The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

[_why me]

This is a good example of how folks on opposite sides of the divide have such drastically different perceptions. We can read the same thing and arrive at completely opposite – not just different - conclusions. I think that Mike’s informative post supported the point I was making. Yet he and mak would undoubtedly insist it did not. I’m going to share the points in his post that I believe support my assertion:

This has been part of my point all long. Emma clearly described the plates as having the thickness of thick paper. As much as you want to clearly justify this description with the plates you make, you can’t quite do it. “most people would think they might be a little thicker than the typical thick paper of our day”. Of course, the use of the phrase “of our day” seems to insinuate that thick paper was thicker during Joseph Smith’s day. Unless I see evidence otherwise, I find this a suspect insinuation. I suspect that most people in nineteenth century New England would also find your plates to be thicker than the typical thick paper of their day.

But that’s not all:

Emma said the plates were pliable, of the thickness of thick paper.

These plates are too firm to bend like paper. Hence, you can’t thumb the plates as you would thumb the leaves of a book – because when you thumb the leaves of the book, you are bending the paper.

You, like makelan, appear to ignore the context of Emma’s remarks when she talked about the plates making a rustling sound. She compared it to thumbing the leaves of a book. She didn’t compare it to some lateral, sliding movement. She said the plates were pliable like thick paper. It appears to me that Mike actually agrees that metal plates that would be pliable like thick paper could not also be thick enough to sustain engravings on both sides. He didn’t flat out state as much, but it appears to be a reasonable conclusion.

by the way, this entire argument is based on yet another anachronism. Apologists now assert that the plates were made of tumbaga, which is a copper-gold alloy manufactured through metallurgy. There is no evidence of the manufacture and/or use of tumbaga before the period in which metallurgy is generally recognized in the New World – roughly around 800 AD.

Who cares! Emma knew how Joseph Smith described them. If they did not match what she felt she would have spilled the beans. Or she was in on the fraud from the very beginning. Now if she was in on the fraud she would then be deemed a wus since she excepted Joseph Smith's polygamy on the pretext of some phoney revelation. She was just another Tammy Wynet standing by her man.

But I don't see Emma that way at all. Do you? She was a true believer who may have been broadsided by the Nauvoo period but she believed in the book of mormom as she taught her children from the book after the death of Joseph Smith.

[_beastie]

Who cares! Emma knew how Joseph Smith described them. If they did not match what she felt she would have spilled the beans. Or she was in on the fraud from the very beginning. Now if she was in on the fraud she would then be deemed a wus since she excepted Joseph Smith's polygamy on the pretext of some phoney revelation. She was just another Tammy Wynet standing by her man.

But I don't see Emma that way at all. Do you? She was a true believer who may have been broadsided by the Nauvoo period but she believed in the book of mormom as she taught her children from the book after the death of Joseph Smith

'

Emma lied to her own children her entire life about Joseph Smith's polygamy. Why in the world you think she wouldn't lie about other things is beyond me.

I think she was just one of millions of stupid women who loved their men too much to stand up for themselves, or vice versa.

But, aside from the very real possibility that Emma lied, given her history, there are other possibilities. The sometimes contradictory descriptions of the plates makes me wonder of different props were used, depending on the circumstance. I don't think we can ever know the answer to this, but I think the contradictory descriptions make all the descriptions suspect.

[_maklelan]

This is a good example of how folks on opposite sides of the divide have such drastically different perceptions. We can read the same thing and arrive at completely opposite – not just different - conclusions. I think that Mike’s informative post supported the point I was making. Yet he and mak would undoubtedly insist it did not.

From the moment I entered this conversation, also, I have been pointing out that your entire argument is based on absolutely nothing but your own a priori guesses. You've yet to overcome that definiciency, you're only retreated from your original point to make a stand where you feel you're strong enough to. Unfortunately, the definition of "rustle" and "thumb" don't in any way, shape, or form, preclude my interpretation, but they certainly do not favor yours.

I’m going to share the points in his post that I believe support my assertion:

I haven't measured the thickness (maybe some day at work I will), but they are fairly thick. Thicker than construction paper but thinner than cardboard. They might be described as being like thick paper (but most people would think they might be a little thicker than the typical thick paper of our day).

This has been part of my point all long. Emma clearly described the plates as having the thickness of thick paper. As much as you want to clearly justify this description with the plates you make, you can’t quite do it. “most people would think they might be a little thicker than the typical thick paper of our day”. Of course, the use of the phrase “of our day” seems to insinuate that thick paper was thicker during Joseph Smith’s day. Unless I see evidence otherwise, I find this a suspect insinuation.

Based again on nothing other than your uninformed assumption.

I suspect that most people in nineteenth century New England would also find your plates to be thicker than the typical thick paper of their day.

I have thick paper (Bristol board) that's far thicker than the plates would have to be. I already brought this up. It rustles, just in case you're wondering.

But that’s not all:

Our "brass" metal pieces come in larger sheets (just guessing, some of the bigger pieces we have could measure 8x10 or larger). They are not very pliable. You can bend a bit of curve in a large piece but smaller pieces would require some real strength or pliers.

