Ceeboo Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 May I suggest a HUG between Tchild and Wade ???I dunno, just a thought.Peace,Ceeboo
Garden Girl Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 But fast enough to outrun more than one unburdened pursuer.I would posit that adrenaline(sp?) would enter in here... ever read the stories of feats of strength being performed by persons in stressful situations, i.e., lifting of vehicles to save someone, etc., or, running through woods to escape pursuers in order to protect something entrusted to a person by an angel... the adrenaline must have been flowing in Joseph... and, because I am a person of faith, I believe that the Lord would have helped Joseph in his efforts to meet his stewardship. (In spite of TC2 and other naysayers). The Lord will accomplish his purposes through his servants, even in their weaknesses. And no amount of ridicule by disbelievers can make it otherwise.GG
Tchild2 Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 May I suggest a HUG between Tchild and Wade ???I dunno, just a thought.Peace,CeebooI would give Wade a big cyber bear hug any day of the week.
Jaybear Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 But maybe we can initiate an annual event out of it. Call it the Plate Run, and invite pros and cons to compete.Sounds good to me. Be sure to put it up on you tube, so that you and Wade can mock us fools that said the story did not have a ring of credibility.
wenglund Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 To me anyway, the story reflects mostly, Joseph Smith prepping others as to why the plates would be withheld from their view; because they were so valuable and sought after by evil men, that he (J.S) had to constantly be on his guard and that others were constantly seeking to steal them from him. Now, if plates never existed, and you wanted to pretend they did for the sake of others, a story like this is part of the "prepping" to control how and when the plates are witnessed by others just enough to satisfy so that others would believe.Given your lengthy training in the gym, perhaps you could explain the physics and logic of how others could have witnessed the plates that, according to you, never existed.Perhaps you could also explain how this story, the only public record of which was written by Joseph's mother some 15 years after the events in question, would be used years before then to prep others for only eventually showing them the plates you vigerously believe didn't exist.Here's a hug as per Ceeboo. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
mledbetter Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 Sounds good to me. Be sure to put it up on you tube, so that you and Wade can mock us fools that said the story did not have a ring of credibility.You'd have to introduce adrenaline into the experiment. Make sure the guy carrying the heavy object doesn't know that he'll be getting shot at with rubber bullets until right before he starts running.
MAsh Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 Its my impression that the story .... Smith running in the woods, fighting off a gang of ruffians intent on stealing the golden plates, all the while carry 60 lbs of plates under his arm ... is facially absurd. In my view, it has the same ring of credibilty as a Paul Dunn war story. Moreover, its my impression is that its the apologists with their superstrong farmboy theory, and their trained soldier carrying a backpack analogy that are truly embarrassing themselves.Interesting comments from someone who has not dealt with the substance of the argument I've presented in this thread multiple times. In fact, no one has dealt substantively with my primary argument. JS did not tell this story. His mother did. We know of the account from HER retelling of the story some time after the fact. The fundamental parts to the story are (and I really hate to keep repeating myself): JS carried the plates through the woods in his frock. He was attacked (more than once), fought of his attackers, and made it home safely with little more than a slightly damaged hand and some expanded lungs.In order to make this story "super" human, some people tend to read Lucy's account as having J run through the woods while being chased by assailants and fighting them off with one hand. While I suppose that's one way to read her account, it's certainly not the only way. And in order to make this account work the super human way, we MUST understand "jump" as hurdling a fallen tree, and "at his top speed" as running-- marathon style-- from his persuers. Finally (as noted in an earlier post), it REQUIRES that he held the plates in front of him (thereby impeding his ability to run quickly) and to fight with one hand (never setting down or dropping the plates-- or having them knocked out of his hands by his attacker). Until you address the real issues, it's the critics that look embarassing.
