beastie wrote:The fact that a metal page is thick enough to have writing on one side without making an impression on the opposite side does not mean that there could be writing on both sides without any problems.
So are you going to amend your statement to declare that their "could" be an issue with writing on both sides? Originally you seemed to be claiming (completely a priori) that writing on both sides was not likely. Now you are claiming (again, completely a priori) that it might be unlikely. Here's another:
Any measurement on the thickness? Is it the same for all of them?
They're not all the same, and I don't remember off the top of my head what they measure, but I put together a little study last year and I do recall the first two fall within the thickness which would be required for a 6-8 inch thick book which translates to about 550 pages.
So are you going to amend your statement to declare that their "could" be an issue with writing on both sides? Originally you seemed to be claiming (completely a priori) that writing on both sides was not likely. Now you are claiming (again, completely a priori) that it might be unlikely. Here's another:
I'm not amending my statement without further information and evidence. All you've done is show us pictures and make assertions about those pictures. I'd like to seem some evidence about the thickness of these pieces, and evidence about the back side of the plates.
It's just common sense that engraving on both sides would compromise the plate more than engravings on one side. Are you contesting that point? Think about it. Each time the metal is engraved, an indentation of a certain depth is made. When the engraving is on both sides, chances increase that the indentations might "meet" so to speak, and result in a compromised plate.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:I'm not amending my statement without further information and evidence.
Take your time. I'll make sure I keep my eyes open.
beastie wrote:All you've done is show us pictures and make assertions about those pictures. I'd like to seem some evidence about the thickness of these pieces, and evidence about the back side of the plates.
It's just common sense that engraving on both sides would compromise the plate more than engravings on one side. Are you contesting that point? Think about it. Each time the metal is engraved, an indentation of a certain depth is made. When the engraving is on both sides, chances increase that the indentations might "meet" so to speak, and result in a compromised plate.
Untrue. Inscriptions can be pressed in (impression) or dug out (engraving). "Inscription" just means to write on or in. If you take a look at the shorter Greek shema I posted above you'll see it is engraved rather than impressed, although the pressure used shows a couple letters impressed. The Roman bronze plates that BYU had on display recently were impressed on one side (letters pounded out with a tiny chisel-like instrument) and engraved on the other (letters carved out to form grooves).
He told people he could find lost buried treasure using supernatural means!
And people testified in court that he succeeded.
I thought this was a fascinating reply. Does this mean Mak thinks Smith succeeded on the basis of the witness testimony? Does Mak think Smith could locate treasure via "supernatural" means? If so, that's an interesting corner to be in. If no, then why on earth would he bring this up? It would just go to show that at least some people were duped, possibly Smith among them in the more friendly interpretation. Therefore, one would think the former option is what is implied here.
Dr. Shades wrote: We critics have been giving you the news that it's all a fraud for years and years now--why haven't you welcomed the news?
The evidence that is usually presented is hypothetical illustrations. Plus, no one has produced the silver bullet that gives conclusive proof that it is a fraud. But if it were conclusively proven, members would welcome it eventually. Better to learn of a fraud than to keep living it.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
EAllusion wrote:I thought this was a fascinating reply. Does this mean Mak thinks Smith succeeded on the basis of the witness testimony?
No, it simply means there were people who certainly thought he was legit. I don't think he found a thing, but some people obviously did, and that shouldn't be tossed out the window.
beastie wrote: First, Joseph Smith tried his best to escape death. He first tried to run away, and only returned after Emma shamed him into returning. Then he tried to shoot his way out of the dilemma.
I would also try to escape death. Why not? For what it is worth, if this were all a fraud, Emma would have known about it. No way could Joseph Smith keep such a fraud a secret from his wife. She was no mook. Emma was not prone to suffer for a fraud. We need to remember that her children were also suffering. If what you say is true, I think that it proves that she was a true believer in her husband.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
why me wrote: But if it were conclusively proven, members would welcome it eventually. Better to learn of a fraud than to keep living it.
You don't know much about being a member of a tribe, do you?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
EAllusion wrote:I thought this was a fascinating reply. Does this mean Mak thinks Smith succeeded on the basis of the witness testimony?
No, it simply means there were people who certainly thought he was legit. I don't think he found a thing, but some people obviously did, and that shouldn't be tossed out the window.
Why shouldn't it be tossed out? I mean... isn't this a case of fool some of the people all of the time? Some people are just born dupes.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
