Don Bradley's the Lost 116 Pages.

[Rivers]

I haven’t had the time to visit this board much anymore but I’d like to give a shout-out to Don Bradley’s new Book on the lost manuscript.  The book helped make the Book of Mormon a lot more interesting for me as we study it this year.  

Has anyone else had the chance to read it and have any thoughts on it?

[Megalodon]

49 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I haven’t had the time to visit this board much anymore but I’d like to give a shout-out to Don Bradley’s new Book on the lost manuscript.  The book helped make the Book of Mormon a lot more interesting for me as we study it this year.  

Has anyone else had the chance to read it and have any thoughts on it?

I've been working on it, but am not yet done. Love it!

[longview]

I am up to page 100.  Awesome book.  Don has so many insights.

[Robert F. Smith]

I tried buying it at Deseret and at Seagull, but they didn't have it or hadn't heard of it.  So I have now ordered ti from Kofford, where it is on sale for $20.97.  Thanks for reminding me.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I tried buying it at Deseret and at Seagull, but they didn't have it or hadn't heard of it.  So I have now ordered ti from Kofford, where it is on sale for $20.97.  Thanks for reminding me.

Don’t forget FairMormon next time.

[strappinglad]

Bought it , read it.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Don’t forget FairMormon next time.

I also checked FairMormon, but the price was much higher, even if the proceeds do go to support a worthy cause.

[Calm]

As long as you checked.

[Rajah Manchou]

Amazon Kindle for $25.99. Worth every cent.

[rodheadlee]

Is there any startling new info? Can you all discuss it for those of us that can't get it yet?

[Rivers]

28 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Is there any startling new info? Can you all discuss it for those of us that can't get it yet?

For me, it was all new.  I hadn’t known much about Bradley’s research until I read the book.

One interesting tidbit is that Bradley thinks the Book of Mosiah was actually the Book of Benjamin.  Oliver Cowdery called it the Book of Mosiah when the BOM went to print since there was no title.  The title heading  for what we know as Mosiah  was in the lost manuscript and Joseph Smith translated where he left off with no title.   Bradley argues that the book would be named after Benjamin since he was the first record keeper of the book which would be consistent with the rest of the large plates.

[Brant Gardner]

4 hours ago, Rivers said:

One interesting tidbit is that Bradley thinks the Book of Mosiah was actually the Book of Benjamin.  Oliver Cowdery called it the Book of Mosiah when the BOM went to print since there was no title.  The title heading  for what we know as Mosiah  was in the lost manuscript and Joseph Smith translated where he left off with no title.   Bradley argues that the book would be named after Benjamin since he was the first record keeper of the book which would be consistent with the rest of the large plates.

I disagree with Don on this one. I agree that the book wasn't named for Benjamin's son, Mosiah. However, I think it was named for Mosiah, Benjamin's father. My analysis of why book names change in the large plates suggests that it has to do with dynastic records. Thus we had the book of Lehi, then Mosiah. The only evidence we have suggests that the book of Lehi lasted until Mosiah, but would have had a new book with the new dynasty in the new city.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

I disagree with Don on this one. I agree that the book wasn't named for Benjamin's son, Mosiah. However, I think it was named for Mosiah, Benjamin's father. My analysis of why book names change in the large plates suggests that it has to do with dynastic records. Thus we had the book of Lehi, then Mosiah. The only evidence we have suggests that the book of Lehi lasted until Mosiah, but would have had a new book with the new dynasty in the new city.

I'm curious on what was the dynastic change that caused the Book of Helaman to be named that instead of a continuation of Alma?

[Bob Crockett]

3 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

I disagree with Don on this one. I agree that the book wasn't named for Benjamin's son, Mosiah. However, I think it was named for Mosiah, Benjamin's father. My analysis of why book names change in the large plates suggests that it has to do with dynastic records. Thus we had the book of Lehi, then Mosiah. The only evidence we have suggests that the book of Lehi lasted until Mosiah, but would have had a new book with the new dynasty in the new city.

