BYP Hosts Dr. John Lundwall - The Book of Mormon is WHOLLY Anachronistic

[MG 2.0]

It’s fairly well accepted by most people nowadays that Joseph couldn’t have written the Book of Mormon on his own.

Regards,
MG

You mean, it’s fairly well accepted by those who believe by spiritual conviction in the Book of Mormon that Joseph couldn’t have written it?

It would be more accurate to say, “most people in the know”.

That seems to be the general consensus on this board. At least from those I’ve interacted with.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I like the idea that Joseph and possibly others (translation committee?) were involved in the translation process with the final product dictated through the instrumentality of Joseph as translator.

With God being the CEO overseeing the project and the final outcome.

Granted, this is conjecture. But Ostler spills a good deal of ink laying it all out....

Huh. I didn't get at all from Ostler's ink anything like your comments above. Could you explain where in the link you provided that Ostler believes "Joseph and possibly others (translation committee?) were involved in the translation process with the final product dictated through the instrumentality of Joseph as translator" ??

He doesn’t, to my knowledge. But his expansion theory allows for it.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Huh. I didn't get at all from Ostler's ink anything like your comments above. Could you explain where in the link you provided that Ostler believes "Joseph and possibly others (translation committee?) were involved in the translation process with the final product dictated through the instrumentality of Joseph as translator" ??

He doesn’t, to my knowledge. But his expansion theory allows for it...

Hm. If he doesn't, to your knowledge, then why would you say "Ostler spills a good deal of ink laying it all out" ?

Here's your statement:

It is my purpose to…offer a theory of the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith's expansion of an ancient work by building on the work of earlier prophets to answer the nagging problems of his day. In so doing, he provided unrestricted and authoritative commentary, interpretation, explanation, and clarifications based on insights from the ancient Book of Mormon text and the King James Bible ( K J V ) . The result is a modern world view and theological understanding superimposed on the Book of Mormon text from the plates.

I like the idea that Joseph and possibly others (translation committee?) were involved in the translation process with the final product dictated through the instrumentality of Joseph as translator.

With God being the CEO overseeing the project and the final outcome.

Granted, this is conjecture. But Ostler spills a good deal of ink laying it all out.

[MG 2.0]

He doesn’t, to my knowledge. But his expansion theory allows for it...

Hm. If he doesn't, to your knowledge, then why would you say "Ostler spills a good deal of ink laying it all out" ?

Here's your statement:

I like the idea that Joseph and possibly others (translation committee?) were involved in the translation process with the final product dictated through the instrumentality of Joseph as translator.

With God being the CEO overseeing the project and the final outcome.

Granted, this is conjecture. But Ostler spills a good deal of ink laying it all out.

He lays out the idea that the Book of Mormon translation process could be much more “expansive” than some would like to think. It gives an opening to other ways of approaching the translation process.

All we really know is that he purportedly did it through the “gift and power of God”. That gives a certain amount of latitude.

Ostler takes the liberty to expand on that latitude.

He, unlike others (critics?), does not assume that all thinking has been done.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Huh. I didn't get at all from Ostler's ink anything like your comments above. Could you explain where in the link you provided that Ostler believes "Joseph and possibly others (translation committee?) were involved in the translation process with the final product dictated through the instrumentality of Joseph as translator" ??

He doesn’t, to my knowledge. But his expansion theory allows for it...

Hm. If he doesn't, to your knowledge, then why would you say "Ostler spills a good deal of ink laying it all out" ?

Here's your statement:

I like the idea that Joseph and possibly others (translation committee?) were involved in the translation process with the final product dictated through the instrumentality of Joseph as translator....But Ostler spills a good deal of ink laying it all out.

He lays out the idea that the Book of Mormon translation process could be much more “expansive” than some would like to think. It gives an opening to other ways of approaching the translation process....

But that's not what you said. At all. Nor does it reflect an understanding of the Ostler link you are relying on.

Oh well.

Huh. I didn't get at all from Ostler's ink anything like your comments above. Could you explain where in the link you provided that Ostler believes "Joseph and possibly others (translation committee?) were involved in the translation process with the final product dictated through the instrumentality of Joseph as translator" ??

He just skimmed to the second paragraph of the Introduction.

