BOM/Brass Plates
Simon Dean
quite thick, quite large, and unless the writing was very small, those
brass plates must be incredibly heavy...
Cya
Simon
Winfried Nelson
"Simon Dean" <sjd...@simtext.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3D26241F...@simtext.demon.co.uk...
> One thing I keep thinking about, those brass plates. I'd imagine they're
quite thick, quite large, and unless the writing was very small, those
brass plates must be incredibly heavy...>
That's amazing. I rarely spend any energy thinking about things I don't
believe in.
Kevin Thurston
the TBM mind.
Kevin Thurston
"While it would be nice if we could set up
deceptions to fool people into the Church, and I suspect it's
been tried... I doubt the value of it long term. We would
have a bunch of people in the Church who are gullible."... Woody Brison
"Simon Dean" <sjd...@simtext.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3D26241F...@simtext.demon.co.uk...
Simon Dean
> This discussion has been done over and over. Reality doesn't impress upon
> the TBM mind.
>
> Kevin Thurston
My apologies for not looking it up... I usually do, I must have been
lazy last night. Question, what is TBM?
Cya
Simon
Horobiru
> lazy last night. Question, what is TBM?
True Blue/Believing Mormon
Simon Dean
Aha.
Well, I came across:
http://www.shields-research.org/Scriptures/BoM/GPSjodhl.html#1.
And it does seem to validate the plates, in that hebrew language or
whatever, is incredibly tiny. And it also then talks about various sizes
of the plates, but then if the writing is as tiny as they claim, then
size really shouldn't figure much into the equation.
And the metal the plates were made out of, were perhaps some kind of alloy.
Oh, and this study was "Printed by The Deseret News Press
Salt Lake City, Utah 1927"
It seems to make logical sense, I have no idea what hebrew looks like. I
wonder if anyone has tried writing a hebrew version of the entire book
of mormon and ending up with 100 pages...
I am not a TBM, or a regular mormon, but it seems to make sense...
Cya
Simon
Kevin Thurston
> Kevin Thurston wrote:
> > This discussion has been done over and over. Reality doesn't impress
upon
> > the TBM mind.
> >
> > Kevin Thurston
>
>
> My apologies for not looking it up
I don't think there is any need for apology. I just had visions of this
thread turning into a debate about JSjr's story about running through the
woods with 70 - 300lbs. of plates on his back (or whatever the weight might
have been and however JSjr might have carried them). The lengths the
apologists will go to in order to defend the story is astounding.
>... I usually do, I must have been
> lazy last night. Question, what is TBM?
As answered elsewhere: A True Believing Mormon . This term was coined on ARM
quite some time ago, by some one I've forgotten (it wasn't an original with
me).
Kevin Thurston
--
"I've learned that life is just one crushing defeat after another until you
just wish Flanders was dead."... Homer Simpson
Woody Brison
The brass plates contained what we call the Old Testament,
only a more ample version of it. I don't know of any
information on the size, but before going into an
extensive analysis, what is the goal? If we knew how
large the brass plates were, how would that make the world
happier and better? Just curious.
Wood
Cheap Suit
If you don't have any information, how would you go into an extensive analysis?
Just wondering.
Actually I do know how. It's called "bullshitting".
Dangerous1
Don Marchant
Dangerous1.com
Cheapsuit @ Dangerous1.com
Think global, act loco
NP: "A Song You Could Cry For" , Freakwater
Woody Brison
> Woody Brison wrote:
> > Simon Dean <sjd...@simtext.demon.co.uk> wrote...
> > > One thing I keep thinking about, those brass plates. I'd imagine they're
> > > quite thick, quite large, and unless the writing was very small, those
> > > brass plates must be incredibly heavy...
> >
> > The brass plates contained what we call the Old Testament,
> > only a more ample version of it. I don't know of any
> > information on the size, but before going into an
> > extensive analysis, what is the goal? If we knew how
> > large the brass plates were, how would that make the world
> > happier and better? Just curious.
>
> If you don't have any information, how would you go into an extensive analysis?
> Just wondering.
There is a wonderful, largely unexplored science behind
analyzing to get knowledge when the data is scarce. One
aspect that has been explored a bit is what's called
Fermi problems. How many fish in the ocean, how many
potted plants could grow in Mt. Everest were it all
converted to sand, etc. We might know very little
about something but could still make some kind of
guesses, better than zero information, and often it
turns out that the guess can be fairly close. It's
amazing what the human mind can do -- if it's not
stultified by too much pessimism.
> Actually I do know how. It's called "bullshitting".
Right, Don, there's no progress, all is vanity. Somebody
beat you to this by a couple of thousand years.
It's a logical error to assume that any endeavor is
automatically a scam. There are honest people in the
world, idealistic people, and they do good work. Were
it not so, there would be no internet, no houses, no
banks, no schools, no language, there'd be little
difference between us and pigs in the jungle.
Wood
Duwayne Anderson
> Cheap Suit <chea...@dangerous1.com> wrote in message news:<3D2A4FD2...@dangerous1.com>...
> > Woody Brison wrote:
> > > Simon Dean <sjd...@simtext.demon.co.uk> wrote...
>
> > > > One thing I keep thinking about, those brass plates. I'd imagine they're
> > > > quite thick, quite large, and unless the writing was very small, those
> > > > brass plates must be incredibly heavy...
> > >
> > > The brass plates contained what we call the Old Testament,
> > > only a more ample version of it. I don't know of any
> > > information on the size, but before going into an
> > > extensive analysis, what is the goal? If we knew how
> > > large the brass plates were, how would that make the world
> > > happier and better? Just curious.
> >
> > If you don't have any information, how would you go into an extensive analysis?
> > Just wondering.
>
> There is a wonderful, largely unexplored science behind
> analyzing to get knowledge when the data is scarce.
In your dreams, Woody. It's a well established part of science that's
been around for years. But, then, a novice who blunders the equation
for variance wouldn't be expected to know about that.
Right?
> One
> aspect that has been explored a bit is what's called
> Fermi problems.
> How many fish in the ocean, how many
> potted plants could grow in Mt. Everest were it all
> converted to sand, etc. We might know very little
> about something but could still make some kind of
> guesses, better than zero information, and often it
> turns out that the guess can be fairly close. It's
> amazing what the human mind can do -- if it's not
> stultified by too much pessimism.
Hey Woody. Shall we discuss the probability of date distributions in
the Book of Mormon? Like you say, "it's amazing what the human mind
can do -- if it's not stultified by too much pessimism."
Hey! Hey! Let's try this one. Let's look at astronomy the way it's
taught by the LDS Church. They say that the earth used to orbit
somewhere else -- outside the solar system, around Kolob somewhere.
Let's see if we can examine that assertion of LDS mythology. Let's
see if science can study the chemical makeup of the earth and other
plants, combine that with an understanding of how solar systems evolve
(naturally, without any hokus pokus god flinging the planets all over
the place) and see if it makes any sense. After all, Woody, you said
that youdo amazing things with you mind if it's not "stultified."
Ohhh! While we are at it, Woody. Use your big unstultified brain to
explain how trees managed to grow on earth before the sun was made.
The way Joseph Smith described it in his Book of Moses.
Woa! I'm not done yet. How about testing the Book of Mormon's
claims. You could go get a bunch of information on ancient America
and (if your brain isn't stultified) compare that with what the Book
of Mormon says the ancient Americans did. Then you could use you
unstultified brains to draw conclusions about whether or not the Book
of Mormon is true, or a clumsy fraud.
You could even do this, Woody. You could look for that ancient
Arabian river that ran continually into the Red Sea. The one in the
Book of Mormon. If your brains are not to stultified you could look
for that river and (upon not finding anything like it) use your big
unstultified brains to conclude that the Book of Mormon is a fake.
Oh! Oh! Wait! Don't go. I'm not done. You could read the Book of
Mormon, especially the part that says a seer knows how to read ancient
Books. Then you could study Hinckley's involvement in using Church
property to get fake historical documents. Do you think you might use
your unstultified brains to conclude that Hinckley is a fake prophet?
A bit of a squirming little con man, himself?
Oh, the possibilities are endless. Shall we discuss them?
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Cheap Suit
> wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison) wrote in message news:<f36171a3.02070...@posting.google.com>...
> > Cheap Suit <chea...@dangerous1.com> wrote in message news:<3D2A4FD2...@dangerous1.com>...
> > > Woody Brison wrote:
> > > > Simon Dean <sjd...@simtext.demon.co.uk> wrote...
> >
> > > > > One thing I keep thinking about, those brass plates. I'd imagine they're
> > > > > quite thick, quite large, and unless the writing was very small, those
> > > > > brass plates must be incredibly heavy...
> > > >
> > > > The brass plates contained what we call the Old Testament,
> > > > only a more ample version of it. I don't know of any
> > > > information on the size, but before going into an
> > > > extensive analysis, what is the goal? If we knew how
> > > > large the brass plates were, how would that make the world
> > > > happier and better? Just curious.
> > >
> > > If you don't have any information, how would you go into an extensive analysis?
> > > Just wondering.
> >
> > There is a wonderful, largely unexplored science behind
> > analyzing to get knowledge when the data is scarce.
>
> In your dreams, Woody. It's a well established part of science that's
> been around for years. But, then, a novice who blunders the equation
> for variance wouldn't be expected to know about that.
>
> Right?
>
On second thought, I just might like to see woody's extensive analysis determine the "size of the plates".
--
Best,
Dangerous
Don Marchant
Dangerous1.com
Cheapsuit @ Dangerous1.com
A morning without coffee is like
something without something else.
Now playing: Silence.
Cheap Suit
OK, go for it. Do an extensive analysis of the size of the plates. Length, width, thickness and
weight. This is your time to shine woody!!!
>
>
> > Actually I do know how. It's called "bullshitting".
>
> Right, Don, there's no progress, all is vanity. Somebody
> beat you to this by a couple of thousand years.
Where did I say "there's no progress, all is vanity"? You wouldn't be making up stories AGAIN, are
you woody? I do know there is no profit under the sun.
>
> It's a logical error to assume that any endeavor is
> automatically a scam. There are honest people in the
> world, idealistic people, and they do good work. Were
> it not so, there would be no internet, no houses, no
> banks, no schools, no language, there'd be little
> difference between us and pigs in the jungle.
>
> Wood
It's a logical error to build straw men too, woody. Or did you deduce that the above was the intent
of my post after doing an extensive analysis?
I kinda think that when we are talking about imaginary plates, your solution might be more toward
the guessing side of the guessing - estimating scale.
Dangerous
Don Marchant
Dangerous1.com
Cheapsuit @ Dangerous1.com
A morning without coffee is like
Simon Dean
Well, if they were extremely thick, or could only be engraven upon in
large writing because of difficult instruments of the time, then one
might imagine that there is an exceptionally huge number of plates, or a
remarkable thickness and thusly weight. In that case, comparing it the
picture of Moroni I think it is at the start of the Book of Mormon, or
imagining that these things could be carried around as a whole fairly
easily, makes me laugh a little. Ok, they'd probably have a few people
to carry the entirety of the plates....
I did however find a website that suggested they were fairly thin and
writing would be particularly small, so not so heavy, not so big and
bulky, fairly easy to carry...
Cya
Simon
Greorius The Great
Scrolls was made from metal.. hmmm, go figure huh?
GRaleigh345
<sjd...@simtext.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>Well, if they were extremely thick, or could only be engraven upon in
>large writing because of difficult instruments of the time, then one
>might imagine that there is an exceptionally huge number of plates, or a
>remarkable thickness and thusly weight. In that case, comparing it the
>picture of Moroni I think it is at the start of the Book of Mormon, or
>imagining that these things could be carried around as a whole fairly
>easily, makes me laugh a little. Ok, they'd probably have a few people
>to carry the entirety of the plates....
>
>I did however find a website that suggested they were fairly thin and
>writing would be particularly small, so not so heavy, not so big and
>bulky, fairly easy to carry...
>
>Cya
>Simon
>
>
That is what the urim and thummim were for--the characters were so small
that they were both engraved and written under magnification. Descriptions of
the "breastplate" with "urim and thummin" given by the originators of the
church state that the stones were bolted onto the breastplate so as to leave
the hands free. Sort of early microfilm, I guess.
Raleigh
On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is shifting paradigm.
Woody Brison
> Woody Brison wrote:
> > Simon Dean <sjd...@simtext.demon.co.uk> wrote...
> >
> >>One thing I keep thinking about, those brass plates. I'd imagine they're
> >>quite thick, quite large, and unless the writing was very small, those
> >>brass plates must be incredibly heavy...
