Jump to content

Don Bradley's Lost 116 Pages is out...


Calm

Recommended Posts

At first I thought I shouldn't post this, but now feel I should. I was totally taken by surprise when my husband was listening to this podcast. He listens like me, to podcasts every night. And usually the both of us only listen to them partially because we nod off to sleep. So I have to go back and re-listen the next day. Well, on the podcast he was listening to, there was the same voice as Don's. I thought, no way that can't be. So accidently, I woke my husband, who I thought was awake, and asked what he was listening to. Well it was a podcast called, "Naked Mormonism". Not a pro LDS podcast. 

So I'm amazed because most LDS believing scholars wouldn't touch that podcast. And this tells me Don is serious, that he wants the truth no matter what. And isn't only a faith promoting kind of guy. 

Don, you impress me so much, if you read this. And I hated how Bryce kept interupting you and talking so much. I wish he'd just let you speak. Afterwards Bryce mentioned he will read the book, and then if you're willing have you back to discuss it. I'd love that, but I wouldn't blame you if you told him notta after the way he over took. Or maybe you see it differently.  

Link to post
5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

At first I thought I shouldn't post this, but now feel I should. I was totally taken by surprise when my husband was listening to this podcast. He listens like me, to podcasts every night. And usually the both of us only listen to them partially because we nod off to sleep. So I have to go back and re-listen the next day. Well, on the podcast he was listening to, there was the same voice as Don's. I thought, no way that can't be. So accidently, I woke my husband, who I thought was awake, and asked what he was listening to. Well it was a podcast called, "Naked Mormonism". Not a pro LDS podcast. 

So I'm amazed because most LDS believing scholars wouldn't touch that podcast. And this tells me Don is serious, that he wants the truth no matter what. And isn't only a faith promoting kind of guy. 

Don, you impress me so much, if you read this. And I hated how Bryce kept interupting you and talking so much. I wish he'd just let you speak. Afterwards Bryce mentioned he will read the book, and then if you're willing have you back to discuss it. I'd love that, but I wouldn't blame you if you told him notta after the way he over took. Or maybe you see it differently.  

Listened to it this morning and had the same annoyance.

Link to post

Never mind

Edited by Stargazer
Link to post
On 11/23/2019 at 8:19 PM, CA Steve said:

If the actual original 116 pages had ever surfaced with changes made by the thieves and Joseph had recreated his own second version, it would of been a simple matter to compare the original to the new one and see that they differed only where changes had been made.

OK, I get it.

A simple matter, though?  Joseph gave Martin the only copy.  He didn't make a backup.  It would have been very easy for the person who received it from Lucy to make another handwritten copy with significant differences, then bring out that forgery and claim that it was the original, once the Book of Mormon was published.  And thereby "demonstrate" that Joseph hadn't actually translate anything -- he had just been making things up as he went along.

I don't think the handwriting analysis techniques in those days was quite up to snuff.  Who actually scribed those 116 pages?  According to William J Chritchlow -- see Manuscript, Lost 116 Pages.

"Although principally transcribed by Martin Harris from dictation by Joseph Smith, some of the pages may also have been transcribed by Joseph's wife, Emma Smith, or her brother, Reuben Hale."

Now, how hard would it be to plausibly imitate Martin Harris's handwriting -- especially if one had the best example of it sitting right in front of you, and plenty of time to do it in?  

I think it is entirely plausible. 

 

Edited by Stargazer
Link to post

Oh, how kind of you, Tacenda!

In one of my favorite passages of scripture, right where Joseph picked up the translation after the loss of the initial manuscript, there is what I think would make a wonderful motto for us in our search for understanding. King Benjamin urges his people to "open your ears that ye may hear, and your hearts that ye may understand, and your minds that the mysteries of God may be unfolded to your view" (Mosiah 2:9).

