Talk:Lost 116 pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[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)

[edit] Harris's delay and other deleted items

I'd actually like to see the reasons for (1)harris' delay get put back into the article. From his being called to jury duty to his farm financial issues, it needs to be included again.

Other items removed that seem conspicuously missing are: (3) Hoffmann's forgery attempts, and (3) - taking samples for one of the two anthon transcripts from the 116 pages. I'm also struggling with why these were removed without discussion? -Visorstuff 22:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove any of those things for ideological reasons but because I was either ignorant about them or didn't think they were important. Feel free to add back what you think is necessary to the story. But why is Harris's jury duty important? Do we have proof that Hofmann was forging the pages?--John Foxe 14:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The Hofmann forgery was discussed at length at his trials. They pages he did are now evidence vault somewhere, I'm sure. I'll pull up my reference from Salamander: The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders when I get a minute.
The jury duty detail is super important (I think) as that is one of reasons why Harris delayed his coming to meet Smith. During the jury duty, he discussed the mss pages with his co-jurors, and his being away for duty is when the pages "got lost." If not for the jury duty, harris' wife, or whomever, would nave probably not been able to take the pages. See http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/people/martin_harris.html and earlier version of this article at http://www.answers.com/topic/116-pages. Sunstone, Dialogue and BYU Studies each have had articles about this. -Visorstuff 19:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful to find a primary source reference to the jury duty, if for no other reason than that it would make a difference if the jury duty came at the beginning or the end of Harris's visit to Palmyra.--John Foxe 20:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
On Hoffman's plans to produce part of the 116 pages, see Dialogue, vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 89-90 here. On the Martin Harris' jury duty, I remember looking into this a while ago and I couldn't find a reference. There are some articles online that mention jury duty, but for some reason, they don't cite the source on that point. COGDEN 02:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tweaks

Thanks for correcting those spelling errors, Mr. Davies. I'm hoping they weren't mine. If you're interested, we can discuss some of the other changes that I made. Joining the Methodist class seems as certain as anything else in this article. It's a pretty good sign if Bushman thinks he has to include it.--John Foxe 20:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It was just odd that a quote including "almost certainly" was stated in the article (outside of a direct quote at least). If it is a direct quote it should be included as a quotation (saying "might have" in the body and the actual quote in the notes makes sense to me)... I would reword myself if I had access to the source... Thanks! gdavies 22:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
My mistake. I introduced the "almost certainly," and now I can't remember why.
You should get yourself a copy of Bushman. It doesn't have the spark of Brodie, but it's more comprehensive, and Bushman's a patriarch (as well as a super-nice guy).--John Foxe 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem at all, I think I will do that, in the meantime, is there any way we could get a direct quote from it?
As to the "he said that he had" bit in the intro, I think we can eliminate it since the Book of Mormon itself states that the first portion of the Small plates was an abridgement of Lehi's record in 1 Nephi 1:17 (which we understand was recorded in its entirety on the large plates, but was lost). I don't have a quote on hand showing that "he said this" (though I know he did), so the way it is now is true, but we can safely remove it and make it more readable because of the Book of Mormon reference. gdavies 00:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I reworded the section on "harris as smith's scribe" to remove the term "divination" which doesn't fit the context and added urim and thummim as a means of translation. While the Urim and Thummim evidently refers to both the seer stone and the urim and thummim it's sort of redundant, but at least it's thorough (as opposed to only saying seerstone). Looking at [divination] it was fairly evident that the proposed method of translation (garnered from the descriptions of Joseph and his associates) was not consistent with any of the types of divination described. Please explain reasoning here before restoring (the term "divination" should be used with care since it is a fairly loaded and POV word in and of itself). gdavies 00:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We can leave "divination" striken. However, to my knowledge no one but Joseph Smith said he used the Urim and Thummim. Everyone who saw him do what he did says "seer stone."--John Foxe 21:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've seen in several places references to the Urim and Thummim by people other than Joseph himself. One I could find quickly on the internet is that of J.W. Peterson and W. S. Pender and their interview with William Smith. Rather than copying the statement you can find it here (the quoted portion in the second section). Another is from Edward Stevenson's account of Harris' Sunday Morning Lecture (see note 13 on the same link). "the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to tranlate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he used the seer stone." If you need more, I can look up some more resources, but I don't think it's really relevant. Joseph mentioning them is enough to merit inclusion. gdavies 22:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary quotation

Regarding this section...

"Between the loss of the pages during the summer of 1828 and the rapid completion of the Book of Mormon in the spring of 1829, there was a period of quiescence as if Smith were waiting "for help or direction."[23] During this period Simth attended a Methodist class in Harmony but then withdrew when a cousin of Emma's objected to a potential member who was a "practicing necromancer."

