Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Padilla Gold Plates


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
28 replies to this topic

#1 Anijen

Anijen

    My head really hurts

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 01 December 2007 - 01:29 PM

Can someone help me find some papers to read about the Padilla Gold Plates? I have read that they were a fraud but have searched FARMS and FAIR and I just get snippets that they are fraud but not why or how that conclusion was reached. Also is there any pictures of them? Also has the Anthon Transcript ever been translated?
  • 0

Never mistake my kindness for weakness, my good nature for gullibility, or my smile for ignorance. 

 


#2 Pa Pa

Pa Pa

    Shhh...Don't tell the anti-Mormons

  • Limited
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,505 posts

Posted 01 December 2007 - 02:11 PM

Can someone help me find some papers to read about the Padilla Gold Plates? I have read that they were a fraud but have searched FARMS and FAIR and I just get snippets that they are fraud but not why or how that conclusion was reached. Also is there any pictures of them? Also has the Anthon Transcript ever been translated?

Don't know what that is, can you elaborate?
  • 0
"So now it's just another show, leave them laughing when you go. And if you care don't let them know. Don't give yourself away" Joni Mitchell
There is no such thing as "Christian Tolerance"! Theo 1689 (CARMite)
See my Poetry Blog

#3 Anijen

Anijen

    My head really hurts

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 01 December 2007 - 02:24 PM

Don't know what that is, can you elaborate?

My family knows I love history and church history and archeology. I was given the Book Mormon and Moroni (by Ainsworth) as a present. I would have never would have bought this book because of some semi bad reviews by FARMS. But they (my family) didn't know that and so hence purchased it for me. Well Ive basically never read it until someone in my family had it in the bathroom (a favorite reading spot for some). As I glanced through it I noticed some pictures of gold plates etc.

I was wondering why an educated member in the church (Ainsworth) puts full credit into these plates and FARMS says there fraudulent? So I looked it up and cant find out why they were labeled such. Its not that I don't believe FARMS its just that I wanted to know why they said so. I wanted to dig deeper so to speak.

Anijen
  • 0

Never mistake my kindness for weakness, my good nature for gullibility, or my smile for ignorance. 

 


#4 Sanpitch

Sanpitch

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 300 posts

Posted 01 December 2007 - 02:29 PM

A search for "padilla Gold Plates" turns up several web sites including the one below, but was it jose davila instead of padilla?:

http://www.geocities...000/davila.html


Edit: Wow this is interesting, I've never heard of the Padilla Gold Plates. From the above web site:

In 1961 Jose acquired 5 out of 12 Gold plates, that were found in a tomb at Amuzgus, Oaxaca, Mexico, by Dr. Jesus Padilla. These gold plates had a strange writing on them, never being seen before by archaelogists. Jose immediately recognized the style of writing as being the same as facsimile no. 2 from the book of Abraham, printed in the Pearl of Great Price, in the book of Mormon, called Nephite reformed Egyption.

Edited by Sanpitch, 01 December 2007 - 02:55 PM.

  • 0

#5 Anijen

Anijen

    My head really hurts

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 01 December 2007 - 03:35 PM

A search for "padilla Gold Plates" turns up several web sites including the one below, but was it jose davila instead of padilla?:

http://www.geocities...000/davila.html
Edit: Wow this is interesting, I've never heard of the Padilla Gold Plates. From the above web site:

In 1961 Jose acquired 5 out of 12 Gold plates, that were found in a tomb at Amuzgus, Oaxaca, Mexico, by Dr. Jesus Padilla. These gold plates had a strange writing on them, never being seen before by archaelogists. Jose immediately recognized the style of writing as being the same as facsimile no. 2 from the book of Abraham, printed in the Pearl of Great Price, in the book of Mormon, called Nephite reformed Egyption.

This article does not explain why the plates are considered fake. The more I read from Ainsworth the more I question... I wonder why his passion and apparent lack of motive is shredded. I need to do more research on this.
  • 0

Never mistake my kindness for weakness, my good nature for gullibility, or my smile for ignorance. 

 


#6 Anijen

Anijen

    My head really hurts

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 01 December 2007 - 03:41 PM

Why is finding a parallel to the old world okay but finding any credible BoM artifact automatically called a fake? It would seem that those who say its a fake are biased to begin with and steer their results to match their opinions. Why would some of these artifacts be declared fakes without testing and then after extensive effort on Ainsworth part to get tested they come back as an artifact from 800 BC to 300 AD but are still labeled fake?