I know Bryce from history conferences, John Whitmer Historical Association a couple years ago in Nauvoo and then MHA here in Utah this year. If I have his story right, he grew up Latter-day Saint but lost his faith as a teenager. A few years later, when he was like 20, he decided to start exploring his heritage, albeit from the vantage now of a nonbeliever, by digging into the church's history and putting the results up as podcasts. When he and I talked a good bit at this latest MHA, I found him an extremely positive and open human being.

I'm not a big podcast listener - I just generally don't take the time. As such, I don't know Bryce's podcast as a regular listener but primarily as someone who has heard him talk a lot about it. 

While I don't listen to podcasts that often, I absolutely dearly love doing podcasts. It is one of my favorite things in the world: I get to talk about things I love, and there's an element of teaching to it, where I present things for listeners so they'll learn something new!

The audience of this podcast, as I understand it, is overwhelmingly skeptical, probably largely ex-Mormon, and probably mostly young.

Having been in the ex-Mormon community for several years myself, now nearly a decade ago, I understand what this means in terms of how they see Joseph Smith. They see him, overwhelmingly, as I then did--as a fraud, "a con man." 

In September Bryce was in Utah for other reasons and asked if we could have an impromptu conversation on the lost 116 pages before he headed home.

Our conversation ended up being mostly about Joseph Smith, and I think in it I was able to offer a perspective on Joseph that would have been entirely new to probably all listeners. I'm curious, if you've listened to it all the way through, how you think that came across? Unlike when I talk with fellow Latter-day Saints, I accepted that there is going to be a good deal of skepticism about Joseph Smith among the listeners and just spoke from what I had discovered about his thinking and his self-understanding, things that have helped spark my own evolution from thinking of Joseph as an opportunist to recognizing him as someone absolutely certain that God had chosen him for His work.

really enjoyed the conversation with Bryce and felt that despite the fact that some of my ideas might be new to him as well as to many listeners he "got" where I was going with them. I felt that his engagement with what I was saying was communicating that and taking the right role as host of the podcast, so I didn't feel interrupted. I wasn't sure where the interview was going to go, but by the end I felt it was just a really fantastic unscripted conversation where I got to share things I've learned about Joseph Smith. 

I'd actually expected the conversation to deal more with what was in the lost 116 pages, but I think that Bryce didn't so much want to go there till he'd had a chance to read the book. I'd be more than happy to be back on the show, since I enjoyed it a bunch and since I think the audience probably would really enjoy and learn from what we can know about what was in the lost pages--this research might open up their thinking further on the Book of Mormon in new directions, as it certainly has mine.

I think the larger point you bring up here, Tacenda, is an important one--and that is casting a wide net in searching for and dialoguing about truth.

This, for me, feels like what my life has been about in seeking for truth in spiritual things, both by personal experience and through the tools of research.

Having been all kinds of places in my journey before discovering that I could reintegrate my faith into a bigger picture than I had ever imagined as a former believer, my experience of being at different points on my journey, in company with others on their own journeys, makes me think that most people ultimately want truth. People inquiring about the Restoration's history don't, for me, divide into camps or categories, like "apologist" or "critic." (People like Ed Decker, who knowingly distort the facts for what they perceive to be a "higher" end, tend--in my experience--to be incredibly rare.) Anyone who avidly digs into the data, connecting dots, and so on, is going to arrive at new insights that will contribute to a fuller overall picture. My own most faith-enhancing discoveries---those that helped me regain faith and return to the church---have often made use of earlier findings by both "apologists" and "critics." Truth is truth is truth is truth---no matter who discovers it or what their overall outlook is!

My primary motivation for years has been---I just want to know what happened! And that foregrounding of the truth at all costs, with all its idiosyncratic twists and turns, embracing all historical sources as potentially sources of truth and engaging with every intelligent inquirer regardless of their larger worldview, has ended up being precisely why, on some big questions I've broken through to a new, bigger faithful perspective that integrates data I once found troubling. The Kinderhook plates would be a good example here. I finalized my interpretation of that as an ex-Mormon atheist, and, yet, it resolves a big barrier to faith.

