Shulem cracks the code for The Book of Lehi/116 Lost Pages!!

[Shulem]

It could be argued that Don Bradley and the Mormon faithful are blissfully ignorant in assuming that everything Smith ever said or described was the God-honest truth. As mentioned in my previous post, elder Richards was informed by the prophet that the lineage of Ephraim was preserved in the Nephite tribe due to the daughters of Ishmael marrying Lehi's sons. And we are supposed to automatically believe that? Pull your head out of your ass, Don! Did it ever occur to you that maybe Smith was simply making that up and covering his tracks because the golden lineage was left out of our present Book of Mormon? You apologists assume too much! You give Joseph Smith a blank check! And yet Bradley takes what Smith said 15 years after the fact as automatic proof that the original story contained that information but was later left out because it must have been inconsequential. Look, Don, I don't trust the prophet Joseph Smith any further than I can throw him. Isn't it just possible that Richard's was hoodwinked by the prophet into thinking that Ephraim was mentioned in the original Book of Mormon via the lost manuscript?

Is it possible?

Is it possible?

Is it possible?

[Shulem]

Look, just because Joseph Smith said such and such about such and such does not make it so! Anything Joseph Smith said should be taken cautiously and with a grain of salt. He was a sly fox and a constant liar. Dan Vogel should know as well as anyone that anything Smith ever said should not necessarily be regarded as fact. Just because Jo said something doesn't make it so. Just because the Pratts said something may make it worse!

[Alphus and Omegus]

I've not read the book and have no intention of doing so, but I suspect that this review is a good deal more entertaining.

Has Bradley's book been reviewed by mopologists?

[Shulem]

I've not read the book and have no intention of doing so, but I suspect that this review is a good deal more entertaining.

Has Bradley's book been reviewed by mopologists?

I don't know of any reviews to Bradley's book but I'm going to see it through to the end.

I'm glad you've been entertained. Do ya think Bradley will pop into this thread and say something? I'm only halfway through the book and so anything can I happen.

[Moksha]

Do ya think Bradley will pop into this thread and say something? I'm only halfway through the book and so anything can I happen.

I heard the BYP mention that Don would be an upcoming guest on his podcast. That should be a must-see episode.

[Shulem]

Do ya think Bradley will pop into this thread and say something? I'm only halfway through the book and so anything can I happen.

I heard the BYP mention that Don would be an upcoming guest on his podcast. That should be a must-see episode.

How about Dan Peterson? That would be a bigger fish to fry.

Look, I've got a 1 minute video clip of Dan Peterson with the Murph and destroy his Book of Mormon geography in a single breath in this link: Peterson

[WeirdAlma]

Shulem, have you read the Tanners’ Black Hole article? It talks about a similar kind of thing, with the detail of the Nephi writing being a lot more vague than what was likely the Lehi version. And comparing the content before Mosiah to after (per the Mosiah priority). Far fewer names and details before Mosiah. http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no72.htm

[Shulem]

Shulem, have you read the Tanners’ Black Hole article? It talks about a similar kind of thing, with the detail of the Nephi writing being a lot more vague than what was likely the Lehi version. And comparing the content before Mosiah to after (per the Mosiah priority). Far fewer names and details before Mosiah. http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no72.htm

I will need to read that, WeirdAlma. Thanks!

Interesting to see how Peterson gives no consideration into the lost 116 pages being the solution to something he thinks is rather amazing on Smith's part while dictating. For example:

---Video Clip ---

When Lehi says that he had a vision of God seated in throne surrounded by numerous concourses of angels who are singing, "methought I saw God", that same phrase shows up 150 pages later when someone is recalling that vision . . . I think that's really striking and there is no evidence that Joseph ever said, "Let's go back and see how Lehi described that." In fact, if you prescribe to the doctrine, to the understanding that what we have now was probably dictated starting with the first chapter or maybe the second chapter of Mosiah . . . then in that case Alma is quoting from a passage that hasn't been written yet and has to be written in when you go back to write if you're thinking Joseph's making it up. . . it's hard too imagine Joseph making it up on the fly, it's too complicated . . .

Dan, there is no question in my mind that the vision had by Lehi was explained in the lost 116 pages during the first dictation with Harris. THAT is what came first and with great impact in Smith's mind. The account in Alma that came later through Cowdery's dictation is recalling the original telling. The vision of Lehi (1 Nephi 1) is central to his calling as a prophet and foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem.

Dan, the Book of Mormon is fiction. It's a story told from the depth of Joseph Smith's own mind and heart. Why can't you see that? Open your eyes and get out of that silly apologetic testimony box. Yes, I grant the Book of Mormon is a complicated book and is quite the masterpiece!

[Shulem]

Shulem, have you read the Tanners’ Black Hole article? It talks about a similar kind of thing, with the detail of the Nephi writing being a lot more vague than what was likely the Lehi version. And comparing the content before Mosiah to after (per the Mosiah priority). Far fewer names and details before Mosiah. http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no72.htm

I love it! Especially this:

MISSING KINGS

Nephi was supposed to be the first king of the Nephites (see 2 Nephi 5:18). It is very possible that Joseph Smith forgot the name he had given to the second king in the lost 116 pages. When Jacob refers to Nephi's successor, he does not give him any name:

"Now Nephi began to be old, and he saw that he must soon die; wherefore, he anointed a man to be a king and a ruler over his people now, according to the reigns of the kings." (Jacob 1:9)

There is no greater insult or manner of disrespect that a dignitary or diplomat may pay to the supreme leader of a nation state than to not utter his name in the written record! Here we are expected to believe that Jacob who was the brother of the original Nephi and foremost patron of the temple built in the promised land fails to pay respect to the name of the new king. That is a cardinal sin -- or rather Joseph Smith's memory lapse.

Furthermore, Jacob says that the new king was anointed under the very hand of Nephi. An anointing and crowning of a king MUST be accompanied by uttering that name and including it in written form in the official records. Leaving off the name was the greatest insult Jacob could have ever committed to that "man" whatever the hell his name was. It was unbiblical to the extreme. Very, very, poor taste.

Once again, Joseph Smith was caught with his pants down! Busted baby.

[Shulem]

And so applying the name Nephi to the second king and so forth in dynastic fashion was a convenient way for Smith to dismiss whatever names were originally sequenced in the missing manuscript. Smith was simply unable to recall those names in the order they were first given. So he found a creative way to cover his tracks and quickly get through many generations until finally getting back to where he left off (king Benjamin) at the end of the missing manuscript.