BoM Witness Document Up for Sale on eBay - $1 Million Asking Price

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.jwha.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2019-Agenda-at-a-Glance-9.10.19.pdf

I can’t copy paste it, but the title of Lipack’s presentation or maybe it was a discussion was “Discovery of John Whitmer’s Lost…Testimony….and Threat to Church Foundations by Failure to Embrace”

Would really like to know what he is talking about with the second part….

You can listen to the audio of his presentation here: https://www.sndup.net/bkcb/

Basically, he is saying that the Church's lack of interest in the Whitmer letter is an indication that it is drifting - or distancing itself from - its restorationist foundations.  It's not much of a premise, and he doesn't support it with much other than his bare say-so.

I wonder if the purported lack of interest in the Whitmer letter arises from

A) the tone and tenor of Mr. Lipack's writings (which are at times antagonistic, and in general pretty odd),

B) his overtly mercenary motives ($1 million asking price),

C) his overestimation of the historical/doctrinal import of the letter itself (it's quite interesting, but far from a smoking gun, and its import arises from the text, not the physical item itself),

D) some residual institutional or collective caution/hesitancy in the Church re: historical documents associated with the Hofmann debacle, and/or

E) some combination of the above.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The document obviously has historical - and even some real doctrinal - significance, but he seems to have been offended at the purported lack of interest by the Church (such as from folks with the Joseph Smith Papers project).  

What is the real doctrinal significance of the document?

[Calm]

He is quite the character…

https://www.einpresswire.com/article/583876220/bob-dylan-photo-discovered-shows-magic-moment-seconds-before-1971-comeback-on-concert-for-bangla-desh-stage

Quote

Historian Richard Warren Lipack is releasing an image of Bob Dylan moments before Dylan's amazing comeback to the concert stage in 1971. The image was recently discovered while examining old original 35mm color transparency outtakes the photographer took during the concert 51 years ago.

Beside this, historian Lipack made a half hour long videotape with sound of the afternoon NYC concert show, for which a frame (of three deposited on Wikimedia Commons) from that video can be found on the Wikipedia and Wikiwand entries for the Concert. Despite this, the Estate of George Harrison, and son Dhani Harrison, have made no effort to reach out to learn more about this historic videotape: the only videotape of the Concert in existence. Dhani Harrison, the manager for Beatle George Harrison's estate, was born in 1978, exactly seven years later to the day of his father's 1971 concert's August 1st time stamp. Some questions are raised as to the son's veracity in the honoring of his father's legacy based on Harrison's seemingly cosmic Bangla Desh Concert dated incarnation as opposed to Beatle John Lennon's son Sean Lennon's caesarian section birth by Yoko Ono on John Lennon's October 9th birthday in 1975.

Just bold:  I am reading some indignation there.

Bold italic…is he saying Dhani messed up somehow honoring his father by being born at the wrong time or for ignoring the video?

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

And how are the Church Foundations threatened by this lack of interest?  Does he explain that?

Not very coherently, no.  Basically, he says that this is a handwritten testimony from a Book of Mormon witness, and therefore is - or ought to be - vitally important to the truth claims of the Church.

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am guessing he isn’t the expert he thinks he is if he is bothered by the lack of interest when he hasn’t had it authenticated.

He also expected someone to hop on a plane to go examine the document (he lives in Georgia).  He seems to have been offended when that happened.

The folks as the JSP Project apparently asked him for scans of the document, and he said no (citing copyright), apparently because he expected to be paid royalties/residuals.

But yes, authentication is a significant threshold issue he has apparently overlooked, particularly in the post-Hofmann era.

Moreover, he has now published all sorts of photographs of the letter, together with transcripts of what it says.  That pretty much scratches the itch of curiosity I had. I'm not that invested in whether the Church actually acquires the historical document itself.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 21, 2023 by smac97

[Calm]

http://w1tp.com/Cooke/
 

Quote

SIR WILLIAM FOTHERGILL COOKE'S
NEWLY DISCOVERED

ORIGINAL NOTEBOOK/ JOURNAL
FOR THE WORLD'S FIRST COMMERCIAL TELEGRAPH

Discovered by Historian Richard Warren Lipack….

This is one of the most significant scientific documents ever discovered….

