Don Bradley'S Fair Presentation....

[William Schryver]

I have come to understand that Don read my earlier post and misunderstood what I wrote, which, upon reading it a second time, I can see why it was misunderstood. Let me therefore try again:

I understood, from a recent conversation with Royal, that he may like to review Don's Book of Lehi stuff. I'm not sure how serious he is about that notion.

I am interested in reviewing Don's Kinderhook Plates thesis, in fact, I already have a bunch of disorganized notes and paragraphs towards that end.

Royal and I are not jointly reviewing both of these things.

I hope that clarifies things.

Edited June 25, 2012 by William Schryver

[David T]

David, have you read Joseph Spencer's An Other Testament: On Typology (free pdf here)? If so, is Bradley's work at all complimentary to what was postulated in it?

Edited June 25, 2012 by David T

[David Bokovoy]

David, have you read Joseph Spencer's An Other Testament: On Typology (free pdf here)? If so, is Bradley's work at all complimentary to what was postulated in it?

Thank you, David, for the PDF. Mark just recommended this book to me the other night. I'm afraid I've been so uber-focused on my dissertation the past couple years that I hadn't even heard of this book. I have a lot more free time now to devote to reading topics outside of my academic field and look forward to reading this book. Mark also turned me onto Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide and I really enjoyed his literary analysis.

Best,

--DB

[Greg Kofford Books]

David, have you read Joseph Spencer's An Other Testament: On Typology (free pdf here)? If so, is Bradley's work at all complimentary to what was postulated in it?

Not sure what you mean by complimentary. Don's book is more of an attempt to recreate the narrative in the lost 116 pages through recollections of those who may have read or heard of the lost passages, combined with conjectures implied in the existing text. A significant portion of the book will also be dedicated to constructing a history of those lost pages and what most likely happened to them. From what Din has told me, there is some fascinating things he has discovered that will greatly affect he way we understand the existing text of the Book of Mormon.

[DonBradley]

Thank you, David.

That discussion with you and Mark was amazing. I wrote down so many ideas and sources to incorporate based on your feedback. (In fact, don't forget that you're going to send me at least one quote--from Seidel!) You and he will be well credited in the acknowledgments.

I am so excited about what I get to work on here, and how incredibly cool and illuminating the knowable contents of the lost 116 pages are. =)

Don

[DonBradley]

Will,

Thank you much for making that clarification.

Royal didn't say anything to me about doing a review of the book. He did say that he's skeptical about just how much we can know about the contents of the lost pages, but that he's waiting to see what I've got.

It's quite amazing what he's been able to do learn from so little evidence with the Book of Mormon manuscripts. Someone from outside the discipline of textual criticism might be incredulous to hear that he can tell from examining the manuscript how many words Joseph Smith could see at a time in the seer stone, or the mechanics of the translation process, or what Joseph Smith's accent was in pronouncing various words. But once he lays out the evidence, it all becomes pretty clear.

In the same way, it may be hard for someone to imagine how we can reconstruct much of the Book of Lehi narrative until they actually see the evidence laid out. There is actually a good deal of evidence, much of it internal to the extant Book of Mormon text, and some of it in the form of direct statements by those in the know, the early revelations given right after the Book of Lehi that appear to echo some of its contents, etc. These various puzzle pieces can be put together to get an increasingly clear picture of some of the Book of Lehi narratives.

Cheers,

Don

[Olavarria]

I. Can't. Wait.

[Calm]

I. Can't. Wait.

I've started drooling on my keyboard.

[DonBradley]

For those interested...

Why a book on the lost 116 pages?

The lost 116 pages / Book of Lehi is the earliest scripture of the Restoration. The avaiable Book of Mormon text was all translated later. And the earliest of Joseph Smith's revelations, D&C 3, is a response to the manuscript loss. So to understand both the character and early unfolding of the Restoration, we need to know more about the lost pages.

