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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

Bradley's treatise on the culpability of Lucy Harris as the main suspect for the manuscript theft is thorough and logical. There is a mountain of evidence to point the finger squarely at Lucy who pretty much everyone believes was responsible for the theft. Bradley takes a step by step approach in logically weighing all the testimonials concerning Lucy's involvement with the manuscript. There is however, a particular matter about the crime scene which he did not emphasize which I perceive is strong evidence in charging her as the main culprit or at least being involved with the theft. The point I wish to bring up is that the manuscript was stolen from a very secure location inside the Harris house -- double locked with TWO locking devices and two keys which strongly suggests it *was* an INSIDE JOB.

(1) Locked parlor
(2) Locked bureau

Don Bradley wrote:Martin took possession of the manuscript again, storing it in "his own set of drawers where he had it at his command" and showing it to "any good friend who happened [to] call on him." According to Martin's later recitation about the manuscript pages, during this time "he read them in the evening to his family and some friends," afterward always being sure "put them in his bureau in the parlor, locking both bureau and parlor, [and] putting the keys of each in his pocket."
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

As mentioned above, Bradley does a thorough job documenting Lucy's motives and everything that revolved around her as a primary suspect of "The Crime." Lucy ever denied her involvement with the theft and continued to deny it even on her death bed in 1836. In the beginning, Martin believed his wife was responsible but later changed his tune as Bradley reasons how "in the end, what most persuaded Martin of Lucy's innocence was a her continual denial until the moment of her death." Martin was simply unable to believe that Lucy could continue to maintain a lie about the theft.

Don Bradley wrote:Lucy Harris's continued denial of having committed the theft ultimately convinced the one person who had the greatest reason to blame her for the crime, and who had started the rumors of her guilt in the first place—her estranged husband Martin.

Bradley documents how Martin Harris never accepted the D&C 10 revelation that labeled him "a wicked man." For Martin, that revelation was an offence and he refused to accept it. Harris ultimately came to believe in a idiosyncratic theory that the actual culprit was the original angel who gave the plates to Joseph came back down and took the manuscript from his locked bureau. So, in the end, Martin blamed the angel!

Bradley reasons that "Lucy had motive to claim credit for the manuscript theft even if she did not do it" because she could have discredited Smith's D&C revelation about the manuscript being stolen by "wicked men" who "altered" the words in order to disprove a renewed translation of the same work. But Lucy did not strike back with any kind of confession and continued to deny having stolen the manuscript until her last breath.

I can't help but bring up a very important point that Bradley fails to explore regarding Lucy's culpability and guilt; what if she had confessed to stealing the manuscript and more or less given Smith the finger (f-you) and laughed in his face? One can imagine how easy it might be for a "strong-willed woman" having an "irascible temper" and known to be "pretty high on combativeness" to simply laugh in the face of Joseph Smith because "she was very bitter against the work."

REASON FOR DENIAL: Lucy committed a crime. It was a theft. It was stolen property.

POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES: Smith filing charges against Lucy for theft. Lawsuit, court trial, and penalties affixed if found guilty.

Did you ever think about that, Don? If Smith had sued Harris it stands to reason he could have recouped losses $$$ in winning a lawsuit and poor Lucy would have faced the humiliating penalty of legal consequences.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

The section in chapter four involving Flanders Dyke's alleged role in the theft of the characters transcript as well as the manuscript is presented in brilliant fashion and is spot on! Very well done, and I applaud Bradley in piecing the story together in a rather coherent and systematic fashion.

Flanders Dyke married The Harris's daughter while Martin was in Harmony translating and it was then that Lucy Harris dealt with her personal objections to Dyke in becoming her new son in a law but the marriage was destined to take place. When Martin returned to Palmyra with the manuscript he greatly upset his wife by removing it from Lucy's bureau and damaging it in the process. Lucy was livid and even more so when Martin relocated the manuscript in the locked parlor -- doubly secured within Martin's personal locked bureau. Suffice it say that Lucy was over her head and not capable of stealing the manuscript by her own means. She needed help! Bradley supplies plenty of credible documentation to show where that help likely came from: Flanders Dyke!