In my experience, when we open up to just trying to go wherever the data lead, that's the best apologetic of all. I do think it's sometimes important to lay out a defense of the faith, and of its founding prophet. I also think, though, that what Joseph Smith needs from us most of all, isn't for us to defend him but for us to accurately understand him---and then he defends himself just fine!

Thanks again for your kind words and for, I think, getting where I'm coming from--that I just want truth, and that that's exactly how and why I am able to believe.

Don

  • Like 3
Link to post
On 11/26/2019 at 11:48 PM, cinepro said:

Whether we attribute the plan to Lucy Harris or Satan, either way the "plan" makes no sense.

If you're Satan and you want to stop the Book of Mormon from coming forth, you don't steal the pages, hide them, and then wait for a the BoM to be published months or years later and then alter and produce the previous pages (while depending entirely on readers of the Book of Mormon to rationally compare between the published book and your altered pages and make a reasoned judgement based on their critical thinking skills).  You destroy the pages.

If you're Lucy Harris and your husband is pouring his time and money into an endeavor that you see leading to your financial and marital ruin, you don't create a plan that will require your husband to spend even more time and money to finish the project at which point you then act to destroy your best shot at getting your money back.  You destroy the work in progress in the hopes that he and his partner get discouraged and give up.

Yeah, I don't know.  Your scenario of destroying the pages is actually a very logical plan.  Especially if you're just Lucy Harris or some friend who want to try to discourage Joseph and Martin.  I think that I could have come up with that, if someone had asked my opinion.

But is that how Satan thinks?  Is he logical?

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 11/28/2019 at 2:20 AM, mfbukowski said:

This is the thread I was thinking of.  I skimmed the thread quickly.   Dan Judd is the name of the individual making the claims.  He posts here as oklds.  Brant Gardner asked key questions, the answers to which caused Gardner to conclude that the alleged 116 pages Judd has are fakes.  There is a discussion about them being in a safe deposit box and which Judd cannot access until some time in 2021 due to legal questions which I did not bother to figure out, and the statute of limitations runs out at that time.  That should save anyone interested 4 pages of reading.

The first relevant post starts here

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71707-brass-plates-gold-plates/?do=findComment&comment=1209895495

 

 

Perhaps those are the pages that were created by the forger?

Link to post
On 11/23/2019 at 1:19 PM, CA Steve said:

If the actual original 116 pages had ever surfaced with changes made by the thieves and Joseph had recreated his own second version, it would of been a simple matter to compare the original to the new one and see that they differed only where changes had been made.

Hey Steve,

I somehow overlooked this post before. Agreed!

I actually address this in my chapter on the manuscript theft.

I think we may have misunderstood what D&C 10 says the conspirators were up to.

We've tended to read it as saying the thieves would alter the manuscript when it actually says the thieves would alter the words. There would be two ways to alter the words:

1) By doctoring the manuscript

2) By rewriting the manuscript while trying to imitate the original handwriting

While it is, it seems to me, relatively easy to identify interpolations, such as over-writing, on a manuscript, handwriting analysis is tremendously difficult and modern methods of doing it would not then have been available.

So, between the two possibilities above for how the manuscript's words could have altered, the second seems to me more likely to have been the intended one.

Note also that the alterations were said to have been made by "wicked men, and Martin Harris is identified early in the revelation as a "wicked man." It is thus quite possible that early on Joseph and others may have understood this to mean that Martin himself was one of those involved in taking the manuscript. I don't believe this was actually the case. But if they at any point thought it was, then it would have been very easy for them to conceive the manuscript being rewritten in the same handwriting--Martin could simply have rewritten, with variations, the material he had written before, and, bingo, there's a non-matching manuscript!

Don

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, DonBradley said:

Hey Steve,

I somehow overlooked this post before. Agreed!

I actually address this in my chapter on the manuscript theft.

I think we may have misunderstood what D&C 10 says the conspirators were up to.

