thesometimesaint Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 11 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: Volume = 7 in * 8 in * 6 in / (12 in/ft)3 = 0.1944444 ft3 Weight = 0.1944444 ft3 * 19.30 g/cm3 * 62.4 (lbs/ft3)/(g/cm3) = 234.2 lbs The engravings removed some of the weight. Granular materials have a solids fraction of about 60%. I suspect engraved plates would have a solids fraction of at least 80%. Final Weight = 234.2 lbs * 80% / 100% = 187.4 lbs This points to a weight estimate similar to the infamous McKeever estimate. Volume is not the same as weight.
longview Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: You mean like Bluetooth? Seems like a very unnecessary level of additional technology. I mean, if God had the plates created he could have just helped Joseph read the plates. Why a stone or additional Bluetooth communication links? I would think all the steps were necessary in order to ensure the process of bearing testimony and giving witness. Which is important to God and to comply with the requirements of the "Eternal Law of Justice." Many prophets were martyred in order to seal their testimony with their blood. God required several Lehite prophets to write of their experiences and maintain sacred records. Mormon abridged those records into one volume (large part remained under seal, to be opened during the Millennium?). The Bible is equally important for showing the history of God's work in the Old World.
Bobbieaware Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 8 minutes ago, Gray said: Maybe you can explain the deeper spiritual lesson we can learn based on whether the plates were made of gold, tumbaga, tin, or imagination? Regarding my views on God, I don't think everything is just an illusion. Yes, I believe God is the only thing that is exists, but that doesn't mean the universe is illusory. On the contrary, the Universe is identical with Deity. So you are a pantheist. God is a God of truth, and for this reason it's unimaginable to me that he would want to have his holy name associated with a religion that is based on a long string of outrageous lies and deceptions. 1
Gray Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 20 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: So you are a pantheist. Exactly 20 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: God is a God of truth, and for this reason it's unimaginable to me that he would want to have his holy name associated with a religion that is based on a long string of outrageous lies and deceptions. I don't think God has wishes or desires. But, if you're waiting for a religion without any liars in it, you'll be waiting a very long time. Most of the stories in scripture have little basis in history, as far as can be verified. The point of scripture isn't to tell history, it's to tell stories. From the stories we derive meaning and spiritual lessons. 3
Bobbieaware Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 6 minutes ago, Gray said: Exactly I don't think God has wishes or desires. But, if you're waiting for a religion without any liars in it, you'll be waiting a very long time. Most of the stories in scripture have little basis in history, as far as can be verified. The point of scripture isn't to tell history, it's to tell stories. From the stories we derive meaning and spiritual lessons. I'm wondering how one moves forward spiritually when nothing miraculous can be taken to be real? I'm wondering how one can reject the miraculous realities of Christ's atoning sacrifice, and his glorious resurrection from the dead, and still be considered a believer?
Gray Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 40 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: I'm wondering how one moves forward spiritually when nothing miraculous can be taken to be real? I'm wondering how one can reject the miraculous realities of Christ's atoning sacrifice, and his glorious resurrection from the dead, and still be considered a believer? I don't believe that you need to take supernatural accounts literally to move forward spiritually. The spiritual lesson is never at the surface level of any story, even if the story is true. 1
snowflake Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 Any thoughts out there as to why Lehi and his descendants would use a different language than their native tongue (Hebrew) when documenting and recording their history? Seems very odd to me, (Jews were not fans of the Egyptians). Also, wouldn't we find evidence of this language in Israel today? There are thousands of old testament documents we can compare today with OT scripture. Thanks.
snowflake Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 Any thoughts out there as to why Lehi and his descendants would use a different language than their native tongue (Hebrew) when documenting and recording their history? Seems very odd to me, (Jews were not fans of the Egyptians). Also, wouldn't we find evidence of this language in Israel today? There are thousands of old testament documents we can compare today with OT scripture. Thanks. 2
bcuzbcuz Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Volume is not the same as weight. You are correct. Volume is not the same as weight. We know the volume, the weight is dependent upon what the plates were made of. Whatever they weighed, Joseph was able to run three miles carrying them, while fighting off three assailants. I believe he carried then in a linen or flannel cloth. If they were too heavy they would have ripped through the cloth. Whatever the weight, it all makes a good story.
Jim Stiles Posted April 12, 2016 Author Posted April 12, 2016 15 hours ago, Okrahomer said: One assumption you seem to be making is that the plates were perfectly flat. Based on the eye witness accounts, that in fact seems not to have been the case. The implication is that your calculations need to account for the resultant air space between plates. "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." http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Gold_plates If the plates were gold or soft tumbaga, then there would not be any air spaces left between the plates. Also, there has to be enough plates to record all of the BOM plus the sealed portion.
Bobbieaware Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 5 hours ago, Gray said: I don't believe that you need to take supernatural accounts literally to move forward spiritually. The spiritual lesson is never at the surface level of any story, even if the story is true. With all due deference to you as a son of God, what is it about Mormonism that you find worthwhile enough to want to be identified with it?