Bradley also documents how Flanders Dyke was a known thief and swindler and later spent time in the Palmyra jail on charges of theft. Bradley (intentional or not) makes a solid case in showing how Dyke must have acted as an accomplice in acquiring the manuscript from Martin's locked bureau. Bradley also explains how both Lucy and Dyke were scheming and how each would benefit from the theft of the manuscript. Dyke was from a family of tradesmen and undoubtedly possessed the skill to pick a door lock and defeat the lock mechanism built into the bureau. All of this was accomplished without any signs of forced entry or damage.

Bradley builds his case in showing how the natural conclusion was that Dyke dutifully placed the stolen manuscript into Lucy's waiting hands. This was a theft -- a crime -- and Joseph Smith could have pressed charges had he known exactly what happened. But Lucy flatly denied any involvement with the theft which left Joseph with an empty bag.

Good job, Don! Bravo!
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Don Bradley

Post by Philo Sofee »

Shulem wrote:
Sat Mar 18, 2023 5:41 pm
The section in chapter four involving Flanders Dyke's alleged role in the theft of the characters transcript as well as the manuscript is presented in brilliant fashion and is spot on! Very well done, and I applaud Bradley in piecing the story together in a rather coherent and systematic fashion.

Flanders Dyke married The Harris's daughter while Martin was in Harmony translating and it was then that Lucy Harris dealt with her personal objections to Dyke in becoming her new son in a law but the marriage was destined to take place. When Martin returned to Palmyra with the manuscript he greatly upset his wife by removing it from Lucy's bureau and damaging it in the process. Lucy was livid and even more so when Martin relocated the manuscript in the locked parlor -- doubly secured within Martin's personal locked bureau. Suffice it say that Lucy was over her head and not capable of stealing the manuscript by her own means. She needed help! Bradley supplies plenty of credible documentation to show where that help likely came from: Flanders Dyke!

Bradley also documents how Flanders Dyke was a known thief and swindler and later spent time in the Palmyra jail on charges of theft. Bradley (intentional or not) makes a solid case in showing how Dyke must have acted as an accomplice in acquiring the manuscript from Martin's locked bureau. Bradley also explains how both Lucy and Dyke were scheming and how each would benefit from the theft of the manuscript. Dyke was from a family of tradesmen and undoubtedly possessed the skill to pick a door lock and defeat the lock mechanism built into the bureau. All of this was accomplished without any signs of forced entry or damage.

Bradley builds his case in showing how the natural conclusion was that Dyke dutifully placed the stolen manuscript into Lucy's waiting hands. This was a theft -- a crime -- and Joseph Smith could have pressed charges had he known exactly what happened. But Lucy flatly denied any involvement with the theft which left Joseph with an empty bag.

Good job, Don! Bravo!
I also thought that was a very well done section, chock full of insights and nifty detective work!
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

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

Post by Moksha »

Martin was gullible, but Joseph had good reason to believe that no angel was responsible for the theft. Can you match wits with Inspector Don Bradley and give the reason why Smith was not taken in by this explanation that satisfied Martin Harris?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

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

Post by Shulem »

Moksha wrote:
Sun Mar 19, 2023 4:32 am
Martin was gullible, but Joseph had good reason to believe that no angel was responsible for the theft. Can you match wits with Inspector Don Bradley and give the reason why Smith was not taken in by this explanation that satisfied Martin Harris?

Let me start by name dropping; nobody is more familiar with the source materials and historical data than Dan Vogel. Indubitably, my dear Moksha, Bradley was very dependent on Vogel! And, we can all be grateful to Vogel.

Joseph Smith's D&C 10 revelation reveals that Smith spiritually suspected the money diggers as the true culprits behind the theft. Bradley built a strong case in showing how Smith was absolutely convinced that the theft was the result of "stratagem" by those who were out to discredit the divine authenticity of the work. Bradley takes all that into consideration and lays out a good case on how they may have been involved and it's possible that all parties including Lucy acting as the kingpin and her son in law working in concert with the money diggers were behind the whole thing. The chapter concludes by naming the suspects or parties as "Harris family insiders and Palmyra-area money diggers."