> >
> > only a more ample version of it. I don't know of any
> > information on the size, but before going into an
> > extensive analysis, what is the goal? If we knew how
> > large the brass plates were, how would that make the world
> > happier and better? Just curious.
>
> large writing because of difficult instruments of the time, then one
> might imagine that there is an exceptionally huge number of plates, or a
> remarkable thickness and thusly weight. In that case, comparing it the
> picture of Moroni I think it is at the start of the Book of Mormon, or
> imagining that these things could be carried around as a whole fairly
> easily, makes me laugh a little. Ok, they'd probably have a few people
> to carry the entirety of the plates....
>
> I did however find a website that suggested they were fairly thin and
> writing would be particularly small, so not so heavy, not so big and
> bulky, fairly easy to carry...
Oh, you mean the plates the Book of Mormon was written
on, which were of gold or something similar looking, like
a gold alloy. They are usually called the golden plates
or the Book of Mormon plates. Your original question
was about the /brass/ plates. The text of the Book of
Mormon talks about a set of brass plates. These were
brought from Jerusalem to the promised land by the Lehi
party in the sixth century BC. I was wondering why
anyone would care what size they were, since we don't
have them today, no one has mentioned seeing them for
2000 years or more that I can think of offhand, and
they don't figure in the modern story much.
The question of the size/weight of the golden plates
is a much easier one. Joseph Smith said they were about
six inches by eight, in a stack about six inches tall.
A stack of pure gold plates 6 x 8 x 6 inches would weigh
201 pounds. (Pure gold is 1188 lb/ft^3.)
These plates were doubtless hammered anciently by hand,
they were not made in a modern rolling mill, so they
probably didn't lay flat together. There might have
been half the volume of the stack taken up by air space
between the plates. Joseph said they were about the
thickness of common tin, which was about the thickness
of a steel can today, like what canned food comes in
(not a thin aluminum walled beer can of recent years).
Irregular plates of that thickness would not have
enough pliability to get pressed close together in
a stack only that high. Nor would they have enough
thickness to fill most of the volume of the stack by
virtue of their thickness. Around 50% would seem to
me to be reasonable.
A stack of gold plates 6 x 8 x 6, 50% air, would
weigh 100 pounds and so forth for any other percentage.
Further, they might not have been pure gold, no one
ever said they were; the witnesses who handled them,
for instance, said they had the /appearance/ of gold.
The natives of Central America used to use an alloy
of gold + copper called tumbaga. Here are some links
if you're interested:
http://www.newworldtreasures.com/tbars.htm
(The Spaniards didn't likely mix copper with gold before
shipping it to Spain...)
http://www.sedwickcoins.com/tumbaga.html
http://www.shields-research.org/Scriptures/BoM/Tumbaga.htm
This last article notes that gilded tumbaga tends to reduce
due to electrolysis, so that particular format might not be
a wise choice for plates that were to last many centuries
in a wet climate. Gold would with no problem.
A strong man can carry 100 pounds without too much
trouble. Joseph Smith was a farm boy, in the days before
combines and tractors and grain augers, and he was
generally acknowledged to be extremely strong even for
that setting.
A sack of grain, say 2 x 3 feet x 6 inches thick, often
handled by farm boys in those days (and still occasionally
today) will weigh about 190 pounds.
Another hint that 100 lb. is probably about what the
plates weighed is found in the text of the book at Omni
1:30, where Amaleki says the plates he is writing on were
full. Those were the small plates of Nephi, and they
were later included, by the Prophet Mormon, into the
stack that Joseph Smith had. Why would a set of plates
get full? Because the person writing couldn't add to
them -- whether because they didn't have the technology
to make more (Amaleki's probable situation), or because
they didn't want to make the stack unliftable (Mormon's
probable situation). Thus the gold plates were probably
a set that was pretty heavy, just about the limit of
what a man could carry around with effort -- about 100
pounds approximately. That would be 45 kilograms for
metric minds.
If a set of plates got full, in a situation where the
user could add to them, then they probably would, up
to the point where they were getting heavy enough to
be a problem. Then you'd finish off the book and
start another. Making a blank book, intended for the
sacred record of an entire nation, to be condensed from
large stacks of such books, you'd want to make it as
large as you could carry even if it took some effort.
Thus I think that the plates were indeed pretty heavy
and no need to squeeze the calculations down in any
apologetic effort. Exactly how they come out is
probably the story.
As far as the written density, the Egyptian system was
far more compact, one symbol per word or even per whole
phrase. A couple of places in the Book of Mormon
emphasize the fact that they were using the Egyptian
system for that reason. There isn't any problem for
such a text 3 times the length of the Book of Mormon
on a set of plates that size. (English averages 5 to
6 symbols per word, counting spaces.) 2/3 of the book
was sealed, has not been translated yet. Also, there
were 116 pages lost. All that is still to come forth
at a future day.
Wood
Cheap Suit
> It is a well known fact that one of the scrolls found amongst the Dead Sea
> Scrolls was made from metal.. hmmm, go figure huh?
Which is relevant to what?
--
Best,
cswaters-...@newsguy.com
"Greorius The Great" <greg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:usbVtPGKCHA.1452@cpimsnntpa03...
> It is a well known fact that one of the scrolls found amongst the Dead Sea
> Scrolls was made from metal.. hmmm, go figure huh?
Actually its not a well know fact, but true none the less.
Joseph Smith didn't use the "golden" plates to translate, he looked in a
hat.
--
Adieu,
Charles - remove -no-spam-number to reply
Here are some gods I don't believe in, how many gods don't you believe in?
Aa, Adsalluta, Ahijah, Allah, Amon-Re, Anath, Apsu, Arianrod, Ashtoreth,
Assur, Astarte, Baal, Belisima, Beltis, Beltu, Belus, Borvo, Buddha,
Centeotl, Cronos, Dagda, Dagon, Damona, Dea Dia, Dervones, Deva, Diana of
Ephesus, Dis, Drunemeton, Elali, Elum, Engurra, En-Mersi, Epona, Esus,
Furrina, Goibniu, Govannon, Grannos, Gunfled, Hadad, Huitzilopochtli, Isis,
Istar, Iuno Lucina, Kuski-banda, Lagas, Mami, Mara, Marduk, Marzin, Melek,
Merodach, Mictlan, Moccos, Mogons, Molech, Morrigu, Mullo, Nebo, Nin,
Nin-azu, Nirig, Nuada Argetlam, Nusku, Odin, Ogma, Ogryvan, Osiris,
Persephone, Pluto, Ptah, Qarradu, Quitzalcoatl, Resheph, Robigus, Saturn,
Silvana, Sin, Sutekh, Tagd, Tammuz, Tarves, Tezcatilpoca, Tezcatilpoca,
Tlazolteotl, Tzitzimitles, Ubilulu, U-dimmer-an-kia, Ueras, U-Mersi,
U-sab-sib, Uxellimus, Venus, Vesta, Wotan, Xiehtecuthli, Xipe, Yau, Zagaga,
Zaraqu, Zer-panitu
R.L. Measures
<cswaters-...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "Greorius The Great" <greg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:usbVtPGKCHA.1452@cpimsnntpa03...
> > It is a well known fact that one of the scrolls found amongst the Dead Sea
> > Scrolls was made from metal.. hmmm, go figure huh?
>
> Actually its not a well know fact, but true none the less.
>
€ one two-part scroll was written on copper foil. The rest were written
on goat skin or papyrus.
> Joseph Smith didn't use the "golden" plates to translate, he looked in a
> hat.
>
€ this what witnesses said.
--
Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures (radio)
www.vcnet.com/measures/library.html (org. religion)
Duwayne Anderson
> Further, they might not have been pure gold, no one
> ever said they were;
It's a real shame that so many Mormons are unfamiliar with their
scriptures. When Moroni visited Joseph Smith (in his imagination) the
(imaginary) angel told Joseph Smith the plates were made of gold.
Here's the reference:
"He [the imaginary angel that Joseph Smith spoke to during his
hallucination]said there was a abook deposited, written upon gold
plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent,
and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness
of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the
Savior to the ancient inhabitants;" [Joseph Smith history, 1:34].
Notice that, during this hallucination, Joseph Smith did not imagine
an angel telling him the plates were made of something that only
looked like gold, or that was only a gold alloy. But that the plates
were simply "gold." Furthermore, in the stories that Joseph Smith
would later tell about this imaginary angel, Moroni had intimate
information about exactly what the plates were made of, since (in this
absurd myth of Mormonism) he carried them all over the place for many
years, and was the Mormon god's messanger.
Of course, the Book of Mormon says that the ancient Americans wrote
lots of such records, using Hebrew and Egyptian characters. This is
yet another reason to understand the Book of Mormon as a clumsy fraud,
because there is not one such example of ancient plates with Hebrew or
Egyptian from ancient America. That's not too surprising, given the
fact that the Book of Mormon is a clumsy fraud.
<snip to end>
Markg91359
>The question of the size/weight of the golden plates
>is a much easier one. Joseph Smith said they were about
>six inches by eight, in a stack about six inches tall.
Stop and think about this for a moment. The BoM is a verbose 500 plus page
book. The Golden Plates were 6 inches wide and 8 inches long (in other words,
smaller than normal 8.5" by 11 sheets of paper.
>These plates were doubtless hammered anciently by hand,
>they were not made in a modern rolling mill, so they
>probably didn't lay flat together. There might have
>been half the volume of the stack taken up by air space
>between the plates.
Exactly Woody.....because the pages were made of metal they were bound to be
much thicker than ordinary sheets or paper and laying together they were bound
to take up much more space.
> Joseph said they were about the
>thickness of common tin, which was about the thickness
>of a steel can today, like what canned food comes in
For my purpose here, I accept that statement. So, guess for me how many pages
6 x 8" it would take to make a stack six inches high. Forty or fifty pages?
Give or take ten pages?
Now, lets consider ancient methods of engraving on metal. I honestly don't
know a great deal about that. However, I do know the methods would have been
by hand and would have involved using primitive hammers and metal instruments.
(a far cry from the way machines engrave patterns on microchips for computers
today). I suspect using this method would have limited each page to a maximum
of 20 lines of text. I also think its a safe assumption that the engraved text
would have been larger than the 10 or 12 character by inch modern type.
Also, have you considered just how long engraving all this text might have
taken these ancient peoples?
>As far as the written density, the Egyptian system was
>far more compact, one symbol per word or even per whole
>phrase. A couple of places in the Book of Mormon
>emphasize the fact that they were using the Egyptian
>system for that reason.
Here is where you run into your problem. First of all, I don't need to remind
you one more time that no one has ever encountered the "Reformed Egyptian"
language that Smith alleges the plates were translated from.
Egyptologists will tell us this though. The regular Egyptian language was
apparently a very inefficient language and a difficult means of communication.
The only reason that it lasted as long as it did is that in its latter years,
Egyptian society was a decaying culture with little new occurring. Absent any
proof that "Reformed Egyptian" actually existed and absent having a sample of
it we must look to the ancient Egyptian as the closest approximation. If you
want, I'll provide a cite.
My point here is really simple. It would have been impossible to write any
known form of Egyptian on 40 or 50 pages of golden plates (6" x 8") the entire
text for a verbose 500 plus page book.
Its simply one more difficult to reconcile element in a very odd story.
Mark
cdowis
Sigh. If someone gives their wife a "gold ring", does that mean it is
pure gold?
Come on, man. Pull yourself together.
giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent,
> and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness
> of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the
> Savior to the ancient inhabitants;" [Joseph Smith history, 1:34].
>
> Notice that, during this hallucination, Joseph Smith did not imagine
> an angel telling him the plates were made of something that only
> looked like gold, or that was only a gold alloy. But that the plates
> were simply "gold." Furthermore, in the stories that Joseph Smith
> would later tell about this imaginary angel, Moroni had intimate
> information about exactly what the plates were made of, since (in this
> absurd myth of Mormonism) he carried them all over the place for many
> years, and was the Mormon god's messanger.
>
> Of course, the Book of Mormon says that the ancient Americans wrote
> lots of such records, using Hebrew and Egyptian characters. This is
> yet another reason to understand the Book of Mormon as a clumsy fraud,
> because there is not one such example of ancient plates with Hebrew or
> Egyptian from ancient America.
Note how he carefully crafted his sentence. He knows that there are
such examples in the Old World, but he does not want you to know that.
