Daymon'S 'The Abridging Works': Gardner'S Competition?

[David T]

I just came across this (as noted on FMH), by Daymon Smith:The Abridging Works: The Epic and Historic Book of Mormon, Arranged In Sequence of Composition [Edited with Additional Essays]. For today only (apparantly), he has an excerpt up of one of the essays discussing his somewhat informally presented views on Translation.

Having read and absolutely loved Brant Gardner's book The Gift and Power, I find this an interesting entry. He claims to present some new 'groundbreaking' theories concerning transmission traditions. Frankly, a brief overview of the material presented - especially in the essay - did not impress me.

However, the biggest value and curiosity draw to me appears to be the main body of the book, which is Daymon's attempt to present, using the text, a sort of biographical narrative of Mormon's composition and abridging of the text, as well as setting aside texts from specific distinct stand-alone-records. While Gardner's book focuses on Joseph's work, from an overview, Daymon's appears to focus on Mormon's, although he does go outside of this to apparently make some assertions about Joseph's method based on internal readings in the text.

Wondering if anyone is familiar with this at all, and if there are any comments.

EDIT: Just found it on amazon. I think I might check out the Kindle edition. Take one for the team, if you will.

Edited August 12, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Brant Gardner]

I have the book and have gone through it. It consists of two parts. One, and by far the larger, is a reformatting of the Book of Mormon text. There have been several attempts at reformatting, and this one has a very large difference. In addition to recasting the text, the author has recut and rearranged the text into an order he calls the "sequence of composition." His very first book is the book of Mormon (as in the one after 4 Nephi).

The second and much smaller section is a series of essays. Most of them deal with his reasons for recutting the text and creating the order he proposes. There is an essay on translation that, for my tastes, is a bit rambling without coming to much of a useful conclusion (he spends time on interpretation versus translation, appearing-perhaps-to favor interpretation).

This is a fascinating exercise in applying some of the ideas about the construction of the Bible to the Book of Mormon and using those concepts to suggest things that go way beyond what the text claims. He finds Mormon's personal introduction in 3 Nephi problematic, and I agree. We see very different reasons for it, however.

I believe that I tried to give him the benefit of an unbiased read, but I just can't agree with his logic and assumptions about the construction of the text. They simply don't square with the text as I have come to understand it. I could not find his arguments convincing. It is, however, one of the most innovative approaches to the text I have seen--but just not a convincing one.

[daymonsmith]

Mr. Gardner,

Thank you for the brief overview of The Abridging Works.

I think perhaps if you might state in particular where the argument regarding construction is not supported by the text, I would happily reconsider the sequence of composition (though it's too late for the book!). It's a provisional, first step; and as I admit in the essays, there's bound to be revisions in the sequence.

The essay on translation is not really in competition with your work, I imagine (though I have not read the book yet). The essay attempts to bring together the problems of translation/interpretation as the 'gift and power' of God, with attempts to study the Book of Mormon as a text. Efforts to study the BoM have often missed the initial problem of interpretation (yes, I do explicitly argue for, rather than merely lean toward, interpretation as the proper term for what Joseph Smith did). Perhaps after reading your book I will reconsider my argument.

The more interesting argument, for me the author, anyway, concerns the tradition of the Large and Small Plates of Nephi; for which there is very little textual evidence, and a considerable weight against the tradition, from historical and textual sources. While any attempt to discuss seership cannot but be speculative, I think more than opinions can be considered when it comes to the composition of the BoM. As stated, I would happily consider your arguments on that subject.

It is unfortunate that the initial post seems to frame our works in competition, when an appendix essay is really all that has been read. I take the blame for that, as I provided a sample of the essay on translation for a friend overseas, who could then download it on my blog.

Anyway, I look forward to reading your new book, and perhaps we could go over our differences in more depth, some time.

[Brant Gardner]

Thank you for the brief overview of The Abridging Works.

. . . and certainly intended to be brief.

I think perhaps if you might state in particular where the argument regarding construction is not supported by the text, I would happily reconsider the sequence of composition (though it's too late for the book!). It's a provisional, first step; and as I admit in the essays, there's bound to be revisions in the sequence.