Emma said the plates were pliable, of the thickness of thick paper.

But the three examples I showed you of writing on metal are far thinner than thick paper. They're closer to aluminum foil, which is also thinner than thick and even regular paper.

These plates are too firm to bend like paper. Hence, you can’t thumb the plates as you would thumb the leaves of a book – because when you thumb the leaves of the book, you are bending the paper.

Now you're refusing to recognize that "thumb" does not necessarily mean "thumb through," which is what you a priori think it has to mean.

You, like makelan, appear to ignore the context of Emma’s remarks when she talked about the plates making a rustling sound. She compared it to thumbing the leaves of a book. She didn’t compare it to some lateral, sliding movement.

But "thumbing the leaves of a book" does not preclude lateral thumbing. That's been made absolutely clear, and yet you ignore that.

She said the plates were pliable like thick paper. It appears to me that Mike actually agrees that metal plates that would be pliable like thick paper could not also be thick enough to sustain engravings on both sides.

And neither of you have anything other than pure assumption to go on. I've actually worked with these kinds of artifacts.

He didn’t flat out state as much, but it appears to be a reasonable conclusion.

by the way, this entire argument is based on yet another anachronism. Apologists now assert that the plates were made of tumbaga, which is a copper-gold alloy manufactured through metallurgy. There is no evidence of the manufacture and/or use of tumbaga before the period in which metallurgy is generally recognized in the New World – roughly around 800 AD.

Actually that it was just some kind of alloy is what most conclude, although your dating for metallurgy in the Americas is way off. According to this article (http://www.springerlink.com/content/j46 ... pdf?page=1) South America first shows signs of metallurgy around 1500 BCE. It wasn't appropriated by West Mexico until 600 - 700 BCE (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pdf_extract/273/5283/1819), but the Book of Mormon doesn't address the use of metallurgy in West Mexico. Again, your research is poor.

[_beastie]

As for the debate about the description of the plates, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the context of Emma's description favors my interpretation and precludes yours. But I realize we will get nowhere on that.

But this:

Actually that it was just some kind of alloy is what most conclude, although your dating for metallurgy in the Americas is way off. According to this article (http://www.springerlink.com/content/j46 ... pdf?page=1) South America first shows signs of metallurgy around 1500 BCE. It wasn't appropriated by West Mexico until 600 - 700 BCE (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pdf_extract/273/5283/1819), but the Book of Mormon doesn't address the use of metallurgy in West Mexico. Again, your research is poor.

Whoa!! Stop the presses. I naïvely assumed that you ascribed to the LGT that the vast majority of apologists ascribe to - Mesoamerica. My metallurgy dates are for Mesoamerica. Are you asserting that the Book of Mormon took place in South America?????

Have fun getting the population density to work.

by the way:

It wasn't appropriated by West Mexico until 600 - 700 BCE (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pdf_extract/273/5283/1819),

You need to actually read the article before you use it to support your assertions. This article is about post-classic Mesoamerican metallurgy - which is the time frame I already specified.

And THANK YOU for chiding my poor research while simultaneously committing such an obvious gaffe. It gave me a good chuckle.

[_maklelan]

As for the debate about the description of the plates, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the context of Emma's description favors my interpretation and precludes yours. But I realize we will get nowhere on that.

I can deal with that.

Whoa!! Stop the presses. I naïvely assumed that you ascribed to the LGT that the vast majority of apologists ascribe to - Mesoamerica. My metallurgy dates are for Mesoamerica. Are you asserting that the Book of Mormon took place in South America?????

No. Central America. They had it roughly contemporary with South America. I mentioned West Mexico to point out whence your misunderstand comes. Again, you're out of your league here.

Have fun getting the population density to work.

You need to actually read the article before you use it to support your assertions. This article is about post-classic Mesoamerican metallurgy - which is the time frame I already specified.

Meaningless point.

And THANK YOU for chiding my poor research while simultaneously committing such an obvious gaffe. It gave me a good chuckle.

I've made no gaffe. Your good chuckle is only an illustration of how little you know about this topic.

[_MAsh]

Beastie,

I'm fairly certain that you know more about Mesoamerican history than I do, but after reading your response to me it makes me wonder how accurately you understand your Mesoamerica literature if you can't understand what I have posted in this thread.

I haven't measured the thickness (maybe some day at work I will), but they are fairly thick. Thicker than construction paper but thinner than cardboard. They might be described as being like thick paper (but most people would think they might be a little thicker than the typical thick paper of our day).

This has been part of my point all long. Emma clearly described the plates as having the thickness of thick paper. As much as you want to clearly justify this description with the plates you make, you can’t quite do it.

Do you really think I was claiming that my engraving sheets were close to the Book of Mormon plates?

“most people would think they might be a little thicker than the typical thick paper of our day”. Of course, the use of the phrase “of our day” seems to insinuate that thick paper was thicker during Joseph Smith’s day. Unless I see evidence otherwise, I find this a suspect insinuation. I suspect that most people in nineteenth century New England would also find your plates to be thicker than the typical thick paper of their day.