>That's not too surprising, given the
> fact that the Book of Mormon is a clumsy fraud.
yawn
rtbaird
"cdowis" <cdo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:93c36e92.02071...@posting.google.com...
Where did Duwayne say "pure gold"? He didn't. That's an obvious strawman.
If you buy a "gold ring" from a jeweler, would you settle for "something
similar looking" (to use your own words)?
>
>
>
>
> giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent,
> > and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness
> > of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the
> > Savior to the ancient inhabitants;" [Joseph Smith history, 1:34].
> >
> > Notice that, during this hallucination, Joseph Smith did not imagine
> > an angel telling him the plates were made of something that only
> > looked like gold, or that was only a gold alloy. But that the plates
> > were simply "gold." Furthermore, in the stories that Joseph Smith
> > would later tell about this imaginary angel, Moroni had intimate
> > information about exactly what the plates were made of, since (in this
> > absurd myth of Mormonism) he carried them all over the place for many
> > years, and was the Mormon god's messanger.
> >
> > Of course, the Book of Mormon says that the ancient Americans wrote
> > lots of such records, using Hebrew and Egyptian characters. This is
> > yet another reason to understand the Book of Mormon as a clumsy fraud,
> > because there is not one such example of ancient plates with Hebrew or
> > Egyptian from ancient America.
>
> Note how he carefully crafted his sentence. He knows that there are
> such examples in the Old World, but he does not want you to know that.
>
<snip>
It's deceitful for you to pretend you have inside knowledge of Duwayne's
motive. It's illogical for you to pretend such knowledge is relevant
(appeal to motive fallacy).
Since Duwayne didn't claim such plates are NOT found in the old world, this
is yet another strawman.
RTBaird
GRaleigh345
wrote:
>
>Stop and think about this for a moment. The BoM is a verbose 500 plus page
>book. The Golden Plates were 6 inches wide and 8 inches long (in other
>words,
>smaller than normal 8.5" by 11 sheets of paper.
>
>
That's the beauty of using an unknown language for the writing. We do not
know its alphabet, syntax, or basic vocabulary. The phrase "and it came to
pass", I'm told, is either omitted from the German version, or replaced by a
single German word--can't remember which. That made the German edition
significantly smaller. Since most of the BoM is extremely repetitive, it could
have been written in condensed or shorthand form. It is amazing just how much
the so-called Anthon Transcript looks just like the computer gibberish from a
zipped file.
That means very little, since we know that the Nephites could not have had
computers. But they would have had to, considering that their library was in
Tennessee (Bat Creek Stone), their agricultural facilities in Arizona (barley),
their gold and silver mines in Central America, and their landing site in
Chile, and their colisseum for wars of extermination in New York State..
As a matter of fact, they would have needed both jet propelled helicopters and
huge VTOL transport planes to ship all that barley down to Central America
without using airports, superhighways and railroads. And to read the "library
book", the internet would have been necessary because no nephite could get to
Tennessee. Then again, maybe that is why there was only one page of one book
left in the library--all the nephites were too lazy to walk all the way back to
Tennesee to turn the books back in.
But, the Nephites were a hungry bunch, since they didn't leave a single scrap
of barley at the area of consumption. Someone on A.R.M. has suggested that
their food addiction did in their horses and elephants as well. When Promised
Land Farm Insurance stopped underwriting vehicle liability, they stopped
building chariots. And when the companies stopped writing health insurance
policies, no one could get gene stabilization done any more and they all turned
into asians.
And let's not forget General Sherman. Since the Nephites had no trouble
wandering North and South America with bronze age vehicles, it was a cinch for
General Sherman (in between destroying rebel railroad tracks) to steal all the
iron implements in North and South America and blow up all the iron mines, in
case the Mayans and Aztecs might build railroads and swords for rebel troops.
The only modern work I can compare to the Book of Mormon is THE SECRET
ADVENTURES OF JULES VERNE. On a weekly basis, Verne flies the Atlantic in his
1860 airplane to assist General McClellan in repelling aerial attacks from a
flying fortress manned by fascist terrorists. His old friend Phineas Fogg,
assisted by Passepartou, helps out a lot when not courting plantation matrons.
The story has to be true, you know, because Abraham Lincoln, Jules Verne, and
General McClellan actually did live, and we know, of course, where the Atlantic
Ocean is. And caucasian Americans did possess guns, bayonnets, cannons, and
mortars, shells, rockets, and bombs in the 19th century. It isn't our fault
that all the boilers on their steam powered airplanes exploded and destroyed
the evidence of flight.
Simon Dean
> Oh, you mean the plates the Book of Mormon was written
> on, which were of gold or something similar looking, like
> a gold alloy. They are usually called the golden plates
> or the Book of Mormon plates. Your original question
> was about the /brass/ plates. The text of the Book of
> Mormon talks about a set of brass plates. These were
> brought from Jerusalem to the promised land by the Lehi
> party in the sixth century BC. I was wondering why
> anyone would care what size they were, since we don't
> have them today, no one has mentioned seeing them for
> 2000 years or more that I can think of offhand, and
> they don't figure in the modern story much.
Ok. A little confused now, but lets see if I have this correct. The Book
of Mormon is upon Plates of Gold, and pre-book of mormon, are the Plates
of Gold, which is the genealogy of Nephi's forefathers? So no one yet
knows what is upon the plates of brass? And it was reformed egyptian
that was used upon those gold plates?
Right OK. And no one knows what size text or what size writing could be
had using reformed egyptian upon gold plates, but it could easily be
assumed that it could be much smaller than english and so the gold
plates could be transportable fairly easily and could have carried the
entirety of the book of mormon...
Makes sense when you know a bit more...
I'm still thinking about joining the LDS church, but I still find myself
having issues as to its authenticity. It could be a work of fiction,
maybe from 600 BC, or perhaps in 1830 AD... the book could belong to a
false church... People talk about just having faith, and faith in Jesus
Christ and God, I have, but one of the obvious things you learn from the
Book of Mormon, is that men are iniquitous. They have setup false
religions, claiming to worship Jesus Christ, for various reasons, like
to make money, (it's written in the book somewhere, a fleeting
paragraph, I've read it, I'm sure).
But I just want some divine intervention to tell me its true, or
false... Maybe I already had my sign a while back. When I was having a
few personal problems, I just happened to be going through my local
town, and a missionary gave me a book.
I've never seen another Mormon, or missionary, before or since. And I
just happened to be going through town at that time on that particular
day. Conincidence? I hope not. But still, just one more sign, make sure
it wasn't conincidence... that's all I ask...
Cya
Simon
Duwayne Anderson
I didn't use the word "pure gold," Charles. I simply stated that
Mormon doctrine teaches that the plates were of gold. This was in
direct contradiction to Woody's comments about the plates being made
"of gold or something similar looking..."
It's a common technique among LDS apologists to try and water down the
claims of the Book of Mormon -- it makes it easier for them to grab
onto any slim similarities in their frantic attempt to keep people
from recognizing the Book of Mormon for what it is: a clumsy fraud.
> Come on, man. Pull yourself together.
Deal with the issues, Charles.
>
>
> giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent,
> > and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness
> > of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the
> > Savior to the ancient inhabitants;" [Joseph Smith history, 1:34].
> >
> > Notice that, during this hallucination, Joseph Smith did not imagine
> > an angel telling him the plates were made of something that only
> > looked like gold, or that was only a gold alloy. But that the plates
> > were simply "gold." Furthermore, in the stories that Joseph Smith
> > would later tell about this imaginary angel, Moroni had intimate
> > information about exactly what the plates were made of, since (in this
> > absurd myth of Mormonism) he carried them all over the place for many
> > years, and was the Mormon god's messanger.
> >
> > Of course, the Book of Mormon says that the ancient Americans wrote
> > lots of such records, using Hebrew and Egyptian characters. This is
> > yet another reason to understand the Book of Mormon as a clumsy fraud,
> > because there is not one such example of ancient plates with Hebrew or
> > Egyptian from ancient America.
>
> Note how he carefully crafted his sentence. He knows that there are
> such examples in the Old World, but he does not want you to know that.
Go back and read the statement I quoted from the (imaginary) angel
Moroni -- that's the verse that you so dishonestly snipped in your
reply, Charles:
"He [the imaginary angel that Joseph Smith spoke to during his
hallucination]said there was a abook deposited, written upon gold
plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent,
and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness
of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the
Savior to the ancient inhabitants;" [Joseph Smith history, 1:34].
Notice Moroni's words: "inhabitants of this continent."
The Book of Mormon is a fraud written about ancient America, Charles.
That's why its description of ancient America is so out of touch with
what science tells us. That's why you keep trying to compare it with
the Old World. There are better similarities with the Old World --
but that's what we'd expect, given the manner in which Joseph Smith
copied whole chunks word for word from the Bible into his clumsy
fraud.
> >That's not too surprising, given the
> > fact that the Book of Mormon is a clumsy fraud.
>
>
> yawn
Deal with the issues, Charles.
Duwayne Anderson
I didn't use the word "pure gold," Charles. I simply stated that
Mormon doctrine teaches that the plates were of gold. This was in
direct contradiction to Woody's comments about the plates being made
"of gold or something similar looking..."
It's a common technique among LDS apologists to try and water down the
claims of the Book of Mormon -- it makes it easier for them to grab
onto any slim similarities in their frantic attempt to keep people
from recognizing the Book of Mormon for what it is: a clumsy fraud.
> Come on, man. Pull yourself together.
Deal with the issues, Charles.
>
>
> giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent,
> > and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness
> > of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the
> > Savior to the ancient inhabitants;" [Joseph Smith history, 1:34].
> >
> > Notice that, during this hallucination, Joseph Smith did not imagine
> > an angel telling him the plates were made of something that only
> > looked like gold, or that was only a gold alloy. But that the plates
> > were simply "gold." Furthermore, in the stories that Joseph Smith
> > would later tell about this imaginary angel, Moroni had intimate
> > information about exactly what the plates were made of, since (in this
> > absurd myth of Mormonism) he carried them all over the place for many
> > years, and was the Mormon god's messanger.
> >
> > Of course, the Book of Mormon says that the ancient Americans wrote
> > lots of such records, using Hebrew and Egyptian characters. This is
> > yet another reason to understand the Book of Mormon as a clumsy fraud,
> > because there is not one such example of ancient plates with Hebrew or
> > Egyptian from ancient America.
>
> Note how he carefully crafted his sentence. He knows that there are
> such examples in the Old World, but he does not want you to know that.
Go back and read the statement I quoted from the (imaginary) angel
Moroni -- that's the verse that you so dishonestly snipped in your
reply, Charles:
"He [the imaginary angel that Joseph Smith spoke to during his
hallucination]said there was a abook deposited, written upon gold
plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent,
and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness
of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the
Savior to the ancient inhabitants;" [Joseph Smith history, 1:34].
Notice Moroni's words: "inhabitants of this continent."
The Book of Mormon is a fraud written about ancient America, Charles.
That's why its description of ancient America is so out of touch with
what science tells us. That's why you keep trying to compare it with
the Old World. There are better similarities with the Old World --
but that's what we'd expect, given the manner in which Joseph Smith
copied whole chunks word for word from the Bible into his clumsy
fraud.
> >That's not too surprising, given the
> > fact that the Book of Mormon is a clumsy fraud.
>
>
> yawn
Deal with the issues, Charles.
Duwayne Anderson
It depends. Are they a tightwad? How about someone giving their wife
a "diamond" ring? Does that mean it's not Zirconium? I suppose it
depends on whether they are a cheapskate or pathological liar.
Anyway, I didn't use the word "pure gold," Charles. I simply stated
that Mormon doctrine teaches that the plates were of gold. This was
in direct contradiction to Woody's comments about the plates being
made "of gold or something similar looking..."
It's a common technique among LDS apologists to try and water down the
claims of the Book of Mormon -- it makes it easier for them to grab
onto any slim similarities in their frantic attempt to keep people
from recognizing the Book of Mormon for what it is: a clumsy fraud.
> Come on, man. Pull yourself together.
Deal with the issues, Charles.
>
>
> giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent,
> > and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness
> > of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the
> > Savior to the ancient inhabitants;" [Joseph Smith history, 1:34].
> >
> > Notice that, during this hallucination, Joseph Smith did not imagine
> > an angel telling him the plates were made of something that only
> > looked like gold, or that was only a gold alloy. But that the plates
> > were simply "gold." Furthermore, in the stories that Joseph Smith
> > would later tell about this imaginary angel, Moroni had intimate
> > information about exactly what the plates were made of, since (in this
> > absurd myth of Mormonism) he carried them all over the place for many
> > years, and was the Mormon god's messanger.