I'm just questioning here and trying to see motive etc etc.

I am not taking any sides but want to know.
  • 0

Never mistake my kindness for weakness, my good nature for gullibility, or my smile for ignorance. 

 


#7 Sanpitch

Sanpitch

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 300 posts

Posted 01 December 2007 - 03:49 PM

Anijen, did you notice that by clicking on the picture of the gold plate, on the web site, the picture is enlarged so you can see the writing clearly?

Ed: If I had my seer stone handy I could probably read it.

Edited by Sanpitch, 01 December 2007 - 04:00 PM.

  • 0

#8 Nevo

Nevo

    Fides et Ratio

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,307 posts

Posted 01 December 2007 - 04:42 PM

This article does not explain why the plates are considered fake. The more I read from Ainsworth the more I question... I wonder why his passion and apparent lack of motive is shredded. I need to do more research on this.

The first place you should start is here.

Also, if you search the board archives you will find a number of contentious threads on Ainsworth's "discoveries" that appeared here before you joined the board (e.g., "Mormon Sites Inc", "Reformed Egyptian Plates in Mexico", "Poll: Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah", "Dr. Ainsworth responds to Brant Gardner", "Q & A with Dr. Jerry L. Ainsworth", etc.).

Edited by Nevo, 01 December 2007 - 04:46 PM.

  • 0

#9 Anijen

Anijen

    My head really hurts

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 01 December 2007 - 06:15 PM

The first place you should start is here.

Also, if you search the board archives you will find a number of contentious threads on Ainsworth's "discoveries" that appeared here before you joined the board (e.g., "Mormon Sites Inc", "Reformed Egyptian Plates in Mexico", "Poll: Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah", "Dr. Ainsworth responds to Brant Gardner", "Q & A with Dr. Jerry L. Ainsworth", etc.).

DR Ainsworth puts a question to Brant Gardners objectivity and from what I read he makes some valid points. Besides Brant has lost some points with me lately on Macaws and Elephants....
Ainsworth says;
"Gardner puts forth his opinions as facts"

I'll have to go over the boards old posts on this subject. It just seems DR Ainsworth has answered many of the questions concerning a lot of the skepticism, So I haven't decided which way to go yet.
  • 0

Never mistake my kindness for weakness, my good nature for gullibility, or my smile for ignorance. 

 


#10 poulsenll

poulsenll

    Kolipoki

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts

Posted 01 December 2007 - 06:24 PM

The first place you should start is here.

Also, if you search the board archives you will find a number of contentious threads on Ainsworth's "discoveries" that appeared here before you joined the board (e.g., "Mormon Sites Inc", "Reformed Egyptian Plates in Mexico", "Poll: Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah", "Dr. Ainsworth responds to Brant Gardner", "Q & A with Dr. Jerry L. Ainsworth", etc.).


Thanks Nevo for the pointers. I was amazed that this topic came up again.

Jerry Ainsworth is a personal friend of mine and we have had many opportunities to discuss BofM geography. He has repeatedly requested for an authoritative examination of the Padilla plates. The present evidence, based on a rather cursory examination of the manner in which the plates wer apparently made and engraved suggests that they are fraudulent. This conclusion is based on the asumption that precolumbian Americam cultures did not have available to them the technology that was obviously used to fabricate the plates. Until a more extensive study of the plates is performed, Jerry is ambivalent about their authenticity. In other words, I personally think he would like them to be real but would not be too dissapointed if they were definitively proven to be false. He included them in his book because they were part of his Adventure into Mesoamerica. Jerry considers himself as an explorer and adventurer rather than a scholar and academic.

He and I do not always agree but we have agreed to disagree in a friendly manner.

Larry P

Edited by poulsenll, 01 December 2007 - 10:00 PM.

  • 0
Honorary member of UMW #70x7 But I still have no idea what it stands for.

#11 Anijen

Anijen

    My head really hurts

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 01 December 2007 - 07:39 PM

Thanks Nevo for the pointers. I was amazed that this topic came up again.

