New Era Casts Some Doubt On The Bom Plates

[thesometimesaint]

 

Page 30 of the July 2007 New Era magazine says, "Neither Joseph nor any of the 

witnesses said that the ancient record was made from solid gold. Nor did they use 

the term “gold plates” or “plates of gold.” All Joseph said is that they had "the 

appearance of gold ... It is more appropriate to refer to the ancient metal record 

as the Golden Plates, referring to their color, not the material they were made of".

 

This would confirm the testimony of the eight witnesses, that the plates had the 

appearance of gold.

 

I had several questions about this.

 

Why isn't the testimony of the eight witnesses more in agreement with Joseph's 

testimony that is recorded at the beginning of the Book of Mormon (where he said 

they were gold plates)?

 

Does the Mosiah 8:9 reference to 24 plates of pure gold mean they were not included 

in the plates Joseph supposedly found?

 

With so many references in General Conference about "gold plates" and "plates of 

gold", should people reject the testimony of the eight witnesses and the New Era 

article? (see attached)

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

 

When looking for an excuse any will do.

[smac97]

Page 30 of the July 2007 New Era magazine says, "Neither Joseph nor any of the witnesses said that the ancient record was made from solid gold. Nor did they use the term “gold plates” or “plates of gold.”

Actually, that's not entirely correct ("Nor did they use the term 'gold plates'"). Joseph Smith quoted Moroni as saying that "there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates." (v. 34). He also quotes Martin Harris as referencing "gold plates" (v. 64). The JBMS article referenced elsewhere in this thread provides additional first-person descriptions of the plates.

 

"Gold" as an adjective is ambiguous.  It can mean "consisting of gold" or "like gold" or "of the color of gold." I don't think anyone ever subjected the plates to metallurgical analysis. However, circumstantial evidence would seem to militate in favor of some sort of gold alloy (particularly since Joseph Smith quoted Moroni as using the phrase "gold plates"). The Nephites apparently worked in metals (2 Nephi 5:15), and were able to ascertain plates made of "pure" gold (Mosiah 8:9). Moreover, the first-hand accounts of the plates by Joseph Smith and his contemporaries are noticeably cautious in describing the plates ("the appearance of gold," "a mixture of gold and copper," etc.).

 

"All Joseph said is that they had "the appearance of gold ... It is more appropriate to refer to the ancient metal record as the Golden Plates, referring to their color, not the material they were made of".

Again, this is not entirely correct. That is not "all" that "Joseph said." Nevertheless, the term "gold plates" is quite compatible with the other descriptions of the plates.

 

This would confirm the testimony of the eight witnesses, that the plates had the appearance of gold.

"The appearance of gold" does not require the plates to be made of pure gold, or even of gold at all.

 

I had several questions about this.

 

Why isn't the testimony of the eight witnesses more in agreement with Joseph's testimony that is recorded at the beginning of the Book of Mormon (where he said they were gold plates)?

There is no disagreement between Joseph Smith's descriptions of the plates and the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses.

 

Does the Mosiah 8:9 reference to 24 plates of pure gold mean they were not included in the plates Joseph supposedly found?

 

The contents of these plates comprise the Book of Ether in The Book of Mormon (see Ether 1:2).  You will note that by this point Moroni had taken over his father's role as abridger of records, and in Ether 1:2 he states: "And I take mine account from the twenty and four plates which were found by the people of Limhi..." (emphasis added).  I think the most reasonable extrapolation here is that Moroni did not include the physical "pure gold" plates in the abridged plates later delivered to Joseph Smith.  Instead, I think Moroni wrote a summary of those records on other plates which were part of those delivered to Joseph Smith.

 

With so many references in General Conference about "gold plates" and "plates of gold", should people reject the testimony of the eight witnesses and the New Era article? (see attached)

No. From the JBMS article:

 

OF WHAT MATERIAL WERE THE PLATES?