25 years of spouting nonsense, lying about reading, and failing over and over to learn by blithely ignoring the cumulative effort to answer him....

Yes, I think you are correct, Doc.

[Kishkumen]

It would be more accurate to say, “most people in the know”.

That seems to be the general consensus on this board. At least from those I’ve interacted with.

Regards,
MG

What is it that they know?

[Philo Sofee]

It would be more accurate to say, “most people in the know”.

That seems to be the general consensus on this board. At least from those I’ve interacted with.

Regards,
MG

What is it that they know?

I want to know how MG knows what anyone else around here knows.....

[huckelberry]

He lays out the idea that the Book of Mormon translation process could be much more “expansive” than some would like to think. It gives an opening to other ways of approaching the translation process.

All we really know is that he purportedly did it through the “gift and power of God”. That gives a certain amount of latitude.

Ostler takes the liberty to expand on that latitude.

He, unlike others (critics?), does not assume that all thinking has been done.

Regards,
MG

I resisted saying this for a while but am now failing to resist.

I can understand how the idea of a loose translation could clarify the nature of the Book of Mormon and how it creates an inspiring story by expanding on a framework of real world facts.

The following facts can make a strong foundation for beginning. There was (and is) a real Jerusalem. there is desert to the south. There are large oceans to cross between those deserts and the Americas. There have been people living in the Americas. There was a real Jesus who was crucified outside of Jerusalem. People believed he was raised from death and was glorified.

Now to expand, wouldn't it by neat if Jesus visited the Americas? That could make a great story. It could be filled with inspiring instruction and sermons. It could have adventures and people leaving the old world for the new. It could chronicle these peoples conflicts and disputes over faith. It could help people overcome conflicts by giving an new basis to have confidence that Jesus survived death and has a supernatural status.

The framework is solid for a start and the expansion inspiring.

[MG 2.0]

What is it that they know?

I want to know how MG knows what anyone else around here knows.....

Over on the “If Plates, Then God” thread I seem to remember that there were a number of folks that expressed some degree of doubt as to whether Joseph Smith could have been the sole author of the Book of Mormon.

It sounds like we now have those on this thread who are suggesting that he was the sole author.

Or some other theory?

That’s the conundrum that seems to present itself in considering Lundwall’s arguments. We still need to get past the fact of Joseph dictating the Book of Mormon within a short amount of time and keeping mostly everything straight so that very little serious/substantial editing had to be done.

It’s a convoluted text with multiple strands of narrative that intertwine with each other over a long arc of history, including Hebraisms, etc., that make it even more unlikely that Joseph simply rolled the narrative off his tongue day after day without tripping up.

Philo, I don’t seem to remember your thoughts in regards to the ‘down and dirty’ process by which Joseph wrote/translated the Book of Mormon.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

He lays out the idea that the Book of Mormon translation process could be much more “expansive” than some would like to think. It gives an opening to other ways of approaching the translation process.

All we really know is that he purportedly did it through the “gift and power of God”. That gives a certain amount of latitude.

Ostler takes the liberty to expand on that latitude.

He, unlike others (critics?), does not assume that all thinking has been done.

Regards,
MG

I resisted saying this for a while but am now failing to resist.

I can understand how the idea of a loose translation could clarify the nature of the Book of Mormon and how it creates an inspiring story by expanding on a framework of real world facts.

The following facts can make a strong foundation for beginning. There was (and is) a real Jerusalem. there is desert to the south. There are large oceans to cross between those deserts and the Americas. There have been people living in the Americas. There was a real Jesus who was crucified outside of Jerusalem. People believed he was raised from death and was glorified.

Now to expand, wouldn't it by neat if Jesus visited the Americas? That could make a great story. It could be filled with inspiring instruction and sermons. It could have adventures and people leaving the old world for the new. It could chronicle these peoples conflicts and disputes over faith. It could help people overcome conflicts by giving an new basis to have confidence that Jesus survived death and has a supernatural status.

The framework is solid for a start and the expansion inspiring.

But then on top of that one needs to determine whether or not it is reasonable to think that a young man of Joseph Smith’s age could have engaged in this expansion on his own under the conditions we find him in.

A flash in the frying pan the Book of Mormon it was. Nod to Yoda.

Each person needs to determine that for themselves.

Regards,
MG