I have no idea what a little tangent about a methodist class and a practicing necromancer has to do with the 116 pages. Since it's taken out of context, it's very difficult to assess the pronouns (who is "he", etc.) and even more difficult to see how it relates to the subject at hand (resuming translation). gdavies 22:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason this sentence is here is that Smith was uncertain about what to do next. He had had a deformed child (about whom he had predicted great things) die after childbirth. Harris had lost his manuscript. He was at a crossroads. He could turn to conventional religion or follow his earlier course and thumb his nose at it. He chose the later.
The "he said" should stay because no one else testified to seeing the Plates of Nephi. This is Joseph speaking on his own hook. Likewise no one saw him use the Urim and Thummim. William's testimony is very late and obviously not eyewitness.--John Foxe 22:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The second reference is Martin Harris, clearly stating that both urim and thummim and the seer stone were used. "Turn to convential religion?" An interpretation of Smith's actions at this point that far-out should definitely not be influencing this article. The "he said" was at the beginning of the article... the whole section is already qualified... gdavies 22:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Harris just repeated what Smith told him.
As for the "far out" interpretation, let the reader connect the dots if he chooses and ignore it otherwise.--John Foxe 22:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid the "mormon problem" cannot be solved that simply (just repeating what they were told, knowing they could lose their lives for it). Speculation regarding Joseph Smith's thoughts or reasoning is definitely not on subject here (or appropriate anywhere for that matter). This article is about the 116 pages. gdavies 23:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
My only speculation is here on the discussion page, not in the article.--John Foxe 19:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there are more than just the Harris and William Smith description of the Urim and Thummim. Cowdery published a description of them from his eyewitness as did Smith's own mother in her "biography of her son" Others who saw them ranged from Hiram Page to Smith's own family to Lucy Harris. The U&T was not in question, but the plates are what no one saw. -Visorstuff 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made myself clear. I wasn't arguing that there weren't witnesses to the Urim and Thummim but to Joseph's use of them in the translation. Harris was on the other side of a curtain or in a different room. Neither Lucy nor William were witnesses to the translation process. There are plenty of witnesses to the fact that Smith used a seer stone.--John Foxe 19:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what information we present, John, you've already made up your mind. Joseph Smith III went through great lengths to prove that the seer stone, and not the U&T was used in translation, but always had to concede that he did in fact use it during portions. You can read about this in old issues of the saints herald - which are online at http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/artindex.htm#IL and http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/sain1872.htm.

Even though Smith himself said he used the U&T JSH 1:62 (this was the same as the version smith approved which was printed in T&S during his life) and Cowdery confirmed [1] (which we have from multiple sources), it's much more salacious to say just the seer stone (Smith himself typically used the words "interpreters" which has led historians to believe he used more than one device. COGDEN knows this information as well as any editor on wikipedia, and he's never deleted that. in any case, Urim and Thummim is a process, not a device, according to wikipedia (and many other sources), so a use of a seer stone to recieve revelation would be considered using a urim and thummin - and that's how Joseph Fielding Smith and others considered the use of the seer stone. "Dr" Philatus Hurlburt was the first to make the claim that the U&T was not used, so your followoing some very old research. Even the brethren claim he used both, but not alot is known about how. (see Elder Nelson's talk on the topic). Also, a number of references and notes may be found in the article and footnotes here.

I see this as another example of owning an article to suit your POV. The inaccuracies in this article are simple and crazy, and being perpetuated. No wonder why there is so much Mormon, exmormon and anti-mormon folklore in existence. -Visorstuff 20:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea that Hurlburt denied that Smith used the U&T. (You know his real first name was "Doctor." I guess that's no crazier than the names some names parents give their kids today.)
As I've said before, no non-Mormon can "own" an LDS article.
Let's see if we can get a compromise on this issue.--John Foxe 21:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care what your religious affiliation is. It is very possible for non-Mormons to be protective of Mormon-related articles. See Mountain Meadows Massacre, Temple (Mormonism), exmormon, Antimormon that were created and very much owned by non-mormons in their day or now, and there are many others. In fact, until about two years ago, the bulk of the editors editing Lds-related pages were not LDS. Owning is being over protective. and you are being over protective. I've seen at least a half a dozen editors tell you the same thing. I'm just encouraging you to be less protective and more inclusive of what others contribute. Its an insult to editors when you arbitrarily decide what is relevant and what is not, when they may have worked very hard to get that info for/in the article. Instead of reverting so readily, you should discuss with them first on the talk page, and come to a consensus, rather than reverting mutliple times. No hard feelings, its just frustrating to watch you.

I see no need to compromise. you said no sources were available, I've provided a few readily available. Now you want to dance around the wording. The fact is that many others stated that he did as well, but it doesnt' fit your point of view. You'll do what you want regardless, as your editing history has shown. So once again, I provide, you rebut and I give up. -Visorstuff 21:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being overly harsh. I really do want to reach a consensus, and I think that's quite possible.--John Foxe 22:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my writing comes across as harsh. I am glad you are part of the project, I'm just concerned about your conclusions and additions/deletions and seemingly ownership of articles.