Were the Book of Mormon plates pure gold, or were they made from an alloy that looked like gold? The most serious investigation of this question was done 45 years ago by Read H. Putnam of Evanston, Wyoming, a blacksmith and metallurgist. Working first from the general dimensions of the set of plates as reported by eyewitnesses, he calculated that a block of pure gold of that size would have weighed a little over 200 pounds. A number of witnesses, however, put the weight of the set at about 60 pounds. The discrepancy can be partly accounted for by the fact that the leaves must have been handcrafted, presumably by hammering, and irregularities in flatness would have left air space between the plates. This led Putnam to surmise that the entire set of plates would have weighed probably less than 50 percent of the weight of a solid block of the metal.

Because the weight of a metal depends on its purity, we must also consider whether the plates were of pure gold. The Nephites were aware of purity distinctions and alloys. We know, for example, that the “brass” plates were of an alloy (quite surely bronze, a copper-tin mixture) and that the plates of Ether were specifically distinguished as being of “pure” gold (Mosiah 8:9). Furthermore, Nephi taught his associates “to work in all manner of” metals and “precious ores” (2 Nephi 5:15). Yet nowhere does the text say that the Nephites’ plates were of pure gold.

Joseph Smith’s brother William specifically said that the material of the plates was “a mixture of gold and copper.” (Someone must have provided an objective basis for that statement, for the natural assumption would have been that the plates were pure gold.) The cautious statements by other witnesses, including Joseph Smith himself, who spoke of the plates as having “the appearance of gold,” suggest that the metal may have been an alloy.

Putnam observed that the only two colored metals from antiquity were gold and copper. An alloy of those two elements was called “tumbaga” by the Spaniards and was in common use in ancient tropical America for manufacturing precious objects. Putnam put forward the reasonable hypothesis that metal plates made in Mormon’s day were of that material (the earliest Mesoamerican archaeological specimen of tumbaga — made from a hammered metal sheet — dates to the same century, the fifth century a.d., when Moroni hid up the plates he had in his possession). If Mormon’s Book of Mormon plates were made of tumbaga, their weight would have been much less than had they been made of pure gold. Putnam made that point in mathematical detail and concluded that the total weight of the plates in Joseph Smith’s charge would have been near the 60-pound figure reported by several witnesses.

It is of interest that tumbaga was commonly gilded by applying citric acid to the surface. The resulting chemical reaction eliminated copper atoms from the outer .0006 inch of the surface, leaving a microscopic layer of 23-carat gold that made the object look like it was wholly gold. Plates having “the appearance of gold,” then, are exactly what we would expect if they were made of tumbaga.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 7, 2015 by smac97

[theplains]

"Gold" as an adjective is ambiguous.  It can mean "consisting of gold" or "like gold" or "of the color of gold." Moreover, the first-hand accounts of the plates by Joseph Smith and his contemporaries are noticeably cautious in describing the plates ("the appearance of gold," "a mixture of gold and copper," etc.).

 

Do you have any GC sources that say the plates were not made of gold entirely but rather a mixture

of alloys?

 

An October 1983 GC talk said, "They wrote the history of their nation, engraving it upon plates of

gold to resist the ravages of time, for that record was to have significant importance in latter days".

 

Does this (and the other GC sermons I provided) reflect the early LDS belief that God could and

did miraculously preserve the gold plates whereas some modern day LDS people tend to eliminate

a miracle and invent a theory that gold could not survive intact without other alloys?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[JLHPROF]

 

Do you have any GC sources that say the plates were not made of gold entirely but rather a mixture

of alloys?

 

An October 1983 GC talk said, "They wrote the history of their nation, engraving it upon plates of

gold to resist the ravages of time, for that record was to have significant importance in latter days".

 

Does this (and the other GC sermons I provided) reflect the early LDS belief that God could and

did miraculously preserve the gold plates whereas some modern day LDS people tend to eliminate

a miracle and invent a theory that gold could not survive intact without other alloys?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

 

You ARE determined to find a false statement on this aren't you?