> >
> > Of course, the Book of Mormon says that the ancient Americans wrote
> > lots of such records, using Hebrew and Egyptian characters. This is
> > yet another reason to understand the Book of Mormon as a clumsy fraud,
> > because there is not one such example of ancient plates with Hebrew or
> > Egyptian from ancient America.
>
> Note how he carefully crafted his sentence. He knows that there are
> such examples in the Old World, but he does not want you to know that.
Go back and read the statement I quoted from the (imaginary) angel
Moroni -- that's the verse that you snipped in your reply, Charles (by
the way, why DID you snip that quote?):
"He [the imaginary angel that Joseph Smith spoke to during his
hallucination]said there was a book deposited, written upon gold
plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent,
and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness
of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the
Savior to the ancient inhabitants;" [Joseph Smith history, 1:34].
Notice Moroni's words: "inhabitants of this continent."
The Book of Mormon is a fraud written about ancient America, Charles.
That's why its description of ancient America is so out of touch with
what science tells us. That's why you keep trying to compare it with
the Old World. There are better similarities with the Old World --
but that's what we'd expect, given the manner in which Joseph Smith
copied whole chunks word for word from the Bible into his clumsy
fraud.
> >That's not too surprising, given the
> > fact that the Book of Mormon is a clumsy fraud.
>
>
> yawn
Deal with the issues, Charles.
AnthonyPaul
>of Mormon is upon Plates of Gold, and pre-book of mormon, are the Plates
>of Gold, which is the genealogy of Nephi's forefathers? So no one yet
>knows what is upon the plates of brass? And it was reformed egyptian
>that was used upon those gold plates?
>
>Right OK. And no one knows what size text or what size writing could be
>had using reformed egyptian upon gold plates, but it could easily be
>assumed that it could be much smaller than english and so the gold
>plates could be transportable fairly easily and could have carried the
>entirety of the book of mormon...
From "A Brief Explanation About The Book Of Mormon":
The Book of Mormon is a sacred record of peoples in ancient America, and was
engraved upon sheets of metal. Four kinds of metal record plates are spoken of
in the book itself:
1. The Plates of Nephi, which were of two kinds: the Small Plates and the Large
Plates. The former [ie. small plates] were more particularly devoted to the
spiritual matters and the ministry and teachings of the prophets, while the
latter [ie. large plates] were occupied mostly by a secular history of the
peoples concerned (1 Nephi 9:2–4). From the time of Mosiah, however, the
large plates also included items of major spiritual importance.
2. The Plates of Mormon, which consist of an abridgment by Mormon from the
Large Plates of Nephi, with many commentaries. These plates also contained a
continuation of the history by Mormon and additions by his son Moroni.
3. The Plates of Ether, which present a history of the Jaredites. This record
was abridged by Moroni, who inserted comments of his own and incorporated the
record with the general history under the title "Book of Ether."
4. The Plates of Brass brought by the people of Lehi from Jerusalem in 600 B.C.
These contained "the five books of Moses, . . . And also a record of the Jews
from the beginning, . . . down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah,
king of Judah; And also the prophecies of the holy prophets" (1 Nephi
5:11–13). Many quotations from these plates, citing Isaiah and other
biblical and nonbiblical prophets, appear in the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon comprises fifteen main parts or divisions, known, with one
exception, as books, each designated by the name of its principal author. The
first portion (the first six books, ending with Omni) is a translation from the
Small Plates of Nephi. Between the books of Omni and Mosiah is an insert
called The Words of Mormon. This insert connects the record engraved on the
Small Plates with Mormon's abridgment of the Large Plates.
The longest portion, from Mosiah to Mormon, chapter 7, inclusive, is a
translation of Mormon's abridgment of the Large Plates of Nephi. The
concluding portion, from Mormon, chapter 8, to the end of the volume, was
engraved by Mormon's son Moroni, who, after finishing the record of his
father's life, made an abridgment of the Jaredite record (as the Book of Ether)
and later added the parts known as the Book of Moroni.
In or about the year A.D. 421, Moroni, the last of the Nephite
prophet-historians, sealed the sacred record and hid it up unto the Lord, to be
brought forth in the latter days, as predicted by the voice of God through his
ancient prophets. In A.D. 1823, this same Moroni, then a resurrected
personage, visited the Prophet Joseph Smith and subsequently delivered the
engraved plates to him.
_____________
Anthony
cdowis
Did you read the rest of the post? Continue reading the rest of the
paragraph, and his meaning is quite clear.
>
> If you buy a "gold ring" from a jeweler, would you settle for "something
> similar looking" (to use your own words)?
Talk to a jeweler. Do your homework. Ask him how many pure gold
rings he sells.
They are an alloy, but find out for yourself.
Why is it necessary to spoonfeed you?
RTBaird
That's common knowledge, but gold rings are still referred to as "gold".
Your admission that you know this makes it all the more obvious that your
"pure gold" argument against Duwayne was nothing but pretense.
> Why is it necessary to spoonfeed you?
(chuckle) Oh yes, the ubiquitous ad hominem.
You were the one pretending not to know this, not me. You deliberately
blurred this distinction in order to make a straw man argument against
Duwayne, now you're dishonestly pretending that it was *me* that didn't
understand this fact after I called you out on it. Charles, you're
obviously not a completely stupid person, you can do better than this.
<snip>
RTBaird
Duwayne Anderson
For those who wonder why Charles is afraid to actually quote what I
said, here it is. The meaning, as Charles says, is quite clear:
It's a real shame that so many Mormons are unfamiliar with their
scriptures. When Moroni visited Joseph Smith (in his imagination) the
(imaginary) angel told Joseph Smith the plates were made of gold.
Here's the reference:
"He [the imaginary angel that Joseph Smith spoke to during his
hallucination]said there was a abook deposited, written upon gold
plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent,
and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness
of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the
Savior to the ancient inhabitants;" [Joseph Smith history, 1:34].
Notice that, during this hallucination, Joseph Smith did not imagine
an angel telling him the plates were made of something that only
looked like gold, or that was only a gold alloy. But that the plates
were simply "gold." Furthermore, in the stories that Joseph Smith
would later tell about this imaginary angel, Moroni had intimate
information about exactly what the plates were made of, since (in this
absurd myth of Mormonism) he carried them all over the place for many
years, and was the Mormon god's messanger.
Of course, the Book of Mormon says that the ancient Americans wrote
lots of such records, using Hebrew and Egyptian characters. This is
yet another reason to understand the Book of Mormon as a clumsy fraud,
because there is not one such example of ancient plates with Hebrew or
Egyptian from ancient America. That's not too surprising, given the
fact that the Book of Mormon is a clumsy fraud.
>
> >
> > If you buy a "gold ring" from a jeweler, would you settle for "something
> > similar looking" (to use your own words)?
>
> Talk to a jeweler. Do your homework. Ask him how many pure gold
> rings he sells.
Notice how Charles tries setting up a strawman. Notice how he
carefully ignores the LDS scripture I quoted.
>
> They are an alloy, but find out for yourself.
Observe how Charles plays with words.
>
> Why is it necessary to spoonfeed you?
Notice how he ignores the issues.
Winfried Nelson
"RTBaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:uj6qcv6...@corp.supernews.com...
I believe that's Charles's point exactly. Alloys are lighter than pure
gold.
> Your admission that you know this makes it all the more obvious that your
"pure gold" argument against Duwayne was nothing but pretense.>
Oh come now. Whose arguments aren't pretense. Most feign some sort of
ignorance. You do it all the time (unless of course you really are ignorant
about the subtleties).
> > Why is it necessary to spoonfeed you?
>
> (chuckle) Oh yes, the ubiquitous ad hominem.>
Better reread your dictionary man.
>
> You were the one pretending not to know this, not me. You deliberately
> blurred this distinction in order to make a straw man argument against
> Duwayne, now you're dishonestly pretending that it was *me* that didn't
> understand this fact after I called you out on it. Charles, you're
> obviously not a completely stupid person, you can do better than this.>
Wish the same could be said about you, sir.
>
> <snip>
>
> RTBaird
>
>
>
Winfried Nelson
"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.0207...@posting.google.com...
Nice way to introduce ad hominem into the equation.
>the (imaginary) angel>
Again.
> told Joseph Smith the plates were made of gold. Here's the reference:
>
> "He [the imaginary angel that Joseph Smith spoke to during his
> hallucination]>
Again.
>said there was a abook deposited, written upon gold
> plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and
the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the
everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the
ancient inhabitants;" [Joseph Smith history, 1:34].>
And Charles noted that in the vernacular, the word "gold" usually refers to
an alloy (like, "look at my 14 carot gold ring").
>
> Notice that, during this hallucination,>
Again.
> Joseph Smith did not imagine an angel telling him the plates were made of
something that only looked like gold, or that was only a gold alloy. But
that the plates were simply "gold.">
Maybe he was told (or imagining) 14 carot gold. Amazing you want there to
have been a complete metallurgical description of the materials used to make
the plates, as if this would have a big theological significance.
> Furthermore, in the stories that Joseph Smith
> would later tell about this imaginary angel, Moroni had intimate
> information about exactly what the plates were made of, since (in this
absurd myth of Mormonism)>
Again.
> he carried them all over the place for many
> years, and was the Mormon god's messanger.
>
> Of course, the Book of Mormon says that the ancient Americans wrote lots
of such records, using Hebrew and Egyptian characters. This is yet another
reason to understand the Book of Mormon as a clumsy fraud,>
Again.
> because there is not one such example of ancient plates with Hebrew or
Egyptian from ancient America.>
There has been one.
> That's not too surprising, given the fact that the Book of Mormon is a
clumsy fraud.>
Again.
>
> >
> > >
> > > If you buy a "gold ring" from a jeweler, would you settle for
"something
> > > similar looking" (to use your own words)?
> >
> > Talk to a jeweler. Do your homework. Ask him how many pure gold
> > rings he sells.
>
> Notice how Charles tries setting up a strawman. Notice how he
> carefully ignores the LDS scripture I quoted.>
I think he responded quite clearly. You are either really dense or really
dishonest. Which?
>
> >
> > They are an alloy, but find out for yourself.
>
> Observe how Charles plays with words.>
"Plays"? What could be more clear?
>
> >
> > Why is it necessary to spoonfeed you?
>
> Notice how he ignores the issues.>
You're the one dodging this time, sir.
rtbaird
"Winfried Nelson" <w...@athome.com> wrote in message
news:7NVY8.229097$vq.12...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
(Rolling eyes) Then IT'S A STRAW MAN for Charles to imply that Duwayne's use
of the word "gold" refers only to "pure gold". And it's deliberate too,
because Charles has since admitted he knows better.
This concept couldn't be more obvious, I don't know why you guys are having
so much trouble with this.
>
>
> > Your admission that you know this makes it all the more obvious that
your
> "pure gold" argument against Duwayne was nothing but pretense.>
>
> Oh come now. Whose arguments aren't pretense. Most feign some sort of
> ignorance. You do it all the time (unless of course you really are
ignorant
> about the subtleties).
>
>
> > > Why is it necessary to spoonfeed you?
> >
> > (chuckle) Oh yes, the ubiquitous ad hominem.>
>
> Better reread your dictionary man.
>
Perhaps you should consult yours. Virtually every post from apologists
contains at least one. Yours does. They're effectively omnipresent in
LDS-speak.
> >
> > You were the one pretending not to know this, not me. You deliberately
> > blurred this distinction in order to make a straw man argument against
> > Duwayne, now you're dishonestly pretending that it was *me* that didn't
> > understand this fact after I called you out on it. Charles, you're
> > obviously not a completely stupid person, you can do better than this.>
>
> Wish the same could be said about you, sir.
>
Oh it can. I ALWAYS do much better than he does. (Your ad hominem is
noted, are they obligatory or something?).
RTBaird
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > RTBaird
> >
> >
> >
>
>
rtbaird
Not so.
You need to educate yourself on the concept of ad hominem, which (in common
usage) is the technique of disparaging the person you are arguing WITH
(Charles) , not the person you are arguing ABOUT (Joseph Smith).
Perhaps you are referring to the far less common usage, which means "to
appeal to emotion or prejudice", which isn't occuring here either because
Duwayne does not sound like he's trying to appeal to Charles' prejudices, in
fact it appears to be the opposite case.
>
> >the (imaginary) angel>
>
> Again.
Again.