Jerry Ainsworth is a personal friend of mine and we have had many opportunities to discuss BofM geography. He has repeatedly requested for an authoritative examination of the Padilla plates. The present evidence, based on a rather cursory examination of the manner in which the plates wer apparently made and engraved suggests that they are fraudulent. This conclusion is based on the asumption that precolumbian Americam cultures did not have available to them the technology that was obviously used to fabricate the plates. Until a more extensive study of the plates is performed, Jerry is ambivalent about their authenticity. In other words, I personally think he would like them to be real but would not be too dissapointed if they were definitively proven to be false. He included them in his book because they wer part of his Adventure into Mesoamerica. Jerry considers himself as an explorer and adventurer rather than a scholar and academic.

He and I do not always agree but we have agreed to disagree in a friendly manner.

Larry P

Thanks P that was nice to read. After reading my post I seem to come too hard on Brant I don't mean to. I am leaning very much to Sorenson's theories on Mormon Geography but I like reading what Ainsworth had to say about the plates and as much as I mulled it over in my mind I couldn't understand Ainsworth passion about the plates unless he thought something was there about it.
  • 0

Never mistake my kindness for weakness, my good nature for gullibility, or my smile for ignorance. 

 


#12 poulsenll

poulsenll

    Kolipoki

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts

Posted 01 December 2007 - 09:59 PM

Thanks P that was nice to read. After reading my post I seem to come too hard on Brant I don't mean to. I am leaning very much to Sorenson's theories on Mormon Geography but I like reading what Ainsworth had to say about the plates and as much as I mulled it over in my mind I couldn't understand Ainsworth passion about the plates unless he thought something was there about it.


I accept much of Sorenson's geography with respect to the central parts of the land of Zarahemla. However his extended geography and his interpretation of Mormon's map in Alma 22 are flawed by a lack of application of Mesoamerican concepts of directionality with an over emphasis on modern geocentric concepts of geography. His attempts to justify his geocentric views (for example his conclusion that the Atlantic ocean including all its gulfs, bays and indentations constitute the BofM east sea) on the basis of the hebrew word for west which translates to "our back to the sea" and completely ignoring the Hebrew word for east which translates to "where the sun rises. To assume that they would call the Pacific the west sea and thus the Atlantic the east sea, because at landing, although the sea was to the south, it was to their back and ignore that they would do this when obviously they could tell where the sun was rising is twisting the text to fit a preconcieved geocentric view of geography.

Precolumbian societies both in the new and the old worlds had a more anthrocentric view of geography and were more concerned with the local geography as it related to their personal location and although they may have had a knowledge of the global nature of the oceans it is unlikely that they took this into account in naming local geographic features.

More on this is on my web site and in my blog here on MA&D. More on this will be forthcoming in a review coming out in the next issue of "Farm's Review of Books"

I dont always agree with Brant either but he often agrees with me. After all as he is quick to admit he is not a geographer.

Larry P
  • 0
Honorary member of UMW #70x7 But I still have no idea what it stands for.

#13 Anijen

Anijen

    My head really hurts

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 01 December 2007 - 11:43 PM

I accept much of Sorenson's geography with respect to the central parts of the land of Zarahemla. However his extended geography and his interpretation of Mormon's map in Alma 22 are flawed by a lack of application of Mesoamerican concepts of directionality with an over emphasis on modern geocentric concepts of geography. His attempts to justify his geocentric views (for example his conclusion that the Atlantic ocean including all its gulfs, bays and indentations constitute the BofM east sea) on the basis of the hebrew word for west which translates to "our back to the sea" and completely ignoring the Hebrew word for east which translates to "where the sun rises. To assume that they would call the Pacific the west sea and thus the Atlantic the east sea, because at landing, although the sea was to the south, it was to their back and ignore that they would do this when obviously they could tell where the sun was rising is twisting the text to fit a preconcieved geocentric view of geography.

Precolumbian societies both in the new and the old worlds had a more anthrocentric view of geography and were more concerned with the local geography as it related to their personal location and although they may have had a knowledge of the global nature of the oceans it is unlikely that they took this into account in naming local geographic features.

More on this is on my web site and in my blog here on MA&D. More on this will be forthcoming in a review coming out in the next issue of "Farm's Review of Books"

I dont always agree with Brant either but he often agrees with me. After all as he is quick to admit he is not a geographer.

Larry P

again thanks. I will be looking forward to reading your stuff
  • 0

Never mistake my kindness for weakness, my good nature for gullibility, or my smile for ignorance. 