Also, the Book of Lehi provided more detailed information on some aspects of Nephite history and civilization that help us understand what's in the Book of Mormon text we have, answering some of the Book of Mormon's unanswered questions and illuminating its messages and meaning.

And, finally, haven't you just always wondered? I remember being in Primary as an 11 year old Blazer and learning about the lost pages and thinking, "Part of the Book of Mormon is missing? What was in it?!" And I've never grown out of that curiosity. Have you?

When will the book be out?

Hmm. Well...most of the chapters are written; a few are not. The writing has been pretty slow going, though the pace has picked up in recent weeks. I'm hesitant to make a prediction on when the book will be complete, since experience has shown that, while textual study is something I'm good at, predicting writing time frames is not. I plan to try to assess that with Greg and Loyd after the FAIR Conference. They can look at everything I've got written and we can talk about the time frame. I'd like to have it out this year, but getting it done properly may require it being out early next year. In any case, I'll get out more information on time frame within the next couple months.

What will be in this book?

The book is divided into two parts.

The first part (about one-third) is a history of the lost pages. It starts with some background: Chapters 1 and 2 are about the finding of the plates and the Anthon episode, telling the familiar story, but with some unfamiliar elements included, since these will become important later in the story. Chapter 3 is about the translation of the lost pages--when it was done, who the scribes were, what instrument was used (e.g., interpreters vs. seer stone), and what did Joseph experience during the translation process? Chapter 4 is about the theft: why was Martin so insistent on taking the manuscript? who are the "suspects"? how plausible are the various suspects (e.g., was it really Lucy Harris, in the parlor, with the candlestick)? how did the theft accounts evolve over time? and what might have become of the manuscript?

The second part is about the history in the lost pages--the contents.

The first of these chapters, Chapter 5, covers the generalities of the manuscript--e.g., its physical appearance, internal divisions into books and chapters, overall themes, and, importantly, length. While the name "116 pages" may seem to tell us everything we need to know, the situation is actually more complex than that. Using various descriptions of the page count and page sizes, and also estimates of translation rate, I try to determine about how much of the total Book of Mormon was lost. And the answer may surprise you.

Chapter 6, about Lehi and Nephi, is one of the most fun and is mostly what I told David about last night. Covered are all sorts of topics, like, where did the brass plates come from--and why were they written in Egyptian? who functioned as high priest in the Nephite temple? and, in the absence of the Ark of the Covenant, what did the Nephites put in their holy of holies? The narratives of Lehi and Nephi turn out to have an overall theme--dealing with the loss of the commonwealth of Judah--the patriarchs' Promised Land, Jerusalem, David's dynasty, and Solomon's temple. And the connections between Nephite history and that of biblical Israel turn out to be remarkably intricate...

Chapter 7 covers the main period of what the small plates call "the reigns of the kings," Nephi's successors, including the rise of Nephite civilization to its greatest height and then its decline toward the destruction preceding the exodus of Mosiah I to the land of Zarahemla. This is a tough period since there are no sources outside the Book of Mormon that discuss it and since even the internal evidence about it is pretty sparse. This one I'm still working on. =)

Chapter 8 is about Aminadi, "who interpreted the writing which was upon the wall of the temple, which was written by the finger of God" (Alma 10:2-3). Wait, a whole chapter about him? Yeppp! There is quite a bit that can be known about this incident, particularly when it is set in the context of larger patterns of scriptural narrative (Bible and Book of Mormon) and when the precise historical context of the incident is identified--both of which are done in the chapter. And the incident of God writing on the wall of the temple of Nephi begins to shed some light for us on what Nephite temples were for.

