Brass Plates - Gold Plates

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, USU78 said:

No more joking: he meant statute(s) of limitation.

You are right and that is definitely no joke.

Kind of weird he would post that.  But you would know how all that works.

[alter idem]

On 3/30/2019 at 8:20 PM, oklds said:

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.

I can tell you exactly what you said;

oklds:  'Final word on this matter:

Those papers, whatever they are, were secured to their rightful owners.'  December 12, 2017

and

'No! No one is going to finance any part of this except me.  My part in the matter is complete, anyway.  Anything further will be decided by 15 people who are way past my paygrade.  If they want my advice, or yours, I am sure they'll be in touch. (smiley face)"   Dec. 12, 2017  

 

In another post you said ''I consider myself to be in possession of stolen property which I have been endeavoring to return to it's rightful owner(s)."  and "When that is accomplished, there are only 15 men qualified to take the decision as to what to do with them." (12-11-17)  (LDSFF)

 

So, if you weren't talking about the Church Pres. and Quorum of 12 Apostles as the 'rightful owners', then I have no clue who you were referring to.

[oklds]

9 hours ago, alter idem said:

I can tell you exactly what you said;

oklds:  'Final word on this matter:

Those papers, whatever they are, were secured to their rightful owners.'  December 12, 2017

and

'No! No one is going to finance any part of this except me.  My part in the matter is complete, anyway.  Anything further will be decided by 15 people who are way past my paygrade.  If they want my advice, or yours, I am sure they'll be in touch. (smiley face)"   Dec. 12, 2017  

 

In another post you said ''I consider myself to be in possession of stolen property which I have been endeavoring to return to it's rightful owner(s)."  and "When that is accomplished, there are only 15 men qualified to take the decision as to what to do with them." (12-11-17)  (LDSFF)

 

So, if you weren't talking about the Church Pres. and Quorum of 12 Apostles as the 'rightful owners', then I have no clue who you were referring to.

You are correct.  Those papers belong to the Church, and they are none of your business, as I am certain you are not one of the 15 men who will make the decision as to what is to be done with them.  Until I can openly transport them without fear of going to jail, or having some foil-hat moron trash me for my decisions, they are secured to their rightful owners.

What remains of this matter?  Artifacts and heirlooms which are MINE, and which are also none of your business.  If you wanted to file a complaint or a suggestion, you should have joined the "Let's support Dan Judd while he spends his money and risks his freedom securing something which we have not been able to find for over 180 years" club.  You did not do so.  Please accept my cordial invitation to mind your own business.

You are also right in your statement that, "No one is going to finance any part of this except me".  So far no one has, including you, either as regards those papers, or any artifacts which have come my way, now or in the future.  The people who have done more to secure those papers AND those artifacts are not even members of the Church.  Why?  Because I cannot trust you.

[oklds]

On 4/1/2019 at 9:58 AM, alter idem said:

I can tell you exactly what you said;

oklds:  'Final word on this matter:

Those papers, whatever they are, were secured to their rightful owners.'  December 12, 2017

and

'No! No one is going to finance any part of this except me.  My part in the matter is complete, anyway.  Anything further will be decided by 15 people who are way past my paygrade.  If they want my advice, or yours, I am sure they'll be in touch. (smiley face)"   Dec. 12, 2017  

<I was not refusing financial help.  I was pointing out that I had received none.  At all.  Although I did receive a slew of demands that I share them with 'the public'>

In another post you said ''I consider myself to be in possession of stolen property which I have been endeavoring to return to it's rightful owner(s)."  and "When that is accomplished, there are only 15 men qualified to take the decision as to what to do with them." (12-11-17)  (LDSFF)

<That is exactly who I was referring to, and you are not one of them, and neither am I.  I am sure if they want either of our opinions, they will contact us.  Until then, it's none of my (or your) business.>

So, if you weren't talking about the Church Pres. and Quorum of 12 Apostles as the 'rightful owners', then I have no clue who you were referring to.

<What I choose to do with any artifacts which come my way is my business, although there are a handful of people who have helped to locate that entrance as well; why should they not expect to get something out of this?  Want a piece of the action?  Get some skin in the game!>

 

[oklds]

On 3/30/2019 at 6:35 PM, Brant Gardner said:

No, that wouldn't be there. That is something I would expect only in the aftermath of the Hoffman Salamander Letter--but before it was known as a forgery. That would date it later than oklds' father. One more part of the story that doesn't work.

What story?  What is a salamander letter?  I know who hoffman was: a thieving, murdering pile of crap.  What does that have to do with my Dad (FYI: 1935-2014)?

[oklds]

On 3/30/2019 at 1:52 PM, 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.

I did inherit the 116 SHEETS (not PAGES).  I did perform some rather risky feats to secure them, and I understand that most Church members do not use manipulation and cajolery in their daily business.  Excuse me, but:

1.  I am still a new member, and some of the ways I do things have not 'rubbed off' yet.

2.  It worked, and none of it was your money, so it's none of your business how I got it done.

[oklds]

On 3/30/2019 at 11:11 AM, Brant Gardner said:

I don't know what oklds has, but it is not the lost 116 pages. There are several indications that they cannot be the lost pages. The first is that they are loose sheets. That wasn't the way the original manuscript was created. They took full-size foolscap and folded it and then brought about 6 of those sheets together in a 12 page gathering. Since oklds' document has loose sheets, they cannot be the same, and probably don't come from that era, as that was pretty standard practice. 

Second, only the first 88 pages are written on both sides. Paper was expensive, and there was no way Joseph could have afforded the luxury of writing on only one side. When Oliver was copying on the original, there are no significant breaks for chapters or books. They all start right where the previous left off--and they are written on both sides. The idea that there are sheets with writing on one side again says that it isn't the original 116, and that they are probably from a later time period when paper was cheaper.

We haven't been given much about the contents, but what we have doesn't fit well with what can be known about what should have been in the 116 pages. 

Given the fact that the pages mention the Book of Mormon, it would appear that we have yet another creative attempt to provide the lost pages (I think I have heard of at least 2 others). This one is older, given the provenance. It would be interesting to see and would make an interesting niche publication, but I think self-publication is the only available avenue.

You don't look all that old.  What's your secret?

[Dan Vogel]

On 3/30/2019 at 7:44 PM, Brant Gardner said:

A small correction. There are never large plates of Nephi (before or after the loss of the beginning of the Book of Mormon). There are plates of Nephi, and plates of Nephi (one of which was smaller). The label "large plates" is one of convenience by contrast to "small plates," which is itself a description rather than a name (Jacob 1:1, Jarom 1:2, Jarom 1:14). Mormon only calls it a "small account" (WofM 1:3).

I doubt that changes your thesis, but it gets the terminology more accurate.

Of course, you are correct.