Talk:Lost 116 pages

When the plates were returned to Joseph Smith
Hello again, everyone! While I appreciate and respect the work that Epachamo and John Foxe have done on this page with respect to when the plates were reportedly returned to Joseph Smith, there seems to be some disagreement or difference of opinion between the two editors as far as the precise wording to use. According to the sourcing in this Wikipedia article on that subject, Bushman, a historian, was quoted as saying that the revelation received by Smith on this matter (Doctrine and Covenants 3) said that the plates would be returned to him in mid-September 1828. So I went back to the passage in question, and what the cited verses actually note is that Smith is still called to the work and will translate again if he remains faithful. In other words, in the revelation cited by BUshman to back up his assertion that the plates were returned to Joseph Smith one year to the exact day from when he originally received the plates does not actually say that will be the case. I understand that things get more than slightly sticky when speaking about what primary sources say vs. what secondary sources say, but I am not sure what the exact protocol is when a secondary source makes a claim about a primary source that is not factual. Wikipedia is not about what is true, but what is verifiable, so the way I see it, Bushman is making a claim or assumption based on a source that doesn't say what he says it says. My vote, as noted earlier, would be to add some kind of context or supporting additional sources to settle this distinction one way or the other. Just wanted to put this out there. Sorry this was such a lengthy comment, but I hope it made my thought process and reasoning on this clear enough. Either way, there has got to be some middle-ground method to resolve the discrepancy, because at the moment, the reader consulting both sources is likely to get confused on this matter as is. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll follow up with an even lengthier response (sorry as well!). The timeline for the return of the plates and the interpreters is not clear from the historical record, and Richard Bushman acknowledges this in "Rough Stone Rolling".  I believe the article did/does not reflect what was summarized in his book. From his book:


 * "Joseph went back to Harmony in July 1828, suffering, as he later wrote, much “affliction of soul.” As he later told the story, the angel appeared and returned the interpreters, which had been taken from him when Harris went off with the manuscript. ... Lucy said Joseph was put on probation. If he showed proper penitence, the interpreters would be returned on September 22, the day of his annual interview with Moroni for the past four years. ... Lucy Smith said that Joseph received the interpreters again on September 22, 1828 ... (Footnote 46) Although the assertion clashes with other accounts, David Whitmer said Moroni did not return the Urim and Thummim in September. Instead Joseph used a seerstone for the remaining translation. Kansas City Journal, June 19, 1881, Omaha Herald, Oct. 17, 1886; Interview (1885), in Whitmer, Interviews, 72, 157, 200. Of the translation process, Emma said, “The first that my husband translated, was translated by the use of the Urim, and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color.”" Emma Smith Bidamon to Emma Pilgrim, Mar. 27, 1870, in EMD, 1:532.
 * Bushman, Richard Lyman. Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (Vintage) (Kindle Locations 1640-1641). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.


 * Vogel also discusses the confused timeline:


 * "Upon returning to Harmony, he said the angel had taken back the plates and spectacles. As a result, he had lost his gift of seeing, and for a season, heaven fell silent... In his history, he later minimized this period of uncertainty by claiming that, despite the withdrawal of the plates and spectacles, he received angelic encouragement. “Immediately after my return home I was walking out a little distance,” he said in 1838, “when, behold, the former heavenly messenger appeared and handed to me the Urim and Thummim again ...' Obscuring the nature and duration of his indecision when he wrote his 1838-39 history, he reported that “immediately” after he returned to Harmony, he received a revelation resolving the matter and that the plates and interpreters were returned after only “a few days.” ... He explained that even after he regained possession of the plates, presumably in mid-July 1828, ... Contradicting the “few days” of Joseph’s 1838-39 history, Lucy remembered that the angel had told him the plates would be returned on 22 September 1828 if he was sufficiently worthy.'Vogel, Dan. Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (A Biography) (Kindle Locations 4951-4952, 5801-5803). Signature Books. Kindle Edition."


 * I believe the confusion of the timeline is significant and should be mentioned within the article, not in a footnote. Not mentioning all of the plausible alternatives leads us to demonstrate a POV towards a preferred alternative, something neither Bushman or Vogel did.  Epachamo (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that additional context, Epachamo. I'm glad I started this topic so this could be discussed and detailed. Based on the additional information you shared, I am fully on board with what you suggested, and support your assertion that it needs to be mentioned in the article, not as a footnote or reference. Unless John Foxe or anyone else reading this conversation has any objections, I'd suggest fleshing out that part of the article to explain the discrepancy. Since you are more familiar with the source material, I will leave that process up to you to figure out, and any further issues can be discussed here on talk as needed. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The syntactical changes I made were intended to be stylistic improvements, and I replaced electronic citations with page citations from my dead-tree copies of Bushman and Vogel. In other words, I didn't intend to change the substance, though perhaps I misunderstood something in the process. John Foxe (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Arcane reference used to make a claim in the article
The article makes a claim. The arcane references is almost unintelligible/intelligible. I tried to fix this, but it was reverted. Can someone make heads or tails of the reference, and put it into plain English? because as it stands it looks like someone being tricky, to keep the claim of a deathbed confession in the article. It is a single reference given that apparently makes this claim, if someone could get the actual quotation so that we can make sure it does? and also rewrite the reference in plain language? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lost_116_pages&oldid=prev&diff=1076279422 Misty MH (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I would posit that the way this section is phrased is appropriate. As Doug Weller said in his edit summary, using "claim" here runs into WP:NPOV issues. I don't see any reason that the statement would be unreliable. Writing this in another way might get clunky: "Eldin Ricks said that Martin Harris said..." etc. This section however could probably use rewriting. Any thoughts on how it could be phrased? Rollidan (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the quotation's too long and the source from which it's taken too suspect. I've put the statement in a footnote so that the conclusion of the article doesn't appear so biased. John Foxe (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Nevertheless, "evil men" might also have altered the lost manuscript to contradict the new account as well
Section header has been in the article for years. Two references given, both reliable.

However, the supposed "evil men" (if they existed) could just as easily alter the stolen manuscript to contradict any new account. When Smith reached the end of the book, he said he was told that God had foreseen the loss of the early manuscript and had prepared the same history in an abridged format that emphasized religious history, the Small Plates of Nephi.

2A02:908:192:FBE0:B00B:5CB3:BD60:9063 (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There are multiple issues with the edit:
 * It duplicates the sentence that begins with "When Smith reached the end of the book..." I have again removed the duplicate sentence as I don't believe this is the point of the disagreement.
 * You've removed all reference to Hoffman, but left in the Lindsey reference, which seems odd to me since it primarily deals with Hoffman and not the supposed "evil men". What part of the Lindsey reference supports the claim being made in the sentence?
 * Mormonthink.com is not a reliable source. It is about reliable as fairmormon.com or jefflindsay.com. It is a self-published website and fails the criteria for a reliable source. The "unreliable source?" tag has been in the article for years. It seems a rather selective application of the "been in the article for years" argument to keep the first sentence but remove this tag.
 * --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"interpreters"
It will not be clear to many a reader (and is not clear to this reader) what "interpreters" means under section "The manuscript disappears". It apparently is not the "seer stones", and perhaps not the "spectacles", which at some point some article says was eventually used almost-interchangeably with "seer stones". What "interpreters" were taken away and then returned, according to a story in the article? Misty MH (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This article appears to equate the spectacles with interpreters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim_(Latter_Day_Saints) Misty MH (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)