Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[Marcus]

What seems like a mere excuse to some is a real interest in trying to figure out what was going on and what its significance might have been.

Are you thinking of anything specific in mind you can point to that shows they’re arguing in good faith rather than simply backed into a corner? I find it hard to believe they would be arguing for any of this if the papyrus wasn’t available for examination.

I bolded what is, in my opinion, a very key point. Much of this Book of Abraham argument is only in place because much of the papyrus is now available, and it is the failed translation that pushes it. in my opinion, it wouldn't even be discussed as an explanation if there weren't pictures of artifacts and artifacts.

[Res Ipsa]

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.

I think you're conflating a description of what Joseph Smith did with what he was thinking when he did it. Suppose I found an artifact from an ancient Native civilization, thought I understood it's purpose, used it in a way consistent with that purpose, but was simply mistaken. I still gave the artifact a different purpose from its original purpose, which is squarely within the definition of repurpose.

It's common to describe the Cannanites as repurposing Egyptian hieroglyphics to serve as an alphabet. But no one pretends to know what any person involved in that process was thinking.

Whether he understood what he was doing or not, Smith adapted the contents of the scrolls for use in a purpose (telling the story found in the Book of Abraham) that was different from its former purpose (funerary text). Again, nothing in the definition of the word itself includes the requirement that Smith subjectively understood what he was actually doing.

[Res Ipsa]

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.

LOL. You must not read what Shulem posts.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks for asking. You are correct about what destroys the historicity argument for the Book of Abraham. The label that you or I or Marcus or Skousen or McGuire choose to describe what Smith did changes nothing. It's the facts that counts, not the labels. Getting tied up in knots over the label "repurpose" simply distracts from the facts that show the material on the scrolls is not what Smith claimed it was.

Should LDS apologists lose their minds and claim that Joseph Smith repurposed a fictional story on non-existent plates, use of the word would not change the overwhelming evidence against historicity one iota.

With such strong evidence on the critic's side, spending effort splitting hairs over a label that changes nothing is a waste of time.

Puzzle,
From my reading of this thread I see all participants agree on the following. The LDS book of Abraham is not to be found in the Papyri. Joseph Smith did not translate. Joseph Smith presented his activity as translating and his followers received it as translating. The book is a product of Joseph Smiths imagination and was not written by Abraham or any other ancient person.

Everybody is in exact agreement over every substantial aspect of the question yet it is a fight to the death or some such thing.

Cabin fever?
boredom?

Not do the death. To the pain!

[Res Ipsa]

...Puzzle,
From my reading of this thread I see all participants agree on the following. The LDS book of Abraham is not to be found in the Papyri. Joseph Smith did not translate. Joseph Smith presented his activity as translating and his followers received it as translating. The book is a product of Joseph Smiths imagination and was not written by Abraham or any other ancient person.

Everybody is in exact agreement over every substantial aspect of the question yet it is a fight to the death or some such thing.

Well summarized.

Cabin fever?
boredom?

Because, even though there is "such strong evidence on the critic's side," and many have weighed and moved on, and even the originator of the discussion of term has decided to stop, *someone is persisting in "splitting hairs over a label that changes nothing" even though it is "a waste of time."

* it is someone's internal challenge at work.

Yes, heaven forbid that anyone express disagreement with Shulem and Marcus.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

You have presented a very straightforward, common sense reading of the situation, which I have no doubt apologists are very well aware of. But, in order to preserve aspects of their beliefs, some apologists are focusing on this:

"Joseph Smith presented his activity as translating and his followers received it as translating."

And are trying to redefine history into something like this:

...Joseph Smith didn't actually present his activity as translating, even though he used the word, and although some of his followers may have thought of it as translating, it really wasn't. It was "________", and therefore it doesn't matter that the actual translation of the papyrus doesn't match...

It's extraordinarily convoluted, in my opinion, and I'm sure we haven't seen the last variation on this excuse theme.

This does not do justice to what is actually happening in either apologetics or Mormon Studies scholarship. What seems like a mere excuse to some is a real interest in trying to figure out what was going on and what its significance might have been. I think a lot of critics have shallow answers to interesting problems, but these inadequate answers do the heavy lifting for dismissing Mormonism as stupid or bad, at least in their view. I recall an old friend who used to have interesting discussions online about Mormonism and even wrote some thought-provoking material about it. One day we ran into each other at a party, and I asked him about something. He curtly replied, "All this stuff gets a lot easier once you realize it's just BS."

I can accept that some people genuinely think that and feel that way. That is their prerogative. It is also demonstrably wrong. I don't care that people don't believe in what Smith was doing. I just have no use for reductive, stupid, and simple answers to complex problems.

I’d be interested in reading what you think is actually going on with the papyri with regard to Joseph Smith’s activities in a new thread, if you’re willing of course.

- Doc

[Marcus]

You have presented a very straightforward, common sense reading of the situation, which I have no doubt apologists are very well aware of. But, in order to preserve aspects of their beliefs, some apologists are focusing on this:

"Joseph Smith presented his activity as translating and his followers received it as translating."

And are trying to redefine history into something like this:

...Joseph Smith didn't actually present his activity as translating, even though he used the word, and although some of his followers may have thought of it as translating, it really wasn't. It was "________", and therefore it doesn't matter that the actual translation of the papyrus doesn't match...