Calm Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 Clearing land (of brush, trees and rocks) only needs to be done when you are converting new land.And this is exactly what the Smiths did, didn't they?They also built a cabin and then a house.Besides the best strength building is not through constant use of the muscles, but working the muscles hard, giving them a rest, then working them again and repeating the cycle.The boys also hired out for work and since they were unskilled labourers, chances are they were doing the heavy grunt work at the places that hired them.
krose Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 And this is exactly what the Smiths did, didn't they?I don't know if they had to reclaim any forest land, but if they did, it would only have to be done once.Edit: Just checked Bushman's book, and it does mention clearing some land for planting an orchard at one point.
mledbetter Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 And this is exactly what the Smiths did, didn't they?They also built a cabin and then a house.Besides the best strength building is not through constant use of the muscles, but working the muscles hard, giving them a rest, then working them again and repeating the cycle.The boys also hired out for work and since they were unskilled labourers, chances are they were doing the heavy grunt work at the places that hired them.Sometime after the Smiths moved to Palmyra, they bought or leased a plot of forested land of about 100 acres. Typically in that day, according to Bushman, one man could clear about 10 acres per season. The Smiths cleared about 30, with the help of the young men. They were probably clearing land for a good portion of the time they were there, weren't they? That's some pretty intense labor, given the equipment they had back then. I tried to remove one stupid Bradford Pear tree in my front yard. After one day of hard labor, I was hurting for a week. That's with a chainsaw. I hired some dude to remove the stump.-Matt
krose Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 So each side of an argument calls the other's claims so ridiculous as to be embarrassing. It seems the only way to solve it would be to get the opinion of a selection of people with no interest in either side of the debate, and no prior knowledge of who supposedly did it. Here's the question I would suggest putting to a few outsiders (make them military training experts, even), without revealing the name of the subject:On a scale of one to ten, how believable is it to you that a young man of average size, with no special training other than farm work and occasional amateur wrestling, could successfully fight off or outrun several attackers in the woods, while carrying a rectangular stack of metal sheets that are tied together and weigh between 40 and 60 pounds?You could vary the weight and see how the opinion changes. Then you could add in things like jumping logs and reassess.How do you think it would turn out (1 = almost no possibility, 10 = it could easily be done)?
Tchild2 Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 Interesting comments from someone who has not dealt with the substance of the argument I've presented in this thread multiple times. In fact, no one has dealt substantively with my primary argument. JS did not tell this story. His mother did. We know of the account from HER retelling of the story some time after the fact. The fundamental parts to the story are (and I really hate to keep repeating myself): JS carried the plates through the woods in his frock. He was attacked (more than once), fought of his attackers, and made it home safely with little more than a slightly damaged hand and some expanded lungs.I believe I have addressed it. It is possible that the story was misremembered, embellished or important details forgotten and omitted in the telling of the story by Lucy Mack Smith either by her or by J.S. It is also possible that Joseph Smith didn't offer every detail of his alleged event, and didn't explain the day in a play by play factual way. It is possible that the retelling by Lucy Mack Smith is missing many or most of the crucial details that would make the story seem more plausible.In order to make this story "super" human, some people tend to read Lucy's account as having J run through the woods while being chased by assailants and fighting them off with one hand. While I suppose that's one way to read her account, it's certainly not the only way. And in order to make this account work the super human way, we MUST understand "jump" as hurdling a fallen tree, and "at his top speed" as running-- marathon style-- from his persuers. Finally (as noted in an earlier post), it REQUIRES that he held the plates in front of him (thereby impeding his ability to run quickly) and to fight with one hand (never setting down or dropping the plates-- or having them knocked out of his hands by his attacker).Sure, but how else can we read the story without undue speculation that renders any understanding impossible because any speculative theory could enter into the formula?Until you address the real issues, it's the critics that look embarassing.Again, it has been addressed. The points made on this thread are only in direct response to what the retelling of the story by LMS actually says. I have agreed that if the story were different, my arguments would be off and I could be wrong.What you haven't addressed is if Moroni instructed Joseph Smith to keep quiet about the plates, how did three "assailants" just happen to pick the right day Joseph Smith was retrieving the plates? Did J.S. ever report being assailed before the day he actually had the plates on mere rumor that he had them? Surely, if people knew of the plates before he had possession of them, they would have been trying to get them from day 1. Well?
mledbetter Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 So each side of an argument calls the other's claims so ridiculous as to be embarrassing.Seems to me that your side is the only side making that claim.It's a pretty well established fact that you are simply leaving out possible variables.The effects of early 19th century manual farm labor on a young man's body.The variable of adrenaline in the body of a scared 21 year old (kid) with said body.How would you reproduce either of these in a way that would be testable as to make any of our arguments here so ridiculous as to be embarrassing?
krose Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 Seems to me that your side is the only side making that claim.Dude, give it up. You're making yourself look bad.Until you address the real issues, it's the critics that look embarassing.