We've tended to read it as saying the thieves would alter the manuscript when it actually says the thieves would alter the words. There would be two ways to alter the words:

1) By doctoring the manuscript

2) By rewriting the manuscript while trying to imitate the original handwriting

While it is, it seems to me, relatively easy to identify interpolations, such as over-writing, on a manuscript, handwriting analysis is tremendously difficult and modern methods of doing it would not then have been available.

So, between the two possibilities above for how the manuscript's words could have altered, the second seems to me more likely to have been the intended one.

Note also that the alterations were said to have been made by "wicked men, and Martin Harris is identified early in the revelation as a "wicked man." It is thus quite possible that early on Joseph and others may have understood this to mean that Martin himself was one of those involved in taking the manuscript. I don't believe this was actually the case. But if they at any point thought it was, then it would have been very easy for them to conceive the manuscript being rewritten in the same handwriting--Martin could simply have rewritten, with variations, the material he had written before, and, bingo, there's a non-matching manuscript!

Don

Don,

Are you of the opinion that, if Joseph would have retranslated the lost portion, that if would be identical to his first translation?  In other words, do you believe it was a tight or loose translation?

And if it was a loose translation, then the thieves really wouldn't need to do anything more than produce the manuscript and point out the differences.

Link to post
47 minutes ago, DonBradley said:

By rewriting the manuscript while trying to imitate the original handwriting

Which is what I said.  Good catch, Don!

I gotta get this book of yours...

  • Like 1
Link to post
38 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Don,

Are you of the opinion that, if Joseph would have retranslated the lost portion, that if would be identical to his first translation?  In other words, do you believe it was a tight or loose translation?

And if it was a loose translation, then the thieves really wouldn't need to do anything more than produce the manuscript and point out the differences.

KSFisher,

My views on the translation process are fairly idiosyncratic, but would comprise a kind of "loose" translation model. Joseph Smith saw text, but I believe - with Brant Gardner, B. H. Roberts, et al. - saw it incident to having first studied it out in his mind. So, yes, re-translating the exact text would probably not have been possible regardless of the altering of the words. Brant has suggested that the altering of the words was really addressing how Joseph's process could not produce the same words again. I think there's something to that. There's also more to it than that - Joseph's theology of the "sealing up" of a sacred text has to do with protecting that text from corruption. When the text went from being "sealed up" to God to being "delivered up to wickedness," it immediately fell under suspicion of corruption.

I try to lay out the back story to all this in my second chapter--"The Sealed Book"--before I address the actual theft itself.

Don

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
7 minutes ago, DonBradley said:

I try to lay out the back story to all this in my second chapter--"The Sealed Book"--before I address the actual theft itself.

Thanks for your reply.  I've just started chapter 2 and am enjoying it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post

Just got my copy on Kindle!  Will start reading ASAP.

  • Like 1
Link to post

 

2 hours ago, DonBradley said:

Oh, how kind of you, Tacenda!

In one of my favorite passages of scripture, right where Joseph picked up the translation after the loss of the initial manuscript, there is what I think would make a wonderful motto for us in our search for understanding. King Benjamin urges his people to "open your ears that ye may hear, and your hearts that ye may understand, and your minds that the mysteries of God may be unfolded to your view" (Mosiah 2:9).

I know Bryce from history conferences, John Whitmer Historical Association a couple years ago in Nauvoo and then MHA here in Utah this year. If I have his story right, he grew up Latter-day Saint but lost his faith as a teenager. A few years later, when he was like 20, he decided to start exploring his heritage, albeit from the vantage now of a nonbeliever, by digging into the church's history and putting the results up as podcasts. When he and I talked a good bit at this latest MHA, I found him an extremely positive and open human being.

I'm not a big podcast listener - I just generally don't take the time. As such, I don't know Bryce's podcast as a regular listener but primarily as someone who has heard him talk a lot about it. 