That said, what consensus needs to be reached? Either Smith and others said he used the Urim and Thummim or they did not. You said they didn't, I provided sources to demonstrate they did. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but what compromise needs to be reached on this? -Visorstuff 22:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no source that doesn't trace back to Joseph Smith, no independent witness as there is for the seer stone. A compromise might involve explaining that fact or simply making the statement about the U&T ambiguous, such as "he also said that he used."--John Foxe 13:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
So, the Cowdery quote from 1834 [2] doesn't count? And Elizabeth Ann Whitmer's 1870 account is invalid (Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery's certificate in a February 1870 letter in RLDS Archives P 13 F 191.) or the account written by John Whitmer or even D. Michael Quinn's research (D. Michael Quinn, "The First Months of Mormonism: A Contemporary View by Reverend Diedrich Willers," New York History 54 (1973) 326.)? I can't believe we are even having this conversation. Perhaps you know less about mormonism than you think you do. You actually may want to go to SLC and check out the church archives. As it is, you refuse any research that is not in your small library. See again my comments from above. We have other people aside from Smith who said they saw him use them in the translation process - yet you say they all trace back to smith. Crazy logic. -Visorstuff 17:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally the only people who could knowledgably comment on the translation process are Joseph Smith, Martin Harris (his tiffany's account says urim and thummim, other accounts say Seer stone), Oliver Cowdery (says urim and thummim and seer stone) and Emma Smith (also uses both terms). No one else really witnessed the translation of the plates. David Whitmer's account was not from watching him, but from his association with cowdery (remember, everyone had to leave the cabin when smith translated, which is when mary whitmer claimed to have moroni appear to her with the plates. No one but those three helped as scribe that we know of (possibly emma's brother). So again, why are we using tertiary sources, rather than the words of those involved. -Visorstuff 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

After looking at those primary sources again, I think I'm wrong in trying to make a distinction between the seer stone and the U&T. It looks to me like those who talked about them used both terms interchangeably along with the term "interpreters." Is that a fair statement?--John Foxe 21:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's how I understand it: (1) Most of the translation probably took place with the use of a single seer stone in a hat. (2) Some of the witnesses refer to Smith's seer stone as a Urim and Thummim, and we can't always know who or when the terms were used interchangeably. (3) Some of the witnesses say that Smith used the Urim & Thummim (as a set of huge spectacles containing seer stones) in at least some part of the translation, but we don't know if they actually saw Smith put the U&T in the hat before beginning to translate. (4) No eye-witnesses claims that Smith used only the seer stone or only the large spectacles. Thus, it seems like the best we can say is that Smith used a seer stone in the translation, and also reportedly used the large spectacles at some point in the translation (probably the early part).
Also, I just wanted to mention that actually, David Whitmer did act, to a limited extent, as one of Joseph's scribes in Fayette (see HC 1:49). Also, one possible witness to the translation process (early part, in Harmony) was Isaac Hale, who said he walked into the house while Smith and Harris were translating. (Emma was there in the house too, apparently.) Hale wasn't completely clear if he actually saw Smith in the act of looking into the hat and dictating, though. But he said Smith used the seer stone. Joseph Knight, Sr. might have been a witness, also, because he was one of Joseph's most trusted friends and he visited him several times during the translation process. COGDEN 21:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and that is exactly my understanding, aside from I believe David's involvement was pre-loss of the 116 pages, so I had discounted him as a scribe to the book of mormon as we know it (in other words, nothing that he scribed for appears today in the book of mormon), but I may be wrong on that. Too funny that I discounted him due to the 116 pages as that is what this particular article is about.

COGDEN, do you recall what Cowdery used when he translated the sentence or so in Alma (per D&C 6-8)? I seem to recall something about him using the breastplate, but it not fitting him as it fit joseph. Comments, as perhaps that will help with this as well? -Visorstuff 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the source, but I think that might be apocryphal. William and Lucy Mack Smith said the breastplate and the U&T were made, basically, for a giant, so they wouldn't have fit Smith either. I haven't seen anything about what Cowdery used in his translation attempt. I don't even know if there is anything definitive saying Cowdery was attempting to translate part of the Book of Mormon, as opposed to some other hidden record like the "parchment of John". The early revelations refer to Cowdery translating other records. It's even possible, I think, that Cowdery tried to use his divining rod to translate, since that was his "gift" by which he was supposed to receive revelation.
One witness to the translation process I forgot about was Elizabeth Ann Whitmer (Cowdery), who was in the Whitmer house during the translation, and she basically said she saw Joseph put the stone in a hat, look into the hat, and dictated to the translation to her future husband Oliver.
Also, David Whitmer's work as scribe would have been in the Whitmer home in Fayette, and not during the 116 lost pages. But according to Jessee, his handwriting doesn't match any of the recovered original manuscript pages, so we don't know how much he wrote. COGDEN 23:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll have to dig out my source on the Cowdery translation. I've just recently (within the pas six-eight months) come across documentation about his translating of the Book of Mormon where there are about two dozen words in Alma in the MSS in smith's handwriting (rather than oliver's) that lines up with the dates of the D&C revelations and some journal entries about his translating issues. Perhaps this is in the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon book? i'll have to double check, but pretty much confirmed that smith wrote while oliver translated just a bit which corraberates section 9:5 "it is because that you did not continue as you commenced, when you began to translate, that I have taken away this privilege from you." The entry also discusses why the change from Rod of Aaron to Gift of Aaron - and why that change was made in D&C 8, which had to do with the translating and scribing process. I'll have to go back and find it. -Visorstuff 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Cogden. I appreciate that clarification of the muddle this topic really is. And I appreciate Visorstuff trying to lead me down the path of understanding. Sorry I taxed his patience a couple of times.--John Foxe 22:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
John, I agree with your statement; it is not possible to make a distinction between the seer stone and the U&T. The terms are used interchangably. COGDEN goes farther than I would in his words above. What we know is that Joseph said a Urim and Thummim was found with the gold plates. Further, we know that Joseph used a seer stone, but that that term was also used fo rhte U&T. In addition, it appears that later in the translation process nothing no instrument was used for translation. Visor, I believe we discussed that on another page in the not too distant past and recent LDS articles have also stated this process of translation. Finally, and to summarize, Joseph never stated the exact process of translation. We have few comments from others who shared their perceptions. When things are controversial, just provide facts "so and so said..." with references. Our objective is to write factual articles with as little influence from personal emotion or agenda as possible. If Foxe's comment is representative of his current position then we are well on our way to a more factual article. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's any indication he stopped using a seer stone before translation of the Book of Mormon was completed, although David Whitmer said in 1887 (Address to All Believers) that Smith stopped using the stone in early 1830, after the translation. I think Cowdery corroborates this. Also, although the term Urim & Thummim was used to refer to the chocolate-colored seer stone, I don't think there is any example where the reverse was true, although I may be wrong. Finally, is there really any notable faction of historians who reject the basic premise that Smith translated by putting the seer stone in a hat, put his face in the hat, and read what was in the stone? There seems to be a very broad consensus for this by everybody, including Mormon Studies professors, FARMS people, and even LDS apostles. If there is no notable POV to the contrary, can't we just say what the translation process (at least when using the seer stone) was, rather than couch it as "Emma, Martin, Isaac, David, Knight, etc., said ..."? COGDEN 23:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree in general... but Joseph never elaborated on the method (whether words appeared, etc.) and he was really the only one fully qualified (or at least the most qualified) to answer for this. The reason I'm wary of the whole "read the words that appear" aspect is the amount of evidence pointing to a semantic rather than word for word translation. "Words" seems to indicate a sentence or phrase appearing. I believe it's Cowdery who said that the translation would appear "in roman characters" beneath the egyptian ones, or something to that effect. This would support a word by word semantic translation... slightly distinguished from a word for word translation. General wording could probably avoid this issue (and the inherent confusion), though I think it's important that Joseph never really elaborated. gdavies 03:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just of interest to this thread, we find the following footnote in CHC and Annotated history of Joseph Smith [3]:

