Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Brass Plates - Gold Plates


Recommended Posts

On 3/29/2019 at 7:34 PM, Brant Gardner said:

They didn't try to sew the pages first? 

No, I don't think they knew how.  My opinion is they simply didn't know how.  Would you or I know how to bind a book at 23 years old?

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

Just to clarify. The large plates didn’t exist until the 116-page manuscript was lost and a replacement text was needed. They are not mentioned until JS comes back to the beginning. The lost part likely named all those Nephite kings JS couldn’t remember and their reigns. The small plates were said to contain the more part of the religious history because JS had Nephi prophesy a lot. The original dictation probably had religious material similar to King Benjamin’s sermon in the early part of Mosiah, but Nephi was more prophetic, both about Nephite history and the history of the first readers of the Book of Mormon in nineteenth-century America. Nephi’s prophecies and Jacobs allegory of the olive tree were very detailed about Nephite history, which was something JS could not do in April 1828 with Martin Harris as scribe. This is why the BOM distinguishes the content of the large and small plates.

A relevant answer to my original question.  Thank You.  It's been my experience that "Daniel"s have always been a little quicker on the uptake.  :) 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, oklds said:

No, I don't think they knew how.  My opinion is they simply didn't know how.  Would you or I know how to bind a book at 23 years old?

There was a reason I asked the two questions I did. What you have said is that there were loose sheets and there was no attempt to sew things together. All of that tells me that you don't have original manuscript pages. I don't know what you have, and curiosity makes me interested--but they are not authentic.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I wasn’t trying to make fun of you.  It makes sense to be skeptical of claims without any evidence.  Surely you can understand how important a document like this is.  Why not share it with the millions of Mormons that would find it very relevant.  Even just photos of your documents.  Keeping them to yourself seems awfully selfish.  

I didn't 'claim' anything.  I asked a question about the plates of Nephi, and got the same load of crap I usually get when this topic comes up.  Please stop blaming me for being new and not being fluent in "Mormonspeak".  I am not "Keeping them to myself".  All banks keep record of when SD boxes are accessed.  Therefore, I refuse to access this one until the SOL tolls.  I don't mind doing my duty, but I'm too old to go to jail for it.  :)

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

There was a reason I asked the two questions I did. What you have said is that there were loose sheets and there was no attempt to sew things together. All of that tells me that you don't have original manuscript pages. I don't know what you have, and curiosity makes me interested--but they are not authentic.

Why do you say that?  I'm curious; why would them not being sewn together make them fakes.  When I saw them the first time, they were simply stacked in a wooden box.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you new to the internet? Jackasses outnumber their counterparts 10-1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I say put up or shut up. 

There once was a theory that a million monkeys at a million typewriters would eventually type something intelligent - thatks to the internet, that theory has been proven wrong.  Is it only 10 to 1?

Besides, who the hell are you to tell me how to handle this situation?

Link to comment
7 hours ago, alter idem said:

You said on another forum about a year ago that you gave those papers you had in your possession to the church.  Now you say you have them in a SD (safe deposit)? box;  Did you get them back? 

I did NOT say that, I said they had been secured to their rightful owners (after 180-some years, I was kind of proud of that).  I got them transferred from one SD box which I considered unsafe to another one which is.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, oklds said:

Why do you say that?  I'm curious; why would them not being sewn together make them fakes.  When I saw them the first time, they were simply stacked in a wooden box.

We have other examples of the original manuscript and know how they were constructed. Your description of what you have doesn't match with the known originals.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, alter idem said:

Oklds, I'm aware that you've posted here a little bit on this--one or two threads that were pretty cagey, but I don't think you've shared the extent of your actual claims on this forum.

He can explain it to you all, but I'll just say that yes, he does claim to have inherited what he believes is the 116 lost pages, and some other artifacts with it.  But, the last I read (last year on another forum), he said the papers were in the hands of their 'rightful owners'--we assumed from other things he'd said that this meant he'd given them to the church and he also said he'd have some news later about authentication, but he never shared anything (that I saw), though I could've missed it.  So, now I'm confused, since he now says he has them in a safe deposit box.  I'm hoping he'll explain.

Of course not.  Look how much crap I got just from the original question.  Besides, why do I need the advice or consent of people who do nothing but criticize my actions and decisions.  The very few folks who have given me constructive advice are smart enough not to post it online.  I made a lot of people mad when I refused to give copies of those papers to them so they could transcribe and print them for their own personal gain and glory.

I had set up a page about this whole thing, named, appropriately, "MORMON_BOX" on FB.  It was promptly filled with vile diatribe by people like these, so I deleted it.  If I thought it would do any good, I would repost all that stuff, but people don't seem to pay attention, so why bother?

There is no pretense about me - my name is Dan Judd, and my email address is dan@oklds.com.  I believe you have my home address, and you know how welcome you and your friends are here.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

We have other examples of the original manuscript and know how they were constructed. Your description of what you have doesn't match with the known originals.