 

This notebook remained hidden and unknown for over a century until it was discovered by Historian Richard Warren Lipack.
It contains a wealth of historical information and drawings related to the invention and development of the digital telegraph and numerous other technological innovations by Cooke.

 

Quite eclectic

And apparently a conspiracy theorist…

https://invanddis.proboards.com/thread/5188/bank-america

Quote

The models for the frescoes were supposedly "of friends, associates and members of the Charlotte community," as one later discussion seen on the internet of late states. Local North Carolina artists did indeed participate as models for these works, but these models really are meant to represent allegorical inclinations of a New World Order. Looking more closely at the various parts of these three works reveal many many more of the hidden machinations that the powers-that-be behind the New World Order long and hope for, but likely will not ever fully achieve.

NATIONSBANK, at the time the frescoes were completed, was the third largest bank in the US, and rumoured to have been initially a money laundering bank for the CIA. NCNB/ NATIONSBANK was eventually absorbed in September 1998 by Bank of America, and the frescoes by Ben Long are still in the now present lobby of the Bank of America. The three fresco panels appear to actually represent the New World Order, the Hegelian Theory and is also representative of the New World Order age old concept of; 'out of chaos comes order' - with even the latter according to the bank's official internet and printed releases.  

You may search the web for artist Ben Long and his work at the Bank of America to find other interesting data. Please note that the scant few images that can be found for this triptych on the internet are of very low resolution and small. This is intentionally done so that no one around the world can see what infact has been depicted in detail by artist Ben Long - for this appears to be a very interesting Satanic representation of the New World Order now apparently upheld as the image representative of the biggest bank in the United States. 

Interestingly it is a bank integral to the recent 2008 'U.S. Financial Bailout.' It was a 'bailout' whereby the U.S. Congress was threatened with Martial Law and strong armed into passing a 'bailout' bill that gave the Secretary of Treasury total dictatorial powers and as well, for himself and all his minions, complete anonominity from any criminal wrongdoing. Under law, Congress now has no financial oversight whatsoever in the affairs of the United States centralized banking system. A complete and systematic looting of the entire wealth of the United States has begun, all on the road to a socio-fascist order.  

All of this is supported by documentation found on www.bailoutsleuth.com - which shows redackted / blackened out U.S. Treasury documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and posted on the site in late October 2008, following the contrived passage of the 'Banker's Bailout Bill.' This 'contrived financial collapse' was discussed and predicted in part in my 1996 book, "EPOCH MOMENTS & SECRETS - JOHN LENNON & THE BEATLES AT THE MIRROR OF MAN'S DESTINY."

 

Edited July 21, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

What is the real doctrinal significance of the document?

John Whitmer was one of the Eight Witnesses.  He was excommunicated from the Church in 1838.  That he continued to uphold his witness statement nearly 50 years after being excommunicated, and less than a year before his death, lends some credence to the statement.  See, e.g., 2 Cor. 13:1.

While my belief in the Book of Mormon is principally based on spiritual confirmations of it, those confirmations have arisen from my reading (and pondering, and praying about, and applying the principles in) the text.  The statements from the Witnesses have a lot to do with the provenance - the historicity - of the text.  And I think the historicity and origins of the Book of Mormon are uniquely and inextricably linked to its status as revealed scripture (I have previously laid out my reasoning here).

The Historicity of the Book of Mormon (Dallin H. Oaks)

Quote

The Book of Mormon’s major significance is its witness of Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God the Eternal Father who redeems and saves us from death and sin. If an account stands as a preeminent witness of Jesus Christ, how can it possibly make no difference whether the account is fact or fable—whether the persons really lived who prophesied of Christ and gave eye witnesses of His appearances to them?

Professor John W. Welch pointed out to me that this new wave of antihistoricism “may be a new kid on the block in Salt Lake City, but it has been around in a lot of other Christian neighborhoods for several decades.” Indeed! The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived. As we know, there are many so-called Christian teachers who espouse the teachings and deny the teacher. Beyond that, there are those who even deny the existence or the knowability of God. Their counterparts in Mormondom embrace some of the teachings of the Book of Mormon but deny its historicity.