1. Most reports state that throughout the project Joseph used the "Nephite interpreters" or, for convenience, he would use a seer stone (see CHC 1:128-30). Both instruments were sometimes called by others the Urim and Thummim. In 1830, Oliver Cowdery is reported to have testified in court that these tools enabled Joseph "to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraved on the plates" (Benton, Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate 2 [Apr. 9, 1831]:15). In an 1891 interview, William Smith indicated that when his brother Joseph used the "interpreters." William described these as being like a silver bow twisted into the shape of a figure eight with two stones between the rims of the bow connected by a rod to a breastplate; his hands were left free to hold the plates. Other late reports mention a variety of further details. EM, Vol.1, BOOK OF MORMON TRANSLATION BY JOSEPH SMITH. See Daniel N. Rolph, "Prophets, Kings, and Swords: the Sword of Laban and Its Possible Pre-Laban Origin," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: vol. 2 no. 1, Spring and Fall, 1993, 73.
Of course, in William's 1883 book On Mormonism, he says the following:
"he translated them by means of the Urim and Thummim, (which he obtained with the plates), and the power of God. The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God." (p. 11)
This has a couple of interesting issues: He refers to the U&T as "the stone", but he says Joseph got it "with the plates". COGDEN 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consequences for mormon belief

I appreciate Visorstuff's citation requests to this section, I'm seeing a distinct POV attitude with a lot of speculation and some serious mischaracterizations. It seems by the nature of this section we're going to be relying far to heavily on speculation... gdavies 23:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits have furthered these concerns, not sourced, and some statements completely contradict the D&C account (alleges that Joseph Smith didn't explain the nature of the changes, which he clearly did). I'm going to make a few changes to reduce POV and to bring into conformity with the primary sources we have (as opposed to POV speculation). gdavies 21:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked some of the sentences, mostly for style, but the only sentences I've restored are these two: "Further, although God was said to have revealed prophecy and golden plates to Joseph Smith, He could not, or would not, tell him where the lost pages were. Finally, Smith did not explain why he believed different translations of a text should not be different from one another or why a fraudulent version with different handwriting would not be obvious." These sentences are not speculative; they are true on their face. God didn't tell Smith where the plates were, and Smith didn't explain why a fraudulent version couldn't be detected from its handwriting or why translations had to be exactly the same. The fact that the sentences do not follow LDS scripture is not a valid argument here.--John Foxe 22:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No one is making that argument, the fact is you're speculating not only what Joseph thought/knew, but you're speculating what God could/would not do!!! Let's see a source for God not being able to do something... please, let's be reasonable here. We've rehashed your misunderstanding of this situation several times (regarding a retranslation, D&C 10, etc.), so perhaps you should reread D&C 10 and Joseph Smith's writings pertaining to this before reintroducing your POV, speculative, unsourcable and irrelevant content. gdavies 23:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
John Foxe, do you know for a fact that God didn't tell Smith exactly where they were? He may have and said, no worries - that could cause more harm than good to go retrieve them. Or a billion other scenarios. A good historian learns in 200-level classes to know what he knows and know what he doesn't know. You are very good with what you know, but you don't know what you don't know, but think you do, which can be dangerous to a historian's credibilty. Second, I'll try to find a source where smith does discuss the handwriting thing - he was asked it in Nauvoo why and answered. I'll try to dig up the source, but not sure I really kept in my research notes, as it was not significant to me at the time and may have to wait for a trip back to Utah to grab. Completely agree its speculation - of the same kind that Quinn does in his works. And tha fact that they don't follow things Smith wrote or recieved via revelation is very relevant. That's like saying Bush's iraq war speech that justified why we went into the area is not relevant to the iraq situation. Smith saying something in one place and something else or different or corraberating in another is very relevant - espcially when on the same topic. Dizzying logic.I'm not out to get you. There are too many judgement calls being made by you in areas where others have more research experience, and the inaccuracies and speculations in such articles are increasing as a result. -Visorstuff 01:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I've reworded the critical sentence to avoid the mind-reading problems of my previous version. Our goal is getting to "NPOV" in the same way that lawyers reach "courtroom truth," by presenting the evidence for respective positions. There's no reason to shout.--John Foxe 12:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with a few items regarding Foxe's recent edits. One is the article stating that the loss provided a "productive line of reasoning," asserting a POV (some may regard it as productive, others don't. Secondly, the section says "but no such attempt has ever been uncovered." The word ever should be removed, and the statement is phrased as a contradiction. Since Joseph didn't retranslate the lost portion, why would the "evil men's" plot surface? Effectively their alleged plan was spoiled. The phrasing now suggests the POV that Smith was embarrassed by the loss, the loss proved something against the church, etc. Rather than picking this whole deal apart, I'm just going to copy the remainder here and revert the edits...