Huh?  From what I saw, they looked exactly the same.  The paper size is rather odd (about 8" by 17"), but I would not have thought they'd be sewn together until they were ready to be typeset and printed.  Why would they want to do that?

Link to comment

The description of the original manuscript that we have:

Quote

Franklin Richards retained this portion of the manuscript until his death in 1899 when it passed to his son, Charles C. who, on December 13, 1946, presented it to President George Albert Smith.24 The measurable leaves of the Richards acquisition appear to be foolscap (13 inches by 16 inches) paper folded and sewed to make 8 inch by 13 inch pages. 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/file/5152/download?token=bORopwEJ

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, oklds said:

Huh?  From what I saw, they looked exactly the same.  The paper size is rather odd (about 8" by 17"), but I would not have thought they'd be sewn together until they were ready to be typeset and printed.  Why would they want to do that?

Think the little blue books they used in school for writing exams and such.  If you don't have holed punched papers and a notebook, having them sewn makes it convenient to keep them together.  Having them separate risks losing them or them getting out of order.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

I remember a revelation or something else had obvious been written with the pages being sewn into a notebook prior to writing in it because they flipped it over and wrote something else on the back.  One can probably tell as well by how much of a margin there is on the sewn side.  If it wasn't sewn until after it was written, the margin would likely be smaller.

Edit:  I may have misunderstood the implications of what Brant said and was written in the article I cite.  It is possible they did write on it first and sewed it up later or so it would seem from this:

https://history.lds.org/article/mary-whitmer-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

But it still would make sense to sew up as soon as there was a bunch as to avoid losing or getting out of order.  I hope Brant or someone else explains what is known.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Think the little blue books they used in school.  If you don't have holed punched papers and a notebook, having them sewn makes it convenient to keep them together.  Having them separate risks losing them or them getting out of order.

Good point.  I don't have an answer for that one, other than that perhaps they didn't think about that.  As I understand it, there were just the two of them there at the time, Joseph was a farmer and Emma was a Housewife, and bother were in their 20's.  I doubt I'd have thought of it either.....

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I remember a revelation or something else had obvious been written with the pages being sewn into a notebook prior to writing in it because they flipped it over and wrote something else on the back.  One can probably tell as well by how much of a margin there is on the sewn side.  If it wasn't sewn until after it was written, the margin would likely be smaller.

Nope.  These SHEETs were quite a bit larger than current writing paper size.  The first 88 and the 2 illustrations were about 8" by 17-18" and on heavier, better quality paper than the other 26.  Those were the same width, but a little longer.  Every time we handled them a little dust would crumbled off the sides, so they could have been maybe 0.2" wider when new.  I have no way of knowing that, since everyone who was involved is dead, except my Dad's half-Sister, whose mind is shot and all she ever knew them by was "The Mormon Box".

Link to comment
12 hours ago, oklds said:

I didn't 'claim' anything.  I asked a question about the plates of Nephi, and got the same load of crap I usually get when this topic comes up.  Please stop blaming me for being new and not being fluent in "Mormonspeak".  I am not "Keeping them to myself".  All banks keep record of when SD boxes are accessed.  Therefore, I refuse to access this one until the SOL tolls.  I don't mind doing my duty, but I'm too old to go to jail for it.  :)

I apologize as I’m not trying to insult you.  I can understand you wanting to follow the law.  I’m no lawyer, but I can’t imagine how releasing a photograph would put you in jeopardy of violating the law.  

Link to comment
On 3/29/2019 at 3:05 PM, hope_for_things said:

I felt a twinge of intrigue at the idea that the 116 pages could actually be found someday, wouldn't that be amazing.  If they were found, I predict that most church members would find a way of reconciling the evidence to fit their views of an inspired BoM text anyway.  Just like when the BoA papyrus was found to be common Egyptian funerary texts that have nothing to do with Abraham, people come up with theories as to how they still consider it inspired.  Humans are pretty good at rationalizing new evidence to fit their preconceived notions.  

First, I do not believe your description to be accurate. At most you can say that the papyri fragments the Facsimiles were drawn from were funerary texts in late Egyptian history. That does not necessarily imply anything about the text of the Book of Abraham itself. Further, do you know where those illustrations arose in Egyptian history? It seems they became funerary illustrations/stories in the eighteenth dynasty period. Abraham would have lived in about the period of the 11th dynasty - that is about 500 years earlier. That is a lot of time from which to derive religious traditions. How do you know what the Egyptians borrowed from other cultures including a Semite such as Abraham. It is clear that to a certain extent Semites borrowed from Egyptians. Of course like everything else you probably reject that Ham had any descendants in Egypt. Gosh, that would just muck up your neat paradigm. All those light skinned Egyptians were native Africans y'know.    

Link to comment
23 hours ago, USU78 said:

"Sadly" out of luck.

Nice context-appropriate translation ;)

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...