Calm Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 Sometime after the Smiths moved to Palmyra, they bought or leased a plot of forested land of about 100 acres. Typically in that day, according to Bushman, one man could clear about 10 acres per season. The Smiths cleared about 30, with the help of the young men. They were probably clearing land for a good portion of the time they were there, weren't they? That's some pretty intense labor, given the equipment they had back then. I tried to remove one stupid Bradford Pear tree in my front yard. After one day of hard labor, I was hurting for a week. That's with a chainsaw. I hired some dude to remove the stump.-MattSomeone did a writeup on FAIR awhile back, got to go to the ortho so can't look it up myself.
krose Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 It's a pretty well established fact that you are simply leaving out possible variables.The effects of early 19th century manual farm labor on a young man's body.The variable of adrenaline in the body of a scared 21 year old (kid) with said body.How would you reproduce either of these in a way that would be testable as to make any of our arguments here so ridiculous as to be embarrassing?How do you know that the men chasing Smith were not farm laborers as well, giving them equal farm-boy super powers? As people in a conflict situation who are being assaulted by a surprisingly agile and strong youth, their adrenaline level should also be pretty high.I'm afraid certain variables could not be tested, such as divine assistance. That would have to be left out.
wenglund Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 Here's the question I would suggest putting to a few outsiders (make them military training experts, even), without revealing the name of the subject:On a scale of one to ten, how believable is it to you that a young man of average size, with no special training other than farm work and occasional amateur wrestling, could successfully fight off or outrun several attackers in the woods, while carrying a rectangular stack of metal sheets that are tied together and weigh between 40 and 60 pounds?You could vary the weight and see how the opinion changes. Then you could add in things like jumping logs and reassess.How do you think it would turn out (1 = almost no possibility, 10 = it could easily be done)?A good follow-up question might be:According to the same scale, how believable is it that a second-hand story containing the details above, that wasn't made public until 15 years after the event in question, would be considered as evidence that the main character had used the story years earlier as an excuse to not show for a time plates that supposedly didn't exist, though at least 11 people witnessed to having eventually been shown and held the vigorously alleged non-existent plates?How do you suppose the responses to this second question would compare with the responses to first question?Thanks, -Wade Englund-
mledbetter Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 krose:Given your last reply, they are correct, because the context was obviously referring to your inability to accept certain facts and not referring to the argument about whether or not JS could have carried those plates while running a breakneck speed to get away from his assailants.Why do you guys have such a difficult time with context? Your spouse must get frustrated arguing with you.
mledbetter Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 How do you know that the men chasing Smith were not farm laborers as well, giving them equal farm-boy super powers? As people in a conflict situation who are being assaulted by a surprisingly agile and strong youth, their adrenaline level should also be pretty high.I'm afraid certain variables could not be tested, such as divine assistance. That would have to be left out.Or...were they farm-boys who just spent as much time as JS just spend removing trees on their farms?Or...were they lazy stable hands?Or...did they work at the local grocery store stealing candy and getting fat?Or...were they professional poker players and typically drunk?etc...Thanks for proving my point. There are a lot of unknown variables removing your ability to claim that our arguments are "ridiculous and embarrassing".One simply can't prove one way or the other. If one has faith in the Prophet, then there is plenty of room to believe his story as being possible and even likely (if one has faith one can throw in the 'divine assistance' variable very conveniently).
Jaybear Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 A good follow-up question might be:According to the same scale, how believable is it that a second-hand story containing the details above, that wasn't made public until 15 years after the event in question, would be considered as evidence that the main character had used the story years earlier as an excuse to not show for a time plates that supposedly didn't exist, though at least 11 people witnessed to having eventually been shown and held the vigorously alleged non-existent plates?How do you suppose the responses to this second question would compare with the responses to first question?Thanks, -Wade Englund-Remind me again, why didn't Joseph show the plates to his mother, father and brothers after he narrowly escaped the ruffians and made it home? One would think that they would want to see what all the fuss was about.