>
> > told Joseph Smith the plates were made of gold. Here's the reference:
> >
> > "He [the imaginary angel that Joseph Smith spoke to during his
> > hallucination]>
>
> Again.
>
Again.
> >said there was a abook deposited, written upon gold
> > plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent,
and
> the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the
> everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the
> ancient inhabitants;" [Joseph Smith history, 1:34].>
>
> And Charles noted that in the vernacular, the word "gold" usually refers
to
> an alloy (like, "look at my 14 carot gold ring").
>
What happened to the "something similar looking" line you guys were trying
to sell?
Again.
Again.
<snip>
Speaking of dishonesty, you've inserted your own ad hominem after (falsely)
accusing Duwayne of the same thing.
RTBaird
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> > It's a real shame that so many Mormons are unfamiliar with their
> > scriptures. When Moroni visited Joseph Smith (in his imagination)
>
> Nice way to introduce ad hominem into the equation.
Winfried, do you understand what an "ad hominem" equation is? It's
when one person tries to discredit another person's argument not on
the basis of the logic used in the argument, but by appealing to
emotional and irrelevant issues in the person advancing the argument.
By claiming Mormons are unfamiliar with their scriptures, and that
Moroni only visited Joseph Smith in his imagination, I'm not using an
ad hominem argument. You may not like the argument. You may not agree
with it. It may make you mad as hell. But that does not make it ad
hominem.
What's interesting about your uninformed use of the "ad hominem" card
is that you are actually -- marginally -- guilty of using an ad
hominem argument by making the false claim. This is especially
evident by the fact that you have not dealt with the issues, but use
"ad hominem" as a type of name calling in an apparent attempt to
deflect investigation into the actual issues at hand.
>
>
> >the (imaginary) angel>
>
> Again.
>
> > told Joseph Smith the plates were made of gold. Here's the reference:
> >
> > "He [the imaginary angel that Joseph Smith spoke to during his
> > hallucination]>
>
> Again.
Again, Winfried avoids the issues. The idea that Moroni's visit was
an hallucination is certainly consistent with the fact that nothing
Moroni supposedly told Smith can be validated. But Winfried cannot
deal with this particular issue, and so he plays the ad hominem card.
>
> >said there was a abook deposited, written upon gold
> > plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and
> the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the
> everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the
> ancient inhabitants;" [Joseph Smith history, 1:34].>
>
> And Charles noted that in the vernacular, the word "gold" usually refers to
> an alloy (like, "look at my 14 carot gold ring").
>
> >
> > Notice that, during this hallucination,>
>
> Again.
Again, Winfried avoids the issues. The idea that Moroni's visit was
an hallucination is certainly consistent with the fact that nothing
Moroni supposedly told Smith can be validated. But Winfried cannot
deal with this particular issue, and so he plays the ad hominem card.
>
> > Joseph Smith did not imagine an angel telling him the plates were made of
> something that only looked like gold, or that was only a gold alloy. But
> that the plates were simply "gold.">
>
> Maybe he was told (or imagining) 14 carot gold.
This is what I'm talking about. Mormons -- many at least -- seem to
be subconsciously aware that their Book of Mormon is a clumsy fraud.
So much so that they seem always trying to water down its claims -- to
leave an escape door open when the next bit of information
discrediting the thing comes along.
The point, Winefried, is that Joseph Smith said that, by revelation,
he was told the plates were gold. Period. Now, if you cannot even
trust your angels to tell the truth, what's the point? Why this need
for apologists to try and add words like "alloy" or "14 carot gold" to
the simple language that the angel Moroni supposedly used?
> Amazing you want there to
> have been a complete metallurgical description of the materials used to make
> the plates, as if this would have a big theological significance.
Here, Winefried is simply lying. I've said no such thing. In fact,
I'm claiming that Mormons should simply state what Moroni said: The
plates were gold. It's the LDS apologists who are trying to muddle
through with safty excuses about gold plates possibly being something
else.
>
> > Furthermore, in the stories that Joseph Smith
> > would later tell about this imaginary angel, Moroni had intimate
> > information about exactly what the plates were made of, since (in this
> absurd myth of Mormonism)>
>
> Again.
Again, Winfried avoids the issues. The idea that Moroni's visit was
an hallucination is certainly consistent with the fact that nothing
Moroni supposedly told Smith can be validated. But Winfried cannot
deal with this particular issue, and so he plays the ad hominem card.
>
> > he carried them all over the place for many
> > years, and was the Mormon god's messanger.
> >
> > Of course, the Book of Mormon says that the ancient Americans wrote lots
> of such records, using Hebrew and Egyptian characters. This is yet another
> reason to understand the Book of Mormon as a clumsy fraud,>
>
> Again.
Again, Winfried avoids the issues. The idea that Moroni's visit was
an hallucination is certainly consistent with the fact that nothing
Moroni supposedly told Smith can be validated. But Winfried cannot
deal with this particular issue, and so he plays the ad hominem card.
>
> > because there is not one such example of ancient plates with Hebrew or
> Egyptian from ancient America.>
>
> There has been one.
Here, Winefried is lying again. There are no examples of plates with
Hebrew or Egyptian from ancient America. That's why Winefried simply
asserted that there is, without providing verifiable, objective
evidence.
>
> > That's not too surprising, given the fact that the Book of Mormon is a
> clumsy fraud.>
>
> Again.
Again, Winfried avoids the issues. The idea that the Book of Mormon
is a clumsy fraud is certainly consistent with the fact that no
non-trivial descriptions in the Book of Mormon are consistent with
what science tells us about ancient America. But Winfried cannot deal
with this particular issue, and so he plays the ad hominem card.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If you buy a "gold ring" from a jeweler, would you settle for
> "something
> > > > similar looking" (to use your own words)?
> > >
> > > Talk to a jeweler. Do your homework. Ask him how many pure gold
> > > rings he sells.
> >
> > Notice how Charles tries setting up a strawman. Notice how he
> > carefully ignores the LDS scripture I quoted.>
>
> I think he responded quite clearly.
Of course you do. Charles is your fellow Latter-day Saint, and you
feel a brotherly obligation to defend him.
> You are either really dense or really
> dishonest. Which?
As many times as Winefried has tried to use the ad hominem card, it's
interesting to see this approach. Winefried cannot deal with the
issues, so he simply calls the other guy dense.
Now, Winefried, let's stick with the issues. The angel Moroni
supposedly told Joseph Smith that the plates were gold. Period.
Explain again this obsession of yours and Dowis' over not taking that
statement of Moroni's at face value.
>
> >
> > >
> > > They are an alloy, but find out for yourself.
> >
> > Observe how Charles plays with words.>
>
> "Plays"? What could be more clear?
Because an "alloy" could be anything from 1 part in 100,000 to 50/50,
and because your angel Moroni did not use the word.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Why is it necessary to spoonfeed you?
> >
> > Notice how he ignores the issues.>
>
> You're the one dodging this time, sir.
The above statement by Winefried is false, which is why Winefried only
made the accusation, but didn't bother to justify it.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> I believe that's Charles's point exactly.
Of course you do. He's your brother in the Church. And he's trying to
defend the Book of Mormon from critial analysis. Of course you
believe him.
> Alloys are lighter than pure
> gold.
And that's the essential crux of the dishonest LDS argument. Your own
scriptures describe the plates as gold. Period. Not a "ligher"
alloy.
But that makes no sense. Even rough calculations show the plates
would have been too heavy for Smith to go racing around, dodging those
evil anti-Mormon mobs, with the plates under one arm. You know this.
So you deny what the LDS scriptures say -- that the plates were gold
-- and invent a new gold alloy that is ligher than gold, so that you
can make sense of Smith's story.
>
> > Your admission that you know this makes it all the more obvious that your
> "pure gold" argument against Duwayne was nothing but pretense.>
>
> Oh come now. Whose arguments aren't pretense. Most feign some sort of
> ignorance.
> You do it all the time (unless of course you really are ignorant
> about the subtleties).
Winefried, you need to deal with the issues, and not make your
situation worse with name calling.
>
>
> > > Why is it necessary to spoonfeed you?
> >
> > (chuckle) Oh yes, the ubiquitous ad hominem.>
>
> Better reread your dictionary man.
That would be good advice for you, Winefried. Charle's comments about
spoon feeding are classic ad hominem style because they avoid the
issues while trying to focus on the individual.
>
> >
> > You were the one pretending not to know this, not me. You deliberately
> > blurred this distinction in order to make a straw man argument against
> > Duwayne, now you're dishonestly pretending that it was *me* that didn't
> > understand this fact after I called you out on it. Charles, you're
> > obviously not a completely stupid person, you can do better than this.>
>
> Wish the same could be said about you, sir.
Again, Winefried. You need to deal with the issues. Name calling and
bad arguments won't get you very far.
rtbaird
apologists are apparently claiming that the Nephites where smart enough to
manufacture a gold alloy but not smart enough to beat it flat.
???
RTBaird
Woody Brison
> I think he responded quite clearly. You are either really dense or really
> dishonest. Which?
"rtbaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message news:<3d344726$1...@hpb10302.boi.hp.com>...
> Speaking of dishonesty, you've inserted your own ad hominem after (falsely)
> accusing Duwayne of the same thing.
If a person knew nothing about Duwayne or even what the
concept of honesty was, still they could be impressed that
lots of people who try to discuss anything with him end
up asking that EXACT same question -- is he dishonest
or really, really stupid. It's sort of like his hallmark.
Wood
RTBaird
"Woody Brison" <wwbr...@lds.net> wrote in message
news:f36171a3.02071...@posting.google.com...
It's not surprising that any apologist carries such an opinion of any
critic. The church sure seems to program your brains that way.
That aside, is anyone going to take him on regarding the actual subject
under discussion here at some point?
RTBaird
Duwayne Anderson
These comments by Woody illustrate a common type of argument used by
the LDS, called name calling. Woody cannot deal with the issues, and
so he invents accusations and engages in character assassination.
That's not surprising, given his total inability to deal with any of
the issues. The ad hominem card is the only one left for him to play
with.
The real question for observers is, is this the sort of situation we'd
expect to find for apologists of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (LDS, or Mormon)? I mean, if they really were the
true Church -- the ONLY true Church, as they claim -- you'd think they
could deal with the issues, and would not be reduced to the sort of
ethical debauchery that apologists for the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, like Woody, wallow around in.
Cheap Suit
And with you, no one needs to ask.
--
Best,
Dangerous
Don Marchant
Dangerous1.com
Cheapsuit @ Dangerous1.com
A morning without coffee is like
something without something else.
Now playing: Silence.
Lee Paulson
> "Winfried Nelson" <w...@athome.com> wrote in message
news:<7NVY8.229097$vq.12...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
>
> <snip>
> > Wish the same could be said about you, sir.
>
> Again, Winefried. You need to deal with the issues. Name calling and
> bad arguments won't get you very far.
>
But of course, that's John's trademark.
Winfried Nelson
Perhaps you're right. Still, you didn't do a very good job of
rehabilitating Mr. Anderson's poor hehavior. You simply renamed it.
>
> >
> > >the (imaginary) angel>
> >
> > Again.
>
> Again.
>
> >
> > > told Joseph Smith the plates were made of gold. Here's the reference:
> > >
> > > "He [the imaginary angel that Joseph Smith spoke to during his
> > > hallucination]>
> >
> > Again.
> >
>
> Again.
>
> > >said there was a abook deposited, written upon gold
> > > plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent,
> and
> > the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the
> > everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to
the
> > ancient inhabitants;" [Joseph Smith history, 1:34].>
> >
> > And Charles noted that in the vernacular, the word "gold" usually refers
> to
> > an alloy (like, "look at my 14 carot gold ring").
> >
>
> What happened to the "something similar looking" line you guys were trying
to sell?>
Who us guys?
No. I honestly see two factual possibilities. That's not ad hominen
either.
>
> RTBaird
>
>
Winfried Nelson
Not having that much time here, I'm not an expert on this man, but from what
I can see so far he's about as intellectually dishonest as they come. And
that's not ad hominem. It's simply fact.
rtbaird
Whether or not your assertions are factual has nothing to do with it. The
ad hominem fallacy occurs when you attack Duwayne's character rather than
the subject under discussion (gold alloys, etc.). Even IF you are correct
about him, it's still an ad hominem.
You really shouldn't use words if you don't know what they mean.
RTBaird
rtbaird
Actually, yes it is ad hominem. Whether your assertion is true or false is
irrelevant, the fallacy comes from the implication that it IS relevant.