"Further, although Smith claimed to be a prophet and said that God had revealed to him the Golden Plates, Smith never publicly announced what became of the lost pages. Finally, Smith did not explain why he believed different translations of a text should not be different from one another or why a fraudulent version with different handwriting would not be obvious."

This is basically a list of unsourced speculative criticisms of Joseph Smith (dripping in POV) reflective of Foxe's personal feelings on the subject. gdavies 22:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I think we're making progress in this article, but I think it's important to focus on primary documents and make sure all secondary and tertiary resources hold up to wikipedia's reliability standards. Some of the sources definitely don't hold up to scholarship standards (such as those on utlm.com). Also, a lot of the sources cited seem like nothing more than published gossip from the time period, rarely attributed (one starts with "According to one Palmyra acquaintance of the Harris family") and are basically speculation. I'd like to keep this article comprehensive, but it needs to be more lucid and verifiable. gdavies 07:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The UTLM citation is to an on-line version of Lamb's nineteenth-century critique of Mormonism: "The loss of the manuscript provided a productive line of reasoning for early critics Mormonism who wished to dismiss the new religion as a fraud." No problem there.
Many primary sources are unfavorable to the LDS Church. I'm sure some of them are gossip. That's the nature of primary sources. If your plea is to primary sources, then they can't be excluded simply because they're anti-LDS. Beginning a sentence with "According to one Palmyra acquaintance of the Harris family" is fair warning that the statement to come is a contemporary opinion. The phrase is also in a footnote. Again, no problem.--John Foxe 19:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
If the point is to show that some people looked unfavorably on the Mormons, and using this type of quasi-hearsay (without the name of the primary source?) as a citation... I can see that, but I don't believe that it should be included as it is usually off subject. As to Lamb's contemporary critique of Mormonism... I'm not sure how that's relevant to the Lost 116 pages as a primary source. It's more like a secondary source, and Lamb is certainly not an "expert in this field." I'm very hesitant about this... maybe we could get some insight from other editors? gdavies 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I bet we can find the name of the acquaintance.
Lamb's critique is based on the incongruities that surround the story of the 116 lost pages. No lost pages, no criticism of the story.--John Foxe 21:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Still, I don't see Lamb's critique as relevant at all to this article as he's nothing more than an unqualified contemporary critic. His work can be cited as "contemporary criticisms" but should not be used in formulating the substance of the article. gdavies 22:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The proper course is not to eliminate what is, after all, simply a footnote reference, but to add a link to some LDS apolegetic source explaining why Lamb's criticisms are wrongheaded.--John Foxe 14:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As much as I enjoy reverting these POV and speculative edits every day...

"Smith seems to have assumed"
"productive line of reasoning"
"no such attempt has ever been uncovered"
"Further, although Smith claimed to be a prophet and said that God had revealed to him the Golden Plates"
"Finally, Smith did not explain why he believed different translations of a text should not be different from one another or why a fraudulent version with different handwriting would not be obvious."

