Brass Plates - Gold Plates

[oklds]

From the way I read it, one set of plates was essentially a travelogues of Lehi's journey to the North American continent, and the various chcanery which ensued, until the Nephites and Lamanites were essentially wiped out or just disappeared as civilizations.  The other set was nothing but Scriptural matters, some new, and some explanations of the existing Doctrine.

Is that essentially correct?  Which was which?  Why do people assume that the 'lost' part was just more of Lehi's descendants' adventures?  If those were the plates that were taken away when Harris screwed up, wouldn't it stand to reason that they were of the former group (the Scriptural matters)?  There's a good reason for my asking, aside from the fact that a lot of you folks grew up in the Church, whereas I know about as much as your average 10-years old Primary student.  For instance:

1.  Our entire Family walked into a local Church and asked to have Missionaries come to out home to explain some of the Book of Mormon to us.  After they did, we all four got Baptized on the same day, one-after-another.  I didn't know that t was traditionally the Missionaries place to perform the Baptism, so I asked the Bishop to do myself and my Wife.  One of 'our' Missionaries had already gone home, but wanted to fly back to attend.  I said it wasn't necessary - an extrremely arrogant position which I regret to this day, because who am I to say how he should spend his money.

2.  That was in 2013, and even though we were 'walk-ins', I just learned the phrase 'Golden Investigator' for the first time 4 months ago.  I also just learned what a General Authority was about a year ago.  To this day I Thank Almighty God that I didn't cross paths with one and ask, "who are you again?", or some such nonsense.

I could go on with these little anecdotes ad nauseam, but you get the point.  When we were Baptized, the Mission President asked us 10 distinct and very important questions.  When I was elevated to the Melchizedek Priesthood, and again when I and my Wife received our Endowments, we were asked a series of questions.  The last one on all these lists is "Do you consider yourself worthy of this?"

My last question for you all, and then I'll quit:  Why don't any of those lists contain the question, "Are you ready for this?".  It seems to me that I, at least, should know and should have known some of these things.  Did anyone ever consider making new people go through some sort of Primary class?

[PacMan]

The brass plates are what Nephi got from Laban and not part of the golden plates except for what was quoted. Also, JS received one set of plates. They included various parts, including the sealed portion. The small plates were a more spiritual and limited record. The large were an abridgment by Mormon. After Harris lost the 116, there’s no indication that only one part (the large - which was translated first) was taken back. 

[churchistrue]

Related but tangential issue. I think people are mistaken to just take the assumption given to us by the BOM on the large plates and small plates and run with it without testing it. We say the large plates were more historical and the small plates were more scriptural and religious. Yet, when you look at the actual content, it's not that much different. If you exclude the large blocks of Isaiah, the large and small plates are pretty similar in terms of being a narrative with spliced in sermons/visions/letters. The main difference is that the large plates are written in third person due to being abridged by Moroni while the small plates are written in first person. But the aspect that one is historical and one is religious/spiritual is over exaggerated, because we seem to be taking what the BOM says about itself too seriously in this case. Vogel makes this mistake a lot, imho.

[Maidservant]

There is supposed to be a Gospel Essentials Sunday School class; or I don't know now since President Nelson.  But before there was.  And there is supposed to be a temple prep class.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Maidservant

[alter idem]

1 hour ago, oklds said:

From the way I read it, one set of plates was essentially a travelogues of Lehi's journey to the North American continent, and the various chcanery which ensued, until the Nephites and Lamanites were essentially wiped out or just disappeared as civilizations.  The other set was nothing but Scriptural matters, some new, and some explanations of the existing Doctrine.