Chapter 9, about King Mosiah I, vies with Chapter 6 in the utter coolness of the texts under discussion and what can be pieced together about the narrative. The narrative of Mosiah I, breezed over rather quickly in the Book of Omni, turns out to have just about every possible kind of evidence available for its reconstruction--not only the Omni summary, but also flashbacks by Mormon, allusions in Joseph Smith's revelations during the months after this narrative was translated, parallel narratives elsewhere in the Bible and Book of Mormon, and multiple external accounts--one quite detailed--that tell portions of Mosiah's story. The narrative that emerges from this combined information is one of the most complex and powerful in the Book of Mormon corpus.

Among the questions raised, and answered, in this chapter are...

How did the Nephites get the Jaredite interpreters?

Who were Mulek's traveling companions?

When Zarahemla--the scion of the house of David--combined his people with those of Mosiah I, a descendant of Nephi, how did Mosiah manage to come out on top, as king over the combined peoples? (i.e., how do you trump the heir of David??)

And, really, really, what were Nephite temples for? And what do they have in common with modern LDS temples?

Chapter 10, a shorty, is about the early reign and challenges of King Benjamin, what was in the missing first two chapters of the Book of Mosiah, and why false Christs began to emerge at this particular time in Nephite history.

And, finally, Chapter 11, "Reading the Book of Mormon in Light of the Book of Lehi," is about what we learn from all this. To demonstrate how what we've learned about the Book of Lehi narrative can contextualize and illuminate the extant Book of Mormon text, I continue with the story of Benjamin, setting King Benjamin's sermon in the context of his early life and the reign of his father Mosiah I. The implications for understanding King Benjamin's sermon, and also for understanding the Book of Mormon sacrament covenants, which (as John Welch has shown) have roots in that sermon, are tremendous.

I also in this chapter use the story of the Nephites recovering the interpreters to illuminate the story of the brother of Jared acquiring the interpreters from the Lord. These two incidents are successive installments in the same grand history of this sacred object And the implications? They are big enough that they turned me upside-down, and helped turn this then-heathen scholar back into a Latter-day Saint.

Edited June 25, 2012 by DonBradley

[DonBradley]

And we all know why Bill wasn't invited too!

You would have made an ideal addition to the discussion, Bill. I should send you some of what I'm working on and we should talk soon.

Don

[David T]

Not sure what you mean by complimentary.

Both Spencer (and Grant Hardy) made suggestions, conjecture, and insights concerning overall structure of the BoM. Both I found very insightful, and somewhat supportive of each other in interesting and unique ways. I was wondering if the material Bradley is presenting is detailed enough that would allow enhancement of those previous observations and conjectures, or perhaps set them in a new direction.

[why me]

Papa Baka should bring up his grill and fire it up for a fund-raiser. FAIR buys the meat, Papa Baka cooks. One free taste, then you have to buy. I guarantee, no one can eat just one. The money will flow into FAIRs coffers!

Can David and Don take the show on the road? I still think that Don should be giving summer firesides throughout the land and david can handle the BBQ. I think that this sounds great for the membership.

[DonBradley]

Thank you, WhyMe,for your enthusiasm. =)

I will certainly be endeavoring to share my journey and testimony, as well as my scholarship. I will, for instance, be doing a FAIR podcast at some point here, probably before the book comes out.

In the mean time, I am certainly open to BBQs at David's, to fill both mind and belly.

Don

[volgadon]

Don, I am very intrigued, to say the least. I have some questions I'd like to ask privately, if you wouldn't mind.

[wenglund]

Chapter 3 is about the translation of the lost pages--when it was done, who the scribes were, what instrument was used (e.g., interpreters vs. seer stone), and what did Joseph experience during the translation process?

So, no mention of the use of an Egyptian Alphabet? What is our friend, Chris Smith, to do?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill Hamblin]

You would have made an ideal addition to the discussion, Bill. I should send you some of what I'm working on and we should talk soon.

Don

That would be great. Papa Baka won't invite me over, though cause he says I eat too much. But if he doesn't want me to eat too much he shouldn't make his food so good!

[volgadon]

That would be great. Papa Baka won't invite me over, though cause he says I eat too much. But if he doesn't want me to eat too much he shouldn't make his food so good!

