Book of Mormon Translation Time

[_ludwigm]

According to witnesses, Joseph was simply dictating the English words off of the seer stone. Considering its importance, the "translation" should have taken no more than a few weeks to complete.

Only a few months if he was a shutterer (or he has spoken with a lisp).

Or he has any other speech disorder --- we know that he has some writing disorder, and used the scribes to hide it. (dyscravia? agraphia? dysgraphia?)

[_ludwigm]

And of a much higher quality.

[_ZelphtheGreat]

So what.

The actual construction time of the Transcontinental Railroad was 4 year. Interruptions like the Civil War ate into actual days of construction and planning time before actual construction started aren't figured into the real time here.

Joe had years of making up stories and telling them to his family and friends to get his fable going so the actual time named doesn't mean much at all.

[_mentalgymnast]

So what.

The actual construction time of the Transcontinental Railroad was 4 year. Interruptions like the Civil War ate into actual days of construction and planning time before actual construction started aren't figured into the real time here.

Joe had years of making up stories and telling them to his family and friends to get his fable going so the actual time named doesn't mean much at all.

From the responses so far I'm not seeing any firm evidence presented that the actual translation period was long and strung out. And there seems to be general agreement here, thusfar, that the translation period took place within a fairly short time span. That's pretty much what I was interested in getting additional information on. Apparently there may not be any real conflicting evidence to what we've been told over and over. I, also, have always heard and been told that the witnesses to the translation process are in general agreement as to the time period of the translation before the printer's manuscript was created.

After having read Grant Hardy's, Understanding the Book of Mormon, and Terryl Given's, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion, I'm of the opinion that the Book of Mormon is a wee bit more complex than Water For Elephants, etc. ,that were also produced in a short amount of time. Just more food for thought on my part as I consider the 'miracle' or at least the uniqueness of the Book of Mormon.

Thanks for the responses. by the way, Water For Elephants was a good read! If you haven't read it, pick it up.

Regards,
MG

[_Mormon Think]

Joseph could have spent years working on it. The translation/dictation time s not that relevant.

Bill

[_Frodo]

Joseph was telling stories similar in nature to his family at a young age. It was several years after his initial angel visit informing him of an ancient record before he was actually able to receive the plates. Then we have the time between then and the the time attributed to him starting. I think this allows for a much longer time period than 65 days.

[Guest]

Joseph was telling stories similar in nature to his family at a young age. It was several years after his initial angel visit informing him of an ancient record before he was actually able to receive the plates. Then we have the time between then and the the time attributed to him starting. I think this allows for a much longer time period than 65 days.

For those that are interested here is an Approximate Book of Mormon Translation Timeline.

google: Approximate Book of Mormon Translation Timeline Elden J. Watson

What I find worth looking at are the number of times during the translation chronology that there are 'matches', chronologically speaking, with sections in the D&C. Almost as though the doctrines that were being transcribed into the Book of Mormon text acted as 'triggers' to revelations received that were later recorded in the D&C. The dates seem to coordinate fairly nicely.

Coincidence?

Regards,
MG

[_bcspace]

Is there any firm evidence that shows conclusively that the translation time period took longer than sixty-five working days?

Aren't you, and many others here, in favor of calling third hand accounts and innuendo sufficient evidence? Why the sudden change in evidentiary requirements?

I'll take that as an admission that yes you are "in favor of calling third hand accounts and innuendo sufficient evidence" and add "as long as it suits your agenda".

[_Themis]

From the responses so far I'm not seeing any firm evidence presented that the actual translation period was long and strung out. And there seems to be general agreement here, thusfar, that the translation period took place within a fairly short time span. That's pretty much what I was interested in getting additional information on. Apparently there may not be any real conflicting evidence to what we've been told over and over. I, also, have always heard and been told that the witnesses to the translation process are in general agreement as to the time period of the translation before the printer's manuscript was created.

Your OP suggests you do not understand the issues here. Joesph claims to translate by the power of God. Witness statement say he is getting it word for word. The speed in which is claimed to be done is not amazing at all. I can write down a person telling me words over 500 pages in a few months no problem. I could do it much faster. What we do know is the Book of Mormon project was not thought up and done in a few months but many years.

After having read Grant Hardy's, Understanding the Book of Mormon, and Terryl Given's, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion, I'm of the opinion that the Book of Mormon is a wee bit more complex than Water For Elephants, etc. ,that were also produced in a short amount of time. Just more food for thought on my part as I consider the 'miracle' or at least the uniqueness of the Book of Mormon.

If you can look at it from the perspective of Joseph making it up, did he really do it in a few months or did he have years to prepare?

[_Themis]

I'll take that as an admission that yes you are "in favor of calling third hand accounts and innuendo sufficient evidence" and add "as long as it suits your agenda".

How long has MG been posting here for you to be so stupid in not knowing who you are quoting and what they think?