Is that essentially correct?  Which was which?  Why do people assume that the 'lost' part was just more of Lehi's descendants' adventures?  If those were the plates that were taken away when Harris screwed up, wouldn't it stand to reason that they were of the former group (the Scriptural matters)?  There's a good reason for my asking, aside from the fact that a lot of you folks grew up in the Church, whereas I know about as much as your average 10-years old Primary student.  For instance:

 

    My response: 

Sort of.  When Lehi left Jerusalem, they obtained the Brass Plates, which would have been the Books in the Old Testament that were compiled by then--Genesis, Exodus, etc.  The Nephites were given the charge to keep a record of their travels which would have included their spiritual experiences.  Lehi kept the record until he died and then Nephi kept it.  Nephi was told to make two sets of records, one of their travels and events and one of just the spiritual teachings.  The records were passed down for generations until they came to Mormon and then were passed to his son, Moroni, who buried them. What was lost (the 116 pages) by Martin Harris, were the writings of Lehi, which covered the same events that we find in the first couple of Books in the Book of Mormon(because Mormon was inspired to include Nephi's writings on this same time period, so Joseph was directed to translate it, rather than go back and retranslate Lehi's version from the golden plates).  The Book of Mormon we have today was compiled and abridged by Mormon, from the records which he had.

1.  Our entire Family walked into a local Church and asked to have Missionaries come to out home to explain some of the Book of Mormon to us.  After they did, we all four got Baptized on the same day, one-after-another.  I didn't know that t was traditionally the Missionaries place to perform the Baptism, so I asked the Bishop to do myself and my Wife.  One of 'our' Missionaries had already gone home, but wanted to fly back to attend.  I said it wasn't necessary - an extrremely arrogant position which I regret to this day, because who am I to say how he should spend his money.

2.  That was in 2013, and even though we were 'walk-ins', I just learned the phrase 'Golden Investigator' for the first time 4 months ago.  I also just learned what a General Authority was about a year ago.  To this day I Thank Almighty God that I didn't cross paths with one and ask, "who are you again?", or some such nonsense.

I could go on with these little anecdotes ad nauseam, but you get the point.  When we were Baptized, the Mission President asked us 10 distinct and very important questions.  When I was elevated to the Melchizedek Priesthood, and again when I and my Wife received our Endowments, we were asked a series of questions.  The last one on all these lists is "Do you consider yourself worthy of this?"

My last question for you all, and then I'll quit:  Why don't any of those lists contain the question, "Are you ready for this?".  It seems to me that I, at least, should know and should have known some of these things.  Did anyone ever consider making new people go through some sort of Primary class?

     My response: 

I don't think they ask 'are you ready for this',  but I think that's implied when you are interviewed for baptism.  I assume a prospective member knows they are taking upon them the name of Christ and they need to follow his teachings, his works in how he lived his life in service and righteous doings and be constantly praying and repenting when necessary.  This is explained a couple of times in the Book of Mormon and we call it 'The Doctrine of Christ', you can look that up, if you need to and get an explanation.  I'm sure it will be familiar to you as what the Missionaries taught you.

There was a sort of 'primary class' for new members and investigators, it was called the Gospel Principles class, but they phased it out in January 2019 when we went to the 2 hour block.  New members attend the regular sunday school classes now.

 

Edited March 29, 2019 by alter idem

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

Related but tangential issue. I think people are mistaken to just take the assumption given to us by the BOM on the large plates and small plates and run with it without testing it. We say the large plates were more historical and the small plates were more scriptural and religious. Yet, when you look at the actual content, it's not that much different. If you exclude the large blocks of Isaiah, the large and small plates are pretty similar in terms of being a narrative with spliced in sermons/visions/letters. The main difference is that the large plates are written in third person due to being abridged by Moroni while the small plates are written in first person. But the aspect that one is historical and one is religious/spiritual is over exaggerated, because we seem to be taking what the BOM says about itself too seriously in this case. Vogel makes this mistake a lot, imho.

Its almost as if we could attribute the entire book to the same author.  

[Calm]

I came across this book when I was working in a church bookstore and thought it was a worthwhile read, both for a new convert and those who should be reminded what a different experience it might be for those not growing up in the church:

https://deseretbook.com/p/converts-guide-mormon-life-clark-l-kidd-4316?ref=Grid | Clark L. Kidd | Taxon%3A 1367-3&variant_id=106449-ebook

[Calm]

I also found it helpful as someone who ignored church history growing up, as silly as this sounds, to read the illustrated simplified stories version of church history to help me put the bits and pieces I knew into a timeline.

http://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/scripture-and-lesson-support/doctrine-and-covenants-stories/2010-06-doctrine-and-covenants-stories-eng.pdf

After that I got the Institute books of Church History in the Fulness of time and then the manual on the D&C, both online,though now I would recommend using the Revelations in Context section on the church’s website. 