I'll make it easy.  ANY time you find a statement that says gold (the solid metal) as you think, just change it in your head to golden (the color regardless of actual gold percentage content) as the speaker probably meant.

[JAHS]

You ARE determined to find a false statement on this aren't you?

I'll make it easy.  ANY time you find a statement that says gold (the solid metal) as you think, just change it in your head to golden (the color regardless of actual gold percentage content) as the speaker probably meant.

 

 There are places where it talks of the Nephites or Jaredites finding actual gold and silver, etc:,

 

"wherefore, they did cast up mighty heaps of earth to get ore, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of copper. " (Ether 10:23)

 

 but it never says the plates that Moroni had were made of gold. In fact the scriptures themselves never associate the word gold or any other color or metal with the plates that Moroni hid in the ground.  

And I don't think Joseph Smith ever took the time to run any chemical or physical analysis on the plates to test for actual gold content.

Edited April 7, 2015 by JAHS

[smac97]

Do you have any GC sources that say the plates were not made of gold entirely but rather a mixture of alloys?

Since pretty much all "GC sources" would be operating off the same set of facts as have been presented here, the dearth of such sources would not seem problematic.

Do you have any GC sources that say the plates were "made of gold entirely?"

 

An October 1983 GC talk said, "They wrote the history of their nation, engraving it upon plates of

gold to resist the ravages of time, for that record was to have significant importance in latter days".

I'm not sure there is much significance in the linguistic hairsplitting of "gold plates" and "plates of gold." I think it's fair to assume that the plates had some gold in them. Whether they were 100% gold is presently unknowable, but I think pure gold is less likely given the noticeably cautious first-person descriptions of the plates ("the appearance of gold," "a mixture of gold and copper," etc.), as well as the other evidence at had (pre-Columbian use of tumbaga, the weight of tumbaga plates matching/approximating first-person accounts of the weight of the plates, etc. - see here and here for more information).

 

Does this (and the other GC sermons I provided) reflect the early LDS belief that God could and did miraculously preserve the gold plates whereas some modern day LDS people tend to eliminate a miracle and invent a theory that gold could not survive intact without other alloys?

 

I reject your juxtaposition of "early LDS belief" with "some modern day LDS" belief.  I see no conflict at all.

 

I am open to the plates being made of "pure gold," but I think it's unlikely.  I think it's more likely they were made of a gold alloy.  That said, the metallurgical composition of the plates does not seem to hing on whether the plates were gold or a gold alloy.  Do you concur with that assessment?

 

Thank you,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

There are places where it talks of the Nephites or Jaredites finding actual gold and silver, etc:,

 

"wherefore, they did cast up mighty heaps of earth to get ore, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of copper. " (Ether 10:23)

 

 but it never says the plates that Moroni had were made of gold. In fact the scriptures themselves never associate the word gold or any other color or metal with the plates that Moroni hid in the ground.

With respect, I think you are incorrect.  As I noted earlier, Joseph Smith quoted Moroni as saying that "there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates." (v. 34). Joseph Smith-History is in the Pearl of Great Price. It has been my understanding that it is canonized.

 

And I don't think Joseph Smith ever took the time to run any chemical or physical analysis on the plates to test for actual gold content.

You're probably right. But according to Joseph Smith Moroni called them "gold plates." A person can, I suppose, argue that Moroni was referring exclusively to the appearance of the plates ("gold" in color, but not composition), but this would require a rejection of William Smith's assessment ("a mixture of gold and copper"), and also the tumbaga theory favored by many knowledgeable Latter-day Saints. I see no particular need to insist on any specific answer to this question.

Again from the JBMS article: "Plates having 'the appearance of gold,' then, are exactly what we would expect if they were made of tumbaga."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 8, 2015 by smac97

[Calm]

 

Does this (and the other GC sermons I provided) reflect the early LDS belief that God could and

did miraculously preserve the gold plates whereas some modern day LDS people tend to eliminate

a miracle and invent a theory that gold could not survive intact without other alloys?

