The lost 116 pages

[charity]

MC, psychologists (as opposed to pop psychologists) do not put much weight on information that comes from polls. There are all kinds of problems with survey type information. People tell the pollster what they think the pollster wants to hear, the questions themselves may bias the results, the "random" sample may not be so random, etc. etc.

Do people base their actions on their own attitudes about miracles? They might, if they considered something a miracle. But the threshold for considering something a miracle is very high. Most are explained as operation of natural laws, coincidences, unusual but not supernatural events, etc.

Do not forget the drive to explain miracles as evidenced on this thread. The one fact that the Bible contains instances of things which could only be explained by miracles (at least without severe twisting) lead some to believe the Bible is not a literal account. What are the opinions about miracles of the people who post here? Sure, I believe in miracles, visions, manifestations, etc. but Joseph Smith couldn't have been involved in such because he. . .

[Tchild2]

I don't know of any glaring contradictions in this event at all. There are contemprary comments made to support the fact that this is exactly what happened. Joseph stated as much in his diaries, same as Martin Harris, Emma Smith as well as the D&C. To say that it is the God wild card used to spackle over the glaring contradictons shows a lack of thought I think.

I doesn't work, because it is arbitrary. Speaking on God's behalf to explain one's own situation, is purely subjective. Every believer may concur, but that is because they are believers and says nothing about objective reality. Does God create outlandish situations (that to outsiders may appear like deception) just to test faith, or is it more likely that those who are hiding something, turn to the unknoweable, the unproveable and untouchable for their defense?

This is the "God as spackle" position; it is ascribing to God, to be the cause of any misstep, misdeed, miscalculation or error one commits that to outsiders is anything but from God. To an outsider it appears to be wholly self serving. to a believer, it looks like God is running the show, no matter how many mistakes or blunders a person commits, but that is because a believer does not have the luxury of stepping out far enough to objectively see the situation.

[lwyatt]

I don't know of any glaring contradictions in this event at all. There are contemprary comments made to support the fact that this is exactly what happened. Joseph stated as much in his diaries, same as Martin Harris, Emma Smith as well as the D&C. To say that it is the God wild card used to spackle over the glaring contradictons shows a lack of thought I think.

I doesn't work, because it is arbitrary. Speaking on God's behalf to explain one's own situation, is purely subjective. Every believer may concur, but that is because they are believers and says nothing about objective reality. Does God create outlandish situations (that to outsiders may appear like deception) just to test faith, or is it more likely that those who are hiding something, turn to the unknoweable, the unproveable and untouchable for their defense?

This is the "God as spackle" position; it is ascribing to God, to be the cause of any misstep, misdeed, miscalculation or error one commits that to outsiders is anything but from God. To an outsider it appears to be wholly self serving. to a believer, it looks like God is running the show, no matter how many mistakes or blunders a person commits, but that is because a believer does not have the luxury of stepping out far enough to objectively see the situation.

Outlandish? No.

The natural consequences of not following the counsel of the Lord? Yes.

That is one of the beautiful things about the Lord - he allows us to experience the consequences of our decisions and actions. Don't you think that this would be a much more boring world if that didn't happen?

[Scottie]

MC, psychologists (as opposed to pop psychologists) do not put much weight on information that comes from polls. There are all kinds of problems with survey type information. People tell the pollster what they think the pollster wants to hear, the questions themselves may bias the results, the "random" sample may not be so random, etc. etc.

Do people base their actions on their own attitudes about miracles? They might, if they considered something a miracle. But the threshold for considering something a miracle is very high. Most are explained as operation of natural laws, coincidences, unusual but not supernatural events, etc.

Do not forget the drive to explain miracles as evidenced on this thread. The one fact that the Bible contains instances of things which could only be explained by miracles (at least without severe twisting) lead some to believe the Bible is not a literal account. What are the opinions about miracles of the people who post here? Sure, I believe in miracles, visions, manifestations, etc. but Joseph Smith couldn't have been involved in such because he. . .

Is there a difference between predisposed and learned?

Do you think that someone born on an island that never learned anything about God or miracles would deduce by themselves that miracles happen? Or is it a learned trait?