I don't know if my comment helps on this thread, but at the time of the Lehite migration,  a Jew was known by his father's name, much like Russians are commonly known by the name of their father.  Jewishness was determined by the father's lineage, not the mother's. Thus, it was common to refer to Nephi by the name of Lehi, etc. 

[Rivers]

 

4 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

I disagree with Don on this one. I agree that the book wasn't named for Benjamin's son, Mosiah. However, I think it was named for Mosiah, Benjamin's father. My analysis of why book names change in the large plates suggests that it has to do with dynastic records. Thus we had the book of Lehi, then Mosiah. The only evidence we have suggests that the book of Lehi lasted until Mosiah, but would have had a new book with the new dynasty in the new city.

So Lehi must have been a really long book.

Edited March 24, 2020 by Rivers

[Robert F. Smith]

46 minutes ago, Rivers said:

 

So Lehi must have been a really long book.

Actually Mormon named each book.  He was editing and redacting much more diverse records according to his own taste and understanding.

[Rivers]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually Mormon named each book.  He was editing and redacting much more diverse records according to his own taste and understanding.

Yes.  I understand.  But if the Book of Lehi covered the whole time period from Jerusalem to King Benjamin, then it was probably bigger than the  Book of Alma.  

[Robert F. Smith]

48 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Yes.  I understand.  But if the Book of Lehi covered the whole time period from Jerusalem to King Benjamin, then it was probably bigger than the  Book of Alma.  

Does Don Bradley estimate the relative length to be that extensive?  And how does he relate that to the count of 116 pages?

[Rivers]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Does Don Bradley estimate the relative length to be that extensive?  And how does he relate that to the count of 116 pages?

Don thinks there was probably more than 116 pages.  This is based partly on a statement from Emer Harris (Martin’s brother) who said Martin translated about 200 pages.  And Martin was not the only scribe.  Funny enough, he still uses the number 116 in the book title.

[Rivers]

9 hours ago, webbles said:

I'm curious on what was the dynastic change that caused the Book of Helaman to be named that instead of a continuation of Alma?

Helaman is when the Gadianton robbers started taking over.  That’s my guess.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Funny enough, he still uses the number 116 in the book title.

Few would know what he meant if he said "the lost 200 pages, more or less" as his title.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Rivers said:

................................  Funny enough, he still uses the number 116 in the book title.

That's the legendary number, but based actually on the 116 pages of the Printer's Manuscript which covers the territory from I Nephi to Words of Mormon.  We just don't know how many pages the book of Lehi had in the manuscript lost by Martin Harris.

[Brant Gardner]

On 3/24/2020 at 3:28 PM, webbles said:

I'm curious on what was the dynastic change that caused the Book of Helaman to be named that instead of a continuation of Alma?

Alma had abdicated the rulership, even though he continued to keep the records. Pahoran was the ruler. The large plates don't move back into the ruling line until Helaman, Alma's grandson. Interestingly, the end of the book of Alma is at the 40th year, but Helaman isn't made king until Helaman 2. It should have been the beginning of the book, but Mark Wright suggested that it was because Mormon wanted to end Alma on a more significant year. 

[Brant Gardner]

On 3/24/2020 at 5:23 PM, Rivers said:

 

So Lehi must have been a really long book.

Yes. You would think that there should have been another book, but the only evidence we have is that it was the book of Lehi on the lost pages. According to that, we had the book of Lehi, then Mosiah.

It covered a lot of time.

[Brant Gardner]

On 3/24/2020 at 6:10 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually Mormon named each book.  He was editing and redacting much more diverse records according to his own taste and understanding.

i don't think that statement is entirely accurate. He appears to use the book names/dynastic names as they were on the large plates, even though he uses other sources inside those books. The headers indicate that he is basing his text on the large plates, as they don't contain information from the secondary sources. The chapter headers typically introduce the new material.

However, I wouldn't put it past him to change the actual name. Mormon plays with the names, and might have taken a name on the dynastic record and made it fit to what he was doing. I suspect that for Alma and Helaman. I also suspect that the book of we know as 3 Nephi (and therefore 4 Nephi) had a different name, and Mormon used the name Nephi for literary/theological reasons.