DiscussMormonism.com

Anyone reading this one yet? It's the 3rd in his series on "Exploring Mormon Thought" I am rather enjoying it immensely. He has put an enormous amount of brain power into this. His analysis of the Council of the Gods, as well as Joseph Smith's ideas about God, so far, are very informative.

Good time for a question for Kerry. Have you read Ostler's 1987 Dialogue article, "The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source"? If so, what is your opinion of that?

Ray A wrote:Good time for a question for Kerry. Have you read Ostler's 1987 Dialogue article, "The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source"? If so, what is your opinion of that?

I read it and found the idea intriguing.

Jason Bourne wrote:
I read it and found the idea intriguing.

So did I. I'm just not sure how this fits with the literal beliefs. When we talk about expansions like Messiah = Jesus Christ, that's not too difficult to accept, but we're talking about whole concepts and ideas being expanded. I understand, but don't know for certain, that Ostler has since done some rethinking about this. I'm wondering if Kerry has any further insight.

JustMe wrote:Anyone reading this one yet? It's the 3rd in his series on "Exploring Mormon Thought" I am rather enjoying it immensely. He has put an enormous amount of brain power into this. His analysis of the Council of the Gods, as well as Joseph Smith's ideas about God, so far, are very informative.

Hi JM, you put Ostler's web site, where some of this book might be read. If I recall, but that url's hard to find now. Could you post it again, please??

So did I. I'm just not sure how this fits with the literal beliefs. When we talk about expansions like Messiah = Jesus Christ, that's not too difficult to accept, but we're talking about whole concepts and ideas being expanded. I understand, but don't know for certain, that Ostler has since done some rethinking about this. I'm wondering if Kerry has any further insight.

Ostler is really somewhat of a liberal in some of his views. For example he disputes that idea the God the Father even could have been a man like we are now and argues that the LDS Canon refuted such an idea. He also interprets the KFD much differently on this then most do. His first book on the Godhead also seems to refute the idea of absolute omniscience even though this seems fairly rooted in LDS thought and scripture.

Roger Morrison wrote:If I recall, but that url's hard to find now. Could you post it again, please??

This might be what you're referring to.

And for those who don't have the link:

The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source

And I just came across this:

Updating the Expansion Theory 2005

(3) It has now been 18 years since the expansion theory was first published and to date not a single critic of the Book of Mormon has attempted to explain the presence of convicing evidence of antitiquity that I cited in my 1987 article: viz., ancient prophetic call forms, ancient Israelite covenant renewal rituals and forms and formal Hebrew legal procedures. In my view, the presence of these forms is fairly clear in the text of the Book of Mormon and they are very difficult to explain on the assumption that it was written by anyone in the 19th century. To date, the only theory that accounts for these ancient forms and the presence of modern expansions that are fairly evidence is the expansion theory.

A reply to Ostler, clarifying the question I asked earlier:

Thanks for the post Blake. In a number of thread I have brought up your expansion theory only to have those involved in the discussion say that you have realized the errors of your ways and had abandoned your theory. It’s good to hear that the opposite is true since the theory gives hope to so many.

Selected replies from Ostler:

Jeff: I have an article coming out in the next Sunstone where I suggest that we’re looking in all of the wrong places. Jacob states expressly in 2 Ne. 10 that the Nephites at least are on an isle of the sea. So I don’t accept any of the existing Book of Mormon geographies — though I definitely believe that the text of the Book of Mormon requires a limited geography of an area about the size of Palestine. In my view, there is not and cannot be any Book of Mormon archaeology until we find at least one place or object that we can say with some certitude derives from Book of Mormon peoples. We haven’t done so and so I suggest that we stop all of the non-sense about Book of Mormon tours and cruises.

Nate: I am as yet undecided on the finds at Nahom in Arabia. The passage of the Pacific Ocean given currents and length of travel seems so highly improbable that it is not really a good candidate. As for islands - it may be that more than one island is referred to (the Book of Mormon refers to “isles” plural). I don’t know what Jacob meant by an “isle of the sea” (but he expressly states that they are on an isle of the sea)– but I see no reason that outlying areas like Belize wouldn’t work as well. I simply suggest that we keep open about the configuration since the narrow neck of land could be defined by large lakes as well as oceans or seas. So it could be a lot of different areas where there are two lakes that create a narrow neck of land between them (and that opens up a lot of possiblities). One thing I am clear about, the Mayan culture is a not a Book of Mormon culture.

On the Book of Abraham:

Rosalynde — I agree that there are different underlying texts and sources for Joseph’s “translations” — but he didn’t use these texts as a basis for translation. The Book of Mormon was translated (largely) while the plates remained covered under a cloth on the table and Joseph looked into the seer stone in his hat. The facsimiles of the Book of Abraham are not translations but explanations of “figures” and illustrations as they relate to Abraham in Egypt. Indeed, none of the Egyptian text gets translated in the facsimiles! The method of translation was revelation — how that relates to the underlying text cannot be determined until we get the underlying texts.

Book of Mormon geography:

onathan: Re: #27 — I cannot see any evidence that Joseph claimed to know where the Book of Mormon events took place. It appears to me to have been an open question among the earliest saints. I believe that Joseph Smith assumed that any American Indian was Lamanite, but I have a hard time believing that in his visions of the dress of the Nephites there was also a map that appeared in vision with a big neon arrow that said: “here is where it all occurred.” Seeing Nephites in vision doesn’t give any location of where they were located. I think he was speculating about these issues like the rest of us and the various views he had throughout his life tend to show that. I admit that saying that Joseph Smith didn’t really know is uncomfortable for some — but it is better for them to get over assumed prophetic infalliblity early in life so that their faith isn’t challenged so easily and they are tempted to throw the baby out with the bath water.

See Updating the Expansion Theory