Moon Quaker Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 Tchild2 has reiterated many times that military soldiers et al. carry their extra loads distributed over their body. Yet people keep chiming in with "well soldiers [yadda yadda yadda] ..."With my young boys, we've run in a couple 5K races. Being little kids, I've had to carry them during the race. Each one being 30 and 40 pounds, I can tell you that running with either one under my arm is fatiguing before I even get 100 yards in (and that's even with most of their weight resting on my hips, not my arm.) OTOH, when I carry them on my back or on my shoulders (with the weight distributed over my body and/or directly above my center of mass) I can go a lot farther without getting fatigued.I'm just sayin'.
LeSellers Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 if Moroni instructed Joseph Smith to keep quiet about the plates, how did three "assailants" just happen to pick the right day Joseph Smith was retrieving the plates? Did J.S. ever report being assailed before the day he actually had the plates on mere rumor that he had them? Surely, if people knew of the plates before he had possession of them, they would have been trying to get them from day 1.Do you have any information on this hypothetical instruction "to keep quiet about the plates"? Because it seems Joseph did not follow it if it existed. According to Lucy Mack, they did try "to get them from day 1." His family all knew. His dying brother Alvin knew about them, and so did Emma. The other brothers knew beforehand that he would get them in September, 1827. It is doubtful that this kind of information would be kept solely in the family. Samuel Lawrence knew about the plates, so did Joseph Knight, Sr., and perhaps the entire village of Palmyra. Lehi
Thunderfire Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 Gold plates would have been about 70-80 pounds heavier. I'm just wondering, how would Joseph Smith be able to carry this? I'm a pretty big guy (I played offensive line, and I still weigh about 290 or so), and yet there is no way I would have been able to outrun anyone, like it says Joseph Smith did.One aspect (I believe) which many fail to consider is that they can only understand the writings Joseph translated as similar to our writings in this day. YES, Joseph did (for a time) use the "seer stone" and translated one word at a time. Because of this we "think" the symbols on the plates had to represent specific words and not "more complex thoughts or phrases". Here is an example to consider: In Japanese Kanji (writing style), 4 symbols which read "Hito o Shi Ri" when interpreted in English means "To build good relationships with people". I understand this example is limited, but it shows the mistake we make when looking at another language and applying our English style of writing to itWe are using speculation here since none of us have seen the plates or have been allowed to interpret what Joseph saw. So I believe we error in saying the plates would be too heavy to contain our English translation, when we do not understand the differences in the two languages being compared in written form.
wenglund Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 Remind me again, why didn't Joseph show the plates to his mother, father and brothers after he narrowly escaped the ruffians and made it home? One would think that they would want to see what all the fuss was about.While your question is beside the point, let me ask you back: why would they need to see that which they had been told about for years, but had been obviously excluded by God from seeing throughout that time? Clearly, they already knew what the fuss was about, as did also those making the fuss.Thanks, -Wade Englund
wenglund Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 Tchild2 has reiterated many times that military soldiers et al. carry their extra loads distributed over their body. Yet people keep chiming in with "well soldiers [yadda yadda yadda] ..."With my young boys, we've run in a couple 5K races. Being little kids, I've had to carry them during the race. Each one being 30 and 40 pounds, I can tell you that running with either one under my arm is fatiguing before I even get 100 yards in (and that's even with most of their weight resting on my hips, not my arm.) OTOH, when I carry them on my back or on my shoulders (with the weight distributed over my body and/or directly above my center of mass) I can go a lot farther without getting fatigued.I'm just sayin'.Others are just sayin' that the weight of the plates could be distributed onto the shoulder and the back through the use of a linen shirt. Hense the reiteration about military soldiers who do likewise with even heavier military equipment all the time--which, apparently you and Tchild2 seem not to get. Others of us aren't certain whether Lucy's late secondhand account is entirely accurate or not, but could care less one way or the other since upon none of her story do any of us (at least to my knowledge) rest our faith in the restored gospel and the verity of the Book of Mormon. In truth, it is a non-issue.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.