LDS Truthseeker Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 The poll on the Lost 116 Pages I posed showed that most people (2 to 1 margin) that responded, believed that Martin Harris' wife destroyed the Lost 116 Pages. My question is to those that believe that Martin's wife destroyed the pages is - how do you reconcile that the official canonized scripture (D&C Section 10) relates a story about wicked men that supposedly stole the lost pages in order to attempt to discredit Joseph by altering those pages so they would show inconsistancies with the re-translated pages that Joseph would do? Did he just make that up?
Palerider Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 The poll on the Lost 116 Pages I posed showed that most people (2 to 1 margin) that responded, believed that Martin Harris' wife destroyed the Lost 116 Pages. My question is to those that believe that Martin's wife destroyed the pages is - how do you reconcile that the official canonized scripture (D&C Section 10) relates a story about wicked men that supposedly stole the lost pages in order to attempt to discredit Joseph by altering those pages so they would show inconsistancies with the re-translated pages that Joseph would do? Did he just make that up?Yes.
PaulBoyerFan Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Yes, of course. He was worried that the original translation would surface after the publication of the Book of Mormon and wanted to explain away any differences between the two narratives.
mapman Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 You don't know that Lucy stole the manuscript even if a couple critics on this board thinks she did. She might have, been at present it is impossible to know.
Palerider Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 You don't know that Lucy stole the manuscript even if a couple critics on this board thinks she did. She might have, been at present it is impossible to know.You're correct in that we can't tell precisely what happened to the 116 pages, even though they were last in the possesion of Martin and Lucy Harris, but the "evil men" theory smacks heavily of a "red herring". The entire story is so convoluted. I should think the Lord would have preserved the manuscript and not permitted it to be transferred to Martin in the first place if it were truly His inspired and revelatory scripture.Additionally why didn't the Lord eventually show Joseph (through the seer stone) where the manuscript was after his powers of translation were restored?
CA Steve Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Is it possible the two accounts are not exclusive? Does the time frame preclude the following scenario? Lucy steals the manuscript, arranges with 'evil men' to change it but waits to do anything until the Book of Mormon is published, sees that her plan will no longer work and then burns the manuscript.
CA Steve Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 You're correct in that we can't tell precisely what happened to the 116 pages, even though they were last in the possesion of Martin and Lucy Harris, but the "evil men" theory smacks heavily of a "red herring". The entire story is so convoluted. I should think the Lord would have preserved the manuscript and not permitted it to be transferred to Martin in the first place if it were truly His inspired and revelatory scripture.Additionally why didn't the Lord eventually show Joseph (through the seer stone) where the manuscript was after his powers of translation were restored?Why God allows bad things to happen to good people is an issue with every religion. I mean if you are going to ask these questions why not just ask why the Lord didn't give Joseph Smith a translated version of the Book of Mormon to begin with?
Palerider Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Why God allows bad things to happen to good people is an issue with every religion. I mean if you are going to ask these questions why not just ask why the Lord didn't give Joseph Smith a translated version of the Book of Mormon to begin with?Normally I would agree with you but we have special circumstances here (at least in the way the story is being portrayed by Joseph and the church). This is the great work of the final restoration of the true Gospel of Christ to the earth in the latter days in preparation for His climactic return.These scriptures have been in waiting for thousands of years to come forth and burst upon the nations with precise and plain truth, solving all of the old biases and discrepencies found in the shabbily translated Biblical scriptures. God's hand is moving upon this work like no other work before it. Revelation and miracles are in abundance once again upon the earth. And then we have......"Ooop's........I gave the new scriptures to a whining, nagging, idiot who lost them"?Please, just for once let a little common sense prevail...OPEN YOUR EYES! Take off the blinders.........
cinepro Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Please, just for once let a little common sense prevail...OPEN YOUR EYES! Take off the blinders.........I have to admit, it's pretty funny in South Park when Stan is told the story of the lost 116 pages and he says "Wait, Mormons actually know this story and they still believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet?"And the Mormon dad's response "Sure! The story proves it, doesn't it?!"To non-believers, it's quite a story. But to LDS, it just makes perfect sense.
cdowis Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 And then we have......"Ooop's........I gave the new scriptures to a whining, nagging, idiot who lost them"?Please, just for once let a little common sense prevail...OPEN YOUR EYES! Take off the blinders.........Please take note that he is someone who claims tha he has read and prayed about the Book of Mormon.... and got a negative answer.I happen to have received a very different answer. I know that it is scripture, that the Lord gave it to us, it is true. I can see very clearly, thank you very much.He can mock as he will, but we shall see what we shall see.