I liked the older BoM institute manual as it had more tidbits of info than it. I am a visual learner and the book Charts of the Book of Mormon helped for things like understanding the brass plates etc. I think that may be online. 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/book-of-mormon-charts

Book of Mormon Central is probably a useful reference, not sure how systemically it goes through things. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

BoM Central has alist of seminary Knowhys you might find helpful. This is the BoM list:

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/seminary-book-of-mormon-knowhys

Church history:

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/church-history-knowhys-by-date

They also have search programs for pulling up info about specific scriptures. 

[Brant Gardner]

For once I don't feel too guilty about plugging my book. This on is not out yet, but should be printed through Interpreter Foundation (I hope before the end of the year). The intent is that it will be serialized and then can be gathered into a volume (and printed on-demand). Since it is coming through that process, it is free. I frankly didn't think too many would pay for it!

The title is Labor Diligently to Write, and is more than you wanted to know about the process of writing the Nephite scriptures. I mention it here because it speaks of the nature of the sources for the Book of Mormon (including large and small plates, brass plates, plates of Ether, and personal records from Alma2 and Nephi3).

So, have some patience and there will be something that answers questions you didn't even know you had!

[Ryan Dahle]

11 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

For once I don't feel too guilty about plugging my book. This on is not out yet, but should be printed through Interpreter Foundation (I hope before the end of the year). The intent is that it will be serialized and then can be gathered into a volume (and printed on-demand). Since it is coming through that process, it is free. I frankly didn't think too many would pay for it!

The title is Labor Diligently to Write, and is more than you wanted to know about the process of writing the Nephite scriptures. I mention it here because it speaks of the nature of the sources for the Book of Mormon (including large and small plates, brass plates, plates of Ether, and personal records from Alma2 and Nephi3).

So, have some patience and there will be something that answers questions you didn't even know you had!

I didn't know about this. I am very much looking forward to it. Your work on the Book of Mormon's underlying source texts has been invaluable. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, oklds said:

I also just learned what a General Authority was about a year ago.  To this day I Thank Almighty God that I didn't cross paths with one and ask, "who are you again?", or some such nonsense.

Given the choice between having Church members ask them to sign their scriptures and having someone not know who they were, I'm pretty sure 99% of the GAs would much prefer the latter to the former.  You probably would have made their week.

I don't know many GAs, but that is certainly the case for the few I would say I've known well.

[Steve J]

30 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

For once I don't feel too guilty about plugging my book. This on is not out yet, but should be printed through Interpreter Foundation (I hope before the end of the year). The intent is that it will be serialized and then can be gathered into a volume (and printed on-demand). Since it is coming through that process, it is free. I frankly didn't think too many would pay for it!

The title is Labor Diligently to Write, and is more than you wanted to know about the process of writing the Nephite scriptures. I mention it here because it speaks of the nature of the sources for the Book of Mormon (including large and small plates, brass plates, plates of Ether, and personal records from Alma2 and Nephi3).

So, have some patience and there will be something that answers questions you didn't even know you had!

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know. - Donald Rumsfield ...........  I was pretty young when I heard this quote and I was like I never thought about that before... So I saw a chance to quote it here

Edited March 29, 2019 by Steve J

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Related but tangential issue. I think people are mistaken to just take the assumption given to us by the BOM on the large plates and small plates and run with it without testing it. 

I'd agree with you that the major difference is that the large plates are Mormon's plates. He writes them using all sorts of records and with his own editorial biases as he draws lessons from the history. We should distinguish them from Nephi's other plates which Mormon used in his history. The small plates were included unedited for reasons Moroni didn't understand at the time. Although it became helpful when Martin lost the translation of Mormon's early history. However since the translation we have is a fairly loose one, potentially with expansions in the translation, even the small plates (roughly 1 Nephi - Enos) really are an edited and redacted work.