This is not a place for "John Foxe's three top arguments against the Book of Mormon in reference to the lost 116 pages. Your speculation on "what smith seems to have assumed" is absolutely inappropriate. Also, judging the evidence as "productive" or not is not within the purposes of Wikipedia. State facts and let people come to their own value judgments. "no such attempt has ever been uncovered," well according to Smith's story the manuscript would surface after he retranslated, but since he did not retranslate the Book of Lehi, bringing up the manuscript again wouldn't prove anything, and wouldn't make any sense. While this statement is true, it's difficult to source and it's misleading to the reader (implying a contradiction which may or may not exist). "although Smith claimed to be a prophet..." I'm embarrassed I have to point out the POV in this... the "although... however" structure isn't appropriate on Wikipedia, it advances the POV of the second clause and implies contradiction (as does the word "claim"). "Smith did not explain why he believed different translations of a text should not... etc." Who's to say that Smith believes this? This is your interpretation (and an unreasonable one at that) and certainly Smith doesn't have to answer for his beliefs that you somehow know he had (although we have absolutely no evidence supporting this supposed belief). This is verging on vandalism/ownership... gdavies 17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It either needs to be sourced or not said. We let the reader draw conclusions on wikipedia, not lead them. -Visorstuff 20:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing the current paragraph and replacing it with sentences written from an LDS POV doesn't bring us closer to NPOV. Let's together work to find language acceptable to us all. There's no reason that can't happen.
What's the problem with adding a link to an LDS apolegetic source? Are you implying that there is no LDS answer for the questions raised here, even for questions raised in the nineteenth century?--John Foxe 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, asking the questions leads a reader down a point of view road. If we don't have answers to certain questions, or we don't have a referencable source of someone saying that it is a major issue, we shouldn't ask them in an article at wikipedia (sure, we can on the talk page to see if people have an answer or research on the topic). Wikipedia's place is not to ask unsourced questions, it is to provide an encyclopedia-like article. And raising questions is the place of academics or commercial monographs. For example, we could add in a question about why the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, that the company refuses to answer why they use aluminum in their wrappers, although nearly all other gum manufacturers use paper in the middle of that article. But if we started asking the questions as to why in the article, it just leads to people's belief in a conspiracy theory about aluminum wrappers. In the same vein, we shouldn't address the questions you introduced into the article unless we cite that these are major concerns of some scholar, etc.

That said, only the first four or five sentences of that entire section are truly referenceable and not purely conjecture. and the last sentence is an orphan and reads to be a judgement about mormonism, with nothing to do with the plates. Let me edit and lets see what you all think. -Visorstuff 00:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the edit... One idea, though... I think the fact that the Book of Mormon talks about Nephi abridging the record and Mormon including the abridgment "for a wise purpose, which purpose I know not" (interpreted to mean replacing the lost manuscript by basically all Mormons) could be seen as a builder of faith among Mormons who believe the Book to be a translations. If a citation can be found for this... it seems like it's the implicit explanation for those who are LDS (in that sense it would definitely be relevant). gdavies 02:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree. But how it was worded was a way different connotation. -Visorstuff 02:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was kind of in a hurry and through the sentence together, but I didn't address the chronology (since the rest of the Book of Mormon was translated after the loss of the 116 pages, he could've just "worked it in" somehow). For my reference I"ll copy it here...
"According to the Book of Mormon Prophet-Historian, Mormon, he included the Small Plates of Nephi "for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord." The Doctrine and Covenants points to this as evidence of God's foreknowledge of the purported plans of "evil men" to alter the manuscript."
I'd still like some form of this idea included. gdavies 02:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to give up the translation problem, which seems hardest for casual readers to understand anyway, but Smith's inability to reveal what happened to the lost pages reflects on his prophetic gift and should be mentioned here as it was by nineteenth-century opponents of Mormonism. Likewise, the last paragraph is important to put the meaning of the event in context.--John Foxe 11:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify a bit more, and acutally, it provides a nice place for the hofman stuff that keeps getting removed.
I still believe that the last paragraph is more of a valuation of Mormonism rather than anything to do with the 116 pages. The "reference" has nothing to do with the 116 pages. It is not part of my belief, nor do I see a correlation between the two. I beleive that the holy ghost rather than physical proof is important based on trying out the test, and my understanding of how God has answered my prayers for truth in the past. I've never seen the 116 pages used in any church manual as an example in this vein, and frankly disagree with it being included based on the paragraph has absolutely nothing to do wth the article, but with mormonism in general. -Visorstuff 18:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I put a little note in along with a few minor changes... The paragraph starting "Some believe that events such as the loss of the 116 pages and its consequences strengthens Mormon belief that things of a spiritual nature do not need to be proven scientifically or intellectually..." I don't see a connection there, although I'd like to see something related to this... maybe we could reference Joseph Smith's stiff rebuke in D&C 3 as well as the inclusion of an abridgment "for a wise purpose" together in conjunction with this idea. The last paragraph... I don't know how I feel about that... it does make it sound like the churches teachings contradict the explanation of "some" cited in the paragraph previous. gdavies 20:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, is that this is pure conjecture. WHO SAYS that the loss of the 116 pages makes mormons believe that you don't have to have physical evidence of anything? The answer is two people on wikipedia. That's it. I've NEVER heard this stated anywhere in my research. And believe me, I'm pretty well-read. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, and you can re-clarify here?

Rather, there are lessons learned and I even provided sources, however, as with other soruces they don't fit John Foxe's point of view and have now been censored. Pretty much the status quo of this article. I'm not letting this go. Source the sentence or get rid of it. -Visorstuff 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to reword the contentious sentence, dropping mention of the 116 pages. The reference is now clearly to the Ostlings' book.--John Foxe 19:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New paragraph