It's extraordinarily convoluted, in my opinion, and I'm sure we haven't seen the last variation on this excuse theme.

This does not do justice to what is actually happening in either apologetics or Mormon Studies scholarship. What seems like a mere excuse to some is a real interest in trying to figure out what was going on and what its significance might have been. I think a lot of critics have shallow answers to interesting problems, but these inadequate answers do the heavy lifting for dismissing Mormonism as stupid or bad, at least in their view. I recall an old friend who used to have interesting discussions online about Mormonism and even wrote some thought-provoking material about it. One day we ran into each other at a party, and I asked him about something. He curtly replied, "All this stuff gets a lot easier once you realize it's just BS."

I can accept that some people genuinely think that and feel that way. That is their prerogative. It is also demonstrably wrong. I don't care that people don't believe in what Smith was doing. I just have no use for reductive, stupid, and simple answers to complex problems.

I’d be interested in reading what you think is actually going on with the papyri with regard to Joseph Smith’s activities in a new thread, if you’re willing of course.

- Doc

I would too, absolutely. I freely admit I summarized my understanding of the situation based on the apologetics presented in this thread, Shulem's other threads, and other apologetic writings elsewhere, etc. (but not on a desire to simply be dismissive as the good Reverend seems to imply--it would be great if he could stop his ad hom attacks), but if there is more to the story, I would also be interested in reading it.

[Res Ipsa]

...From my reading of this thread I see all participants agree on the following. The LDS book of Abraham is not to be found in the Papyri. Joseph Smith did not translate. Joseph Smith presented his activity as translating and his followers received it as translating. The book is a product of Joseph Smiths imagination and was not written by Abraham or any other ancient person.

Everybody is in exact agreement over every substantial aspect of the question....

I wanted to come back to your very astute comment, H, because I think you have captured the essence of some apologetic attempts.

You have presented a very straightforward, common sense reading of the situation, which I have no doubt apologists are very well aware of. But, in order to preserve aspects of their beliefs, some apologists are focusing on this:

"Joseph Smith presented his activity as translating and his followers received it as translating."

And are trying to redefine history into something like this:

...Joseph Smith didn't actually present his activity as translating, even though he used the word, and although some of his followers may have thought of it as translating, it really wasn't. It was "________", and therefore it doesn't matter that the actual translation of the papyrus doesn't match...

It's extraordinarily convoluted, in my opinion, and I'm sure we haven't seen the last variation on this excuse theme.

Now there's some actual substance. But the approach has existed for something like 50 years. When I wrote a paper on the Book of Abraham in 1977, the catalyst theory was already on the table. Apologists are always going to be able to put something in the blank in your sentence, whether its a single word or a rationalization. It doesn't strengthen their arguments in the slightest to do so, because having a label for something doesn't change or justify what happened. Whatever word they choose, Joseph Smith still told people told people Abraham's signature was on the scrolls, and told people he could translate the scrolls, and told people that the Book of Abraham was a translation of the scrolls, and none of that was true. Fill in the blank however you want -- it changes none of the essential facts.

Tactically, "repurpose" isn't exactly a winner for the apologists. A criticscan treat it as an admission that there were no undiscovered scrolls or secondary meaning embedded in the text. But if they engage in hair splitting about whether the definition applies, all of their best evidence and arguments get buried in the hair splitting. And the apologists will do exactly what I've done in this thread, only more strenuously and caustically.

So, why lead with with your chin when our friend Shulem has a truckload of cannons?

[drumdude]

I am wondering if the apologist foray into defining what Smith did with the papyri as "re-purposing" is a step toward defining Smith's [whatever?!] with the gold plates as "repurposing."

Can you imagine what that could do to the historicity argument?

So to circle back to this, I think Marcus is dead-on correct here- that the problems with the book of Abraham lead directly to doubts about the Book of Mormon.

And I haven’t seen apologists wrestle with this question yet. I’ve only seen them double down on the witnesses that the gold plates really existed, therefore the Book of Mormon must have been miraculous and not merely an invention of Smith’s mind.

But to be consistent I think at some point Mormonism has to also concede that the Book of Mormon is some kind of “bricolage.”

[Kishkumen]

Are you thinking of anything specific in mind you can point to that shows they’re arguing in good faith rather than simply backed into a corner? I find it hard to believe they would be arguing for any of this if the papyrus wasn’t available for examination.

They are definitely arguing to support their conviction that the LDS Church is true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. You won't catch them arguing against that position. If you are interested in showing the opposite, then that conflict will make you upset. You think it is false; they think it is true. At the same time, both sides bring up interesting stuff. I have seen it with my own eyes, so I know that is the case. Most of the time we don't pay much mind to what apologists do because we disagree with their objectives. They cannot answer our questions to our satisfaction. But that does not mean that none of them do interesting things that might help shed more light on the history.

There is no question that the available papyri conflicted with LDS expectations and sent people scrambling for some kind of apologetic that would work. At the same time, I think it is much better to have them, if we want to understand what Smith was actually doing. Those who stop at "lying" and "made it up" because that is all they really want to know will never answer the more interesting questions. We should not necessarily blame them for being satisfied with simplistic answers, however. They were happy with simple answers when they chose the LDS Church, and so they don't need that much more to leave it. And that is the objective. Stay or leave based on simple metrics and simple answers.

Not easy answers. Not comfortable answers. But also not answers that lead to better understanding.