This is where we have a major difference in understanding. For example, you see Mormon's beginning as the official historian represented by the book of Mormon. I see a very different genesis, where his entire conceptualized work (Book of Mormon) was begun at a later time and is not directly a representation of his earlier writing. I base that on the text, not simply an assumption.

Secondly, I see a pretty clear overall pattern to Mormon's concept, so I find much less reason to recut it. As far as the small plate records, I see them as a very different record (internally and structurally) and find no indication that Mormon intended them as anything but an appendix - they were nothing he wrote. From compositional order, they were clearly the first, but as for Mormon's composition, not really a part of it all.

The essay on translation is not really in competition with your work, I imagine (though I have not read the book yet). The essay attempts to bring together the problems of translation/interpretation as the 'gift and power' of God, with attempts to study the Book of Mormon as a text. Efforts to study the BoM have often missed the initial problem of interpretation (yes, I do explicitly argue for, rather than merely lean toward, interpretation as the proper term for what Joseph Smith did). Perhaps after reading your book I will reconsider my argument.

There is probably a lot of your idea of interpretation in what I propose, although I suspect I conclude a perhaps closer connection to the plate text, but that isn't clear from the nature of your discussion--your essay really is pointed to a different issue.

The more interesting argument, for me the author, anyway, concerns the tradition of the Large and Small Plates of Nephi; for which there is very little textual evidence, and a considerable weight against the tradition, from historical and textual sources.

I think we disagree on this. I find no reason to suspect that the two traditions were anything other than what they were presented to be, and an internal analysis justifies their essential differences.

While any attempt to discuss seership cannot but be speculative, I think more than opinions can be considered when it comes to the composition of the BoM. As stated, I would happily consider your arguments on that subject.

I agree that there is a lot that can and should be done with the composition of the Book of Mormon. There has been quite a bit done. Perhaps as you continue to look at the question, you will interact with some of it. It hasn't had the kind of attention that some other subjects have had, but it certainly hasn't been neglected.

It is unfortunate that the initial post seems to frame our works in competition, when an appendix essay is really all that has been read. I take the blame for that, as I provided a sample of the essay on translation for a friend overseas, who could then download it on my blog.

I doubt that the framing was completely serious. I think it served to get the thread read and let people know about your book.

[David T]

I doubt that the framing was completely serious. I think it served to get the thread read and let people know about your book.

Bingo.

[daymonsmith]

"This is where we have a major difference in understanding. For example, you see Mormon's beginning as the official historian represented by the book of Mormon. I see a very different genesis, where his entire conceptualized work (Book of Mormon) was begun at a later time and is not directly a representation of his earlier writing. I base that on the text, not simply an assumption."

I simply doubt that Mormon waited until the end of his life to actually begin writing, as perhaps you believe. I cannot see, however, that you base your assumption "on the text" any less than I do. I can't find anywhere that Mormon actually says he began writing on such and such a date, and am inclined to believe that he wasted no time writing upon the Plates of Nephi, which is where I locate his first chapters from the Book of Mormon (as you might recall, having "gone over" the book). Perhaps you could explain where your reading is found in the text, and is not an assumption? You surely recall that I place the majority of the abridging during the time of Mormon's renunciation, which comes, of course, nearer the end of his life. There are reasons given in the essays for this reading, as a reader of them would know.

"Conceptualized work" means, what? I find your use of terms opaque at best, and your lack of explanation somewhat frustrating, and a little coy.

It is convenient, I suppose, to suggest that one's reading is founded upon the text. But let's be honest: there is no evidence Mormon waited until "later" rather than "earlier". "Later" than what? Do you have his earlier writings to compare them with?

"Secondly, I see a pretty clear overall pattern to Mormon's concept, so I find much less reason to recut it. As far as the small plate records, I see them as a very different record (internally and structurally) and find no indication that Mormon intended them as anything but an appendix - they were nothing he wrote. From compositional order, they were clearly the first, but as for Mormon's composition, not really a part of it all."

A "pattern" that you see is not a pattern that I see. "Pattern" is a convenient shorthand for "I can't explain why I believe as I do." A stylistic, thematic, grammatical, or what sort of "pattern"?