I've reduced the contentious section to one paragraph and hope that in doing so that I've brought us closer to concensus. I'm not even wedded to that final quotation if you don't believe it adequately reflects your beliefs.--John Foxe 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought we were closer to consensus than apparently you did. We had some strong well-sourced statements, and Gldavies had some valid questions that need to be addressed. How about we discuss our changes here before making such dramatic changes. I'm completely reverting so we can discuss. -Visorstuff 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The other thing, is that deleting this material leaves the reader to wonder what the current theories are about the MSS and how it was explained. The previous didn't do this. Perhaps a new header. And do we really need a "lessons learned" section? -Visorstuff 23:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think "lessons learned" should be included in the "consequences for Mormon belief," both paragraphs have the same purpose, interpretation/conclusion/"what does it mean" etc... besides... it would be easier to cite the "consequences for Mormon belief" section (easier, still not easy) than "lessons learned" if we're really going to include content related to each section name; "lessons learned" seems too speculative and open-ended. gdavies 04:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I changed the header - there is currently not a "consequences for Mormon belief" section, as I moved the historical what happened to the plates into its own section, but consequences seems trite and unsupported. I agree that the section is speculative and open ended. how about effect on Mormon belief? -Visorstuff 08:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I saved the new heading but dispensed with "What Happened to the Plates" because there was only one sentence on that topic in the paragraph. Also it seemed to me that there was considerable repetition from material above.--John Foxe 14:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I added a picture of Harris. Perhaps you have another idea about how to illustrate an article about something that no longer exists.--John Foxe 16:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plates used before and after lost 116 pages

The wording of this sentence of the article has been changed by me and John Foxe over the past few days. It currently reads:

Nevertheless, most Mormons are little troubled by questions about the lost 116 pages and their replacement by writings from other metallic plates not revealed until after the loss occurred.

I had changed it to be that Joseph Smith began translating from the same plates after they were returned, but John Foxe changed the meaning back. The reference given at the end of the paragraph,[4] gives this text at the end of the Scriptural and Historical Accounts section:

Joseph was told not to retranslate the first portion of the plates (see D&C 10:30–31). Because the Lord knows all things, he knew that this incident would happen. He had therefore commanded the ancient prophet Mormon to include a similar account of what was included in the 116 pages in another part of the gold plates (see Words of Mormon 1:3–7). Joseph translated this part instead of retranslating the lost part (see D&C 10:38–42).

This indicates to me that the same set of plates were used. Do you have another reference? Val42 22:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon talks about Nephi abridging Lehi's record (which we understand to be the first book on the Large plates of Nephi) onto the Small Plates (The small plates were primarily religious and lasted until Omni, when they were "filled"). Mormon included the small plates, which was a spiritual/type rerun of the first part of the Large plates, for a "wise purpose," which we find from D&C 10 was to replace the lost 116 pages (from the first part of the Large plates, the Book of Lehi). The plates Joseph Smith actually had were the small plates (engraved by Nephi and those who followed him, until Omni. They were written Egyptian; Reformed Egyptian is what Mormon wrote in), Mormon's abridgement (Including material from a bunch of different records, but the first part is from the Large Plates of Nephi) and the sealed portion (written by Jacob, probably in "adamic," contained a revelation of the whole history of the earth). This is why the first part of the Book of Mormon is in first person and the majority of the rest is in third (excluding parts written by Mormon or Moroni)... I realize this is too long already, but the core question is what do you mean by plates? The golden plates or the individual parts of the Golden Plates. The way it was written previous to your edits seemed to imply (falsely) that Joseph Smith replaced the 116 pages by translating by plates other than the golden plates. I think we can reword it fairly easily to avoid making false implications... gdavies 03:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we agree. There are the whole set of plates that Mormon (and Mornoni) had to make the abridgement that became the golden plates. These golden plates were the ones given to Joseph Smith to translate. The wording, as it presently stands (and is quoted above), says to me that there were different plates that were given to Joseph Smith before the lost 116 pages and afterwards. From what I understand, they were the same set of plates. This is backed up by the reference that is given at the end of the paragraph. I just want it straight with us before we go an edit it back to say this. Val42 04:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup, that's the way I see it, I just wanted to put that all there for other's future reference. I think we should say "from another portion" or "a later portion" of the golden plates. Factually it wasn't wrong before, but very likely to be misinterpreted. gdavies 05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've done it. Val42 05:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content of the 116 pages

I started to add a section under this name, but I wanted to get another opinion first. Seems like we should have a section on this.. Here's what I started on, input? gdavies 06:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith wrote in the preface to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, "... I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon."[1] The lost material was replaced by... gdavies 06:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magic world view

I have no problem if you want to add "he was called by God."--John Foxe 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I do, it's not provable nor NPOV. If your alleged complete disregard of neutrality and verifiability standards for inclusion in wikipedia extends to both sides of the religious spectrum, so be it, but please don't reflect that recklessness in your editing. gdavies 07:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this attempt at compromise might do it.--John Foxe 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing info on warning

If my memory serves me, I recall in the story of these missing pages that Joseph was instructed by God not to give the mauscript to Harris, but this info is missing here... Twunchy 06:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I almost added this info a few weeks ago... but I didn't have a primary source on hand for it... definitely necessary in this article. If I'm not mistaken, he asked twice, was told no both times, then Harris pressed him, he asked again and was given a "do what you think is best, but..." type answer and then the manuscript got stolen. The account of the result is very easy to find (in D&C) but a clean account for the parts before is trickier... gdavies 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarity

Here we say


"Smith described Lucy Harris as a woman of "irascible temper," but Lucy also accused her husband of physically abusing her on a number occasions

but on Martin Harris (Latter Day Saints)

Lucy Harris was described by Lucy Mack Smith as a woman of "irascible temper," but Harris may also have abused her

We should be clear which smith and what the citations for both parts of the statement are.

Rich Farmbrough, 08:08 27 September 2007 (GMT).

