Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[Kishkumen]

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

Sure. According to the mores of our time. People have had different ideas and feelings about the treatment of antiquities over time. I have friends who collect Roman coins. I have other friends who find collecting ancient coins highly objectionable. And this is among my academic associates.

[malkie]

And this would mean that the meaning of the facsimiles in the context of the Book of Abraham should NOT be understood as translations of some Egyptian text

Listen up, dodo, Joseph Smith meant what he said and said what he meant and here is a clear and precise example of just that:

. . . and it will not be beyond the common use of terms, to say that good is among the most important in use, and though known by various names in different languages, still its meaning is the same, and is ever in opposition to bad. We say from the Saxon, good; the Dane, god; the Goth, goda; the German, gut; the Dutch, goed; the Latin, bonus; the Greek, kalos; the Hebrew, tob; and the Egyptian, mon. Hence, with the addition of more, or the contraction, mor, we have the word Mormon; which means, literally, more good.
Yours,
JOSEPH SMITH.

So, when Smith says, "which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh" or "Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh," he means just that.

[[sorry to drag this up from the dim & distant past, but I've been thinking about the whole "more good" concept]]

Because mixing & matching languages like that is totally OK - right?

I wonder if Joseph was either ignorant of the fact, or chose not to consider, that "Mormo" is a shapeshifting female entity from the works of HP Lovecraft, and "n" is used as a plural marker (in some cases (!) the dative plural) for some nouns in German.

So "Mormo-n" might also mean "multiple scary female spirits".

ETA: and don't say that Lovecraft was born after Joseph died: Joseph was a prophet, so he could see the future use of "Mormo" if he wanted to.

OK - I agree that this is totally ridiculous

[Shulem]

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

Smith did in fact abuse the papyri. That is shown in multiple ways. But he did not repurpose them. He couldn't have because he claimed to restore them to their original purpose! In order to repurpose something one must have intent and purpose to make CHANGES to the original idea or design. That is why I told RES very empathically that he is wrong on this point and he needs to yield to the underlying meaning and view the whole picture of what's taking place in this argument But he is incorrectly making a determination on hindsight and ignoring the definition of the word repurpose. Same goes for Kish. Smith did not repurpose the papyrus because he wasn't knowingly making changes to the original content. He claimed to restore the original meaning as presently constituted in the record. Thus *he* did not repurpose the papyri! That was never his intention! That was never his purpose. And in order to repurpose something you have to purpose to do it!

But I've already said all that in so many words, haven't I?

Hi, Marcus, you still there?



Where the hell is Dr. Shades when you need him.

[Marcus]

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

Smith did in fact abuse the papyri. That is shown in multiple ways. But he did not repurpose them. He couldn't have because he claimed to restore them to their original purpose! In order to repurpose something one must have intent and purpose to make CHANGES to the original idea or design. That is why I told RES very empathically that he is wrong on this point and he needs to yield to the underlying meaning and view the whole picture of what's taking place in this argument But he is incorrectly making a determination on hindsight and ignoring the definition of the word repurpose. Same goes for Kish. Smith did not repurpose the papyrus because he wasn't knowingly making changes to the original content. He claimed to restore the original meaning as presently constituted in the record. Thus *he* did not repurpose the papyri! That was never his intention! That was never his purpose. And in order to repurpose something you have to purpose to do it!

But I've already said all that in so many words, haven't I?

Hi, Marcus, you still there?



Where the hell is Dr. Shades when you need him.

I am!! Still reading along, still appreciating your comments! And yes, I agree w Doc. Smith acted like these were precious words from Abraham, but he was still willing to have the nose chopped off one character when it didn't fit his story.

A respectful approach would have been to consider why his storyline didn't fit. It was not respectful to mangle the printing of something he (acted like he) considered divine, in order to hide the actual evidence of his error. And by disrespectful, I mean both now, and when he did it, since apparently 'presentism' has now been invoked.

[Res Ipsa]

And no, RI made some considerable errors in this discussion in his assessment of the definition of repurposing, please read the comments so that you understand this.

Yep, RI made what seems was a hasty assessment and what seems even more so a hasty retreat!

I've carefully provided the legal definitions, construction, and use of the word repurpose which is a modern term invented not long ago. It wasn't a word used in Smith's day and age.

The prefix "re" means again or to repeat something and when applied to "purpose" it points out that a new definition of terms is being created by one who is doing the creating. It is a willful action -- one that has intent and purpose.

So, if RI thinks he can pull a rabbit out of a hat, let him come back to the thread and show us that rabbit.

What say ye, RI? Are you going to reinvent the dictionary? Is that legal?

I haven't "retreated" from anything. You haven't added anything to the argument in several posts. And Marcus's reference to "considerable errors" refers only to the fact that Marcus disagrees with me. He wants to argue that money is repurposed even though only its ownership changes. The money is still used for its purpose as money. He also wants to argue that a parking space is repurposed simply because someone else parks in it. Again, it's still a parking space and it's used for parking.

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.

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.

[Shulem]

A respectful approach would have been to consider why his storyline didn't fit. It was not respectful to mangle the printing of something he (acted like he) considered divine, in order to hide the actual evidence of his error. And by disrespectful, I mean both now, and when he did it, since apparently 'presentism' has now been invoked.

That's an excellent point to bring up presentism because today's apologists have to work through that lens in order to justify Joseph Smith. But the moment they step into a time machine and go back to the events as they are occurring they have no choice but to witness Joseph Smith committing fraud, lying for the Lord, and abusing the papyri.

Amen.

[Jersey Girl]

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

He desecrated and appropriated the papyri.

[Shulem]

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.

Yes, I agree.

[Res Ipsa]

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

Smith did in fact abuse the papyri. That is shown in multiple ways. But he did not repurpose them. He couldn't have because he claimed to restore them to their original purpose! In order to repurpose something one must have intent and purpose to make CHANGES to the original idea or design. That is why I told RES very empathically that he is wrong on this point and he needs to yield to the underlying meaning and view the whole picture of what's taking place in this argument But he is incorrectly making a determination on hindsight and ignoring the definition of the word repurpose. Same goes for Kish. Smith did not repurpose the papyrus because he wasn't knowingly making changes to the original content. He claimed to restore the original meaning as presently constituted in the record. Thus *he* did not repurpose the papyri! That was never his intention! That was never his purpose. And in order to repurpose something you have to purpose to do it!

But I've already said all that in so many words, haven't I?

Hi, Marcus, you still there?



Where the hell is Dr. Shades when you need him.

There is nothing about the definition of the word repurpose that requires intention of any kind. Early Christianity repurposed Egyptian art to give them a Christian meaning. whether they understood they were changing the purpose or not. You've given no support for this "underlying meaning" that you insist exists -- you just keep repeating the same claim. Repurpose is not defined as applying to what someone thinks -- it describes something they do: take something created for one purpose and giving it another.

Can you find a me a reference that restricts the meaning of "repurpose" in the way you propose?

[Res Ipsa]

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.

Yes, that's what we do with all Egyptian artifacts -- we dig up private tombs and violate their burial practices -- repurposing them as museum exhibits.