I haven't the foggiest idea how thick regular paper or "thick" paper was in Joseph Smith's day. I included the "in our day" because I was comparing it to what I know. I couldn't care less about the thickness of paper in Joseph Smith's day because it has no bearing on the argument in my post.

These plates are too firm to bend like paper. Hence, you can’t thumb the plates as you would thumb the leaves of a book – because when you thumb the leaves of the book, you are bending the paper.

You, like makelan, appear to ignore the context of Emma’s remarks when she talked about the plates making a rustling sound. She compared it to thumbing the leaves of a book. She didn’t compare it to some lateral, sliding movement.

This is where you've completely misunderstood my post. I know my engraving plates are rigid-- that's why I point it out. Neverthless I most certainly can (and have) "thumbed" through a stack of these sheets and they most certainly do make a metalic rustling sound.

You don't have to bend the plates (although the Book of Mormon plates may have been more pliable than my engraving sheets) to "thumb" through them. If you but your thumb below the top of the stack and apply some pressure upward, the top plates will lift a little and you can "thumb" through them quickly (usually a plate at a time) as they rapidly fall back into the stack and make a metallic rustling sound. Go find some metal strips of tin or any other metal and try it out. It works very well without any expertise in thumbing. :)

It appears to me that Mike actually agrees that metal plates that would be pliable like thick paper could not also be thick enough to sustain engravings on both sides. He didn’t flat out state as much, but it appears to be a reasonable conclusion.

While I don't share this conclusion, I can certainly understand that at some point they would be too thin to maintain engravings on both sides. I specifically noted that these engraving sheets are about the same thickness as cardboard, can be thumbed, and engraved upon on both sides. They are made to be rigid, however (possibly more rigid than 10k gold) and yet they can still be "thumbed."


This is a silly argument. A stack of tin plates could be thumbed. Emma's claim that she thumbed the plates & they made a metalic rustling sound doesn't prove Joseph Smith's story-- you are still free to reject it on the grounds that they weren't really golden plates.

[_beastie]

I've made no gaffe. Your good chuckle is only an illustration of how little you know about this topic.

Really?

The first two lines in the article you cited stated:

Metal artifacts first appeared in Mesoamerica in the west around 650 AD. Metallurgy was introduced by South American by a maritime route.

The article continues to explain that the alloys were used after 1200 AD.

Before 1200 AD, they used copper, principally for bells but also for small cold-worked implements. After 1200 to 1300 AD, they produced copper-arsenic bronze, copper-tin bronze, and copper –silver alloys, not only for their golden and silvery colors but also to optimize the design and functionality of objects previously made in copper.

Yet you stated that:

South America first shows signs of metallurgy around 1500 BCE. It wasn't appropriated by West Mexico until 600 - 700 BCE.

Do you understand the difference between the two dates:

650 AD
600-700 BCE?

I suspect you’ll accuse me of being patronizing, but it does appear you don’t understand the difference between the two dates. I would attribute it to a typo, but that seems unlikely since your goal is to fit the use of tumbaga, which is predicated on metallurgy, within the Book of Mormon time period.

[_Some Schmo]

Again, you're out of your league here.

I have to agree with him here, beastie. You're out of your league. You're in the pros and he's still trying to move out of peewee.

Pick on someone your own size, why don't ya?



(Don't you just love it when someone tells you "you're out of your league here?" What's a better way to demonstrate just how superior they are? It's just so... oh, I don't know... Christ-like? Yeah, that's it. I'm moved by his fine Christian example.)

[_beastie]

Mike –

I understood your post. I derive different – in fact, opposite – conclusions from the information you shared. I always knew that you would be confused by that.

Perhaps you will understand my comments better if you focus on this part of Emma’s statement:

They seemed to be pliable like st thick paper,

You have focused solely on the “thumbing”, while ignoring the context of the statement. The “thumbing” you are referencing takes place with rigid plates. She specifically said the plates were pliable.

All of your statements were specific to rigid plates which seems to support my point. Plates that could endure engraving on both sides would be rigid, due to the prerequisite thickness required. If you were actually arguing that the metal plates could be pliable and endure engraving on both sides, you didn’t do a good job explaining that.

by the way, I understand this is a minor point. Apologists could just assume that all the descriptions are as easy to dismiss as Pratt's. I've continued on this point largely out of amusement at watching mak seemingly argue there is no problem with Emma's description. I will even give you an out - human memory is incredibly fallible, and highly subjective to redaction affected by subsequent experiences.

[_beastie]

(Don't you just love it when someone tells you "you're out of your league here?" What's a better way to demonstrate just how superior they are? It's just so... oh, I don't know... Christ-like? Yeah, that's it. I'm moved by his fine Christian example.)

I admit to, at times, thinking someone is arguing "out of their league", myself. I just hope that if I ever actually say it out loud, that I take the time to fact check my own statements first.