Thanks for catching that discrepancy.--John Foxe 20:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Section

My edit summary gave my explanation but I will elaborate. The whole section is terribly POV and needs to be removed.

1. The "effect on mormon belief" itself is a generalized statement suggesting that all mormons feel the same way, which is wrong. Also this is an encylclopedia and not an explanation of why the faith of mormons is unshaken despite the lost pages.
2. "most Mormons are little troubled by questions about the lost 116 pages" - POV
3. "Some Mormons believe that events in Mormon history that are difficult for non-believers to credit may actually strengthen belief in things of a spiritual nature" - POV
4. "Not surprisingly, then, the loss of the manuscript provided critics of Mormonism with additional opportunities to dismiss the religion as a fraud" - POV - like the world was scammering at opportunities to discredit the BOM
5. "Most importantly, the evidence of the Spirit is available to those who seek it. I, for one, have received the witness of the Spirit, and I bear testimony that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, and that the gospel is true." - POV just because it is a quotation does not mean it is true or needs to be in an encyclopedia article, no one cares how confident he is in his faith.

I feel that these examples strongly justify the deletion and this section was taking away from an otherwise well written article. JRN (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to believe that the section is "terribly POV," it's another thing to prove it. The statements that you've cited are based on authoritative sources. To remove the material you dislike, you must counter it with other sources that buttress your position. I agree that the most difficult problem is the attempt to state what Mormons believe. But again, to counter this section of the article, you need to put into evidence authoritative statements that say things like "many Mormons are troubled by the lost 116 pages" or "critics rarely use the 116 pages problem to discredit Mormonism."--John Foxe (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't "believe" they are wrong, in fact IMO I agree with the statements but that doesn't mean they aren't POV. Please do not jump to conclusions and assume good faith in my edits. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you can continue to revert my edits. There are no "authoratative sources" given for the statements I quoted. The source list includes what seems to be a mormon teaching lesson and a couple other sources of that ilk. Not exactly "authoratative" in any standards. Since you seem completely opposed to removing the POV section, what would you like to do with it. Just saying that you disagree doesn't solve any problems and won't help this article at all. JRN (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
As you can probably see I tagged the sentences in question awaiting the authoratative sources. JRN (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The final quotation comes from the Ostlings' book, and Jan Shipps is a pretty good second for the ideas expressed in the paragraph. Hope you also approve of my stylistic tweaking.--John Foxe (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately despite your editing the whole paragrpah is still in awful shape. The use of "some mormons" is ambiguous and needs to be clarified. Who are "some mormons" and what percentage of the total mormon/lds opinion do they share. It needs to be cited or removed. The citation of the golden bible to substantiate the claim of critics is weak at best. There should be more references that that if the claim is true. One book isn't really significant in relation to the many that were published in opposition to lds beliefs at that time. Further the whole section is still in violation of WP:NPOV and more specifically WP:UNDUE. It reads like a rebuttal against critics of the lost 166 pages while does not at all show the other side of the story. It is POV like I originally stated and you have failed to prove otherwise. This is a page about the lost 116 pages and not on the LDS rebuttal of critics and an affirmation of the faith. It is being removed. Sorry JRN (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your opinion, but I have no problem eliminating the Ostling quotation if that's a problem to you.--John Foxe (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleting the quotation from the LDS primary was unexplained.--John Foxe (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I figured you could see that it has no part in a section about criticism. This article is not about the LDS church's teachings or view but is about the lost 116 pages. It would be best if you discontinued your reverts of my edits until you form an arguement why my edits are not correct. Saying you disagree means nothing unless you have an arguement. Which you haven't put forward yet. You are not making any "compromises", you are merely reverting the changes I have made without any explanation why and yet when I don't explain my edits on the talk page you are quick to revert saying I have not explained myself. Please either present an arguement or stop your vandalism. JRN (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The reaction of the LDS Church to the story of the lost pages is part of the story. In fact, the story of the lost pages is hardly a story at all without mentioning its modern consequences. A deletion here must be explained.
I dislike the term "criticism." (We avoid people who are "critical.") The term should especially be avoided in headings unless there is a corresponding section called "apologetics."--John Foxe (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand your dislike of the term "criticism" and I will try to discontinue my use of it in the future. However the heading "influence of mormonism" and the subsequent section are still failing WP:NPOV and specificlally WP:UNDUE. The reactions and opinions of the LDS church do not represent all of what the readers and historians would consider "mormonism". There are over 100 denominations that believe in the BOM (most are probably defunct), but focusing on one and generalizing that as the overall effect is in violation of policy and is being removed once again. The reaction of the LDS is NOT part of the story. It would be better sutied under the criticism of lds article (don't know the exact name) and not here. This article is not on the LDS church or it's views. The article is on history associated with over 100 organizations. A section on the views expressed by one has no part. I will be removing your edits again until you have an arguement. JRN (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I think my current edits are a fair compromise and keep the flow of the article fairly consistent. The only portion I removed was that of the lds primary because it has no point here. The other statements were moved and the section heading was removed. Please comment here and let me know what you think to come to a concensus and end the edit war. JRN (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm satisfied, JRN. But you need to be more attentive to your spelling and syntax. You've made heedless mistakes in every post.--John Foxe (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How much would they be in print?

How much would 116 pages amount to? For example, how much of the existing BoM text (Book of Mosiah and onward) is covered by the next 116 Pages of manuscript? -- 212.63.43.180 (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)