Page 1 of 7

Critical analysis of the stone box

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 5:05 pm
by _Polygamy-Porter
Image

Given how little the stone box is discussed I thought I would open a thread dedicated to the critical details of the stone box that Joseph Smith Jr claimed to have found the golden plates as well as a sword, Liahona, and the Urim and Thummim.

I feel we should discuss the items purported to be contained in the stone box to understand and discuss the physical size of the box as well as the atmospheric and environmental sealing abilities.

The plates estimated to have weighed 80-280 lbs depending on who you listen to concerning the metallurgical makeup of the plates. Smith himself said the plates were 8"x6"x6".

Some claim the plates were made of pure gold, which would require the stone box to hermetically seal out all moisture as I have been told this would cause etching of the pure gold.

Others claim it was a gold alloy of some sort, perhaps tumbaga, a gold/copper alloy?

Image

The shape and size of the Liahona was spherical and about the diameter of a man's palm.

Image Image

The Urim and Thummim is an odd thing. Some Mormon scholars say these were a breast plate with spectacles, other say they were just spectacles, and then there is the story of Joseph looking at glowing magical rocks.

Image
Joseph Smith wrote:JS-H 1:35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates;


Lastly and most important to the analysis of the size of the box as well as the sealing ability of the box seams and capstone, is Laban sword.

The lenght would need to be at least 36"?

The replica sold at the Mormon church owned bookstore, Deseret Book, is 36"

Image

Given the dimensions of the objects contained in the box, it would appear that the dimensions of the box would need to be long enough to hold the sword, wide and deep enough to hold the breast plate.

Laying the 36" sword in diagonal corner to corner and the minimum width for the breast plate of 18" wide Pythagorean says the minimum length would be 32". The depth would be a minimum of 6" just for the plates but with things stacked on each other in a minimum box size it would likely be 12".

18"x32"x12" are the dimensions of a minimum stone box. That is fairly large.

I know nothing of structural integrity so I will guess the thickness of the wall must be at least 2"?
Any civil engineers want to chime in?

That would be fairly heavy at 2" thick walls and floor placing the weight at 100-150 lbs?

The structural integrity of being perfectly sealed for 1400 years would have required the capstone to be keyed with a 18x32x12" key to perfectly fit the top of the box. Otherwise the shape of the box could be compromised by large tree roots as well as the shifting soil around it causing the seal to break.

To seal it further would require a 1/4-1/2 key in the capstone matched to a grove in the top of the wall.

I hope this gives us all a mental image of the physical dimensions of the box.

Re: Critical analysis of the stone box

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:56 pm
by _beefcalf
Porter,

Excellent starting point for this discussion.

Let me add a few minor points of detail.

Pure gold is nearly impervious to chemical reactions, the notable exception being aqua regia. Because of this, the box would not need to be sealed from moisture in order to save the plates. The necessity to seal the box from moisture would come from the claim that the bronze or steel sword of Laban was also in the box. Any moisture entering the box would probably have no effect on the plates, but the other, non-gold, metallic items would certainly have suffered as a result.

Gold has a density of 19.3 grams per cubic centimeter, and the plates were described at being 8" x 6" x 6".

8 x 6 x 6 inches = 20.32 x 15.24 x 15.24 centimeters which equals 4719.47 cubic centimeters.
4719.47 cm3 multiplied by 19.3 grams per cm3 = 91,086 grams = 91.086 kilograms = 200.39 lbs.

If the plates were pure gold, their weight would be capped at 200 lbs (for plates which had basically zero air-gaps). If there were gaps between the leaves, that weight would drop accordingly. Gold is very malleable, and as such, it would be relatively easy to apply pressure to any stack of gold leaves and cause them to become tightly compressed, leaving very little air-gap between them. I think it is safe to say that the plates as described could probably not weigh less than 100 lbs. This figure needs to be taken into account when considering all the anecdotal evidence of various people handling the plates. The apocryphal story of Smith sprinting three miles, leaping logs and eluding three banditos, with the plates tucked under his arm, being one of them. Another is the story of Emma, routinely moving the plates tucked away in a pillowcase, as she did her housework.

Re: Critical analysis of the stone box

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:37 pm
by _Doctor CamNC4Me
Hello Mr. Porter,

I'd love to hear from a "real scholar" who would place his energy more into discussions like these than personal vendettas against anonymous nobodies (like most of us) on the Internet. This board would be better for it.

Alas, it isn't really going to happen. "Read this or that FAIR publication." is about as much as you're going to get.

* sigh *

V/R
Dr. Cam "I don't understand where a 1,000 lbs stone box went" NC for Me

Re: Critical analysis of the stone box

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:52 pm
by _Joseph
The stone box was made of Syncrete. It lasted until Joseph opened it and then disintigrated so no one would find it and thus have to have Faith and Believe through the spook.

Re: Critical analysis of the stone box

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:53 pm
by _Doctor CamNC4Me
Ban Joseph.

Re: Critical analysis of the stone box

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:18 pm
by _Joseph
Ban Joseph? This from 'he who steals photos'?

Dr. Cam, get over it boy. You got caught defending criminal activity and encouraging theft of the intellectual property of others. Repent of your evil ways and become a choirboy. Maybe you and blemnuts can go on a South Seas Cruise together to find some Polynesians to beat up Derrik?

Re: Critical analysis of the stone box

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:09 pm
by _Polygamy-Porter
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Ban Joseph.

Dude you obviously did not live in Utah during the Syncrete fiasco.

It was special concrete resurfacing applied to the highways during the late 80's - early 90's If I recall correctly.

Problem with it was it cracked only after a few years and crumbled.

Joseph was joking.

Re: Critical analysis of the stone box

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:09 am
by _zeezrom
2 inches is way too thin. Here is why. You cannot get the pieces to stay together in the form of a box. Today, you would do this with steel reinforcement and corrosion protection. Back then, the only option is to build the walls stout enough to stand on their own. For this, I would say 12 inches thick, minimum but that might be pushing it. If I were God, and knew that it needed to stand the test of time, I would tell my servant, Moroni to make them 18 inches thick.

Re: Critical analysis of the stone box

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:16 am
by _zeezrom
I take that back. 12 inches is too small. A free standing box like that would need to be at least 18-24 inches thick

Re: Critical analysis of the stone box

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:23 am
by _Polygamy-Porter
zeezrom wrote:I take that back. 12 inches is too small. A free standing box like that would need to be at least 18-24 inches thick

Thank you Z.

So then, which defender would like to please 'splain how these large slabs of concrete like material simply break apart and "wash down the hill"?

Oh and I never read where Joseph found this in a small creek bed in the first place so where did all of this water come from in the form of a torrent to not only dislodge these slabs of concrete from the earth but to break the structure apart?