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
It would be more accurate to say, “most people in the know”.
He doesn’t, to my knowledge. But his expansion theory allows for it.Marcus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 5:06 pmHuh. 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" ??MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 6:29 amI 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....
Hm. If he doesn't, to your knowledge, then why would you say "Ostler spills a good deal of ink laying it all out" ?MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 11:22 pmHe doesn’t, to my knowledge. But his expansion theory allows for it...Marcus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 5:06 pmHuh. 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" ??
MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 6:29 amI 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.Ostler wrote: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.
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.Marcus wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 12:01 amHm. 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:
MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 6:29 amI 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 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 11:22 pmHe doesn’t, to my knowledge. But his expansion theory allows for it...Marcus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 5:06 pmHuh. 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" ??
But that's not what you said. At all. Nor does it reflect an understanding of the Ostler link you are relying on.
Yes, I think you are correct, Doc.Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 7:44 pmHe just skimmed to the second paragraph of the Introduction.Marcus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 5:06 pmHuh. 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" ??
25 years of spouting nonsense, lying about reading, and failing over and over to learn by blithely ignoring the cumulative effort to answer him....
What is it that they know?
I want to know how MG knows what anyone else around here knows.....
I resisted saying this for a while but am now failing to resist.MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 12:08 amHe 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
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.Philo Sofee wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 12:50 amI want to know how MG knows what anyone else around here knows.....
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.huckelberry wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 2:35 amI resisted saying this for a while but am now failing to resist.MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 12:08 amHe 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 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.