5 Reasons It's Important to Recognize the Book of Mormon as History, Not Just a Story (Stephen O. Smoot)

Quote

1. The Book of Mormon itself purports to be a historical record.

The Book of Mormon unambiguously declares itself to be an authentic ancient text. From the book’s title page to its concluding pages, the account narrated in the Book of Mormon purports to have taken place in antiquity. This should compel readers to approach the Book of Mormon and evaluate its claims on its own terms. President Gordon B. Hinckley taught, “The [Book of Mormon] is here to be felt and handled and read. No one can dispute its presence.”

2. Book of Mormon authors say they will meet readers at the last judgement.

At least two different prophetic authors of the Book of Mormon claim that they will meet readers at the bar of God on the day of judgement. Nephi, at the end of his record, proclaims in 2 Nephi 33:10–11, “And now, my beloved brethren, … Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that [what Nephi wrote] are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.” Moroni also promised his readers that he would meet them (Moroni 10:27).

If Nephi and Moroni only existed inside the mind of Joseph Smith, then they are no more likely to meet us on the judgement day than Oliver Twist or Severus Snape. These passages are rendered plainly absurd if they were not written by real ancient prophets.

3. The gold plates had to come from somewhere.

It is an incontestable historical fact that Joseph Smith had in his possession a set of metal plates with “the appearance of gold” between the years 1827–1829, and that he showed these plates to multiple eyewitnesses who hefted, handled, and examined the plates either directly or indirectly (and in some cases affirmed encounters with an angelic personage).

The testimony of multiple men (and women!) who had an experience with the plates forces us to ask where these plates came from. They were, after all, a tangible object. They did not appear out of thin air. Somebody has to have made them. They had to have come from somewhere. Either they were made by ancient prophets, or they were not. Either Joseph Smith was telling the truth about how he came into the possession of the plates he showed the witnesses, or he was not. If the Book of Mormon is not an ancient record, then its account of how these plates were made cannot be true. Neither can Joseph Smith’s account of how he found them. If these accounts are not true, then the credibility of Joseph Smith’s claims are fundamentally and irreversible compromised.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland’s pronounced in 1994: “I am suggesting that we make [a] do-or-die, bold assertion about the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. We have to. Reason and rightness require it.”

The Imperative for a Historical Book of Mormon (Stephen O. Smoot)

See also:

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

John Whitmer was one of the Eight Witnesses.  He was excommunicated from the Church in 1838.  That he continued to uphold his witness statement nearly 50 years after being excommunicated, and less than a year before his death, lends some credence to the statement.  See, e.g., 2 Cor. 13:1.

While my belief in the Book of Mormon is principally based on spiritual confirmations of it, those confirmations have arisen from my reading (and pondering, and praying about, and applying the principles in) the text.  The statements from the Witnesses have a lot to do with the provenance - the historicity - of the text.  And I think the historicity and origins of the Book of Mormon are uniquely and inextricably linked to its status as revealed scripture (I have previously laid out my reasoning here).

The Historicity of the Book of Mormon (Dallin H. Oaks)

5 Reasons It's Important to Recognize the Book of Mormon as History, Not Just a Story (Stephen O. Smoot)

The Imperative for a Historical Book of Mormon (Stephen O. Smoot)

See also:

Thanks,

-Smac

I see.  I thought you meant that the document is significant in that it somehow informs our doctrine, in the same way that scriptures are "doctrinally significant", for example. 

What you seem to be suggesting is that you perceive the document as a significant piece of evidence which substantiates historicity. 

I personally wouldn't equate the issue of historicity with a doctrinal issue though - it is a historical question, not a doctrinal one.  If it was a doctrinal question, then one wouldn't need to resort to posting arguments from Stephen O. smoot to convince others why it is important to consider it a historical document.   

 

Edited July 21, 2023 by pogi

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I see.  I thought you meant that the document is significant in that it somehow informs our doctrine,

In an auxiliary or supplemental sense, yes.

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

in the same way that scriptures are "doctrinally significant", for example. 

Well, not quite.  Scriptures are authoritative sources of doctrine, whereas witness statements are, in the main, intended to authenticate / substantiate / establish scriptures as such.

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

What you seem to be suggesting is that you perceive the document as a significant piece of evidence which substantiates historicity. 

I think the overall body of evidence associated with the Witnesses are cumulatively significant.  The Whitmer letter adds to the body of evidence, but I'm not sure that it moves the needle much.