CA Steve Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Normally I would agree with you but we have special circumstances here (at least in the way the story is being portrayed by Joseph and the church). This is the great work of the final restoration of the true Gospel of Christ to the earth in the latter days in preparation for His climactic return.These scriptures have been in waiting for thousands of years to come forth and burst upon the nations with precise and plain truth, solving all of the old biases and discrepencies found in the shabbily translated Biblical scriptures. God's hand is moving upon this work like no other work before it. Revelation and miracles are in abundance once again upon the earth. And then we have......"Ooop's........I gave the new scriptures to a whining, nagging, idiot who lost them"?Please, just for once let a little common sense prevail...OPEN YOUR EYES! Take off the blinders.........Well if we were talking about an event that had happened thousands of years ago, the story would include Harris parting one of the great lakes while searching for the lost manuscript. I guess we all choose to wear different kind of blinders.
USU78 Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Why must Lucy be a blackhat? Because she was later a divorcee?Isn't it just as possible that she lent the pages to somebody who lent 'em to somebody who lent 'em to somebody who got, in the moment s/he got 'em, the notion to run the scam.Without better evidence than she was their last known custodian, how can we convict?
Palerider Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Please take note that he is someone who claims tha he has read and prayed about the Book of Mormon.... and got a negative answer.I happen to have received a very different answer. I know that it is scripture, that the Lord gave it to us, it is true. I can see very clearly, thank you very much.He can mock as he will, but we shall see what we shall see.No "claim" here.I was raised in the church. Pioneer stock. Mission in the 70's. Married in the temple. Served in numerous EQ presidencies and Bishoprics. Last calling was a 5 year stint in Bishopric and then 3 months as HP group leader when I asked to be released. All of my sons served missions and all of my children were married in the temple. I'm still happily married............ Read the BOM in excess of eight times cover to cover and studied it all my life since my missionary days. It never came across as a document I was completely comfortable with. After starting an in depth study of Joseph and church history about 8 years ago....I now know why.It also never had the same spiritual effect on me as the Bible.......huge difference.
Palerider Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Why must Lucy be a blackhat? Because she was later a divorcee?Isn't it just as possible that she lent the pages to somebody who lent 'em to somebody who lent 'em to somebody who got, in the moment s/he got 'em, the notion to run the scam.Without better evidence than she was their last known custodian, how can we convict?I agree. If you read the short history I referenced on the previous thread leading to this one, it is just as likely that Martin lent them out and they were never returned, but there is the mention in some histories (including LDS version I believe) that Lucy may have burned them. According to Lucy, Martin was an abusive husband who beat her badly enough to leave her covered in bruises which neighbors witnessed. A man such as that might lay blame on whomever he could other than himself.
beth Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 I am puzzled by this.As a person who is not of the LDS Faith, I look at this objectively. Regardless of whether the 116 pager were lost or stolen or what the motive was if they were stolen, why didn't Joseph Smith just re translate them?Why wouldn't they translate the exact same way as the first time??
why me Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 I am puzzled by this.As a person who is not of the LDS Faith, I look at this objectively. Regardless of whether the 116 pager were lost or stolen or what the motive was if they were stolen, why didn't Joseph Smith just re translate them?Why wouldn't they translate the exact same way as the first time??I think that the point was that the pages stolen could be altered and this would create a problem. However, we need to consider this: why destroy the pages? They would be worth saving even after the plan didn't work. Destroying the pages just doesn't make any sense if looked at from a critic point of view. Much better to save them and bring them forth for a latter time. Also, some critics claim that Joseph didn't write the book of mormon but sidney rigdon did. And of course, the original manuscript of Sidney's would be available for copying again. However, when we think of the translation process and how JS would stick his head in a hat and do the translation, it was an amazing feat, if he memorized a complete manuscript. All the evidence does point to a supernatural experience in the translation process when we consider how the translation occured and the lost pages. There would have been no better way to prove its 'truth' to the public by recopying the lost pages. But god had other plans. The lost pages pages became a learning process for martin and joseph.
why me Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Read the BOM in excess of eight times cover to cover and studied it all my life since my missionary days. It never came across as a document I was completely comfortable with. After starting an in depth study of Joseph and church history about 8 years ago....I now know why.It also never had the same spiritual effect on me as the Bible.......huge difference.I was never completely comfortable with the old testament and the book of mormon is an 'old testament' book. Also, reading the old testament can be tedious because of its grammar structure. It can resemble the book of mormon in structure and difficulty which would make the book of mormon difficult. Glad that you did an in depth study of Joseph and church history. What were you expecting to find? A perfect human story where Joseph and others led perfect lives creating a perfect history. Yes, that would be nice but not exactly human. Here is what we have: we have a book. We have 11 witnesses to that book who never denied what they saw or felt with their hands. And many died with their testimony on their lips. Quite amazing and it is apart of church history.And some of these witnesses claimed that Joseph was a fallen prophet and yet, did not give up the socalled con. How is that possible? Human nature would dictate otherwise.