As I said, if you might provide an argument, rather than a statement of your correctness, I might be inclined to agree. You actually believe he began at the beginning, and simply wound up writing about the war at Cumorah on, what, the night before? The text must be broken up by different sittings, unless you actually believe he wrote the entire abridgment while waiting for the Lamanites atop Cumorah.

Also, to suggest that the small plates were "not really a part" of his composition is to misunderstand the meaning of the term. Obviously he didn't "write" them, but that is why I speak of composition, as in, writing as well as arranging. Cleary they were appended after the majority of the abridgment was complete, though not necessarily before the completion of his own book. You cannot have engaged my argument concerning the small account, and so falter with this lame misunderstanding.

"There is probably a lot of your idea of interpretation in what I propose, although I suspect I conclude a perhaps closer connection to the plate text, but that isn't clear from the nature of your discussion--your essay really is pointed to a different issue."

Perhaps. It would help if you could identify where your book comprehends my essay, as I have not read your work, and you claim to have read mine. It seems you should be more certain than, "probably a lot" if you actually read and understood the essay.

Second, I don't know what you mean by "I conclude a perhaps closer connection to the plate text". Closer than what? The text was obviously re-arranged, as the lost pages demands. It wasn't written in English. It had to be interpreted/translated. These are basic points regaring scholarship on the Book of Mormon that you seem to have not grasped from the essays ostensibly "gone over". So you cannot suggest that something is closer to the plate text, without saying what it is closer than.

"I think we disagree on this. I find no reason to suspect that the two traditions were anything other than what they were presented to be, and an internal analysis justifies their essential differences."

"Internal analysis" is not a word that is readily meaningful to me. What do you mean? "Presented to be" by who, where, when? You act as if your reading is self-evident, and needs no explanation. The very fact that you seem unable to demonstrate the falsity of my argument is proof enough that the text as you read it is not a self-evident one; though that doesn't necessarily prove my case, obviously. It merely shows that proof of a reading, rather than restatements of one's readings, are required. These are the points in an argument that justifies one's claims, as any scholar knows, of course.

"I agree that there is a lot that can and should be done with the composition of the Book of Mormon. There has been quite a bit done. Perhaps as you continue to look at the question, you will interact with some of it. It hasn't had the kind of attention that some other subjects have had, but it certainly hasn't been neglected."

OK. And, so? Just giving advice, I suppose. I was just trying to be nice...

"I doubt that the framing was completely serious. I think it served to get the thread read and let people know about your book."

I was trying to be diplomatic. I don't really need to be told the purpose of a post. I have some abilty to interpret the pragmatics of a text.

You claim to have "gone over" the book, in a sort of condescending manner suitable, perhaps, to an emeritus BYU professor with an undergraduate essay thurst before him. But I doubt you've read it, to be honest; and if your eyes have passed over the pages, you have yet to evidence any serious understanding. The fact that you cannot seem to "interact with some of it" is proof enough. Reviewing books one has not read is, perhaps, common enough; but when postured before those familiar with the means by which such puffery is accomplished, one should be more careful. I am willing to revise that guess, given evidence to the contrary.

[Brant Gardner]

I was just trying to be nice... I was trying to be diplomatic.

I see you have given up on both attempts.

I simply doubt that Mormon waited until the end of his life to actually begin writing, as perhaps you believe.

I do believe that he began writing this text closer to the end that the beginning. However, he did begin earlier to write as official scribe on the plates of Nephi. Here is my quick analysis of the data and timeline (you can find the article here.)

In the 345th year after the birth of the Savior, Mormonremoved at least some of the plates of Nephi from the hill Shim (Morm.2:16–17). Mormon doesn’t tell us the extent of the plates he removed at thistime, but it is improbable that they were the full set of the “plates of Nephi,”although he explicitly tells us that these were the very plates on which otherrecord-keepers had written (see Morm. 2:18). At this time, he records that“upon [these] plates of Nephi I did make a full account of all the wickednessand abominations.” On these plates, Mormon is fulfilling his duties as nationalscribe. He has not yet begun what we know as the Book of Mormon.