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I personally wouldn't equate the issue of historicity with a doctrinal issue though - it is a historical question, not a doctrinal one. 

The point in my previous post is that, regarding the Book of Mormon, questions as to its historicity are inextricably linked to its status as scripture.  So I don't subscribe to the either/or position you note here (though I respect your contrary perspective).

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

If it was a doctrinal question, then one wouldn't need to resort to posting arguments from Stephen O. smoot to convince others why it is important to consider it a historical document.   

If historicity was not a relevant concern for Latter-day Saints, then Dallin H. Oaks likely wouldn't bother with it.  And yet he has spoken at length about the importance of historicity (as have many others, including - but certainly not limited to - Bro. Smoot).

The life and ministry of Jesus Christ are matters of doctrine, but also history.  The events of His life need to have actually happened in order for them to have import and effect.  See, e.g., here (emphases added) :

Quote

Without the historicity of the central events, scripture becomes little more than a manual for ethical living, illustrated with quaint, sometimes strange, and often implausible stories, stories that have no more value than any other form of literature. As a noted historian has attempted to explain, “One can find philosophical and religious truths in a Shakespearean tragedy even though the characters and events are wholly fictional.” [69] If “questions of historicity and authorship should not be raised so that the moral message can reach [us] unimpeded,” [70] then we are free to teach Isaiah no differently than we would teach Shakespeare or Lorca or Pushkin or Kayam. The New Testament “myth” of Christ’s resurrection would be the literary equivalent of the rescue of the goddess from the underworld in the “Descent of Ishtar.” [71]

If Christ were not baptized, then our baptism would be no more efficacious than any other ritualistic act. Indeed, all ordinances would be irrelevant. If Abraham did not prove who he had become by his willingness to offer Isaac, then our faith need neither plumb that depth nor span that breadth. We could expect no trying of our faith. If there be no historicity to the resurrection of Jesus, then we could have no hope of a resurrection for us. Certainly there is no more fundamental element to Christian faith than the resurrection for us. Without Christ’s historical resurrection there can be no Christian faith. And that is the point. The scriptures are not just about truth, religious or otherwise. The scriptures are also about doing what God requires, becoming what God desires, and looking “forward with an eye of faith” (Alma 5:15) to that glorious day when we will be brought into God’s presence and exclaim, “Holy, holy are thy judgments, O Lord God Almighty” (2 Ne. 9:46). The historicity of the central events of scripture is absolutely necessary for there to be content in our doctrine, substance to our faith, and reason for our hope.

And here (emphases added) :

Quote

The Significance of Time and Place

Let us consider next the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement. In both ancient and modern scripture, this absolute God declares that He created the earth and man for a wise purpose. He has not explained the entire process, but He has given us to understand that He was the authorizing agent in the Creation. He further declared that He placed Adam and Eve, real people who were not subject to death, in a Garden and gave them commandments, which they transgressed and thereby brought about a process of physical, spiritual, and moral degeneration resulting in death. This is called the Fall. We are duty bound to accept the fact of Adam’s Fall, because a truthful God has spoken it.

To be historically true, the Creation has to fit into some identifiable time and place. The time and the place may not be identifiable to finite man, but they are known to God. Likewise to be historical, the Fall of Adam (whatever the process) had to occur at some actual geographical location that can be defined by such coordinates as longitude, latitude, and altitude and could be recorded chronologically.

Jesus Christ claims to be the Son of God in the flesh. In that way His precise lineage is superior to the lineage of other men. Because God the Father is the Father of Jesus’ earthly body, Jesus was a God while on earth in the flesh, and therefore He could conquer death. We are duty bound to believe precisely these things about Jesus, because they were revealed in a serious manner by a truthful God. God revealed also that Jesus Christ did not commit any sin on earth, that He shed His blood for a ransom of humankind, and that He died on the cross and rose from the dead with His glorified, tangible body of flesh and bones. Each of these events had to occur in both time and place, so literally that they could be recorded by a chronometer, placed on a calendar, and marked on a map. Therefore we are duty bound to believe in them.

The same is true of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, the coming forth of the gold plates of the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the priesthood by angels, and a large number of other events. All these are historical and geographical events with a history in both time and place.