LDS Truthseeker Posted January 5, 2011 Author Posted January 5, 2011 I think that the point was that the pages stolen could be altered and this would create a problem. However, we need to consider this: why destroy the pages? They would be worth saving even after the plan didn't work. Destroying the pages just doesn't make any sense if looked at from a critic point of view. Much better to save them and bring them forth for a latter time. I agree. At any rate, they would be very valuable documents - either in the critic's hands or in the hands of the church. I don't know why anyone would destroy them - except if it was Martin's wife doing it in spite in a fit of rage or something.
CA Steve Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 And some of these witnesses claimed that Joseph was a fallen prophet and yet, did not give up the socalled con. How is that possible? Human nature would dictate otherwise.So then you accept everything the witnesses say about their dealings with Joseph Smith?
Palerider Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 I was never completely comfortable with the old testament and the book of mormon is an 'old testament' book. Also, reading the old testament can be tedious because of its grammar structure. It can resemble the book of mormon in structure and difficulty which would make the book of mormon difficult. Glad that you did an in depth study of Joseph and church history. What were you expecting to find? A perfect human story where Joseph and others led perfect lives creating a perfect history. Yes, that would be nice but not exactly human. Here is what we have: we have a book. We have 11 witnesses to that book who never denied what they saw or felt with their hands. And many died with their testimony on their lips. Quite amazing and it is apart of church history.And some of these witnesses claimed that Joseph was a fallen prophet and yet, did not give up the socalled con. How is that possible? Human nature would dictate otherwise.Going out of town right now and don't have time to give you a thorough answer but I would suggest you research Martin Harris's confession regarding what was actually seen by the eight witnesses and how they were very reluctant to sign the document Joseph drew up for them and now appears in the BoM. See letter written to Lyman Johnson from his friend at the old stone church. I'll get a CFR for you later if need be.No, I didn't anticipate Joseph being perfect but I never anticipated him committing adultery and hiding it under the guise of "plural marriage". See the book "Emma Smith, Mormon Enigma" written by two Latterday Saint women. This and many other anomilies are what disqualify him as a prophet.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 It also never had the same spiritual effect on me as the Bible.......huge difference.That is funny, I read the bible esp the NT and I get the same spirit and both have had the same effect on me.So much for anecdotal evidence.
cinepro Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 I am puzzled by this.As a person who is not of the LDS Faith, I look at this objectively. Regardless of whether the 116 pager were lost or stolen or what the motive was if they were stolen, why didn't Joseph Smith just re translate them?Why wouldn't they translate the exact same way as the first time??According to revelation given to Joseph Smith (found in the LDS Scriptures called the "Doctrine and Covenants" section 10 found here), the plan was to steal the pages and alter them. Then, when Joseph did perfectly re-create them, the schemers would make the altered pages public and people would compare the two and reject the Book of Mormon based on the differences.So, after the pages had been stolen, God explained what the plan was to Joseph (see D&C 10), at which time He also revealed that there were actually two versions of the story recorded in the original plates, so instead of re-translating the original 116 pages, he could instead translate the alternate version that covered the same time period but was admittedly different. That means God knew back in ~400 A.D. that the 116 pages would be lost, and instructed the ancient archiver to include an alternate version.Since the pages were never seen again and no one ever came forward to explain what happened to them or confess to the plan, all we have are the missing pages and Joseph's revelation explaining what these unidentified plotters were planning. Because this story is included in the canonized LDS scriptures, Mormons are pretty committed to believing that version of the story.
cdowis Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 According to revelation given to Joseph Smith (found in the LDS Scriptures called the "Doctrine and Covenants" section 10 found here), the plan was to steal the pages and alter them. Then, when Joseph did perfectly re-create them, the schemers would make the altered pages public and people would compare the two and reject the Book of Mormon based on the differences.It does NOT say that the **pages** were going to be altered, but it specifically says "alter THE WORDS". It uses that phrase at least three times, and nowhere does it say that the pages were altered.It merely means that there would be an alternative manuscript, not that there are physical changes to the original.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 No "claim" here.I was raised in the church. Pioneer stock. Mission in the 70's. Married in the temple. Served in numerous EQ presidencies and Bishoprics. Last calling was a 5 year stint in Bishopric and then 3 months as HP group leader when I asked to be released. All of my sons served missions and all of my children were married in the temple. I'm still happily married............ Hey guys, we have a real bonafide pioneer stock ex-mormon here. Sweet!! He is going to show us the lurve and open our poor, deluded, mindless, eyes.
ELF1024 Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Hey guys, we have a real bonafide pioneer stock ex-mormon here. Sweet!! He is going to show us the lurve and open our poor, deluded, mindless, eyes.Big hairy deal. I'm a pioneer stock excommunicated Mormon myself. We ex-Mormons are a dime a dozen.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.