While I don't listen to podcasts that often, I absolutely dearly love doing podcasts. It is one of my favorite things in the world: I get to talk about things I love, and there's an element of teaching to it, where I present things for listeners so they'll learn something new!

The audience of this podcast, as I understand it, is overwhelmingly skeptical, probably largely ex-Mormon, and probably mostly young.

Having been in the ex-Mormon community for several years myself, now nearly a decade ago, I understand what this means in terms of how they see Joseph Smith. They see him, overwhelmingly, as I then did--as a fraud, "a con man." 

In September Bryce was in Utah for other reasons and asked if we could have an impromptu conversation on the lost 116 pages before he headed home.

Our conversation ended up being mostly about Joseph Smith, and I think in it I was able to offer a perspective on Joseph that would have been entirely new to probably all listeners. I'm curious, if you've listened to it all the way through, how you think that came across? Unlike when I talk with fellow Latter-day Saints, I accepted that there is going to be a good deal of skepticism about Joseph Smith among the listeners and just spoke from what I had discovered about his thinking and his self-understanding, things that have helped spark my own evolution from thinking of Joseph as an opportunist to recognizing him as someone absolutely certain that God had chosen him for His work.

really enjoyed the conversation with Bryce and felt that despite the fact that some of my ideas might be new to him as well as to many listeners he "got" where I was going with them. I felt that his engagement with what I was saying was communicating that and taking the right role as host of the podcast, so I didn't feel interrupted. I wasn't sure where the interview was going to go, but by the end I felt it was just a really fantastic unscripted conversation where I got to share things I've learned about Joseph Smith. 

I'd actually expected the conversation to deal more with what was in the lost 116 pages, but I think that Bryce didn't so much want to go there till he'd had a chance to read the book. I'd be more than happy to be back on the show, since I enjoyed it a bunch and since I think the audience probably would really enjoy and learn from what we can know about what was in the lost pages--this research might open up their thinking further on the Book of Mormon in new directions, as it certainly has mine.

I think the larger point you bring up here, Tacenda, is an important one--and that is casting a wide net in searching for and dialoguing about truth.

This, for me, feels like what my life has been about in seeking for truth in spiritual things, both by personal experience and through the tools of research.

Having been all kinds of places in my journey before discovering that I could reintegrate my faith into a bigger picture than I had ever imagined as a former believer, my experience of being at different points on my journey, in company with others on their own journeys, makes me think that most people ultimately want truth. People inquiring about the Restoration's history don't, for me, divide into camps or categories, like "apologist" or "critic." (People like Ed Decker, who knowingly distort the facts for what they perceive to be a "higher" end, tend--in my experience--to be incredibly rare.) Anyone who avidly digs into the data, connecting dots, and so on, is going to arrive at new insights that will contribute to a fuller overall picture. My own most faith-enhancing discoveries---those that helped me regain faith and return to the church---have often made use of earlier findings by both "apologists" and "critics." Truth is truth is truth is truth---no matter who discovers it or what their overall outlook is!

My primary motivation for years has been---I just want to know what happened! And that foregrounding of the truth at all costs, with all its idiosyncratic twists and turns, embracing all historical sources as potentially sources of truth and engaging with every intelligent inquirer regardless of their larger worldview, has ended up being precisely why, on some big questions I've broken through to a new, bigger faithful perspective that integrates data I once found troubling. The Kinderhook plates would be a good example here. I finalized my interpretation of that as an ex-Mormon atheist, and, yet, it resolves a big barrier to faith.

In my experience, when we open up to just trying to go wherever the data lead, that's the best apologetic of all. I do think it's sometimes important to lay out a defense of the faith, and of its founding prophet. I also think, though, that what Joseph Smith needs from us most of all, isn't for us to defend him but for us to accurately understand him---and then he defends himself just fine!

Thanks again for your kind words and for, I think, getting where I'm coming from--that I just want truth, and that that's exactly how and why I am able to believe.

Don

Love all of this! ❤️

I now have the faith of a mustard seed, and it took all of my life to finally figure out what that meant. So I guess there is hope for me yet. As small as a mustard seed...that is so comforting to me!