We next see the full collection of plates in the 367th year when Mormon was 46. At that time he again retrieves plates from the hill Shimbecause the land is being overrun by the Lamanites (Morm. 4:23). The plausiblescenario, then, has Mormon writing as a chronicler or regular record-keeper fortwenty-two years on the large plates of Nephi. He could not compose his ownbook without access to the complete records from Shim—and he apparently did notacquire them until the 367th year.

For the next thirteen years, I suggest that he read anddigested them, possibly taking notes and certainly preparing an outline orrough draft. He then began writing the work we have as our Book of Mormon at leastby 379 (Morm. 5:5,9), when he was 58 years old, and continuing through early385. He died somewhere after early AD 385 and before AD 391, by which time Moroni was writing.

For the rest of the post, I found myself responding to the tone as much as the information. I will summarize quickly:

1) Yes, I really did read it. Not agreeing with you is not evidence that I didn't read your arguments.

2) Your bibliography is thin. It is missing the relevant literature on the composition of the text. That tells me that you are missing a large body of data against which to test your theory. I have read those as well (and written some of them). The data disagree with you, not just me.

3) As a short example, your suggestion of the break at 2 Nephi 5:26 is contradicted by the original manuscript, which is extant at that point. Since Skousen's typescript of it was in your bibliography, you could have checked this as easily as I did.

I was intrigued by your suggestion, and certainly the construction of the Bible gives reason to look for evidence of such textual construction. Your reordering of the text has a logic to it, but unfortunately it is yours and not one that can be defended from any actual evidence in the text.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Brant Gardner

[LeSellers]

For the next thirteen years[beginning in 366~7], I suggest that he read and digested them, possibly taking notes and certainly preparing an outline or rough draft. He then began writing the work we have as our Book of Mormon at least by 379 (Morm. 5:5,9), when he was 58 years old, and continuing through early385. He died somewhere after early AD 385 and before AD 391, by which time Moroni was writing.

It was during this time that Mormon developed the twin themes we find in the Book of Mormon, but the second was not even mentioned in the Small Plates of Nephi: Jesus is the Christ; secret combinations inevitably lead to destruction of civilization (and they result from individual sin leading to cultural breakdown).

We read that Mormon and Moroni were writing specifically for us in our day. I am led to the inevitable conclusion that there are secret combinations are among us now, and that we have been warned. This warning, however, seems to fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes).

Lehi

[blackstrap]

It is possible to read criticism and reply in a civil and even gentlemanly manner.Brant can teach alot about both the Book of Mormon and civil discourse.

[daymonsmith]

Mr Gardner,

I see no reason to agree with your timeline about when certain parts were composed, as the text allows more than your reading to be a reasonable one.

Second, by "original manuscript" I think you mean, "the oldest extant manuscript". There is big difference between "original" and what you actually mean.

If you understood my argument about lost leaves, the comment would immediately be seen to be irrelevant.

A thin bibliography is the criticism, then?

I'm not sure I'm at fault over that one. I made no claims to write an extensive literature review, but rather focused my essays on a few matters relevant to my argument.

But there's no reason to continue to debate with one that cannot see alternative interpretations are not enemies to one's own.

You are invited, however, to read my blog post about a review about your book.

[LeSellers]

I see no reason to agree with your timeline about when certain parts were composed, as the text allows more than your reading to be a reasonable one.

It would really be helpful were you (and others) to include a portion of the message to which you're responding. It makes it easier to follow your points, which ought to be your purpose in writing.

If you're only talking to "Mr. Gardner", send 'im a PM/IM.

Lehi

P.S.: Thuis message goes out to all who offend by this broad kind of laziness and inconsideration. LS

[daymonsmith]

It would really be helpful were you (and others) to include a portion of the message to which you're responding. It makes it easier to follow your points, which ought to be your purpose in writing.

Sorry for my "laziness". I thought by reading one post, and then the next, one could, maybe, follow a conversation. I attributed too many brains, apparently, to some readers.

Here's Gardner's Quote:

In the 345th year after the birth of the Savior, Mormonremoved at least some of the plates of Nephi from the hill Shim (Morm.2:16–17). Mormon doesn’t tell us the extent of the plates he removed at thistime, but it is improbable that they were the full set of the “plates of Nephi,”although he explicitly tells us that these were the very plates on which otherrecord-keepers had written (see Morm. 2:18). At this time, he records that“upon [these] plates of Nephi I did make a full account of all the wickednessand abominations.” On these plates, Mormon is fulfilling his duties as nationalscribe. He has not yet begun what we know as the Book of Mormon.

