Lost 116 Pages poll

[Fifth Columnist]

Everyone is assuming Lucy Harris stole the manuscript. We have no statement from her on what happened.

Perhaps someone, unbeknownst to her, stole it, or it is even possible that she lent out the papers to a friend or relative who promised to return it.

So, the whole conspracy was carried out by persons unknown, and here we have some of our smart guys trying to lay the blame on her. Going so far as to figure out her motives, and what she would or would not have done.

I have issued a formal CFR on her responsibility for removing the 116 pages, and let's see what these bright boys come up with. Their entire argument is based on an unproven assumption.

"It's almost too easy". Yeah, if you pretend that assumptions are facts.

I do not pretend that this will convince you, but here is the Encyclopedia of Mormonism's explanation:

"The most widespread rumor was that Harris' wife, irritated at having earlier been denied a glimpse of the ancient plates, had removed the manuscript translation from Martin's unlocked bureau and burned it." pg. 855.

"It is reported that Lucy Harris said that she burned them. Ill and suffering the insecurity of progressive deafness, she reportedly feared that Palmyra's boycott of the Book of Mormon would lead to her and her husband's financial ruin." pg. 575.

Now, I extend a CFR to you to produce any evidence that "evil men" took the manuscript. I'm already aware of D&C 10 so no need to cite that again.

[Fifth Columnist]

As has been mentioned, they needn't have believed that Joseph was an authentic prophet to beleive that something supernatural was aiding him. And there are in fact some men in the world who willingly play for the other side.

Okay, so the "evil men" actually knew without any doubt that Joseph Smith was being aided by a supernatural power that could reproduce the missing text word for word. Therefore, the "evil men" had to proactively alter the text in one of the following ways: (1) alter the text so that it still looked like Martin Harris's handwriting to at least an untrained eye (e.g., Martin Harris himself) or (2) publish a contradictory text without ever disclosing the original manuscript since everyone would take their word that it was an accurate reproduction versus Joseph Smith's word that it was not.

Have I got this story straight?

[Mike Reed]

Option 3:

They were found, and a modified version of it (the Book of Ether) was added.

[Jason]

Okay, so the "evil men" actually knew without any doubt that Joseph Smith was being aided by a supernatural power that could reproduce the missing text word for word.

They simply needed to believe that Joseph was capable of reproducing the text, by whatever means.

Therefore, the "evil men" had to proactively alter the text in one of the following ways: (1) alter the text so that it still looked like Martin Harris's handwriting to at least an untrained eye (e.g., Martin Harris himself) or (2) publish a contradictory text without ever disclosing the original manuscript since everyone would take their word that it was an accurate reproduction versus Joseph Smith's word that it was not.

Since D&C 10 said they did alter it (1) seems more likely.

[cdowis]

I do not pretend that this will convince you, but here is the Encyclopedia of Mormonism's explanation:

"The most widespread rumor was that Harris' wife, irritated at having earlier been denied a glimpse of the ancient plates, had removed the manuscript translation from Martin's unlocked bureau and burned it." pg. 855.

"It is reported that Lucy Harris said that she burned them. Ill and suffering the insecurity of progressive deafness, she reportedly feared that Palmyra's boycott of the Book of Mormon would lead to her and her husband's financial ruin." pg. 575.

OK, there were lots of speculative rumors, but no statement from Lucy Harris to hear her side of the story. We simply don't know.

[cinepro]

"It's almost too easy". Yeah, if you pretend that assumptions are facts.

What if D&C 10 were based on an assumption?

[cdowis]

del

[Fifth Columnist]

What if D&C 10 were based on an assumption?

You mean like this suggestion from Lucy Smith that was later incorporated into D&C 10?

"The manuscript has never been found; and there is no doubt but Mrs. Harris took it from the drawer, with the view of retaining it, until another translation should be given, then, to alter the original translation, for the purpose of showing a discrepancy between them, and thus make the whole appear to be a deception." Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations, Lucy Smith.

[Jaybear]

Okay, so the "evil men" actually knew without any doubt that Joseph Smith was being aided by a supernatural power that could reproduce the missing text word for word.

Actually, if they were convinced that Smith was aided by a supernatural power, and wanted to prevent him from cashing in, then wouldn't that make them "good" men?

[Fifth Columnist]

OK, there were lots of speculative rumors, but no statement from Lucy Harris to hear her side of the story. We simply don't know.

Sure, we can never know with 100%, absolute certainty. However, it is the best evidence that we have right now and I am unaware of any evidence that supports the account in D&C 10 (and you failed to provide any when I asked).

Your argument that "[w]e simply don't know" may work if it was used sparingly and/or applied equally to events that allegedly support Mormonism. But it loses its power when it is used almost exclusively as a way for apologists to get out of tight spots (e.g., how polygamy was practiced, the BoA, etc., etc., etc.).