Since we don't have the lost 116 pages it's hard to compare Nephi's plates with Mormon's treatment of the history. Going by what Don Bradley has discovered about the 116 pages from various witness accounts, it does seem like there's a lot more detail about the history and less exegesis of Isaiah (which dominates Nephi's account). I'm really looking forward to Bradley's book as I think it may make us rethink some of our assumptions.

Edited March 29, 2019 by clarkgoble

[oklds]

6 hours ago, Maidservant said:

There is supposed to be a Gospel Essentials Sunday School class; or I don't know now since President Nelson.  But before there was.  And there is supposed to be a temple prep class.

There are both of those things available, and we took both.  However, I'm talking about the terminology which every LDS Child seems to be born with, and we get piecemeal. ☺️

[oklds]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

Given the choice between having Church members ask them to sign their scriptures and having someone not know who they were, I'm pretty sure 99% of the GAs would much prefer the latter to the former.  You probably would have made their week.

I don't know many GAs, but that is certainly the case for the few I would say I've known well.

You think that's dumb?  When I first heard the term General Authority, I thought it was simply someone who outranked a Colonel Authority...

[oklds]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its almost as if we could attribute the entire book to the same author.  

Nope - they are NOT the same author, style, etc.  That much I do know.  The first 88 sheets of the 116 sheets are written on both sides, in very small, precise script.  I only read the two-page forward and about half of the first page (side one of sheet 2), and it was very dark indeed, plus I was pressed for time, as you might imagine.  When I get them back out of the SD box, someone else can go through them and determine their usefulness to the Church as a whole.

I just wish I had known some of this terminology before I started having to interrupt with, "Huh?  What's that mean?" about every third sentence.  ☺️

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Steve J said:

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know. - Donald Rumsfield ...........  I was pretty young when I heard this quote and I was like I never thought about that before... So I saw a chance to quote it here

What about the unknown knowns?

[oklds]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd agree with you that the major difference is that the large plates are Mormon's plates. He writes them using all sorts of records and with his own editorial biases as he draws lessons from the history. We should distinguish them from Nephi's other plates which Mormon used in his history. The small plates were included unedited for reasons Moroni didn't understand at the time. Although it became helpful when Martin lost the translation of Mormon's early history. However since the translation we have is a fairly loose one, potentially with expansions in the translation, even the small plates (roughly 1 Nephi - Enos) really are an edited and redacted work.

Since we don't have the lost 116 pages it's hard to compare Nephi's plates with Mormon's treatment of the history. Going by what Don Bradley has discovered about the 116 pages from various witness accounts, it does seem like there's a lot more detail about the history and less exegesis of Isaiah (which dominates Nephi's account). I'm really looking forward to Bradley's book as I think it may make us rethink some of our assumptions.

Get this straight:  there are 116 SHEETS.  The first 88 SHEETS are written on both sides, also heavier paper than the others.  Very small (about 5-6mm) script, and very neat and precise.  I know Emma Smith's handwriting well, and there's no question that's who actually did the writing, but I'm pretty sure she didn't create the actual text (except her forward - SHEET 1, which is PAGES 1 and 2).  The very little content I red (about the same as 4 pages of the current Book of Mormon) was VERY creepy and I figured it was best left alone for someone more qualified to deal with it (I'm not that person).

The next 26 are a lot larger (about 18-20mm), in two different hand-writings.  Those ones do look like they contain some sort of prelude to another Book from the Book of Mormon as we have it today.  Talks about plans for two groups to get together and wipe out some other group who had aggravated them in some way.  I'm not smart enough to know that for sure, but that's what it looks like.  Maybe someone can find the place I'm thinking of and make that connection.  he other two are illustrations, drawn by a male, with the script labels in Emma's hand.

In the meantime, how about one of you literary giants writing up a book of these metaphors for us idiots ("Mormonspeak for Dummies", maybe).  My Wife pointed out a REALLY good example - the first time two Missionaries told us, "We came out together" just about made me spit Dr. Pepper out of my nose.  That might not cause a reaction in San Francisco or L.A., but out in 'Horselaugh, Arkansas' it will almost always be taken the wrong way.