We next see the full collection of plates in the 367th year when Mormon was 46. At that time he again retrieves plates from the hill Shimbecause the land is being overrun by the Lamanites (Morm. 4:23). The plausiblescenario, then, has Mormon writing as a chronicler or regular record-keeper fortwenty-two years on the large plates of Nephi. He could not compose his ownbook without access to the complete records from Shim—and he apparently did notacquire them until the 367th year.

For the next thirteen years, I suggest that he read anddigested them, possibly taking notes and certainly preparing an outline orrough draft. He then began writing the work we have as our Book of Mormon at leastby 379 (Morm. 5:5,9), when he was 58 years old, and continuing through early385. He died somewhere after early AD 385 and before AD 391, by which time Moroni was writing.

---My response---For all to see who happen to have read a misrepresentation of my argument, in a public sphere--

So when Mormon says he took the Plates of Nephi, you are inclined to say it is "improbable that they were the full set of the 'plates of nephi'"? Improbable by what standard? Um...He says he took the Plates of Nephi, can you say there is a question of probability as to how many, how extensive, or what portion of Plates of Nephi he means when he says "Plates of Nephi"?

I'm inclined to take him at his word: Plates of Nephi means Plates of Nephi, not Mr. Gardner's assumption that he's fudging, and only took some portion.

Had you understood my account of things, you would realize that my version agrees well with your (text-based) timeline: Mormon wrote the first part of his "book of mormon" which describes his taking of the Plates of Nephi, for the Plates of Nephi. The earliest parts of his 'book of mormon', in The Book of Mormon, are from a different writing, before he began the Abridging Plates.

"He could not compose his own book without access to the complete records from Shim" you assert, again, without any evidence and also a certitude that I find utterly without reason.

He was told, as I understand it, to abridge the Plates of Nephi. Having before him these plates, I cannot see why he couldn't do just that.

Your problem is that you've insisted by "Plates of Nephi" he doesn't really mean "Plates of Nephi", but must be limited to your understanding of what that phrase means. So, from your reading, you proceed to project onto Mormon some limits. However, I impose no such misunderstanding on Mormon. Thus, I have Mormon beginning this abridging work only a year or two after taking the Plates of Nephi (not Mr. Gardner's 'portion' of them); and yet, I do agree that he finished his account during the years he outlines (this time drawing more closely from Mormon's own account of things, rather than some must-be-this account of things), that Mormon rounded it off, after taking all the plates from Shim. That it took thirty years may be a Gardner standard for writing a book, but it isn't necessarily Mormon's standard.

To summarize a point from my last response concerning my reading of 3Nephi5 as a leaf from the lost 116: "Original manuscript" means only "oldest dated surviving manuscript"; my very argument concerning the lost leaves (and their apparent existence preceeding your and Skousen's ostensible 'original manuscript') merely means that I have followed the actual history of things, while you and Skousen have neglected your studies. There was a text that existed before your "original", and yet also it is clear that Joseph Smith "retained" some portion of that translation, which wasn't handed over to Martin Harris.

My account of things actually expands and addresses this history; while Gardner and Skousen ignore it, and would have readers believe that they have the "original" Book of Mormon, against all historical evidence to the contrary.

It is for that reason that I don't bother citing essays and books which are partial, "faithful", uncritical in thought, and sloppy in analysis.

[LeSellers]

I thought by reading one post, and then the next, one could, maybe, follow a conversation. I attributed too many brains, apparently, to some readers.

The issue is, we don't which post to start with. We can read, but going back and determining what you're responding to is problematic because there's no obvious context.

My point is that, if you want people to understand your position, perhaps even to agree with it, making it easy for those readers to grasp the message is not only considerate, it's wise.

And, just to be sure you just said what it looks like you said, are you accusing people who don't care (based on the lack of context) to slog through endless messages to get that context of lacking brains?

Because that sounds a lot like demeaning to me.

Lehi

Lehi has left the building.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Minos
board nanny