Coins in the Book of Mormon

[LeSellers]

If it was units of measure, then you would have the same units for both gold and silver, with an exchange rate between them. A unit of measure is just that: a unit. You don't invent different units for different kinds of metals.

Here's how it reads:

Alma 11

5 Now the reckoning is thusâ??a senine of gold, a seon of gold, a shum of gold, and a limnah of gold.

6 A senum of silver, an amnor of silver, an ezrom of silver, and an onti of silver.

If it were units of measurement, it would make more sense to read like this:

Alma 11

5 Now the reckoning is thusâ??a senine of gold, a seon of gold, a shum of gold, and a limnah of gold.

6 A senine of silver, an seon of silver, a shum of silver, and a limnah of silver.

6a A senine was ten seons. A seon was ten shums. A shum was ten limnahs. A limnah of gold was worth two limnahs of silver.

Now that's a unit of measure.

Except that the units, while they have different names, have one remarkable characteristic: they do not (as I had always expected them to) show the greater value of gold compared to silver. Both measures grow in the same direction, and they are paired, senine-senum, seon-amnor, shum-ezrom, limnah-onti. The greater value of gold is, in most coinage systems, displayed by the fact that there while may be some overlap between coins of silver and of gold, the gold invariably ends up with larger values not covered by silver coins and smaller values in silver coins that are not covered by gold coins.

There are two reasons for this:

1. Gold's greater density means that coins will be smaller than silver coins of the same value (e.g., a gold ten dollar piece would be relatively small, and a silver ten-dollar piece would be huge (think ten time the size of a silver dollar â?? back before LBJ debased the coinage in the 60s)
   
2. the convenience of carrying coins is lost when tiny coins or huge ones co-exist. The stone money of the Yaps is often so large that the owners are obliged to leave it lying in the street, since transporting it is impossible. Change of ownership simply takes the form of the old owner's telling everyone that John now owns it. (Theft is not a problem, either, since concealing a stolen "coin" is difficult, and the entire island knows who it belongs to in the first place.)
   

By identifying the ratio of gold or silver to "a measure of barley", we are left with few options other than that of masses => grain. Coins just do not do it.

Lehi

[Calm]

And that's where it all falls apart.

If it was units of measure, then you would have the same units for both gold and silver, with an exchange rate between them. A unit of measure is just that: a unit. You don't invent different units for different kinds of metals.

Do you have support for this statement or are you basing this on reason? (Considering the variety of names for measurements just in the English language---for example "karat" for measuring purity in gold or platinum while silver uses a different standard--I would be reluctant to make an absolute statement like this myself without some reliable source.)

[cinepro]

Do you have support for this statement or are you basing this on reason? (Considering the variety of names for measurements just in the English language---for example "karat" for measuring purity in gold or platinum while silver uses a different standard--I would be reluctant to make an absolute statement like this myself without some reliable source.)

No, I'm just making this up as I go along.

Regarding your analogy to "karat", that isn't a measure of value but is instead the measure of purity. The whole idea behind a currency system is that people don't need to worry about such things; the money is worth what it is worth.

We also haven't really discussed how this verse would make sense if they weren't using coins:

Alma 11

4 Now these are the names of the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value. And the names are given by the Nephites, for they did not reckon after the amanner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem; neither did they measure after the manner of the Jews; but they altered their reckoning and their measure, according to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation, until the reign of the judges, they having been bestablished by king Mosiah.

Were the Jews using coins in Jerusalem at that time? How would that verse mean anything if their monetary system didn't have some significant similarity (or obvious tie-in) with the ancient Jewish system?

Ultimately, as far as I can tell, giving pieces of metal "names" that denote their value in a currency system is pretty much the definition of "coin".

[Anijen]

No, I'm just making this up as I go along.

Regarding your analogy to "karat", that isn't a measure of value but is instead the measure of purity. The whole idea behind a currency system is that people don't need to worry about such things; the money is worth what it is worth.

We also haven't really discussed how this verse would make sense if they weren't using coins:

Were the Jews using coins in Jerusalem at that time? How would that verse mean anything if their monetary system didn't have some significant similarity (or obvious tie-in) with the ancient Jewish system?

Ultimately, as far as I can tell, giving pieces of metal "names" that denote their value in a currency system is pretty much the definition of "coin".

IIRC Coins were not used 600 BC, coins came later. So the money system being compared to coins like used in Jerusalem is a no go. Though called money and like ebbed wrote this does not have to mean coins.

[hagoth7]

Regarding your analogy to "karat"...

I believe you've misunderstood the reason they brought up "karat."

To back up, you said that the units of measure mentioned in Alma 11 must be referring to specific coins, otherwise they wouldn't have specific names.