I wish your book was an audible one, haha. I'm a pretty lazy reader now, or have trouble with reading anymore and eyestrain, probaby why I listen to books or podcasts. 

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
On 12/2/2019 at 2:34 PM, Steve J said:

Sad that clark goble was not able to read this book. I know it was one that he was looking forwards to reading

 

On 12/2/2019 at 3:23 PM, DonBradley said:

Oh, I know!😥

Clark was one who really got my thesis, so I'm certain he would have really gotten what I was doing in the book as well, and loved it. So tragic!! 

Who's to say he hasn't read your work?  True, I think that, by and large, those who've passed on to the world to come have better things to do, but, then again, I have trouble believing that Spirits perceive the world and absorb information by going to the library, checking out books, reading them, and then (hopefully!) returning them.  Yes, those who know him and were close to him should mourn his perhaps-in-some-ways-untimely death (Doctrine and Covenants 42:45, but cf. the very good news in v. 46), but (while I knew him only by reputation), I'm sure Bro. Goble is doing just fine, thank you very much. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
4 hours ago, DonBradley said:

Hey Steve,

I somehow overlooked this post before. Agreed!

I actually address this in my chapter on the manuscript theft.

I think we may have misunderstood what D&C 10 says the conspirators were up to.

We've tended to read it as saying the thieves would alter the manuscript when it actually says the thieves would alter the words. There would be two ways to alter the words:

1) By doctoring the manuscript

2) By rewriting the manuscript while trying to imitate the original handwriting

While it is, it seems to me, relatively easy to identify interpolations, such as over-writing, on a manuscript, handwriting analysis is tremendously difficult and modern methods of doing it would not then have been available.

So, between the two possibilities above for how the manuscript's words could have altered, the second seems to me more likely to have been the intended one.

Note also that the alterations were said to have been made by "wicked men, and Martin Harris is identified early in the revelation as a "wicked man." It is thus quite possible that early on Joseph and others may have understood this to mean that Martin himself was one of those involved in taking the manuscript. I don't believe this was actually the case. But if they at any point thought it was, then it would have been very easy for them to conceive the manuscript being rewritten in the same handwriting--Martin could simply have rewritten, with variations, the material he had written before, and, bingo, there's a non-matching manuscript!

Don

Isn't there a story of Martin switching the seer stone to test Joseph and Joseph recognizes the problem when he doesn't see anything in the stone?  Maybe the person who took the manuscript was planning on convincing Martin to "test" Joseph to make sure he really was translating.

  • Like 2
Link to post
4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Perhaps those are the pages that were created by the forger?

I am not the person to ask  :)

 

Link to post
6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not the person to ask  :)

 

Well, I expect you to know!  I thought you knew everything?

Wait... I might have you confused with someone else.  Hmmm.

Link to post
9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

Love all of this! ❤️

I now have the faith of a mustard seed, and it took all of my life to finally figure out what that meant. So I guess there is hope for me yet. As small as a mustard seed...that is so comforting to me!

Curious as to what mustard seed faith means to you?  

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wish your book was an audible one, haha. I'm a pretty lazy reader now, or have trouble with reading anymore and eyestrain, probaby why I listen to books or podcasts. 

 

Oh, yes, me too.  I have been addicted to Audible for some time.  I think I have close to 200 books in audible format.  I love to "read" them while driving or doing household chores.  I've sometimes thought of recording some books myself, where there's no audible format available, so I can listen to even those books.  Not sure I want to listen to myself that much, though.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Curious as to what mustard seed faith means to you?  

Oh, yes, me too.  I have been addicted to Audible for some time.  I think I have close to 200 books in audible format.  I love to "read" them while driving or doing household chores.  I've sometimes thought of recording some books myself, where there's no audible format available, so I can listen to even those books.  Not sure I want to listen to myself that much, though.