I would have to disagree with the assertion that people don't believe in miracles. Almost everyone I know thinks a miracle has happened to them. It may be something as simple as God helped my find my car keys, or that drunk driver just BARELY missed us.

But, again, I don't know whether they are predisposed to believe these are miracle or whether they learned that miracles happen and then attribute strange things to miracles.

[charity]

Scottie, I have to say I wear two hats and don' t find that a problem. I am trained in psychology, but see errors there, and because of my unwavering belief in the Gospel, as I know it, hold that to be the higher truth.

About predispostion: There are biological predispositions (we startle at small, quick moving things, like spiders or mice, without any previous learning experiences), and I believe because of our spirit nature (we are spirit being plus mortal body combined) we have some spiritual "predispositions." It would not surprise me that there is one such to accept miracles. But one can generally see the openness to accept such diminishes with age, and so-called sophisiticaion.

I don't think "I found my keys" can count as a miracle. Inspiration. You put your car keys where they were, so the knowledge is within your mind, even if you can't access it at the moment. It isn't a miracle that you can access your memory. But do people who believe God helps them find their car keys believe in a literal parting of the Red Sea?

I think we can learn to retain the openness that children have. Or we can learn to be distrustful, sceptical, etc. If we were put on an desert island and never heard of God, or heard that God did not exist, I think, yes, we would accept what we saw (which could be defined as a miracle) without qualms. And we would see it as a natural event. If we were fully open to God's workings in our lives, those of us not raised on desert islands would see God's miracles as God given natural events. And accept them just as easily.

So why wouldn't someone who believes in miracles accept Joseph Smith's account of angelic visitations, gold plates, and a gift to translate as miracles? The explanation is outlandish? Isn't that the description of miracles?

[Gordon]

Side Question - Why would people who shouldn't necessarily have Jewish superstitions concerning the writing of the word God, use G-D instead of God?

Respect, Moksha, it's called respect.

[Bernard Gui]

On the other hand, if Joseph Smith were just fronting the Book of Mormon from

a manuscript written by unknown characters in the wings, it would have been a simple

thing just to copy the pages over again and not worry about the fallout.

fw

[Gordon]

Better yet, had the manuscript truly been altered by JS's enemies, the Lord could have been most effective by simply dictating the words of the altered manuscript, word-for-word, to JS. This way the bad guys would be confounded at JS's ability to produce an exact copy of the altered document (then for doctrinal reason he could change it back to the original

Of course, then, we wouldn't have correct scripture, but rather something written by 'bad guys'.

[Gordon]

Why wouldn't God reveal to JS who had the 116 pages and command him to go in and lop off his/her head? Better that one man die than a nation dwindle, right?

This wasn't book of Mormon times, JS would have been tried for murder.

[Pokatator]

Alma 7:20 I perceive that it has made known unto you, by the testimony of his word, that he cannot walk in crooked paths; neither doth he vary from that which he hath said; neither hath he a shadow of turning from the right to the left, or from that which is right to that which is wrong; therefore, his course is one eternal round.

D&C 3:2 For God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course in one eternal round.

D&C 132:8 Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.

This thread seems to illustrate many "crooked paths" and a "house of confusion".

[sidewinder]

Cinepro,

But instead, we have Moroni preparing an alternate set of plates (miraculously covering the exact material to be lost hundreds of years later), carting them thousands of miles to bury them, revealing them to Joseph, who is then pestered by Martin Harris at the exact moment they reach the spot where the "back up" record ends, to the point that the manuscript is lost and Joseph has to translate the alternate record

I always imagined that the plates Joseph found went something like this: "book of lehi" (lost 116), BOM, and then the sealed portion. Are you saying this is wrong?

Are you saying the BOM we have is translated from an entirely different physical set of plates that were not given to JS at cumorah?

Where did he get them?