 


#14 grego

grego

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,807 posts

Posted 02 December 2007 - 05:00 AM

The present evidence, based on a rather cursory examination of the manner in which the plates wer apparently made and engraved suggests that they are fraudulent. This conclusion is based on the asumption that precolumbian Americam cultures did not have available to them the technology that was obviously used to fabricate the plates. Until a more extensive study of the plates is performed, Jerry is ambivalent about their authenticity. In other words, I personally think he would like them to be real but would not be too dissapointed if they were definitively proven to be false.


Yeah, from the threads there seem to be only assumptions now.

And as you saw, Brant Garnder wrote the fairwiki article, so there's not much more there.

Ainsworth says;
"Gardner puts forth his opinions as facts"

I'll have to go over the boards old posts on this subject. It just seems DR Ainsworth has answered many of the questions concerning a lot of the skepticism, So I haven't decided which way to go yet.


I pretty much see it that way too. Actually, I see it much worse than that--I won't say, but I will say I think it would be nice if Garnder changed his style.

Edited by grego, 02 December 2007 - 07:01 AM.

  • 0

#15 Brant Gardner

Brant Gardner

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,178 posts

Posted 02 December 2007 - 08:09 AM

The Padilla plates have undergone analysis from a competent archaeologist and from an armchair ethnohistorian who states opinions as facts. That raises the fascinating question of what there is left to analyze.

1) The material. It could be determined that it is is gold - of some purity. What will that tell us about its authenticity? I am not aware of anything. It could tell us that the alloy was not known, but then proponents could simply claim that it was done in a different place. I am unaware of any way to date the age of a metal object.

2) The means of construction. This was analyzed and found to be unavailable to know Mesoamerican cultures. Proponents simply claim that it was a lost technology. This is possible, but the uniformity of size and the nature of the cuts to create the pieces are strongly suggestive of something done with modern tools. It is possible, I suppose, that an electron microscope could verify that it was cut with a metal object rather than stone (already the suggestion from the archaeologist), but we have the counter proposal that there was more lost technology.

I am not sure what kind of test to which the plates could be submitted that would satisfy proponents. I would like to hear what someone thinks could demonstrate that they were authentic. What tests to you think would work?

Why are they suspicious?

1) We have the information on the plates. The writing is clearly from the Anthon transcript. While that makes it enticing, it also makes it immediately suspicious. Had we found that writing on a more common material (particularly one datable and found in a demonstrable context) it would be much more exciting. Finding it on the combination of plausibly copied text on gold plates and you have the recipe for a deception pointed directly at the Book of Mormon, much as Mormon-themed material miraculously showed up on the Michigan artifacts after the perpetrators found out there was LDS interest.

2) At least one of the pieces of art is directly traceable to Palenque (therefore post-Book of Mormon). It is a clear enough copy that it is obvious what the source was. However, it is poorly done, with elements that are of importance to the iconography that were jumbled because the copyist didn't understand the art that was being copied. Although that is subjective, it is the best indication that the piece couldn't be native. It is the equivalent of someone copying a Moroni on top of a temple and having him with baseball bat standing on a large baseball.

3) Uncertain provenance. As with several modern fogeries, they come from a secret location that only the discoverer has seen and to which no competent archaeologist has been allowed access. This gives an unverifiable background - and a suspicious one.

4) The discovery path is through people familiar with the Book of Mormon - hence also in prime position to create an artifact that appealed to Mormons.


What can we conclude? There are highly suspicious aspects of the artifacts. In construction and content they do not appear to be ancient. Unlike the Grolier Codex that was thought to be a forgery, but contained authentic Maya texts, the Padilla plates have nothing that is clearly ancient. Those aspects of the iconography that are made to appear Mayan are poor copies and make mistakes a native would not.

The construction is suspicious in the physical aspects and in the circumstances. None of these conditions tempt labs to spend the money to authenticate them.

What do we have that suggests that they might be authentic? The hope that they come from Book of Mormon times and were not simply created to relate to the Book of Mormon after the fact. That is slim positive against, in my opinion, overwhelming negative information.
  • 0

#16 grego

grego

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,807 posts

Posted 02 December 2007 - 05:53 PM

The Padilla plates have undergone analysis from a competent archaeologist and from an armchair ethnohistorian who states opinions as facts.



