ERayR Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Of course. But then again... nobody is disputing the obvious. The contention is whether or not metal sheets would be "pliable like thick paper." Sure... they would be pliable. But like thick paper? Sounds a little odd. Can you admit that much?No Aluminum foil is very pliable. Why don't you actually look at and read Connolly's post. Post #8.
ERayR Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Does any believing Mormon here agree that Emma's comparison (of the pliability of the sheets to "thick paper") is odd?No. What is your experience with thin metals? If you had any experience you would not be asking these questions. Your experience in the kitchen should suffice.
why me Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Whatever emma said, she was a believer in the book of mormon her entire life. And she taught her children from the book of mormon. And that says much about what she felt and said. And in the end, it really does not matter what it is claimed she said. Her testimony of the book of mormon says much about her feelings and beliefs.
Mike Reed Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Is tin foil pliable like thick paper? Who said anything about tinfoil? Those who claimed to have knowledge of the gold plates' dimensions compared the thickness of the plates to common tin/tin/tin plate, parchment, and a pane of glass. Tinfoil in Smith's day was not nearly this thick. And yes... there is a difference between "common tin" and "common tinfoil."Why don't you actually look at and read Connolly's post.Um... I did read it. I chose not to respond to it because it didn't address my question.What is your experience with thin metals? If you had any experience you would not be asking these questions. Your experience in the kitchen should suffice.The thickness of tinfoil is irrelevant. The witnesses never claimed the plates to be as thin as tinfoil.
Glenn101 Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 Who said anything about tinfoil? Those who claimed to have knowledge of the gold plates' dimensions compared the width of the plates to common tin/tin/tin plate, parchment, and a pane of glass. Tinfoil in Smith's day was not nearly this thick. And yes... there is a difference between "common tin" and "common tinfoil."Um... I did read it. I chose not to respond to it because it didn't address my central question.Of course you wouldn
maupayman Posted July 22, 2010 Author Posted July 22, 2010 Who said anything about tinfoil? Those who claimed to have knowledge of the gold plates' dimensions compared the width of the plates to common tin/tin/tin plate, parchment, and a pane of glass. Hey Mike, do you have a reference for this? Thanks
Mike Reed Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 .. David Whitmer said that {t}hey were about as thick as parchment, which correlates very well with Emma's experience.Right. But it doesn't correlate very well with ERayR's insinuation that the plates would have been as thin as tinfoil. Nor does it correlate very well with the pliability Emma described. Now... back to my initial question, would metal the thickness of parchment be pliable like "thick paper"?
Glenn101 Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 Mike Reed, on 21 July 2010 - 05:43 PM, said:Who said anything about tinfoil? Those who claimed to have knowledge of the gold plates' dimensions compared the width of the plates to common tin/tin/tin plate, parchment, and a pane of glass.Hey Mike, do you have a reference for this? ThanksYou might check out this document. It is at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=10&num=1&id=235Glenn
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.