[cinepro]

Here's how the LDS version of the story goes, as recounted in Words of Mormon. Keep in mind there are two sets of plates:

- The Large Plates of Nephi (these were translated into the 116 pages)

- The Small Plates of Nephi (these are now 1 Nephi-Omni)

Mormon is about to give the plates (Large Plates of Nephi) to Moroni (v.1)

He hopes Moroni will live a little longer (v.2)

Recap of what he has written, which are the Large Plates of Nephi, telling the story up to King Benjamin. (v.3)

But then he finds another set of plates (The Small Plates of Nephi), which contain "Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of these words of Nephi." (v.3)

He likes these new small plates. (v.4)

He puts his record with the Small Plates of Nephi (v.5)

He is including the Small Plates, which end right at the start of King Benjamin's reign, with the collection he gives to Moroni (v.6)

He is doing this because the Lord is telling him to include this redundant set (v.7)

He hopes the Lamanites will repent (v.

He finishes the record from the Large Plates of Nephi (v.9)

Tells how the plates were handed down (v.10 & 11)

Summarizes the story of the Lamanites and King Benjamin for a few verses, and then ends his contribution in verse 18, ends with....

" ...by laboring with all the might of his body and the faculty of his whole soul, and also the prophets, did once more establish peace in the land."

So that is how the Small Plates of Nephi End. Then, in the translation process, Mosiah is taken from the Large Plates of Nephi, starting right where Mormon left off in his summary...

Mosiah 1

[1] And now there was no more contention in all the land of Zarahemla, among all the people who belonged to king Benjamin, so that king Benjamin had continual peace all the remainder of his days.

So how did Mormon know that he needed to summarize up to the exact point where the Book of Mosiah would be starting.

Here is how it fits into a theorized timeline for the Book of Mormon translation:

Royal Skousen presents an excellent analysis of Mormon's insertion of the small plates of Nephi at the juncture where the 116 pages were lost, and suggests very plausibly that there may have been two chapters of Mosiah 1 which were lost with the 116 pages, and that our present Book of Mosiah begins with what would have been Mosiah Chapter 3 [CM 138-139].

The additional few pages which were retained by Joseph Smith would therefore be the Words of Mormon, as that is the next book in sequence, mentions the reign of King Benjamin, fits the sequential timing requirements and provides a logical interim stopping point. The Words of Mormon was therefore probably translated before the loss of the 116 pages, and constitutes the earliest translated portion of the Book of Mormon which we still have.

http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/BoM.htm

Now, according to that website, the chronology for the Book of Mormon translation is probably as follows:

Book of Lehi (116 Pages) - LOST

Mosiah 1 - Moroni 10

Title Page

1 Nephi - Omni

Now, the question is, was Words of Mormon translated at the same time as the Book of Lehi (but not lost)? Or was it translated last, after Omni, and bridging Omni to Mosiah? (The website theorizes it was before, making it the earliest translated portion of the BoM that we still have).

Either way, Mormon had to summarize in Words of Mormon to the exact spot where Mosiah would pick up after the pages were lost. There's no redundancy or gaps!

And if Words of Mormon were translated last, Joseph Smith would have known exactly how to bridge the gaps, since he already had Mosiah 1 to refer to.

[tubaloth]

So could somebody at least try to explain how the 116 pages fit in, IF Joseph Smith made this all up? There are a couple of things I don

[will2believe]

tubaloth, the critics believe that Joseph Smith didn't plan on losing the 116 pages. They believe that after the pages were lost, he made up the the story of the small plates so he wouldn't have to reproduce the 116 pages. I'm don't know if that answers your question or not.

[Tarski]

Take a look at the type of things that the early Church had to endure. Rapes, murders, mass lynchings, towns destroyed, robbings, etc.

Yeah and that doesn't even count what was done to the members of the church by the nonmembers.

Moderator: Tarski, clean it up. The one-liner sneering is getting old and it seems to have no other purpose other than to disrupt a civil and interesting discussion. Consider this your official warning.

[cinepro]

Ok tubaloth, I give up. I have no choice but to post it:

South Park: All About the Mormons

(Gary Sr. has just shared the story of the lost 116 pages with the investigating Marsh family)

Gary Sr.: And that's how it happened.

Kids: Yeah! All right!

[the Marshes sit there without a word to say]

Stan: ...Wait. Mormons actually know this story and they still believe Joseph Smith was a prophet?

Gary Sr.: Well sure. The story proves it, doesn't it?

Stan: No, it proves he DID make it all up. Are you blind?

Mark: Well, Stan, it's all a matter of faith.

[sidewinder]

That was a good explanation Cinepro.