Book of Mormon fast; Book of Abraham slowwww

[_Trevor]

For me the questions concerning the production of the Book of Abraham keep piling up. One that came to mind, that I thought I would canvass you all about, is the rate of translation for the Book of Abraham compared with the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon, it is said, was translated at the rate of 6.5 pages per day. Quite a clip, really. Why then, did it take so long to translate the 5 chapters of the Book of Abraham?

Will, of course, is arguing that chapters 1-3 were translating in early July. No problem then, except that we are left wondering what was going on all those days there is record of Joseph et al. "translating" in October and November. If 1-3 were already done in early July, then all of those days translating in October and November should give us many more chapters of Book of Abraham material than we have. If Mak is right, then again the timing and speed of the translation is difficult to reconcile with the historical record and the amount of material we have.

So here are some of the problems I am seeing:

1. Will seems to be adopting the assumption that Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham is essentially the same revelatory process as the translation of the Book of Mormon. It should also proceed at a similar pace, and so he could easily have tossed off the first few chapters in early July. Vogel has raised substantive issues of logic that call into question Will's reading of the historical record.

2. The next problem with Will's scenario, in my mind, is what to do with all of those other days they were "translating"? Where is the material they "translated?"

3. If, on the other hand, we go with the evidence in the historical record, then, again, where is all the material one would expect with a Book of Mormon-style translation pace? Instead the pace seems to go much more slowly. The question is why?

In order to account for the historical record, in which there is evidence for translation activities occurring through October and December, while it is clear that the material produced could not have gone beyond 2.18 or, to be generous to Will, the end of three, then the pace of translation had to be much slower than it was for the Book of Mormon. If that is, in fact, the case, then it would seem to me that one could not assume that the method of translation was identical.

Why, theoretically, would the translation have to crawl through the Abraham material, when it clipped through all of that Book of Mormon text? What is the difference? If the process, as Will claims, is exactly like the one that brought about the Book of Mormon, then the whole book and then some could have been produced in less than a week.

But then what to do of the days of "translation" later in the year? What do we make of the record of the "unfolding" of astronomy later in the year, when that material supposedly existed, according to Will's model, before mid-July?

But what if the process was not identical to the Book of Mormon? What if there were, for some reason, more time devoted not only to the translation, because the method employed differed, but they also hoped to cull other fruits from the process of grappling with this language (deriving the pure language)? Wouldn't the process of translation then have moved much more slowly? Isn't it then more conceivable that the translation of the text and the search for the pure language interlocked, with the fruits of one project contributing more and less directly to the other?

Such a model would actually account much better for the evidence of the historical record than does either Will's or Mak's. Will is left with a lot of journal entries to explain, for example. Mak, I think, sits on firmer ground here, because his view would not require a fast translation occurring in early July. There is plenty of time to produce Abr. 1-2.18 for his homoioteleuton to occur in November.

Now please come rushing to my assistance by tearing this apart.

[_Gadianton]

Trev, while I think your insight should be of grave concern to the apologists, I think the flame can be intensified. According to DCP, the stone was like a set of "training wheels". This is an important suggestion if one wishes to skirt charges of (black) magic in the "translation" process. The problem then is that while a magic rock should be able to convert the material at a constant pace, a set of "training wheels" would eventually get the process expedited; by the time Joseph Smith got to Abraham, he should have been an expert and translating much faster than when he was working on the Book of Mormon.

[_Simon Belmont]

Trev, while I think your insight should be of grave concern to the apologists, I think the flame can be intensified. According to DCP, the stone was like a set of "training wheels". This is an important suggestion if one wishes to skirt charges of (black) magic in the "translation" process. The problem then is that while a magic rock should be able to convert the material at a constant pace, a set of "training wheels" would eventually get the process expedited; by the time Joseph Smith got to Abraham, he should have been an expert and translating much faster than when he was working on the Book of Mormon.

Not that they are two entirely different texts and environments, right?

[_Trevor]

Not that they are two entirely different texts and environments, right?

Hey, Simon. Would you mind expanding on that a bit? It would he helpful to know what kind of factors you envision impacting the Book of Abraham translation to make it so much slower. And then, remember that Will Schryver seems to be saying that it was, in fact, really speedy. But his theory sidesteps evidence for translation occurring either later that year or in Nauvoo.