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/adhomine.html
Using logical fallacies such as yours IS an intellectually dishonest tactic,
you're in a glass house on this one.
RTBaird
Winfried Nelson
If they both agree that "gold" includes alloys of gold, which are lighter
than pure gold, then there is nothing to argue about. If so, why did
Duwayne appear to argue that "gold" must weigh the same as pure gold if he
knows the term is not so limited?
>
> This concept couldn't be more obvious, I don't know why you guys are
having so much trouble with this.>
The trouble isn't mine.
>
> >
> >
> > > Your admission that you know this makes it all the more obvious that
> your
> > "pure gold" argument against Duwayne was nothing but pretense.>
> >
> > Oh come now. Whose arguments aren't pretense. Most feign some sort of
> > ignorance. You do it all the time (unless of course you really are
> ignorant
> > about the subtleties).
> >
> >
> > > > Why is it necessary to spoonfeed you?
> > >
> > > (chuckle) Oh yes, the ubiquitous ad hominem.>
> >
> > Better reread your dictionary man.
> >
>
> Perhaps you should consult yours. Virtually every post from apologists
contains at least one. Yours does. They're effectively omnipresent in
LDS-speak.>
Oh please. Your posts are so shrill that I have to pop a grain of salt
between every other word. Sometimes a response in kind is warranted.
> > >
> > > You were the one pretending not to know this, not me. You
deliberately
> > > blurred this distinction in order to make a straw man argument against
> > > Duwayne, now you're dishonestly pretending that it was *me* that
didn't
> > > understand this fact after I called you out on it. Charles, you're
> > > obviously not a completely stupid person, you can do better than
this.>
> >
> > Wish the same could be said about you, sir.
> >
>
> Oh it can. I ALWAYS do much better than he does. (Your ad hominem is
noted, are they obligatory or something?).>
REsponses in kind.
>
> RTBaird
>
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > RTBaird
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Winfried Nelson
> "Winfried Nelson" <w...@athome.com> wrote in message
news:<7NVY8.229097$vq.12...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
>
> <snip>
> > I believe that's Charles's point exactly.
>
> Of course you do. He's your brother in the Church. And he's trying to
> defend the Book of Mormon from critial analysis. Of course you
> believe him.
>
> > Alloys are lighter than pure
> > gold.
>
> And that's the essential crux of the dishonest LDS argument. Your own
> scriptures describe the plates as gold. Period. Not a "ligher"
> alloy.>
Your argument doesn't hold water, as you've already acknowledged that the
word "gold" is routinely used to refer to alloys of gold such that "gold"
most often refers to alloys in the vernacular rather than pure gold. Why
should anyone assume that any particularly type of gold was intended (i.e.,
pure gold versus gold alloy) when none was specified?
>
> But that makes no sense. Even rough calculations show the plates would
have been too heavy for Smith to go racing around, dodging those evil
anti-Mormon mobs, with the plates under one arm. You know this.>
I don't think you have enough information to make an accurate calculation.
Nor do you know how much strength the farm boy Mr. Smith had at the time in
question. If he could hoist 100 pound bales of hay, then certainly he could
hoist a 100 pound book that is smaller and more "wieldy".
> So you deny what the LDS scriptures say -- that the plates were gold --
and invent a new gold alloy that is ligher than gold, so that you can make
sense of Smith's story.>
I deny nothing. I merely believe your insertion of the word "pure" before
the word "gold" is logically flawed. It may very well have been pure gold.
But it could just have well been an alloy. We don't know. You don't know.
Thus, for you to insist it was pure gold is not a viable position. At best
you could speculate and I can speculate. That's all.
> >
> > > Your admission that you know this makes it all the more obvious that
your
> > "pure gold" argument against Duwayne was nothing but pretense.>
> >
> > Oh come now. Whose arguments aren't pretense. Most feign some sort of
> > ignorance.
> > You do it all the time (unless of course you really are ignorant
> > about the subtleties).
>
> Winefried, you need to deal with the issues, and not make your
> situation worse with name calling.>
What name did I call you or Baird?
>
> >
> >
> > > > Why is it necessary to spoonfeed you?
> > >
> > > (chuckle) Oh yes, the ubiquitous ad hominem.>
> >
> > Better reread your dictionary man.
>
> That would be good advice for you, Winefried. Charle's comments about
> spoon feeding are classic ad hominem style because they avoid the
> issues while trying to focus on the individual.>
I think that expressing dismay and exasperation at feigned or willful
ignorance ought to be expected in a forum like this. Quit playing the
victim card.
>
> >
> > >
> > > You were the one pretending not to know this, not me. You
deliberately
> > > blurred this distinction in order to make a straw man argument against
> > > Duwayne, now you're dishonestly pretending that it was *me* that
didn't
> > > understand this fact after I called you out on it. Charles, you're
> > > obviously not a completely stupid person, you can do better than
this.>
> >
> > Wish the same could be said about you, sir.
>
> Again, Winefried. You need to deal with the issues. Name calling and bad
arguments won't get you very far.>
That's true. So far I haven't called you any names and the bad arguments
have been mostly penned by you.
Winfried Nelson
> Another thing that seems kind of silly on the face of it is that these
apologists are apparently claiming that the Nephites where smart enough to
manufacture a gold alloy but not smart enough to beat it flat.
>
Actually, you make a good point. There is no reason to believe the "plates"
weren't really thin sheets of gold that were beaten so flat as to be thin as
paper and quite light weight. Since ultra thin sheets of metal can't be
made and kept perfectly planar, they wouldn't be expected to form a solid
block of metal, but would leave lots of space within the overall volume of
plates. Never mistake beating a metal sheet flat and thin with keeping it
perfectly planar. They are two separate concepts and challenges. Thanks
for helping out here.
Woody Brison
> "Woody Brison" <wwbr...@lds.net> wrote in message
> news:f36171a3.02071...@posting.google.com...
> > Winfried Nelson <w...@athome.com> said to Duwayne Anderson,
> >
> > > I think he responded quite clearly. You are either really dense or
> really
> > > dishonest. Which?
> >
> > "rtbaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:<3d344726$1...@hpb10302.boi.hp.com>...
> > > Speaking of dishonesty, you've inserted your own ad hominem after
> (falsely)
> > > accusing Duwayne of the same thing.
> >
> > If a person knew nothing about Duwayne or even what the
> > concept of honesty was, still they could be impressed that
> > lots of people who try to discuss anything with him end
> > up asking that EXACT same question -- is he dishonest
> > or really, really stupid. It's sort of like his hallmark.
>
> critic. The church sure seems to program your brains that way.
OK, you take him on and see if you can find a bottom to
the well of errors he draws from.
> That aside, is anyone going to take him on regarding the actual subject
> under discussion here at some point?
Go for it. I debated with him the subject of Wadi Tayib
al-Ism a couple of years ago (q.v.) He never ran out of
dodges, rhetorical tricks, and just plain stubborn bull-
headed refusal to read. It went for months. I wanted to
see if he would ever run down, but he never did. I'm
going to decline to waste any further time on his problem.
Wood
Winfried Nelson
It IS relavant. It goes to whether someone is arguing fairly or unfairly.
> http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/adhomine.html
>
> Using logical fallacies such as yours IS an intellectually dishonest
tactic, you're in a glass house on this one.>
Except I've used no logical fallacies.
Winfried Nelson
Because my factual statement goes to whether this fellow is playing fairly
or not it is quite relevant.
> The ad hominem fallacy occurs when you attack Duwayne's character rather
than the subject under discussion (gold alloys, etc.). Even IF you are
correct about him, it's still an ad hominem.>
Well, when I see this guy first admitting that "gold" doesn't mean "pure
gold" and then arguing that it does, what should I make of it?
Winfried Nelson
> "Winfried Nelson" <w...@athome.com> wrote in message
news:<RSVY8.131670$Bt1.6...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
>
> <snip>
> > > It's a real shame that so many Mormons are unfamiliar with their>
scriptures. When Moroni visited Joseph Smith (in his imagination)
> >
> > Nice way to introduce ad hominem into the equation.
>
> Winfried, do you understand what an "ad hominem" equation is? It's when
one person tries to discredit another person's argument not on the basis of
the logic used in the argument, but by appealing to emotional and irrelevant
issues in the person advancing the argument.>
Good point. So why do you insert little parenthetical that snipe at Smith's
character and motives, as if your views of him wouldn't otherwise be
apparent? It's childish.
Lee Paulson
>
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.02071...@posting.google.com...
> > "Winfried Nelson" <w...@athome.com> wrote in message
> news:<7NVY8.229097$vq.12...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
> >
> > <snip>
> > > I believe that's Charles's point exactly.
> >
>
> I don't think you have enough information to make an accurate calculation.
> Nor do you know how much strength the farm boy Mr. Smith had at the time
in
> question. If he could hoist 100 pound bales of hay, then certainly he
could
> hoist a 100 pound book that is smaller and more "wieldy".
>
Hoist and run with 100 pounds? Guy always claims he was a health farmboy
and could do this, but I grew up on a farm and never saw anyone run anywhere
with a 100 pounds.
Agkistrodon
John is Winifred? I believe it.
Traci Lords, Ph.D.
rtbaird
(eyes roll)
Lesson 3:
For it to not be a fallacy, you have to explain exactly how HIS ARGUMENT is
"intellectually dishonest". You're not addressing THE ISSUE when you simply
assert that YOUR OPPONENT is "intellectually dishonest."
I don't know how to state that any simpler for you.
What you've done is a TEXTBOOK CASE of ad hominem, as are all cases where
the attempt is made to discredit your opponent rather than to argue the
merits.
Again, PLEASE take a philosophy/logic class or find some other method of
understanding what these terms mean before you go throwing them around.
Even a small amount of investigation will help you to recognize and avoid
the common logical fallacies.
> > http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/adhomine.html
> >
> > Using logical fallacies such as yours IS an intellectually dishonest
> tactic, you're in a glass house on this one.>
>
> Except I've used no logical fallacies.
>
You absolutely and very obviously did.
RTBaird
rtbaird
I don't agree that flat and planar are totally independent, and to the
extent that they are not, then I shall have to restate my observation to
accommodate YOUR particular vernacular.
The meaning I'm attempting to communcate is "...not smart enough to beat it
approximately planar".
Thanks for your input.
RTBaird
rtbaird
Hello ?!?? Ad hominem.
RTBaird
rtbaird
My advice: to logically argue that point, simply argue that point. Post his
quotes. If you're right, you'll win on that point.
RTBaird
Winfried Nelson
Perhaps. Flat is a general concept that distinguishes from round or other
general geometric categories. Planar is the concept of being perfectly flat
on top and bottom. Wrinkle and bend free, which is not likely in the case
of very thin sheets. To test my theory (and yours), why don't you take a
roll of Reynolds Wrap and cut about a hundred "plates", punch some holes and
place rings through them. Then inscribe them and turn them as if to read
them a few times. Then let me know if every page remains perfectly planar.
If you can do, great!
>
> The meaning I'm attempting to communcate is "...not smart enough to beat
it approximately planar".>
I don't think that "smart enough" is really relevant here. In the case of
Reynolds Wrap we can dispense with the technological know how and go right
to the practical logistics of executing a plan to have really thin plates
that remain perfectly planar after indenting them with characters and turn
them as if to read them.
Winfried Nelson
I've seen people hoisting people on their backs and running back and forth
having chicken fights. Some of the hoisted persons have weighed 100 pounds
or more. I'm sure it wouldn't be easy, but when a mob is chasing you with
the intent to kill you, you'd be amazed what an adrenalin rush will do in
such cases.
Winfried Nelson
I was making an observation. The subject matter in question speeks for
itself.
>
> I don't know how to state that any simpler for you.
>
> What you've done is a TEXTBOOK CASE of ad hominem, as are all cases where
> the attempt is made to discredit your opponent rather than to argue the
> merits.>
Am I grounded? Or can I leave my room now?
>
> Again, PLEASE take a philosophy/logic class or find some other method of
> understanding what these terms mean before you go throwing them around.
> Even a small amount of investigation will help you to recognize and avoid
> the common logical fallacies.>
I don't need to read anything. You are apparently the font of all wisdom.
I'll just wait for you to educate me.
>
> > > http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/adhomine.html
> > >
> > > Using logical fallacies such as yours IS an intellectually dishonest
> > tactic, you're in a glass house on this one.>
> >
> > Except I've used no logical fallacies.
> >
>
> You absolutely and very obviously did.>
You engage in the logical fallacy that I care what you think of me.