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, oklds said:

Get this straight:  there are 116 SHEETS.  The first 88 SHEETS are written on both sides, also heavier paper than the others.  Very small (about 5-6mm) script, and very neat and precise.  I know Emma Smith's handwriting well, and there's no question that's who actually did the writing, but I'm pretty sure she didn't create the actual text (except her forward - SHEET 1, which is PAGES 1 and 2).  The very little content I red (about the same as 4 pages of the current Book of Mormon) was VERY creepy and I figured it was best left alone for someone more qualified to deal with it (I'm not that person).

The next 26 are a lot larger (about 18-20mm), in two different hand-writings.  Those ones do look like they contain some sort of prelude to another Book from the Book of Mormon as we have it today.  Talks about plans for two groups to get together and wipe out some other group who had aggravated them in some way.  I'm not smart enough to know that for sure, but that's what it looks like.  Maybe someone can find the place I'm thinking of and make that connection.  he other two are illustrations, drawn by a male, with the script labels in Emma's hand.

Umm. Earnest question but what are you referring to? I reread the thread to see if I missed something but don't think I did. Are you saying you think you saw the missing pages somewhere? Is there a comment in one of the threads I've not followed?

My apologies if I missed something obvious.

The argument for length comes from Don Bradley's scholarship. You can read his discussion of some of it here. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, oklds said:

Nope - they are NOT the same author, style, etc.  That much I do know.  The first 88 sheets of the 116 sheets are written on both sides, in very small, precise script.  I only read the two-page forward and about half of the first page (side one of sheet 2), and it was very dark indeed, plus I was pressed for time, as you might imagine.  When I get them back out of the SD box, someone else can go through them and determine their usefulness to the Church as a whole.

I just wish I had known some of this terminology before I started having to interrupt with, "Huh?  What's that mean?" about every third sentence.  ☺️

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.  

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Umm. Earnest question but what are you referring to? I reread the thread to see if I missed something but don't think I did. Are you saying you think you saw the missing pages somewhere? Is there a comment in one of the threads I've not followed?

My apologies if I missed something obvious.

The argument for length comes from Don Bradley's scholarship. You can read his discussion of some of it here. 

I thought he was just joking about the lost 116 pages in his first response to me, but then I read his response to you with even more detail.  I'm curious what he's talking about.   Can you even imagine what the lost 116 pages would be worth on the market if they were found today?  Not to mention how much value they would have for millions of Mormons everywhere.  It would be an amazing discovery and gives me goosebumps to even think that they might turn up. 

[oklds]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Umm. Earnest question but what are you referring to? I reread the thread to see if I missed something but don't think I did. Are you saying you think you saw the missing pages somewhere? Is there a comment in one of the threads I've not followed?

My apologies if I missed something obvious.

The argument for length comes from Don Bradley's scholarship. You can read his discussion of some of it here. 

Yes, they are secured in a SD box where I put them.

But, I don't know or care about any Don Bradley scholarship.

[oklds]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I thought he was just joking about the lost 116 pages in his first response to me, but then I read his response to you with even more detail.  I'm curious what he's talking about.   Can you even imagine what the lost 116 pages would be worth on the market if they were found today?  Not to mention how much value they would have for millions of Mormons everywhere.  It would be an amazing discovery and gives me goosebumps to even think that they might turn up. 

Have none of you been reading the other posts about these papers?  The whole sage of how they were located, salvaged and secured would make a book in itself, IMO; but I'm not gonna be the one to write it.  LOL

That's why I wanted to get as much of the terminology explained as I could, and still do.  What you folks think of as everyday words and phrases could make a world of difference to new guys like me.  Not having that data caused me no end of trouble and costs, which could have been avoided if I had known these things.  When my first Bishop asked me to go get them when my Dad was still alive (and he had easy access to his SD box),  I didn't have the faintest idea why another 116 pages would make a difference to anyone.  I saw it as just more stuff to read.  So, I didn't attach any significance to his request, and then when my Dad died I went through hell getting them out of the bank.  Would have been so much easier if I had known what the average 4-year old Church kid knows.

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, oklds said:

Yes, they are secured in a SD box where I put them.

But, I don't know or care about any Don Bradley scholarship.

What in the world are you talking about?  Are you actually claiming to have the actual 116 original pages of the BoM?