The Lord could have given Joseph Smith the Book of Mormon without the gold plates, or the Book of Abraham without use of the papyrus. He could have manufactured the finished products in heaven and handed them to us. But I think such would have seriously impaired our responsibility to understand how the Lord works. Since the earth is tangible, and we are tangible, it is consistent with God’s ways and His plainness and openness that His work be made available to us in a plain, simple, and tangible manner as far as possible—without artificial magic, unnecessary mystery, or any deception. God is indeed a worker of miracles, but there seems to be a law that miraculous ways are not used if the matter can be accomplished without them. There were real plates, real papyrus, real angels with real hands to confer priesthood, and a real Savior who suffered real pain and shed real blood. Such literalness gives the gospel substance, justifies the believer, and more fully leaves the unbeliever without excuse.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

In an auxiliary or supplemental sense, yes.

Well, not quite.  Scriptures are authoritative sources of doctrine, whereas witness statements are, in the main, intended to authenticate / substantiate / establish scriptures as such.

I think the overall body of evidence associated with the Witnesses are cumulatively significant.  The Whitmer letter adds to the body of evidence, but I'm not sure that it moves the needle much.

The point in my previous post is that, regarding the Book of Mormon, questions as to its historicity are inextricably linked to its status as scripture.  So I don't subscribe to the either/or position you note here (though I respect your contrary perspective).

If historicity was not a relevant concern for Latter-day Saints, then Dallin H. Oaks likely wouldn't bother with it.  And yet he has spoken at length about the importance of historicity (as have many others, including - but certainly not limited to - Bro. Smoot).

The life and ministry of Jesus Christ are matters of doctrine, but also history.  The events of His life need to have actually happened in order for them to have import and effect.  See, e.g., here (emphases added) :

And here (emphases added) :

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree with your comment that it doesn't move the needle much.   The church has historically been very interested in acquiring doctrinally/historically significant documents, but their lack of interest in this document kind of highlights its relative insignificance in the eyes of the church and its historians.

I agree that the historicity is a "relevant concern" for many Latter-day Saints.  I just don't think it is a doctrinal concern for all.  There are many Latter-day Saints who don't believe this scripture is a historical document.

Are you suggesting that testimony is contingent upon a belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon?  That seems to be what you are suggesting, so I just want to make sure I understand your position.   It sounds like you are saying that the whole card castle collapses if you remove that card.   I don't understand that position because there are many Latter-day Saints who have strong testimonies in the restored gospel who don't believe in the historicity.  Is their testimony not valid?  Are they lower-class Latter-day Saints?  

By not subscribing to an either/or position, what do you mean by that?  That seems to be invalidating and alienating those who don't accept the historicity but have strong testimonies.   I accept that you respect contrary perspectives, but if you don't allow for the validity of their testimony as believing members, how is that respectful?  You certainly don't have to accept their position, but to suggest that it is not a valid position for a believing member to hold, and that their testimony cannot stand without believing in the historicity...

 

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I agree that the historicity is a "relevant concern" for many Latter-day Saints.  I just don't think it is a doctrinal concern for all.  There are many Latter-day Saints who don't believe this scripture is a historical document.

I acknowledge that.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that testimony is contingent upon a belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon?  That seems to be what you are suggesting, so I just want to make sure I understand your position. 

For everyone?  No.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It sounds like you are saying that the whole card castle collapses if you remove that card.

I don't think the "castle of cards" metaphor is apt, as I don't think one's testimony is, or ought to be, so fragile and rickety.

That said, I have seen multiple instances of people for whom rejection of (or loss of belief) in historicity has damaged or destroyed their faith.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don't understand that position because there are many Latter-day Saints who have strong testimonies in the restored gospel who don't believe in the historicity.  Is their testimony not valid? 

No.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Are they lower-class Latter-day Saints?

No.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Quote

I personally wouldn't equate the issue of historicity with a doctrinal issue though - it is a historical question, not a doctrinal one.

By not subscribing to an either/or position, what do you mean by that? 