[_Simon Belmont]

Hey, Simon. Would you mind expanding on that a bit? It would he helpful to know what kind of factors you envision impacting the Book of Abraham translation to make it so much slower. And then, remember that Will Schryver seems to be saying that it was, in fact, really speedy. But his theory sidesteps evidence for translation occurring either later that year or in Nauvoo.

Well it's just an opinion.

I envision it like the difference between using a MAC and a PC. Both are equally powerful, but entirely different environments. If one is used to the PC environment, there is a learning curve when switching to a MAC.

Likewise, the Book of Mormon translation was certainly a learning experience for Joseph, and after the "training wheels" were off, he was able to translate (at times) without any aids.

The Book of Abraham, however, is a different type of text. It predates the Book of Mormon, and uses slightly different language. Also, we do not fully understand the relationship of the Papyri yet, but I imagine if it was a catalyst of some type, it could have complicated things for Joseph. Keep in mind that Joseph, although obviously intelligent, was not educated at all.

[_Darth J]

I wonder why the element of showmanship always seems to be overlooked here.

--Golden plates: only the 3 and 8 witnesses were allowed to see them.

--Papyri: framed and shown off to anyone and everyone, including specific explanations about what different things on the papyri meant

--Golden plates: did not publicly show off other artifacts like the sword of Laban (except for things like Joseph and Oliver going in the secret room in the Hill Cumorah) and Urim and Thummim.

--Papyri: charged admission to see the mummies that were with the papyri

--Golden plates: an angel showed where they were

--Papyri: a showman sold them to Joseph

--Golden plates: unknown farmboy

--Papyrus: prophet and town leader who had established a church

--Golden plates: offer to sell copyright was rejected; had to raise money to print the book

--Papyrus: printed in church-owned newspaper

--Golden plates: no illustrations

--Papyrus: three exotic and mysterious pictures, which is better showmanship

--Golden plates: Anthon would not publicly state that the characters were ancient

--Papyrus: Chandler certified that Joseph knew how to read Egyptian characters, even though Chandler would have no way of knowing this

--Golden plates: simple, basic New Testament-based [cough] Christianity

--Papyrus: multiple gods, gnosticism, hints of Freemasonry

These are some of the differences, and I think looking at whether there was some Schryver-esque showboating going on is worth considering when you're talking about the differences between how the Book of Mormon was purported to have been translated vs. the papyrus.

[_Trevor]

The Book of Abraham, however, is a different type of text. It predates the Book of Mormon, and uses slightly different language. Also, we do not fully understand the relationship of the Papyri yet, but I imagine if it was a catalyst of some type, it could have complicated things for Joseph. Keep in mind that Joseph, although obviously intelligent, was not educated at all.

Well, Will seems to be looking at the translation of the Book of Abraham as much the same kind of situation as the Book of Mormon. If revelation is really the source of the text's transmission, revelation as Will seems to envision it, that is, then the date of the document, its language, etc., would not be a problem for Joseph. Really, it is only when we begin to posit a process more like that seemingly represented by the KEP that I can see a slowing down of the translation.

[_Darth J]

Also, we do not fully understand the relationship of the Papyri yet, but I imagine if it was a catalyst of some type, it could have complicated things for Joseph.

Yes, we do fully understand this because we have the plain words of Joseph Smith and everyone around him. The reason we "don't understand it" now is because of evidence to the contrary of what he said.

And you can imagine it was a catalyst all you want, but imagine is all you can do, in the absence of any evidence at all and on the premise that you understand the revelatory process better than Joseph Smith.

[_Trevor]

I wonder why the element of showmanship always seems to be overlooked here.

Now that I can get more on board with. In fact, my Sunstone paper last year was essentially about the performance aspect of Smith's prophetic role. I looked briefly at the KEP from the perspective of one who imagines they were used in the translation process in some way. Will, of course, did not agree.

[_Simon Belmont]

And you can imagine it was a catalyst all you want, but imagine is all you can do, in the absence of any evidence at all and on the premise that you understand the revelatory process better than Joseph Smith.

Okay, well the same can be applied in the negative then. We are at an impasse. The difference is I still have faith.