 

The survival of the plates has nothing to do with whether they were made of 100% gold or a gold alloy coated with gold.  Gold is not very reactive, a gold alloy isn't going to be more likely to survive the elements than solid gold.  You are misunderstanding the discussion.  It would not be a miracle for gold plates to survive time if nothing were done to them.  It would be preventing them from being stolen or damaged by blunt force trauma or perhaps damaged by an acidic environment to have them found by a young man as directed by an angel that is the miracle…whether they are gold or gold alloy, that miracle of protection would be the same.  

Edited April 8, 2015 by calmoriah

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Do you have any GC sources that say the plates were not made of gold entirely but rather a mixture

of alloys?

 

An October 1983 GC talk said, "They wrote the history of their nation, engraving it upon plates of

gold to resist the ravages of time, for that record was to have significant importance in latter days".

 

Does this (and the other GC sermons I provided) reflect the early LDS belief that God could and

did miraculously preserve the gold plates whereas some modern day LDS people tend to eliminate

a miracle and invent a theory that gold could not survive intact without other alloys?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Were does it say they were pure gold? I can't seem to find it.

[ALarson]

Were does it say they were pure gold? I can't seem to find it.

Both David Whitmer and Lucy Mack Smith stated (or wrote) that the plates were of "pure gold".  

[JAHS]

Both David Whitmer and Lucy Mack Smith stated (or wrote) that the plates were of "pure gold".  

Were they  metallurgists?

[ALarson]

Were they  metallurgists?

Not that I know of, but that wasn't the question that Mola asked.  I simply stated that at least two people used the words "pure gold" when describing the plates.  David Whitmer did and so did Lucy Mack Smith.

 

Do I believe they were pure gold?  No.

[smac97]

Both David Whitmer and Lucy Mack Smith stated (or wrote) that the plates were of "pure gold".

 

According to the JBMS article, "Nowhere in the documentary evidence did the witnesses or other key participants in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon describe the plates as being made of solid or pure gold."  This article cites an 1857 newspaper article in which David Whitmer purportedly "stated that the plates were made of 'pure gold.'" The citation is "Saints’ Herald, February 15, 1878, 57."  This website includes the text of this article, which references John Whitmer, not David Whitmer.  Here's the text (emphasis added):

 

"We were down to the Whitmer school house to preaching on last Sabbath at eleven o'clock. Mr. John Whitmer delivered the discourse. It will be remembered by a great many readers, that Mr. Whitmer is one of only two now living that helped (were witnesses) to the translation of the Book of Mormon, or generally known as the Mormon Bible. Mr. Whitmer is considered a truthful, honest and law abiding citizen by this community, and consequentially, his appointment drew out a large audience. Mr. Whitmer stated that he had often handled the identical golden plates which Mr. Smith received from the hand of the angel, he said it was of pure gold, part of the book was sealed up solid, the other part was open and it was this part which was translated, and is termed today the Mormon Bible. This is the first time Mr. Whitmer has attempted to preach for a good many years; and time, who waits for no one, has written many a furrow upon his brow. He is upwards of sixty years old, and gave some good advice to both old and young. Before closing he asked the audience if they would take the Book of Mormon and the Bible and compare them, and to take Paul's rule, "To prove all things and hold fast to that which is good," in comparing them. (Saints' Herald, 15 Feb 1878, p. 57)

The above article also quotes a letter from Lucy Mack Smith to Mary Pierce, stating "where he could dig to obtain an ancient record engraven upon plates made of pure gold and this he is able to translate." The footnote is "Dean C. Jessee, 'Lucy Mack Smith’s 1829 Letter to Mary Smith Pierce,' BYU Studies, Fall 1982, 461." As far as I know, however, Lucy Mack Smith never claimed to have seen the plates (see here).