You don't want to lose that monopoly, eh? ;)

-=-=-=

That raises the fascinating question of what there is left to analyze.


Not really. To me, that doesn't say *anything* about "what there is left to analyze".

-=-=-=

1) The material. It could be determined that it is is gold - of some purity. What will that tell us about its authenticity? I am not aware of anything. It could tell us that the alloy was not known, but then proponents could simply claim that it was done in a different place. I am unaware of any way to date the age of a metal object.


So am I correct to guess it doesn't really tell us much about its being a forgery, either?

-=-=-=

2) The means of construction. This was analyzed and found to be unavailable to know Mesoamerican cultures. Proponents simply claim that it was a lost technology. This is possible, but the uniformity of size and the nature of the cuts to create the pieces are strongly suggestive of something done with modern tools. It is possible, I suppose, that an electron microscope could verify that it was cut with a metal object rather than stone (already the suggestion from the archaeologist), but we have the counter proposal that there was more lost technology.


A much fairer treatment here. Actually, I find it commendable.

-=-=-=

I am not sure what kind of test to which the plates could be submitted that would satisfy proponents. I would like to hear what someone thinks could demonstrate that they were authentic. What tests to you think would work?


Or which would satisfy anyone who believes they are a forgery or is withholding judgment?

-=-=-=

Why are they suspicious?

1) We have the information on the plates. The writing is clearly from the Anthon transcript. While that makes it enticing, it also makes it immediately suspicious. Had we found that writing on a more common material (particularly one datable and found in a demonstrable context) it would be much more exciting. Finding it on the combination of plausibly copied text on gold plates and you have the recipe for a deception pointed directly at the Book of Mormon, much as Mormon-themed material miraculously showed up on the Michigan artifacts after the perpetrators found out there was LDS interest.


Then perhaps this should be more strongly voiced as a serious point of contention.

-=-=-=

2) At least one of the pieces of art is directly traceable to Palenque (therefore post-Book of Mormon). It is a clear enough copy that it is obvious what the source was. However, it is poorly done, with elements that are of importance to the iconography that were jumbled because the copyist didn't understand the art that was being copied. Although that is subjective, it is the best indication that the piece couldn't be native. It is the equivalent of someone copying a Moroni on top of a temple and having him with baseball bat standing on a large baseball.


Obviously something is wrong here. Before, you used "a trumpet", not "a baseball bat"--thus I know you are not the authentic Brant Garnder. :crazy:

Once more, a much fairer and much more commendable treatment.

-=-=-=

3) Uncertain provenance. As with several modern fogeries, they come from a secret location that only the discoverer has seen and to which no competent archaeologist has been allowed access. This gives an unverifiable background - and a suspicious one.

4) The discovery path is through people familiar with the Book of Mormon - hence also in prime position to create an artifact that appealed to Mormons.

What can we conclude? There are highly suspicious aspects of the artifacts. In construction and content they do not appear to be ancient. Unlike the Grolier Codex that was thought to be a forgery, but contained authentic Maya texts, the Padilla plates have nothing that is clearly ancient. Those aspects of the iconography that are made to appear Mayan are poor copies and make mistakes a native would not.

The construction is suspicious in the physical aspects and in the circumstances. None of these conditions tempt labs to spend the money to authenticate them.

What do we have that suggests that they might be authentic? The hope that they come from Book of Mormon times and were not simply created to relate to the Book of Mormon after the fact. That is slim positive against, in my opinion, overwhelming negative information.


Brant Gardner, I--perhaps your biggest and certainly on these boards most vocal critic--not only have to admit this is much fairer and commendable overall, but it is also much more acceptable and convincing. Amazing, the correlation? A job well done. :P

Edited by grego, 02 December 2007 - 05:58 PM.

  • 0

#17 MormonMason

MormonMason

    Places Sun, Moon & Stars In The Sky

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,249 posts

Posted 02 December 2007 - 07:15 PM

DR Ainsworth puts a question to Brant Gardners objectivity and from what I read he makes some valid points. Besides Brant has lost some points with me lately on Macaws and Elephants....
Ainsworth says;
"Gardner puts forth his opinions as facts"

I'll have to go over the boards old posts on this subject. It just seems DR Ainsworth has answered many of the questions concerning a lot of the skepticism, So I haven't decided which way to go yet.