That historicity is "either" a historical question/issue "or" a doctrinal one.  I see it as both.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That seems to be invalidating and alienating those who don't accept the historicity but have strong testimonies.  I accept that you respect contrary perspectives, but if you don't allow for the validity of their testimony as believing members, how is that respectful?  You certainly don't have to accept their position, but to suggest that it is not a valid position for a believing member to hold, and that their testimony cannot stand without believing in the historicity...

Well, I likely overstepped the mark when I said this (the emphasized parts) :

Quote

Can a person have faith in The Book of Mormon while simultaneously rejecting The Book of Mormon as to its historicity? I don't think so. Such a concept renders Joseph Smith a fraud and a liar, and the book itself a fraud and a lie. A fictional Book of Mormon has no real power, and renders it as nothing more than a quirky self-help book. It becomes no more relevant to the salvation of men than Awaken the Giant Within by Anthony Robbins or How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. These are useful books, to be sure. For some, they are even life changing. But The Book of Mormon declares itself to be the word of God through inspired prophets.

Can a person have faith in Christ while simultaneously rejecting Christ as an actual, historical figure? I don't think so. Rejecting the historicity of Christ renders Christ a fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf. A fictional Christ has no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save.

I think the Inspired Fiction folks have not really thought through the ramifications of their proposal.   The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship." This is why I find advocacy of this approach problematic. Such advocates are steering others up a spiritual blind alley; a path, I think, which sooner or later will culminate in a crisis of faith and/or a rejection of The Book of Mormon. After all, one who rejects its historicity has already rejected a substantive, even vital, part of the book. Rejecting the rest of it would seem to be just a matter of time.  I think an affirmative denial of the book's historicity will, sooner or later, become fatal to a testimony of the book. Ambivalence about historicity is perhaps possible, but affirmative denial is, I think, not compatible with an enduring and efficacious testimony of The Book of Mormon.

I don't think it is my place to declare such things for other people, so I revise the foregoing statements so that they apply to myself only.  I retract and apologize the foregoing insofar as I applied it to other people.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

I know plenty of church members who don’t believe the Book of Mormon to be a literal history of an ancient people but believe it to be inspired scripture. Personally, I think that’s the only intellectually honest approach (not speaking for anyone else). But what do I know? 

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I know plenty of church members who don’t believe the Book of Mormon to be a literal history of an ancient people but believe it to be inspired scripture. Personally, I think that’s the only intellectually honest approach (not speaking for anyone else). But what do I know? 

Enough!  Dang it, I actually agree with you! 😱

[smac97]

On 7/21/2023 at 9:24 AM, smac97 said:

A few further notes:

1. The article in the OP is actually a press release by "Barrister Publishers, Inc.," which is a bookstore apparently specializing in discount law textbooks to students. 

2. The primary contact for this outfit is Richard W. Lipack, the guy who owns the document and who has put it up on eBay.

3. The press release issues yesterday describes John Whitmer in the first sentence as "the top co-founder of the Mormon Church," and thereafter states that "John Whitmer was essentially a co-founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

4. Today Mr. Lipack re-published the press release.  Whereas the previous title of the release was this:

KEY MORMON DOCUMENT FOUND AT ANTIQUES MARKET OVER 20 YEARS AGO NOW FOR SALE ON EBAY FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS

Today, the title is this:  

MORMON CO-FOUNDER JOHN WHITMER "LOST" 6 MAY 1877 BIBLE TESTIMONY FOR SALE ON EBAY FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS

It looks like Mr. Lipack has published the article a third time: 

MORMON CO-FOUNDER JOHN WHITMER "LOST" 6 MAY 1877 BIBLE TESTIMONY FOR SALE ON EBAY FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS

I think he feels this item is not getting the attention he feels it deserves.

It's an interesting document, to be sure.  But a million bucks?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

But a million bucks?

His past experiences with his finds apparently being neglected by experts and the public and press do not appear to have made him more realistic, but less. While I have come across quite a few of his press releases in several services, the only thing I have really seen referred to by anyone else is his book on the Beatles and that only a few times. Perhaps it’s the side of him that goes for conspiracy as explanations. 

I think the $1,000,000 is about getting that deserved attention. He has had it for awhile. I wonder if he gave it a different price tag in the past since it has been mentioned here that in his presentation his personal interest appeared to be monetary iirc.  If it was a more realistic price in the past, I think that would support my interpretation (though it could also support he has gotten more extreme lately).