Talk:Lost 116 pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Accuracy

This isn't the story that I know. Wasn't there something about bad people getting them and changing them and all of that, like maybe in D&C 10? This seems to follow the South Park version, which I guess might be right. Cookiecaper 04:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dunno. I just read this in another article (Martin Harris I think) too. You might see what User:John Hamer knows. By the way, should this article even exist? Can it not better be included in Martin Harris, Book of Mormon, Golden Plates, or something such?Tom H. 05:45, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed some items and made historically/culturally accurate - also fleshed out the article. -Visorstuff 19:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am dumbfounded. V, where in the world did you get this info? Please, oh, please, share! This is now an amazing article. Tom H. 19:42, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

LOL - Visorstuff actually does know a thing or two! Just wish I had time to do more fleshing out like this. Most of the info comes from primary documents, however, much of it can be found in (believe it or not) the "Church History in the Fulness of Times" student manual, "Latter-Day History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Expanded and Updated," by the Kelley's, "History of the Church Volume 1" and information from the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon (There is also some letters and statements from Martin Harris that confirm these details, but are not as accessible).

Did the cultural tie-in of a spiritual witness versus evidences make sense? I think Wikipedia has the space to do something other encyclopedias cannot typcially do - that being sharing some of the cultural context on racial and religious topics that help readers understand the bigger context and reasons people think they way they do. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 20:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow. You make a stub, you come back the next day and --- whamo! --- big, detailed article. I think that the "116 Pages" are important enough to have an article of their own. They aren't just an adjunct to Martin Harris, because they figure into the compilation of the Book of Mormon itself and also to more recent things that Visorstuff aludes to, like the unfinished Hoffmann forgery. In terms of accuracy --- everything looks correct to me ---- good work, Visorstuff! --John Hamer 21:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it (spiritual witness versus evidences) is a great and effective tie-in, and I found it personally quite a compelling and intriguing interpretation. The whole matter is very well done and does credit to the article. Tom H. 23:01, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to find the potential 116 page forgeries on the internet? (Unsigned by User:70.236.67.44

Not to my knowledge. Any evidence of it would be included in evidence reports, however, I've not sought those out, nor am I able to ascertain how far along he got in the forgery. -Visorstuff 16:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)