Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[Shulem]

I'm sorry he brought up that tired old ad hom attack yet again.

I reported it, we'll see what happens. When Kishkumen tried the same type of attack in this thread earlier, the thread was split and his personal attack was moved to Telestial. By--guess who. You would think he knew the rules better than that, but everyone's human, i suppose.

Carry on, Shulem! : D

Res is human and subject to making bad choices and mistakes as we all are. There are several places on this message board where I have emphatically stated that I am no longer angry with Joseph Smith and neither do I hate him personally. I do not hate Joseph Smith. I don't like what he did and I believe that right now neither does he. But that's another story.

[Shulem]

Carry on, Shulem! : D

Lesson #1:

noun

the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

verb

have as one's intention or objective

Res, do you know how to read? Can you comprehend what you read? Are you aware that the word "purpose" is part of the word "repurpose?" Can you conceive that? They go hand in hand together to compliment the underlying reason with the expansion of a new concept that is grounded in the original.

[Res Ipsa]

The definition of repurpose does not include the requirement that the repurposer be aware of the change.

Oh but it does. One can't purpose something anew unless they aware that there was something old or original to the design and idea. Look up the definition of "repurpose." You don't get to make up the rules. That's cheating.

It is a functional description of the change — not a description of someone’s internal mental state.

It is a functional description of someone knowingly and consciously making the said change. What part of that can't you seem to understood? Do you understand the meaning and definition of purpose? I've explained it several times in this thread using the rules of definition but it goes over your head.

The definition is clear and down contain the internet requirement you want to impose simply because you hate Smith.

Shut up and please remove your hate comment down to telestial. Don't do that again here in Terrestrial.

I don't hate Smith. So shut up, please.

I won’t shut up, but I removed the hate comment at your request.

I quoted the definition of “repurpose” several posts upthread. None of them include the internet requirement that you keep claiming is there. They refer to changing the people of the object — not an individual’s mental state.

Quote me a definition or anything that says that the term repurpose does not apply to an object whose purpose has been changed unless the change was subjectively intended.

[Res Ipsa]

I'm sorry he brought up that tired old ad hom attack yet again.

I reported it, we'll see what happens. When Kishkumen tried the same type of attack in this thread earlier, the thread was split and his personal attack was moved to Telestial. By--guess who. You would think he knew the rules better than that, but everyone's human, i suppose.

Carry on, Shulem! : D

Res is human and subject to making bad choices and mistakes as we all are. There are several places on this message board where I have emphatically stated that I am no longer angry with Joseph Smith and neither do I hate him personally. I do not hate Joseph Smith. I don't like what he did and I believe that right now neither does he. But that's another story.

Thanks, Shulem. I am sorry for the mischaracterization.

[Shulem]

They refer to changing the people of the object — not an individual’s mental state.

There must be a mental state and conscious thinking in order to make selections. The outcome is based on the mental state of the human mind to make a change.

Quote me a definition or anything that says that the term repurpose does not apply to an object whose purpose has been changed unless the change was subjectively intended.

The recently invented word "repurpose" can refer to an object or a concept. There must be a state of mind and a thinking process by one who is repurposing something old whether understood or not, to suit the new purpose. When there is purpose there is a subjective thought process otherwise nothing could have purpose.

verb
adapt for use in a different purpose

The mental state of the human mind is at play in order to purpose anything or to repurpose anything. Joseph Smith was not repurposing the papyri. He was restoring the original as he claimed.

[Res Ipsa]

Carry on, Shulem! : D

Lesson #1:

noun

the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

verb

have as one's intention or objective

Res, do you know how to read? Can you comprehend what you read? Are you aware that the word "purpose" is part of the word "repurpose?" Can you conceive that? They go hand in hand together to compliment the underlying reason with the expansion of a new concept that is grounded in the original.

Lesson 1: You aren’t quoting the definition of “repurpose.” You are committing the fallacy of composition — claiming that the meaning of the whole is equivalent to the meaning of the parts.

Lesson 2: You are also committing the etymological fallacy. Words are defined by modern
usage, not origins. The usage is found in the definition of the term itself.

Lesson 3: There are many senses in which the term purpose (n) is used, including “to have a use.” https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... sh/purpose Historians use the term to describe one civilization taking buildings, statues, art, and writing of another civilization and giving them a new use. They don’t require that someone have aware of the former purpose and intentionally changed it.

Lesson 4: if you have to add words to a definition to make it say what you want it to mean, then you are changing the meaning of the word.

The authors of dictionaries know how to write what they mean. It would be trivially simple to write a definition that says what you are arguing for — just add “intentional” and “knowing” the definition itself.

[Marcus]

I'm sorry he brought up that tired old ad hom attack yet again.

I reported it, we'll see what happens. When Kishkumen tried the same type of attack in this thread earlier, the thread was split and his personal attack was moved to Telestial. By--guess who. You would think he knew the rules better than that, but everyone's human, i suppose.

Carry on, Shulem! : D

Res is human and subject to making bad choices and mistakes as we all are. There are several places on this message board where I have emphatically stated that I am no longer angry with Joseph Smith and neither do I hate him personally. I do not hate Joseph Smith. I don't like what he did and I believe that right now neither does he. But that's another story.

You are too kind, Shulem. I look forward to hearing more about your thoughts on the apologetics of the Book of Abraham and other topics.

[drumdude]

I get the impression Res and Kish are writing for a wider audience than just us critics. They’re also writing to faithful Mormons. We all should be, since this forum is public. In Kish’s case he even gets emails directly from DCP which I’m sure say things like “everyone in your forum hates Joseph Smith and they’re all coming from a place of irrational hatred.” So he writes with that in mind I’m sure.

I can understand Kish and Res perhaps wanting to ensure that the forum doesn’t descend into Mormon bashing without any facts to back up the bashing. But I think in general the posters here do a pretty good job of discussing in a reasonable manner. Most of us have been hurt by Mormonism, and DCP/the church would love nothing more than for us to just disappear and never mention Mormonism online again. But if everyone stayed silent, others wouldn’t have community while they’re making their way out.

[Shulem]

Lesson 1: You aren’t quoting the definition of “repurpose.” You are committing the fallacy of composition — claiming that the meaning of the whole is equivalent to the meaning of the parts.

I was right. You are lost within a state of being lost and confused.

I can't help you. Sorry.


PS. Marcus, can you believe all this? It's simply nuts!

[Marcus]

I get the impression Res and Kish are writing for a wider audience than just us critics. They’re also writing to faithful Mormons. We all should be, since this forum is public. In Kish’s case he even gets emails directly from DCP which I’m sure say things like “everyone in your forum hates Joseph Smith and they’re all coming from a place of irrational hatred.” So he writes with that in mind I’m sure.

I can understand Kish and Res perhaps wanting to ensure that the forum doesn’t descend into Mormon bashing without any facts to back up the bashing. But I think in general the posters here do a pretty good job of discussing in a reasonable manner.

I agree. The problem I see is that Kish and Res are the only ones calling names and making accusations of this sort here. Maybe they think they are being proactive in preventing Mormon bashing but I don't see it that way. The best approach would be to stop ascribing ulterior motives to Shulem, the latest being the accusation from a mod that Shulem is posting as such because he "hates Smith."

Most of us have been hurt by Mormonism, and DCP/the church would love nothing more than for us to just disappear and never mention Mormonism online again. But if everyone stayed silent, others wouldn’t have community while they’re making their way out.

Good point.