Sad to say it, but I feel Brant is right about the stylized Macaws at Copan that have been mistaken for elephants. I looked very carefully at the statue at Copan and could note exactly where the nostril holes are apparent on the faces. The existence, shape, and relative location of eyes and the nostril holes where they should be on a Macaw detract very much from any claim that they are elephants, in my opinion.

Having looked at the Padilla plates myself, I have to agree that they are fraudulent. The way in which they appear to have been flattened, and the way in which they appear to have been cut with metal shears does not match the manner in which genuinely ancient plates were cut. The writings themselves are clumsy copies of characters from the Anthon Transcript and from Maya stele, all jumbled together. There is more that could be said about these.

So far as the Anthon Transcript goes, there have been attempts at translating them but so far no complete successes. I have found some meaning in only a few places thereof but know that I have a long way to go before producing a complete translation. I have recently identified another three characters and found them to be a preposition followed by the beginning of another word which I have not identified as of yet (I only have the first character of that following word, which character is the demotic symbol for a penis, and which is found in a few words as a syllabic character, as an ideograph, and in others as a determinative).

Work continues in my spare time but I have to admit that there is not enough on the Transcript to aid in deciphering it. I wish it had been like the Rosetta Stone but it is not. We are still missing much of the transcript and we are completely missing the lines of English text that were originally with it. What has happened to this text is unknown at the present time.

Edited by MormonMason, 02 December 2007 - 07:18 PM.

  • 0

#18 poulsenll

poulsenll

    Kolipoki

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts

Posted 02 December 2007 - 07:18 PM

You don't want to lose that monopoly, eh? ;)

-=-=-=
Not really. To me, that doesn't say *anything* about "what there is left to analyze".

-=-=-=
So am I correct to guess it doesn't really tell us much about its being a forgery, either?

-=-=-=
A much fairer treatment here. Actually, I find it commendable.

-=-=-=
Or which would satisfy anyone who believes they are a forgery or is withholding judgment?

-=-=-=
Then perhaps this should be more strongly voiced as a serious point of contention.

-=-=-=
Obviously something is wrong here. Before, you used "a trumpet", not "a baseball bat"--thus I know you are not the authentic Brant Garnder. :crazy:

Once more, a much fairer and much more commendable treatment.

-=-=-=
Brant Gardner, I--perhaps your biggest and certainly on these boards most vocal critic--not only have to admit this is much fairer and commendable overall, but it is also much more acceptable and convincing. Amazing, the correlation? A job well done. :P


Brant can be quite articulate and fair when he is not being harrassed by trivia as was the previous thread. I am aquainted with both Brant and Jerry Ainsworth and consider them both my friends. In this field of conjecture and personal opinion, there is still room for friends to disagree but even in disagreement we can all learn from each other. It is only when we become angry and start to cast insults that learning stops and argumentatation begins.

Excellent post Brant.

Larry P
  • 0
Honorary member of UMW #70x7 But I still have no idea what it stands for.

#19 Bernard Gui

Bernard Gui

    Fears No Kimchee

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,482 posts

Posted 02 December 2007 - 09:25 PM

Did Mark Hoffman visit Mexico? :P

Bernard
  • 0
 "I can't undertake to explain Brigham Young to your Atlantic citizens, or expect you to put him at his value. Your great men Eastward are to me like your ivory and pearl-handled table knives, balanced handles, more shiny than the inside of my watch case; but, with only edge enough to slice bread and cheese or help spoon victuals, and all alike by the dozen one with another. Brigham is the article that sells out West with us -- between a Roman cutlass and a beef butcher knife, the thing to cut up a deer or cut down an enemy, and that will save your life or carve your dinner every bit as well, though the handpiece is buck horn and the case a hogskin hanging in the breech of your pantaloons. You, that judge men by the handle and sheath, how can I make you know a good BLADE?" Jedediah M. Grant
 
 

#20 poulsenll

poulsenll

    Kolipoki

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts

Posted 02 December 2007 - 10:12 PM

Did Mark Hoffman visit Mexico? :P

Bernard


I hope not or we will never be able to sort out all the archaeological artifacts that keep showing up almost daily.

Larry P
  • 0
Honorary member of UMW #70x7 But I still have no idea what it stands for.


0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users