>
> RTBaird
>
>
>
Winfried Nelson
Thanks. Can I hire you to be my debate coach?
RTBaird
Hey man, you asked.
RTBaird
RTBaird
That's exactly the point. What anyone thinks of you doesn't matter, it's
your ARGUMENT that is illogical.
RTBaird
Duwayne Anderson
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.02071...@posting.google.com...
> > "Winfried Nelson" <w...@athome.com> wrote in message
> news:<7NVY8.229097$vq.12...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
> >
> > <snip>
> > > I believe that's Charles's point exactly.
> >
> > Of course you do. He's your brother in the Church. And he's trying to
> > defend the Book of Mormon from critial analysis. Of course you
> > believe him.
> >
> > > Alloys are lighter than pure
> > > gold.
> >
> > And that's the essential crux of the dishonest LDS argument. Your own
> > scriptures describe the plates as gold. Period. Not a "ligher"
> > alloy.>
>
> Your argument doesn't hold water, as you've already acknowledged that the
> word "gold" is routinely used to refer to alloys of gold such that "gold"
> most often refers to alloys in the vernacular rather than pure gold.
Let's see. I think we have a problem with reading comprehension.
Let's say it again:
And that's the essential crux of the dishonest LDS argument. Your own
scriptures describe the plates as gold. Period. Not a "ligher"
alloy.
If there really was an angel Moroni, he COULD have told Joseph Smith
the plates were "like unto gold," or "a mixture of gold," or something
else.
But he didn't.
According to Joseph Smith, Moroni simply said the plates were gold.
So why this desperate game of semantics by the apologists -- to call
the plates a "lighter alloy of gold?" The answer is obvious. They
realize that Joseph Smith's story does not make sense. So they are
changing the story to try and save it.
> Why
> should anyone assume that any particularly type of gold was intended (i.e.,
> pure gold versus gold alloy) when none was specified?
You have it bass akwards. If an angel tells you the plates are gold,
why would anyone assume they are actually a much ligher alloy of gold?
Can't you trust your angels?
>
> >
> > But that makes no sense. Even rough calculations show the plates would
> have been too heavy for Smith to go racing around, dodging those evil
> anti-Mormon mobs, with the plates under one arm. You know this.>
>
> I don't think you have enough information to make an accurate calculation.
What we have is the supposed angel's statement that the plates were
gold. You have it bass akwards. The people making the assumptions
are those who assume the angel really didn't mean what he said, and
that the plates were some other "much lighter" alloy of gold.
> Nor do you know how much strength the farm boy Mr. Smith had at the time in
> question.
See, here we can see that the apologists know the pickle they are in,
and we can understand why they are trying to change the story.
> If he could hoist 100 pound bales of hay, then certainly he could
> hoist a 100 pound book that is smaller and more "wieldy".
Here we continue to see the fact the apologists understand the
problem. They try to argue out of both sides of their mouths. On one
hand they argue (and it's a totally bogus argument) that Smith could
run around with plates that probably weighed nearly 100 pounds and
ditch the evil anti-Mormon mobs chasing him through the woods (where
was that damned angel, anyway, and why wasn't he helping?). On the
other hand, they know that argument really won't cut it, so they try
and argue that the plates really were not gold, but possibly some
"much lighter alloy."
>
>
> > So you deny what the LDS scriptures say -- that the plates were gold --
> and invent a new gold alloy that is ligher than gold, so that you can make
> sense of Smith's story.>
>
> I deny nothing.
You deny the plates were gold. You argue they could have been a much
lighter alloy, instead.
> I merely believe your insertion of the word "pure" before
> the word "gold" is logically flawed.
Here we see another facet of LDS apologetics. Lying. I've never
inserted the word "pure" before the word "gold" in my arguments. I've
simply pointed out that the angel (that imaginary thing Joseph Smith
thought he was talking with) never said anything about the gold being
an alloy.
The really bogus thing about this apologetic argument is that they lie
by saying that I'm inserting things, when the apologists are the ones
doing the inserting. They insert the words "much lighter alloy."
> It may very well have been pure gold.
> But it could just have well been an alloy.
The plates were all in Smith's imagination. They never existed.
Neither did that silly angel of his. The story is a fabrication.
> We don't know.
That's because the plates are nowhere to be found.
> You don't know.
Sure. I know the plates are a fabrication. I also know that Smith
said they were gold. Finally, I know that you know it, too, which is
why you are trying to argue out of both sides of your mouth to save
this silly story from any sort of critical examination.
> Thus, for you to insist it was pure gold is not a viable position.
Notice the lie, again. I've not insisted that it was "pure" gold.
Just that Smith called it gold, and said nothing of it being a "much
lighter alloy."
> At best
> you could speculate and I can speculate. That's all.
Oh, I can do much more. I can quote your scriptures. The ones where
it says the plates were gold. You have nothing to quote in your
argument about them being a lighter alloy.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Smith's acts of fraud are the issue. His writing of a clumsy fraud
like the Book of Mormon is the issue.
> It's childish.
No, it's the issue, and you cannot deal with it.
Duwayne Anderson
I see, Winefried, that you have decided you are unable to deal with
the issues of the fraudulent nature of Smith's story about the plates,
and that ad hominem arguments are all you have left.
Stormin Mormon
forwarding chicken scratches. Fortunately, this news group has
both of those.
--
Read the Book of Mormon
A second testament of
Jesus Christ
extremely thick, or could
only
> be
> > > > > > engraven
> > > > > > > upon
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > large writing because of difficult
instruments
of
> > the
> > > > > time,
> > > > > > > then one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > might imagine that there is an
exceptionally
huge
> > > number
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > plates,
> > > > > > > > > or a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > remarkable thickness and thusly
weight. In that
> > > > > > > > > > (imaginary) angel told Joseph Smith the
plates were
> made
> > >equation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > everlasting Gospel was contained in it, > yet
"RTBaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:ujc2bjl...@corp.supernews.com...
"RTBaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:ujc2bjl...@corp.supernews.com...
"Winfried Nelson" <w...@athome.com> wrote in message
news:NimZ8.133326$iB1.7...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
> "rtbaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:3d35cb6d$1...@hpb10302.boi.hp.com...
> >
> > "Winfried Nelson" <w...@athome.com> wrote in message
> > news:u1iZ8.190286$Im2.9...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > >
> > > "rtbaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3d359919$1...@hpb10302.boi.hp.com...
> > > >
>
"RTBaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:ujc2bjl...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, if they were > > > "Winfried
Nelson" <w...@athome.com> wrote in message
> > > >
news:lfgZ8.149348$iX5.7...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "rtbaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3d344726$1...@hpb10302.boi.hp.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Winfried Nelson" <w...@athome.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >
news:RSVY8.131670$Bt1.6...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
> > > > > > >
news:a42139e3.0207...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > > cdo...@my-dejanews.com (cdowis) wrote in message
> > > > > > >
news:<93c36e92.02071...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > > > "rtbaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:<3d2e0c55$1...@hpb10302.boi.hp.com>...
> > > > > > > > > > "cdowis" <cdo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in
message
> > > > > > > > > >
news:93c36e92.02071...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > > > > > duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson)
wrote in
message
> > > > > > > > >
news:<a42139e3.02071...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > > > > > > wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison) w
"RTBaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:ujc2bjl...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, if they wererote in message
> > > > > > > > >
news:<f36171a3.02071...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Simon Dean <sjd...@simtext.demon.co.uk>
wrote in
> > message
> > > > > > > > > news:<3D2C5D7C...@simtext.demon.co.uk>...
> > > > > > > > >
"RTBaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:ujc2bjl...@corp.supernews.com...
"RTBaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:ujc2bjl...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, if they were > > > > > Woody
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, if they were > > > I'd
"RTBaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:ujc2bjl...@corp.supernews.com...
"RTBaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:ujc2bjl...@corp.supernews.com...
Duwayne Anderson
Then deal with the issues, Winefried. Deal with the issues. When you
use ad hominem arguments (like Woody) you are undermining the issues
and using bogus logic.
Deal with the issues, Winefried.
Your OWN scriptures state the at the plates were gold. Why do you
have such a problem with that? Why the need to insert words like
"much lighter alloy?" Do you sense that Smith was lying? That his
story makes no sense? Why this need to insert words into your
prophet's mouth? So you can make an absurd story sound a little less
silly?
>
> > http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/adhomine.html
> >
> > Using logical fallacies such as yours IS an intellectually dishonest
> tactic, you're in a glass house on this one.>
>
> Except I've used no logical fallacies.
Sure you have. Ad hominem is just one.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> Well, when I see this guy first admitting that "gold" doesn't mean "pure
> gold" and then arguing that it does, what should I make of it?
<snip>
Winefried is lying. I've simply stated that the LDS scriptures state
that the plates were gold. Not a gold-like substance. Not a much
lighter alloy. Just gold.
In fact, I didn't add anything to the LDS scriptures at all. I quoted
them, and they say the plates were gold. Period. The ones adding to
what the LDS scriptures say are apologists who try and add things like
"gold-like substance," or "much lighter alloy."
Duwayne Anderson
> > "Woody Brison" <wwbr...@lds.net> wrote in message
> > news:f36171a3.02071...@posting.google.com...
> > > Winfried Nelson <w...@athome.com> said to Duwayne Anderson,
> > >
> > > > I think he responded quite clearly. You are either really dense or
> really
> > > > dishonest. Which?
> > >
> > > "rtbaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:<3d344726$1...@hpb10302.boi.hp.com>...
> > > > Speaking of dishonesty, you've inserted your own ad hominem after
> (falsely)
> > > > accusing Duwayne of the same thing.
> > >
> > > If a person knew nothing about Duwayne or even what the
> > > concept of honesty was, still they could be impressed that
> > > lots of people who try to discuss anything with him end
> > > up asking that EXACT same question -- is he dishonest
> > > or really, really stupid. It's sort of like his hallmark.
> >
> > It's not surprising that any apologist carries such an opinion of any
> > critic. The church sure seems to program your brains that way.
>
> OK, you take him on and see if you can find a bottom to
> the well of errors he draws from.
This is such typical LDS apologetic clap trap. Woody makes one
assertion after another, none of which he can substantiate. He's just
one long, unbroken string of ad hominem arguments.
>
> > That aside, is anyone going to take him on regarding the actual subject
> > under discussion here at some point?
>
> Go for it. I debated with him the subject of Wadi Tayib
> al-Ism a couple of years ago (q.v.)
And you lost badly. You were unable to illustrate a single
non-trivial similarity between your wadi and the continually running
river described in the Book of Mormon.
> He never ran out of
> dodges,
What Woody calls a dodge is insisting on verifiable objective
evidence. The sort of stuff Woody could never deliver.
See, the Book of Mormon describes a continually running river in
Arabia. It says it ran into the Red sea. The problem is, there's no
such thing. That's not surprising, since the Book of Mormon is a
clumsy fraud.
But Woody claims to have found this river. The problem is, a wadi
does not run continually. Woody calls that a dodge. The other
problem is, this wadi of Woody's does not run into the sea. Woody
calls that another dodge. Then there's the problem that Woody's wadi
is in a steep canyon, and not the valley that the Book of Mormon
describes. This is another source of fits for Woody, and he calls
that a dodge, too. Finally, the Book of Mormon says the river was in
the wilderness, and describes no other people being there. But the
wadi has wells and nearby towns. It did anciently, too. That's yet
another dodge, in Woody's book.
So what we have is Woody feeling beyond frustrated over the fact that
he barffs up some stupid story/argument, and it's not consistent with
what the Book of Mormon says, and the critics fry him over it.
I see he's still smarting.
> rhetorical tricks,
The rhetorical tricks were when I quoted the Book of Mormon for Woody.
> and just plain stubborn bull-
> headed refusal to read.
Actually, here Woody is lying. In fact, he posted some clap trap from
FARMS and I posted a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis showing that
FARMS was misrepresenting the Book of Mormon.
I also posted dozens of verses from the Book of Mormon.
> It went for months.
Woody made quite the show of himself.
> I wanted to
> see if he would ever run down, but he never did.
This is how Woody explains his failure to himself.
> I'm
> going to decline to waste any further time on his problem.
Woody cuts and runs. Just like before. Lots of wind and accusations,
but no ability to deal with the issues.
Winfried Nelson
"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> According to Joseph Smith, Moroni simply said the plates were gold.>
Did he specify what kind of gold? Pure gold; 14 carot gold?