[cdowis]

Is this a "suggestion" from Lucy to JS? Or was she merely repeating in her narrative what she had heard from revelation.

Before you can call this a suggestion, you need to be able to provide for us a precise timeline.

[Fifth Columnist]

Actually, if they were convinced that Smith was aided by a supernatural power, and wanted to prevent him from cashing in, then wouldn't that make them "good" men?

They only thought they were good men when in reality they were the ones under the influence of an evil supernatural power.

Contrast that with the relatively straightforward explanation that Lucy Harris burned the manuscript, Joseph knew he couldn't reproduce it, Lucy Smith suggested that evil men took it to alter the text, Joseph asked God who confirmed the "evil men" story, God (i.e., Joseph Smith) provided a different parallel text to translate, and now Joseph had a plausible explanation for why the newly translated text didn't match the earlier text, if the earlier text ever surfaced.

I honestly believe that Joseph Smith believed that he was acting under the influence of God. That doesn't mean he actually was, of course.

[mapman]

If they were not stolen, what do you think happened to the pages?

[Palerider]

Everyone is assuming Lucy Harris stole the manuscript. We have no statement from her on what happened.

Perhaps someone, unbeknownst to her, stole it, or it is even possible that she lent out the papers to a friend or relative who promised to return it.

So, the whole conspracy was carried out by persons unknown, and here we have some of our smart guys trying to lay the blame on her. Going so far as to figure out her motives, and what she would or would not have done.

I have issued a formal CFR on her responsibility for removing the 116 pages, and let's see what these bright boys come up with. Their entire argument is based on an unproven assumption.

"It's almost too easy". Yeah, if you pretend that assumptions are facts.

From Chapter 35 of the book 'History of Joseph Smith' by his mother Lucy Mack Smith.

"I will now give you a sketch of the proceedings of Martin Harris during the time he was absent from Joseph.

After leaving Joseph, he arrived at home with the manuscript in safety. Soon after, he exhibited the manuscript to his wife and family. His wife was so pleased with it, that she gave him the privilege of locking it up in her own set of drawers, which was a special favor, for she had never before this allowed him even the privilege of looking into them. After he had shown the manuscript to those who had a right, according to his oath, to see it, he went with his wife to visit one of her relatives, who lived some 10 or 15 miles distant.

After remaining with them a short time, he returned home, but his wife declined accompanying him back. Soon after this return, a very particular friend of his made him a visit, to whom he related all that he knew concerning the Record. The man's curiosity was much excited, and, as might be expected, he earnestly desired to see the manuscript. Martin was so anxious to gratify his friend, that, although it was contrary to his obligation [The Lord listed five people who belonged to Martin Harris' family who were allowed to see the manuscript. No one else had the Lord's OK.], he went to the drawer to get the manuscript, but the key was gone. He sought for it some time, but could not find it. Resolved, however, to carry his purpose into execution, he picked the lock and, in doing so, considerably injured his wife's bureau. He then took out the manuscript, and, after showing it to this friend, he removed it to his own set of drawers, where he could have it at his command. Passing by his oath, he showed it to any good friend that happened to call on him.

When Mrs. Harris returned, and discovered the marred state of the bureau, her irascible temper was excited to the utmost pitch, and an intolerable storm ensued, which descended with the greatest violence upon the devoted head of her husband.

Having once made a sacrifice of his conscience, Mr. Harris no longer regarded its scruples; so he continued to exhibit the writings, until a short time before Joseph arrived, to any one whom he regarded as prudent enough to keep the secret, except our family, but we were not allowed to set our eyes upon them.

For a short time previous to Joseph's arrival, Mr. Harris had been otherwise engaged, and thought but little about the manuscript. When Joseph sent for him, he went immediately to the drawer where he had left it, but, behold it was gone! He asked his wife where it was.

She solemnly averred that she did not know anything respecting it.

He then made a faithful search throughout the house, as before related.

The manuscript has never been found; and there is no doubt but Mrs. Harris took it from the drawer, with the view of retaining it until another translation should be given, then to alter the original translation, for the purpose of showing a discrepancy between them, and thus make the whole appear to be a deception."

It appears, at least according to Lucy Mack Smith that she believed that Mrs. Harris did make a statement regarding the disposal of the manuscript.

It is interesting that the above story line does differ somewhat with the official history given by the church.

[Fifth Columnist]

Is this a "suggestion" from Lucy to JS? Or was she merely repeating in her narrative what she had heard from revelation.

Before you can call this a suggestion, you need to be able to provide for us a precise timeline.

I got the idea that it was a suggestion from Lucy to JS from Rough Stone Rolling (if I recall correctly). I will have to check it out later.