That logic doesn't quite hold up.

A cup. A quart. A gallon. They all have names. But they're not coins. I'll show how using volumes like that matches the passages quite nicely.

We also haven't really discussed how this verse would make sense if they weren't using coins:

Alma 11

4 Now these are the names of the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value. And the names are given by the Nephites, for they did not reckon after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem; neither did they measure after the manner of the Jews; but they altered their reckoning and their measure, according to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation, until the reign of the judges, they having been established by king Mosiah.

OK, let's discuss it.

They're talking about how they measured. A measurement.

If you'll note the context surrounding verse 4, they way they measured (or reckoned) was in association with a measure of grain.

We're talking about an agrarian-based economy.

Imagine a scale.

On one side, you place a specific measure (volume) of grain. Let's say a cup of grain.

To purchase that measure or volume of grain, the way to reckon how much to pay is to put the appropriate amount of silver on the other side. When the scale balances, you have arrived at a fair payment or reckoning.

[cinepro]

We're talking about an agrarian-based economy.

Imagine a scale.

On one side, you place a specific measure (volume) of grain. Let's say a cup of grain.

To purchase that measure or volume of grain, the way to reckon how much to pay is to put the appropriate amount of silver on the other side. When the scale balances, you have arrived at a fair payment or reckoning.

Not to belabor the point, but that isn't what's being described.

The system in Alma 11 has specific values for specific amounts of gold and silver. There is a certain amount referenced to "a measure of barley", but they aren't on "the barley standard" for their economy. If I were explaining the US monetary system to someone in Mexico, I might say "a dollar can buy you a taco at Taco Bell" as a point of reference, but hopefully they wouldn't assume we are actually on the taco standard, and that all money is referenced back to its weight in Mexican food.

And even if your scenario were the case, the issue of money would be relevant for purchases of things other than barley. When a Nephite goes to buy a new macahuitl, if the sword maker is to be paid using gold or silver, then the system in Alma 11 implies he would set measure his payment according to the named standards, not relative to barley weights. And the person buying the sword would need to have the money in a form that is recognizable. Ergo: coins. (For example, Amulek's presentation of six onties of silver makes no reference to a nearby scale or barley supply with which to measure the silver. It is presented as being self-evidently "six onties".)

[hagoth7]

Besides the first isn't really a celebration of independence, but of confederation which was the uniting of all the provinces into one country.

I really appreciate the reply. I've been thinking about your post for some time.

And the more I think about it, the more I like the emphasis/message of confederation/uniting over the more common American emphasis on rebellion/independence. Thank you!

Perhaps I need to read up again on Covey's concept of interdependence.

[ebeddoulos]

Not to belabor the point, but that isn't what's being described.

The system in Alma 11 has specific values for specific amounts of gold and silver. There is a certain amount referenced to "a measure of barley", but they aren't on "the barley standard" for their economy. If I were explaining the US monetary system to someone in Mexico, I might say "a dollar can buy you a taco at Taco Bell" as a point of reference, but hopefully they wouldn't assume we are actually on the taco standard, and that all money is referenced back to its weight in Mexican food.

And even if your scenario were the case, the issue of money would be relevant for purchases of things other than barley. When a Nephite goes to buy a new macahuitl, if the sword maker is to be paid using gold or silver, then the system in Alma 11 implies he would set measure his payment according to the named standards, not relative to barley weights. And the person buying the sword would need to have the money in a form that is recognizable. Ergo: coins. (For example, Amulek's presentation of six onties of silver makes no reference to a nearby scale or barley supply with which to measure the silver. It is presented as being self-evidently "six onties".)

Cinepro, it is not that difficult to understand. Alma 11 describes economics at its most basic â?? primarily agrarian but with some limited precios metal used to facilitate exchange. Alma 11 has three monetary systems under discussion, i.e., grain, gold and silver. Alma 11 is nothing more than an exchange rate between the three systems. One city might use gold as its standard while another city would use silver but both would primarily use grain.

Not every Nephite would be familiar with precious metals as a medium of exchange. The inter-city traders and government officials almost certainly understood all three. Merchants and local shop keepers would understood the concept of grain as a medium of exchange and probably the precious metal which their local city used. But the average Nephite most likely only understood the concept of money by equating it with grain. Hypothetically speaking, X amount of labor would get you a measure of barley, a jaguar skin would get you a measure of barley; a bundle of quetzal feathers would get you a measure of barley; an obsidian knife blade would get you a measure of barley. Everyone at the gut level (pun intended) would understood the concept of grain as money. This is why Alma 11 equates the other two systems to it. X amount of gold or Y amount of silver will get you a measure of barley. This is not that difficult to understand.