 

In sum, it seems that there is at least one (but likely only one) first-hand witness to the plates, John Whitmer, who referenced the plates as being made of "pure gold," and therefore the author of the JBMS article was not entirely correct in stating that "(n)owhere in the documentary evidence did the witnesses ... of the Book of Mormon describe the plates as being made of ... pure gold."  Nevertheless, I think the overall assessment in the JBMS article, and the general theories relating to a tumbaga alloy, are correct.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited April 8, 2015 by smac97

[ALarson]

 

According to the JBMS article, "Nowhere in the documentary evidence did the witnesses or other key participants in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon describe the plates as being made of solid or pure gold."  This article cites an 1857 newspaper article in which David Whitmer purportedly "stated that the plates were made of 'pure gold.'" The citation is "Saints’ Herald, February 15, 1878, 57."  This website includes the text of this article, which references John Whitmer, not David Whitmer.  Here's the text (emphasis added):

 

The above article also quotes a letter from Lucy Mack Smith to Mary Pierce, stating "where he could dig to obtain an ancient record engraven upon plates made of pure gold and this he is able to translate." The footnote is "Dean C. Jessee, 'Lucy Mack Smith’s 1829 Letter to Mary Smith Pierce,' BYU Studies, Fall 1982, 461." As far as I know, however, Lucy Mack Smith never claimed to have seen the plates (see here).

 

In sum, it seems that there is at least one (but likely only one) first-hand witness to the plates, John Whitmer, who referenced the plates as being made of "pure gold," and therefore that the author of the JBMS article was not entirely correct in stating that "(n)owhere in the documentary evidence did the witnesses ... of the Book of Mormon describe the plates as being made of ... pure gold."  Nevertheless, I think the overall assessment in the JBMS article, and the general theories relating to a tumbaga alloy, are correct.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Thanks for the info Smac.  I was not aware that it might not have been David Whitmer who was interviewed, but John....interesting.  David did give several interviews and I believe was one of the witnesses that spoke more often on the subject, so maybe that's where the confusion came in?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Both David Whitmer and Lucy Mack Smith stated (or wrote) that the plates were of "pure gold".  

Sweet. I thought I was talking about GC. Good thing your brought them up.

 

And it seems things are not what you claims as per Smac's reply.

[ALarson]

Sweet. I thought I was talking about GC. Good thing your brought them up.

 

And it seems things are not what you claims as per Smac's reply.

Well, the David Whitmer quote may be from John Whitmer although there seems to be some confusion on that.  I'd need to read more about that to see who was actually interviewed and quoted.  

 

The Lucy Mack Smith quote was from a letter that she did write, so it's not in question.

[smac97]

Thanks for the info Smac.  I was not aware that it might not have been David Whitmer who was interviewed, but John....interesting.  David did give several interviews and I believe was one of the witnesses that spoke more often on the subject, so maybe that's where the confusion came in?

 

I think the hullabaloo is all about the word "pure."  I don't fully understand why this is such a big deal, though. 

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

I'm astounded by the absolute rudeness of many of the responses to this question.

 

 

Newsflash: Gold can be combined with other metals!!!!!!

 

Total semantic quibbling.

 

You really ought to think before posting nonsense.

 

The term gold can refer both to a color and a precious metal, as well as other things. Not sure why that's hard to understand
 

Seriously? You'd think the OP called your mama fat and your baby ugly. Chill out.

[smac97]

Well, the David Whitmer quote may be from John Whitmer although there seems to be some confusion on that.  I'd need to read more about that to see who was actually interviewed and quoted.  

 

The Lucy Mack Smith quote was from a letter that she did write, so it's not in question.

 

AFAIK, Lucy Mack Smith was not a first-person witness of the plates, so her statement has lesser value.  John Whitmer, on the other hand, was one of the Eight Witnesses, so his apparent reference to "pure gold" is more probative.  However, his statement was made in 1878, making him around 76 years old and recollecting events from nearly 50 years prior.  And the historical record is a second-hand newspaper account from some fellow named "I.C. Funn."