From what I gather, I don't think Smith was extremely concerned with Lucy Harris as he was the money diggers, especially Peter Ingersoll and Samuel Lawrence who had motive to get even with Smith for refusing to share the wealth (gold plates) with his fellow money diggers. Smith was convinced that they were the ones responsible for the theft and however or by what means they got the manuscript was through stratagem and that Satan was behind a grand conspiracy to undermine the work.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

Chapter four provides details about the 1829 lawsuit against Joseph Smith and court proceedings in the trial that included testimony of money digger Peter Ingersoll who claimed Smith's golden Bible was a sham. Lucy Mack Smith recalls the story of how witnesses described the weight of the plates within a wooden box was faked by being filled with sand or lead. Mother Smith related how one witness claimed that Joseph admitted that there was nothing at all in the box and that the whole prop was nothing more than a sideshow to fool Martin Harris for the purpose of acquiring his money to fund the project.

The lawsuit against Joseph Smith in trying to shut down his operation was reason enough to scare the guilty perpetrators from ever admitting to being party with the theft of the manuscript. If Joseph Smith had reason and evidence to charge someone with the theft, he would have done just that! Smith could have sued the hell out of the "wicked" money diggers including Lucy Harris had he opportunity to do so. It would have been a just means in getting money out of Harris's pocket. The fact that Smith spent two months of his life working on the manuscript for his upcoming book was all the court would need to know that his livelihood had suffered at the hands of those who stole his work. It would have been very easy for Smith to prove damages and that two months of labor was destroyed by the theft and how several additional months to reproduce his work would have also been taken into consideration. Thus, the guilty parties, who ever they were would have been subject to a massive settlement determined by the court. Little wonder nobody ever stepped forward to take the blame! The Smith family would have hauled them into court and sued the hell out of them!

This is something that Bradley fails to take into consideration in narrating the accounts. Thus we see how important it is to think outside the box! Don Bradley sees out of his testimony eyes and believes Joseph Smith was a holy prophet. But I, Shulem, see things from a different viewpoint and see a conman and an opportunist who was very capable of screwing anyone who got in his way. Smith was capable of being vicious and shrewd -- he was the kind of guy that could imagine cutting off the head of a drunken man in order to sidestep the courts and steal his property. Isn't that right, Moksha. ;)
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

Marcus wrote:
Sun Mar 12, 2023 1:12 am
i am really enjoying your reviews and looking forward to future editions!! you add so much, thank you!

Marcus, my dear, I hope you are enjoying the show. ;)
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Don Bradley

Post by Moksha »

Shulem wrote:
Sun Mar 19, 2023 5:18 pm
Isn't that right, Moksha. ;)
Harris was the only one who placed credence in an absconding angel. Perhaps this relates to why he saw Jesus as a deer.

It would have been a reversal for Joseph to appear in court as a plaintiff rather than a defendant.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

I'll keep my comments on chapter five very brief. Bradley does a fantastic job documenting how the so-called NAMED "116" missing pages was not really 116 pages! Smith used that number in the original Preface because it represented the number of pages in the replacement that was finally published. It's rather complicated to explain and Bradley goes into considerable detail -- suffice it to say he makes an excellent case to show that the actual page length for the missing pages was more on the order of 300 pages. So, in a nutshell, the "116" is just a name to represent the lost manuscript based on the size of the replacement that covered the period in question from Lehi to the reign of king Benjamin.

I have no complaints or anything of value to add to his meticulously arranged summation based on the data compiled and analyzed. I'm sure it made his head spin. But he makes a good case in showing that the lost manuscript was much longer than traditionally thought.

One thing that peeked my interest was how "Joseph Smith acknowledges the scribal services of the lost manuscript only of those who continued as believers in its divinity." His 1832 personal history mentioned Emma and Samuel Smith but failed to include early scribes, Alva & Reuben Hale who did not remain faithful to the cause. Talk about having names blotted out!
Post Reply