but you haven't provided any evidence or examples of that support. You haven't provided any legal or economic support for your attempt to narrow the definition of "repurpose" from its plain meaning.

Back to the topic.

[Res Ipsa]

Then we will just have to agree to disagree. Right?

Have a nice day.

The humpty dumpty argument cracks me up. Fraud, con, and fakery were perfectly good words to describe Smith's activities, but apologists don't like the fact that they apply to what Smith did-- and viola, a new, severity-softening word emerges: 're-purposing.'

Well, yes, critics of LDS apologists prefer to use pejorative terms to describe just about anything Smith did. That's not surprising. It's also not surprising that apologists would prefer positive or at least neutral terms to describe what Smith did. That doesn't mean that using the term "repurpose" to describe what Smith did a misuse of the term.

[Res Ipsa]

The humpty dumpty argument cracks me up. Fraud, con, and fakery were perfectly good words to describe Smith's activities, but apologists don't like the fact that they apply to what Smith did-- and viola, a new, severity-softening word emerges: 're-purposing.'

Yeah, like it was never Smith's intention or purpose to repurpose the text other than to simply convert it from Egyptian to English.

It's hard to conceive the stupidity I've witnessed in this thread....

The term "repurpose" doesn't speak to Smith's intent. It speaks to what he did. You can still talk about Smith's intent all you want. That doesn't invalidate use of the term itself.

[Res Ipsa]

Maybe Ipsa should join Trump's legal team and "repurpose" Trump's Jan 6th speech. It was free speech not inciting a mob to go and stop Pence from processing the transfer. Someone once said to me that Nibley was more a lawyer than a scholar trying to get his client off the hook.

Like you're the first person ever who responded to a substantive argument I make by taking a swipe at my profession.