 

I do not question the overall probity of John Whitmer's statements.  But I'm not sure we have much cause to put inordinate emphasis on a single word ("pure") in a single hearsay quote of a 76-year old recounting events from 50 years prior.  In my view, the cumulative evidence (cautious quotes from other first-had witnesses, various statements about the weight of the plates matching the weight expected of a tumbaga alloy, the overall unsuitability of pure gold plates as a medium, etc.) still weighs very much in favor of a gold alloy.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited April 8, 2015 by smac97

[ALarson]

AFAIK, Lucy Mack Smith was not a first-person witness of the plates, so her statement has lesser value.  John Whitmer, on the other hand, was one of the Eight Witnesses, so his apparent reference to "pure gold" is more probative.  However, his statement was made in 1878, making him around 76 years old and recollecting events from nearly 50 years prior.  And the historical record is a second-hand newspaper account from some fellow named "I.C. Funn."

 

I do not question the overall probity of John Whitmer's statements.  But I'm not sure we have much cause to put inordinate emphasis on a single word ("pure") in a single hearsay quote of a 76-year old recounting events from 50 years prior.  In my view, the cumulative evidence (cautious quotes from other first-had witnesses, various statements about the weight of the plates matching the weight expected of a tumbaga alloy, the overall unsuitability of pure gold plates as a medium, etc.) still weighs very much in favor of a gold alloy.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Yes, I agree.  Thanks again for the info!

[The Nehor]

I'm astounded by the absolute rudeness of many of the responses to this question.

 

Seriously? You'd think the OP called your mama fat and your baby ugly. Chill out.

Well, you are defensive. Do you have a fat mama and/or an ugly baby?

[Jeanne]

AFAIK, Lucy Mack Smith was not a first-person witness of the plates, so her statement has lesser value.  John Whitmer, on the other hand, was one of the Eight Witnesses, so his apparent reference to "pure gold" is more probative.  However, his statement was made in 1878, making him around 76 years old and recollecting events from nearly 50 years prior.  And the historical record is a second-hand newspaper account from some fellow named "I.C. Funn."

 

I do not question the overall probity of John Whitmer's statements.  But I'm not sure we have much cause to put inordinate emphasis on a single word ("pure") in a single hearsay quote of a 76-year old recounting events from 50 years prior.  In my view, the cumulative evidence (cautious quotes from other first-had witnesses, various statements about the weight of the plates matching the weight expected of a tumbaga alloy, the overall unsuitability of pure gold plates as a medium, etc.) still weighs very much in favor of a gold alloy.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 I imagine it would be difficult to get it right or even know for sure..when viewed with spiritual eyes.   Just my opinon but I think all the witnesses saw whatever Joseph wanted them to see..

[Wiki Wonka]

In my view, the cumulative evidence (cautious quotes from other first-had witnesses, various statements about the weight of the plates matching the weight expected of a tumbaga alloy, the overall unsuitability of pure gold plates as a medium, etc.) still weighs very much in favor of a gold alloy.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

Pure gold would be too soft to be flattened and hold engravings. The plates would be torn apart just from handling them. We have some pieces of Chinese jewelry made of pure gold, and they don't have mechanical clasps -  you just bend part of it to link or unlink the chain because the gold is so soft. The binding holding the sealed portion of the plates together could not have been made of pure gold, because it would have broken as the plates were moved. Thin sheets of gold do not have the strength to structurally hold anything together.

 

On the other hand, gold is highly resistant to any form of corrosion, which is why many semiconductors were bonded out using microscopic gold wire. So, any alloy containing gold is likely to be more resistant to corrosion as well.

[smac97]

I imagine it would be difficult to get it right or even know for sure..when viewed with spiritual eyes.   Just my opinon but I think all the witnesses saw whatever Joseph wanted them to see..

 

Have you read Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses by Richard L. Anderson? I'm curious as to the basis of your assessment of the witnesses.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

 I imagine it would be difficult to get it right or even know for sure..when viewed with spiritual eyes.   Just my opinon but I think all the witnesses saw whatever Joseph wanted them to see..

And the comments about handling and turning pages are…?