With my faith crisis in the church, my faith in God/Jesus went way down, sadly. But I do have some faith that they exist. So the mustard seed apparently is enough? Hoping so, and that it will build back up to where it once was.

The Seed of Faith

In one of the most widely known Scriptures, Matthew 17:20, Jesus said, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you. ”

Link to post
20 hours ago, DonBradley said:

Hey Steve,

I somehow overlooked this post before. Agreed!

I actually address this in my chapter on the manuscript theft.

I think we may have misunderstood what D&C 10 says the conspirators were up to.

We've tended to read it as saying the thieves would alter the manuscript when it actually says the thieves would alter the words. There would be two ways to alter the words:

1) By doctoring the manuscript

2) By rewriting the manuscript while trying to imitate the original handwriting

While it is, it seems to me, relatively easy to identify interpolations, such as over-writing, on a manuscript, handwriting analysis is tremendously difficult and modern methods of doing it would not then have been available.

So, between the two possibilities above for how the manuscript's words could have altered, the second seems to me more likely to have been the intended one.

Note also that the alterations were said to have been made by "wicked men, and Martin Harris is identified early in the revelation as a "wicked man." It is thus quite possible that early on Joseph and others may have understood this to mean that Martin himself was one of those involved in taking the manuscript. I don't believe this was actually the case. But if they at any point thought it was, then it would have been very easy for them to conceive the manuscript being rewritten in the same handwriting--Martin could simply have rewritten, with variations, the material he had written before, and, bingo, there's a non-matching manuscript!

Don

I've long noted that what happened with the the Spaulding Theory and Mormonism Unveiled is not that far from what D&C 10 describes.  While they had access to the Spaulding ms (which on examination did not help) and could have published it in the book , they settled for publishing affidavits to make their case.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Link to post
16 hours ago, webbles said:

Isn't there a story of Martin switching the seer stone to test Joseph and Joseph recognizes the problem when he doesn't see anything in the stone?  Maybe the person who took the manuscript was planning on convincing Martin to "test" Joseph to make sure he really was translating.

Webbles,

Yeah - that the theft was conceived of by some of those involved as a "test" is entirely possible and would make sense.

I believe the interviewer (Bryce) raised this possibility also in the podcast.

Don

  • Like 1
Link to post
9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, I expect you to know!  I thought you knew everything?

Wait... I might have you confused with someone else.  Hmmm.

No I am only semi -omniscient.  ;) And even then it's only on Thursdays.

Quite honestly I am pretty locked into philosophy, and history does not interest me that much. 🙃

But I find Don's book to be very interesting for its methodology.

  • Like 3
Link to post
18 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

Who's to say he hasn't read your work?  True, I think that, by and large, those who've passed on to the world to come have better things to do, but, then again, I have trouble believing that Spirits perceive the world and absorb information by going to the library, checking out books, reading them, and then (hopefully!) returning them.  Yes, those who know him and were close to him should mourn his perhaps-in-some-ways-untimely death (Doctrine and Covenants 42:45, but cf. the very good news in v. 46), but (while I knew him only by reputation), I'm sure Bro. Goble is doing just fine, thank you very much. 

Probably better said that it’s sad for us that we don’t have Clark here responding to what he read in the book

  • Like 3
Link to post
7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

With my faith crisis in the church, my faith in God/Jesus went way down, sadly. But I do have some faith that they exist. So the mustard seed apparently is enough? Hoping so, and that it will build back up to where it once was.

The Seed of Faith

In one of the most widely known Scriptures, Matthew 17:20, Jesus said, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you. ”

Tacenda,

I can understand where you're at and how you feel about all this. =)

You don't need to start from definite knowledge, just that seed!

Alma 32 is particularly rich in discussing this--and is a text I think we've just barely begun to mine the depths of. While this presentation is not my most organized one, because I switched tracks of what I wanted to present when I made new discoveries about the text while finalizing my talk, here are some thoughts on what Alma 32 means...

 

Don

  • Like 3
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...