He does it to build your character.

[volgadon]

Also, I'm sure Don didn't drop so many hints had he not intended for us to delve into our scriptures.

[David Bokovoy]

That would be great. Papa Baka won't invite me over, though cause he says I eat too much. But if he doesn't want me to eat too much he shouldn't make his food so good!

Nonsense! The fact that you eat so much is the very reason you're my favorite person to have over. Besides, how many other guys do I accidently send pictures of myself in my new Charger board shorts to?!!!

Clearly you're in an elite list of loved ones!

[Chris Smith]

So, no mention of the use of an Egyptian Alphabet? What is our friend, Chris Smith, to do?

Now, now, Wade. You know very well that I never claimed an Egyptian Alphabet was used in translating the Book of Mormon.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Chris Smith

[wenglund]

Now, now, Wade. You know very well that I never claimed an Egyptian Alphabet was used in translating the Book of Mormon.

Your right. I was just teasing, and I'm glad you are a good sport and can take a gentle ribbing. :thumbs up:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 26, 2012 by wenglund

[cinepro]

Hey Don, I've heard that the lost "116 Pages" weren't actually 116 pages, but were called that because they covered the same period in the Book of Mormon that the first 116 pages of the original manuscript or printing covered. Does this make any sense?

[Robert F. Smith]

Hey Don, I've heard that the lost "116 Pages" weren't actually 116 pages, but were called that because they covered the same period in the Book of Mormon that the first 116 pages of the original manuscript or printing covered. Does this make any sense?

I don't know what Don has concluded about that, but it is true that the Printer's Manuscript has just 116 pages up to what is now the beginning of Mosiah. The Original Manuscript doesn't quite reach that far, although it probably had around 120 pages (it gets as far as Enos at page 114). So the book of Lehi may have had an indeterminate number of pages, and some speculate that the Lost Pages also included the first two chapters of Mosiah -- leaving our Mosiah 1 starting where Mosiah 3 should be. I hope that Don will clarify all that for us.

[William Schryver]

Will,

Thank you much for making that clarification.

Royal didn't say anything to me about doing a review of the book. He did say that he's skeptical about just how much we can know about the contents of the lost pages, but that he's waiting to see what I've got.

It's quite amazing what he's been able to do learn from so little evidence with the Book of Mormon manuscripts. Someone from outside the discipline of textual criticism might be incredulous to hear that he can tell from examining the manuscript how many words Joseph Smith could see at a time in the seer stone, or the mechanics of the translation process, or what Joseph Smith's accent was in pronouncing various words. But once he lays out the evidence, it all becomes pretty clear.

In the same way, it may be hard for someone to imagine how we can reconstruct much of the Book of Lehi narrative until they actually see the evidence laid out. There is actually a good deal of evidence, much of it internal to the extant Book of Mormon text, and some of it in the form of direct statements by those in the know, the early revelations given right after the Book of Lehi that appear to echo some of its contents, etc. These various puzzle pieces can be put together to get an increasingly clear picture of some of the Book of Lehi narratives.

Cheers,

Don

Don,

In the interest of further clarification: I have apparently also misunderstood what Royal had to say about your forthcoming book. In my defense, I gathered my impression during lunch last week where Royal, Sirkku (his wife), his son Steve, Matt Roper, and I were all talking over each other at the Banana Leaf on University Ave. in Provo (I highly recommend it). In subsequent conversations with him, it's become clear that I completely misunderstood him, and he has no intention, at present, of reviewing your book, nor has he (obviously) even read it yet. I apologize for the confusion.

[DonBradley]

Will,

I really appreciate your checking with Royal on that and clarifying it here.

Best wishes in your Book of Abraham paper with him. Any idea when or where we might see that? These text-critical issues have huge implications for the larger issues of the Book of Abraham's origin and meaning. So, I'm pleased to hear that you and Royal are doing some further analysis together.

Don