Brass Plates - Gold Plates

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, oklds said:

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.

Can you share a link to these other posts?  I follow Mormon topics fairly closely online and I've never seen anything credible about someone claiming to have found the lost 116 pages of the BoM.  If this were true it could change Mormonism in profound ways and like I mentioned earlier the monetary and scholarly value of those documents would be hard for me to even begin to imagine.  Can you share any links to discussions about this?  

[mfbukowski]

9 hours 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:

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?

The plates are one thing but the culture is another. Welcome.

 I am a convert now of about 40 years and I still don't have these folks figured out, but I love their Church.

Who'da thought that the Lord's true church was entrusted to some farmers in Utah?

 

[clarkgoble]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you share a link to these other posts?  I follow Mormon topics fairly closely online and I've never seen anything credible about someone claiming to have found the lost 116 pages of the BoM.  If this were true it could change Mormonism in profound ways and like I mentioned earlier the monetary and scholarly value of those documents would be hard for me to even begin to imagine.  Can you share any links to discussions about this?  

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71607-how-to-hire-missionaries-to-come-to-your-home/?tab=comments#comment-1209889622

Color me skeptical although perhaps even a photo of the parchment would go a long ways...

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71607-how-to-hire-missionaries-to-come-to-your-home/?tab=comments#comment-1209889622

Color me skeptical although perhaps even a photo of the parchment would go a long ways...

Thanks, I found that thread too.  I’m extremely skeptical as well, but the odd details he’s sharing coupled with what appears to be confusion about basic Mormon teachings has me putting up my hands and asking what’s going on.  Is this just an attempt to gets some laughs?  

[Brant Gardner]

1 hour ago, oklds said:

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

Now that would be a fun book to write. By the way, since you have seen the pages, I assume that you have all 116 loose sheets?

[oklds]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, I found that thread too.  I’m extremely skeptical as well, but the odd details he’s sharing coupled with what appears to be confusion about basic Mormon teachings has me putting up my hands and asking what’s going on.  Is this just an attempt to gets some laughs?  

What kind of a jackass would make this up for laughs?  I asked a simple question about the plates, it grew into something bigger (although I suppose that was my fault - I should have known better), and now I'm getting dumped on about it.  And no, I am not going to give you a copy to 'prove' myself.

[oklds]

1 minute ago, Brant Gardner said:

Now that would be a fun book to write. By the way, since you have seen the pages, I assume that you have all 116 loose sheets?

A REALLY good question, and one I'm inclined to answer, since it deserves an answer.  Actually, someone tried to glue the 88 sheets together like a book, with some sort of reddish-glue.  It didn't work, but was a nice try.

[Brant Gardner]

18 minutes ago, oklds said:

A REALLY good question, and one I'm inclined to answer, since it deserves an answer.  Actually, someone tried to glue the 88 sheets together like a book, with some sort of reddish-glue.  It didn't work, but was a nice try.

They didn't try to sew the pages first? 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, oklds said:

What kind of a jackass would make this up for laughs?  I asked a simple question about the plates, it grew into something bigger (although I suppose that was my fault - I should have known better), and now I'm getting dumped on about it.  And no, I am not going to give you a copy to 'prove' myself.

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.  

[USU78]

5 hours ago, 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.  

A certain mad bomber was telling folks at one point that he had a line on them ... which probably means he had a draft put together.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

A certain mad bomber was telling folks at one point that he had a line on them ... which probably means he had a draft put together.

Yes, I’ve heard that.  116 pages is a lot work by comparison to his other forgeries.  

[sunstoned]

10 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.

Paul Dunn signed my scriptures:-)

 

[churchistrue]

15 hours ago, 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.  

 

It would be fascinating. But I don't know that it would necessarily be faith harming. Why would you assume that, just curious. I would assume they would tell the story of Lehi, Nephi, up to the point of King Benjamin with the same feeling we get in Mosiah-Alma, where Moroni is narrating and occasionally cutting away to sermons and other long quotes related to visions or whatever. If they were much different than that, it might tell us something about what Oliver contributed, possibly. But I don't perceive anything that would be difficult for LDS, unless the content was goofy and included a lot more anachronisms or something, which I wouldn't assume.

 

 

[hope_for_things]

43 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

 

It would be fascinating. But I don't know that it would necessarily be faith harming. Why would you assume that, just curious. I would assume they would tell the story of Lehi, Nephi, up to the point of King Benjamin with the same feeling we get in Mosiah-Alma, where Moroni is narrating and occasionally cutting away to sermons and other long quotes related to visions or whatever. If they were much different than that, it might tell us something about what Oliver contributed, possibly. But I don't perceive anything that would be difficult for LDS, unless the content was goofy and included a lot more anachronisms or something, which I wouldn't assume.

I haven’t thought about it much until right now.  I do suspect the language would be more clunky sounding than during the second time.  I wonder if we’d see more of the mound builder and folk magic elements in this version.  

I also wonder if we might see some stories from the later narratives show up, things that happened in Alma or Mormon or some other later character’s narrative might show up in this earlier one.  If that happened, how would a believer reconcile that?  Would they just say it’s an amazing coincidence how two characters had such similar sounding stories happen to them?  

[Brant Gardner]

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.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, 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.

Did you just supply a forger's recipe for producing a verisimilitudinous knockoff?

[Brant Gardner]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Did you just supply a forger's recipe for producing a verisimilitudinous knockoff?

Only partially. Unfortunately (?) in my forthcoming book I lay out what should and should not be in the 116 pages. So, maybe I am laying out a blueprint for a future forger!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 hours ago, oklds said:

What kind of a jackass would make this up for laughs?  

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

[alter idem]

20 hours 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.  ☺️

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? 

[alter idem]

20 hours ago, oklds said:

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.

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.

[alter idem]

2 hours ago, 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.

In addition, oklds' has said there are maps within his collection, and he apparently believes they lead to treasure.   I assume this is something we should not expect to find in the actual 116 pages.

[Dan Vogel]

On 3/29/2019 at 9:36 AM, 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.

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.

[Brant Gardner]

4 hours ago, alter idem said:

In addition, oklds' has said there are maps within his collection, and he apparently believes they lead to treasure.   I assume this is something we should not expect to find in the actual 116 pages.

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.

[Brant Gardner]

2 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. 

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.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, churchistrue said:

 

Deleted

 

Error 

Edited March 31, 2019 by mfbukowski