cdowis Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, snowflake said: Any thoughts out there as to why Lehi and his descendants would use a different language than their native tongue (Hebrew) when documenting and recording their history? Seems very odd to me, (Jews were not fans of the Egyptians). Also, wouldn't we find evidence of this language in Israel today? There are thousands of old testament documents we can compare today with OT scripture. Thanks. 1. Read the BOM text and it specifically addresses your first question. 2. Why don't Americans speak shorthand? There are tens of thousands of business documents written in this "language". 3. Actually, at that time, the Jews were really big fans of Egypt. I suggest that you do your homework. You might check out, for example, the background of Jeremiah's warnings to the people of Jerusalem. Edited April 12, 2016 by cdowis
theplains Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 19 hours ago, Vance said: So where is the claim that they were "made out of gold"? Oh, I get what you are assuming. "appearance of gold" = gold or tumbaga. No other possibilities? It couldn't be some other alloy? The Jaredite plates are said to have been pure gold (Mosiah 8:9). Thanks, Jim
rodheadlee Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 33 minutes ago, theplains said: The Jaredite plates are said to have been pure gold (Mosiah 8:9). Thanks, Jim 10 yard penalty for moving the goalposts. 1
Russell C McGregor Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 37 minutes ago, theplains said: The Jaredite plates are said to have been pure gold (Mosiah 8:9). Thanks, Jim Thank you Jim. But Joseph didn't have the Jaredite plates; he had Mormon's plates. But since you mentioned it: isn't it interesting that the Jaredite plates are specificially described as being "of pure gold" but no other plates are? 3
Okrahomer Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: If the plates were gold or soft tumbaga, then there would not be any air spaces left between the plates. Also, there has to be enough plates to record all of the BOM plus the sealed portion. Hi Jim, the eye witnesses don't describe a solid block of metal; and one of them (Emma Smith) said that the plates "rustled" with a metallic sound when she ran her thumb along the edges. I think you will continue to be frustrated in your attempt to calculate the weight of the plates, until you account for what the witnesses described. Edited April 13, 2016 by Okrahomer 2
Vance Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 20 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: Antimony forms an alloy with zinc and copper, but not gold. Lead and Aluminum don't mix so well either. So what is your point?
Guest Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 To the OP... First they had the "appearance" of gold. Also, one only need read the Bible to find examples of strength and great power given unto many. So why does simple physics have to rule in Joseph's case? Did our God get out of the miracle business? These comments have been on anti-Mormon websites forever...all rather silly.
why me Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 On 12.4.2016 at 7:02 AM, Jim Stiles said: Their quoted estimates for the weight (40 - 50 lbs) of the plates do not agree with the assertion that they were made out of either gold or tumbaga, if their quoted estimates for the dimensions were correct (6 inches x 8 inches x 6 inches). http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v3n09.htm https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Tiffany%27s_Monthly/Volume_5/Number_4/Mormonism--No._II Of course we can all agree that the plates existed in some form. People saw them in the smith home under a thin cloth and 8 of the witnesses claimed to have seen and handled them in full view. And I think that this is what is important. Not the exact weight. Also, to my recollection Joseph and Emma were hiding the plates from theives and even put them on a wagon to take them out of town. So, something was happening with these plates. What to make of it?
Tacenda Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) I wonder why the plates just couldn't be looked at. Edited April 13, 2016 by Tacenda
mfbukowski Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 16 hours ago, Gray said: To say this discussion of physical plates misses the point of scripture altogether would be a massive understatement. Agreed One more absurd thread which totally misses the point. 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 No plates, no Lehites, no Book of Mormon. LDS one big fraud.
Stargazer Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 On 4/12/2016 at 9:25 PM, Vance said: So where is the claim that they were "made out of gold"? Oh, I get what you are assuming. "appearance of gold" = gold or tumbaga. No other possibilities? It couldn't be some other alloy? The only two metals that are not "silvery" in color are gold and copper. Tumbaga is an alloy of gold and copper, and the combination produces a more reddish gold. Gold and some other metal would merely make the color less and less yellow, depending upon how little gold was in there. Surely you've heard of white gold, which is gold and platinum. No, it wouldn't be some other alloy. By the way, the Incas worked extensively in tumbaga, too. Their method for keeping the gold color was to cold hammer the metal into sheets of alloy, then heat them and pound them while hot, so that the surface copper combined with oxygen as tarnish, and then they beat the hot sheets further so as to bang off the copper oxide. They would do this repeatedly until the surface had no copper left, and was properly gold color only. And that surface would not tarnish further. 2
why me Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Tacenda said: I wonder why the plates just could be looked at. They were looked at by 8 witnesses. http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/appendix-5-testimony-of-eight-witnesses-late-june-1829 I think that this is much more important than just speculating about the color and weight of the plates. Edited April 13, 2016 by why me
Bobbieaware Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Agreed One more absurd thread which totally misses the point. The physical nature of the plates is supposedly totally unimportant and irrelevant to the Book of Mormon's status as holy scripture, yet the all-wise God appears to have succumbed to the temptation to think that a general awareness of the plate"s physical reality was important enough to have 12 witnesses (the witness of Joseph Smith makes twelve) testify that that the plates... "... have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken." (Testimony of the Eight Witnesses) As you can see, it was by God's own initiative that the reality of the physical existence of plates was made was made an important issue -- hence the debate on this thread concerning the physical reality of the plates. I wonder if you realize that by agreeing with Gray you are encouraging him to continue to believe that "God is not a person," that his immaterial God never, ever intervenes in any way in the affairs of men (hence there was no actual visitation by the resurrected angel Moroni to the prophet Joseph Smith) and that there is no such thing as divine miracles (for instance, the lost language inscribed on the Book of Mormon plates was not actually translated by the gift and power of God because there were no physical Book of Mormon plates to translate). You see, Gray has taken the esoteric and arcane philosophical approach to Mormonism to unwarranted conclusions (I hope you will agree they are unwarranted conclusions) to the point of believing that indispensable and critically important components of the Restored Gospel are not necessary nor real. Where does one draw the line when the philosophical approach to the Restored Gospel begins to make it seem that historicity is totally irrelevant and unimportant? Why did God call for witnesses to the reality of the Book of Mormon plates if their reality is irrelevant and unimportant? Edited April 13, 2016 by Bobbieaware
Recommended Posts