>
> So why this desperate game of semantics by the apologists -- to call the
plates a "lighter alloy of gold?" The answer is obvious. They realize that
Joseph Smith's story does not make sense. So they are> changing the story
to try and save it.>
Actually, there is no need for the gold to be an alloy. I simply point out
that you overstate the issue when you insist it was pure gold. Even if
that's so, which it may or may not be, who really cares? I just like having
fun with you. You are really a treat to debate with.
>
> > Why
> > should anyone assume that any particularly type of gold was intended
(i.e., pure gold versus gold alloy) when none was specified?
>
> You have it bass akwards. If an angel tells you the plates are gold, why
would anyone assume they are actually a much ligher alloy of gold?>
No one would assume anything based on what was said. That's simply because
we don't know whether the gold in question was pure 100% gold or any of the
commonly known gold alloys that everyone calls simply "gold". Whether or
not it was pure gold or 14 carot gold is irrelevant to the story.
> > >
> > > But that makes no sense. Even rough calculations show the plates
would> have been too heavy for Smith to go racing around, dodging those evil
> > anti-Mormon mobs, with the plates under one arm. You know this.>
> >
> > I don't think you have enough information to make an accurate
calculation.
>
> What we have is the supposed angel's statement that the plates > were
gold. You have it bass akwards. The people making the assumptions are
those who assume the angel really didn't mean what he said, and that the
plates were some other "much lighter" alloy of gold.>
How does the angel's statement tell you how much gold were in them plates
(i.e., their mass)? It doesn't. Therefore it doesn't matter a lick what
type of gold were in them noodles.
> > Nor do you know how much strength the farm boy Mr. Smith had at the time
in
> > question.
>
> See, here we can see that the apologists know the pickle they are in, and
we can understand why they are trying to change the story.>
The pickle is yours. You asserted Smith was too week to carry a stack of
gold sheets of a weight that you have no way of determining with any degree
of accuracy. To make this stick you must proove two things: (1) the weight
of the plates and (2) this weight was more than a strong, husky man who did
manual labor all his life and was presently in his late teens and early
twenties could carry. Good luck.
> > If he could hoist 100 pound bales of hay, then certainly he could
> > hoist a 100 pound book that is smaller and more "wieldy".
>
> Here we continue to see the fact the apologists understand the
> problem. They try to argue out of both sides of their mouths. On one
> hand they argue (and it's a totally bogus argument) that Smith could> run
around with plates that probably weighed nearly 100 pounds and> ditch the
evil anti-Mormon mobs chasing him through the woods>
And your reasoning as to why a typically strong man couldn't lift a mere 100
pound box with convenient and handy rings as handles is what? Maybe you
ought to watch ESPN more often.
> On the other hand, they know that argument really won't cut it, so they
try and argue that the plates really were not gold, but possibly some "much
lighter alloy.">
I never argued any such thing, though I don't rule out the possibility. The
use of alternative plausible scenarios is a common and perfectly acceptable
argumentative tool. In this case, the two scenarios are not in any way
inconsistent.
> >
> >
> > > So you deny what the LDS scriptures say -- that the plates were
gold --
> > and invent a new gold alloy that is ligher than gold, so that you can
make
> > sense of Smith's story.>
> >
> > I deny nothing.
>
> You deny the plates were gold.>
I did not. I deny that you have sufficient knowledge to know whether they
were pure or 14 carot gold. That's all. I couldn't care less whether they
were gold. I do care when people overstate the facts.
> You argue they could have been a much lighter alloy, instead.>
I don't need to argue this. The term "gold" is sufficiently broad that
common English usage will suffice to demonstrate that the term imperfectly
describes whether they were pure or an impure alloy. I simply report the
facts. You decide.
>
> > I merely believe your insertion of the word "pure" before
> > the word "gold" is logically flawed.
>
> Here we see another facet of LDS apologetics. Lying. I've never inserted
the word "pure" before the word "gold" in my arguments.>
If you aren't insisting the gold was "pure" gold rather than possibly an
alloy, then we have no argument or disagreement.
> I've simply pointed out that the angel never said anything about the gold
being an alloy.>
I agree. He didn't specify what kind of gold. And neither did he rule out
any plausible alternative possibilities because he chose to use a word that
is sufficiently broad as to include gold of various forms and purities.
> The really bogus thing about this apologetic argument is that they lie by
saying that I'm inserting things, when the apologists are the ones doing the
inserting.>
Maybe you should try inserting some understanding into your head. That
would help.
> They insert the words "much lighter alloy.">
I did not such thing. I have no idea the relative weights of various forms
of gold. As far as I know, gold alloys might be heavier than pure gold.
>
> > It may very well have been pure gold.
> > But it could just have well been an alloy.
>
> The plates were all in Smith's imagination. They never existed.
> Neither did that silly angel of his. The story is a fabrication.>
Could be. But that's not the issue here. It's your overreaching statements
that I have a quibble with.
>
> > We don't know.
>
> That's because the plates are nowhere to be found.>
I'm sure they're somewhere, but I agree they won't be found by you or anyone
like you.
>
> > You don't know.
>
> Sure. I know the plates are a fabrication.>
In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
> I also know that Smith said they were gold.>
My friend says her belly button ring is gold. So here's a quiz. Can you
tell me, based on her statement, what the purity of her belly button ring
is? I'll tell you if you're right.
> Finally, I know that you know it, too, which is
> why you are trying to argue out of both sides of your mouth to save this
silly story from any sort of critical examination.>
Please provide any official debate guidelines that prohibit the use of
plausible alternative arguments and I won't ever use them again.
> > Thus, for you to insist it was pure gold is not a viable position.
>
> Notice the lie, again. I've not insisted that it was "pure" gold.
> Just that Smith called it gold, and said nothing of it being a "much
> lighter alloy.">
Now you're changing your argument. Above you said the angel called it gold.
Now you say Smith. Which is it? Quit arguing out of both side of your
mouth. :) In any event, my friend said her ring is gold. Can you tell me
what purity the gold is?
>
> > At best
> > you could speculate and I can speculate. That's all.
>
> Oh, I can do much more. I can quote your scriptures. The ones where it
says the plates were gold. You have nothing to quote in your argument about
them being a lighter alloy.>
If you're so certain that gold always rules out alloys of gold, go ahead and
guess the purity of the "gold" belly button ring.
Winfried Nelson
"RTBaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:ujc2g6f...@corp.supernews.com...
How is expressing an opinion of the poor debate tactics of another any more
a logical fallicy than what you just served up against me. On the one hand
you say I can't say a person's debate tactics are illogical and to do so is
itself illogical. If so, you just proved yourself illogical.
Winfried Nelson
It's always bogus to you when someone catches you in the very act of
dishonesty.
>
> Deal with the issues, Winefried.>
That's Winfried, Bozo.
>
> Your OWN scriptures state the at the plates were gold. Why do you have
such a problem with that?>
I have no problem with anything. It's gold. We just don't know of what
purity. You argue as if you do know. If so, I'm sure you'll have no
trouble telling me what the purity of my friend's "gold" belly button ring
is. After all, she told me it was "gold". Here. I'll provide a blank
space for your answer: ________
> Why the need to insert words like "much lighter alloy?">
There is no need at all. And no basis for inserting any modifying words or
concepts at all. We simply don't know what type of "gold" it was any more
than you know what type of "gold" my friend's belly button ring is. Please
tell me if you know.
> Do you sense that Smith was lying?>
Not as much as I sense you will never ever guess what type of "gold" is in
my friend's "gold" belly button ring. I'll make it easy for you. I'll
narrow it to pure gold and 14 carat gold alloy. Can you tell me which it
is? Here's the blank: ______
>
> >
> > > http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/adhomine.html
> > >
> > > Using logical fallacies such as yours IS an intellectually dishonest
> > tactic, you're in a glass house on this one.>
> >
> > Except I've used no logical fallacies.
>
> Sure you have. Ad hominem is just one. >
Perhaps, but can you, based on your superior knowledge of the meaning of the
word "gold," tell me whether the gold belly button ring is pure gold or 14
carat gold? If not, then you cannot fault Charles or anyone else for
stating that it is plausible the plates were a gold alloy. What's good for
the goose is good for the gander.
Winfried Nelson
"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.02071...@posting.google.com...
Actually, they are miniscule compared to the dilemma I just served up to you
regarding whether or not you can tell me the gold content (whether pure or
alloy) of the belly button ring that someone told me was "gold".
Winfried Nelson
"RTBaird" <rtb...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:ujc2bjl...@corp.supernews.com...
Not seriously, however.
Winfried Nelson
> "Winfried Nelson" <w...@athome.com> wrote in message
news:<u1iZ8.190286$Im2.9...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
>
> <snip>
> > Well, when I see this guy first admitting that "gold" doesn't mean "pure
> > gold" and then arguing that it does, what should I make of it?
> <snip>
>
> Winefried is lying. I've simply stated that the LDS scriptures state that
the plates were gold. Not a gold-like substance. Not a much lighter alloy.
Just gold.>
And I just stated that someone told me her naval ring is "gold". She didn't
say it was a gold-like substance, nor a much lighter alloy than pure gold.
Just "gold". Based on that fact alone, which is identical to the fact
regarding the "gold" plates, I'm sure you will have no difficulty in telling
everyone what type of gold the naval ring is.
Please be specific. Or at least tell us what type of gold the ring isn't.
If you believe it isn't a gold alloy, then plainly state this fact. I'll
let you know if you're right or wrong after you tell us all on the record
for everybody to see.
>
> In fact, I didn't add anything to the LDS scriptures at all. I quoted
them, and they say the plates were gold. Period.>
Then you won't require any further knowledge or insite to correctly state
the purity of the "gold" naval ring. How come I suspect you won't even
venture a guess? Could it be that you haven't enough information? Or could
it be that you have enough info but won't say because it will validate the
theory that the "gold" plates might have been any number of different types
of gold, ranging from pure gold to a gold alloy?
Winfried Nelson
They might be the issue, but simply asserting this doesn't make your point.
It actually weekens it because it demonstrates an angry and emotional
motive.
>
> > It's childish.
>
> No, it's the issue, and you cannot deal with it.>
Can you deal with this issue? What is the gold purity of my friend's "gold"
naval ring? Any ideas? She was quite clear that it's "gold". She didn't
say it was a "lighter gold alloy" so you don't need to assume anything.
Good luck.
clovis lark
What I find eternally amusing (the only eternal on arm...) is that
virtually any description found in the bom maps perfectly onto the
Lake Ontario region. Why is it that apology cannot present a coherent
argument that would dispell this? They squirm around in more
contortions trying to create a connection that would sustain a literal
belief in the contents of the bom. Yet, any look at the upper Hudson
valley, or that of the Susquehannah, Delaware, etc., reveals a perfect
match for JSjr's River.
>
> > He never ran out of
> > dodges,
>
> What Woody calls a dodge is insisting on verifiable objective
> evidence. The sort of stuff Woody could never deliver.
>
> See, the Book of Mormon describes a continually running river in
> Arabia. It says it ran into the Red sea. The problem is, there's no
> such thing. That's not surprising, since the Book of Mormon is a
> clumsy fraud.
>
> But Woody claims to have found this river. The problem is, a wadi
> does not run continually. Woody calls that a dodge. The other
> problem is, this wadi of Woody's does not run into the sea. Woody
> calls that another dodge. Then there's the problem that Woody's wadi
> is in a steep canyon, and not the valley that the Book of Mormon
> describes. This is another source of fits for Woody, and he calls
> that a dodge, too. Finally, the Book of Mormon says the river was in
> the wilderness, and describes no other people being there. But the
> wadi has wells and nearby towns. It did anciently, too. That's yet
> another dodge, in Woody's book.
Woody and apology would have one believe in a book of conundrums, one
where the plain english revealed by gawd hisself is not plain or was
mistranslated.
>
> So what we have is Woody feeling beyond frustrated over the fact that
> he barffs up some stupid story/argument, and it's not consistent with
> what the Book of Mormon says, and the critics fry him over it.
>
> I see he's still smarting.
>
> > rhetorical tricks,
>
> The rhetorical tricks were when I quoted the Book of Mormon for Woody.
But, you see, you failed to "interpret" them. For apology, just like
the old RCC clergy, the layperson is ill equipped to understand the
true meaning of the text. It needs an intermediary to "interpret" the
intent of gawd hisself. Plates of gold may not be gold, continually
running rivers may be dry slot canyons, animals may be completely
diff'rent critters, Jeremiah can pop in and outta the clink willy
nilly, Steel swords can be wood and stone (no, wait, they were steel,
but then the technology went retrograde, no, wait, jungles disappeared
them), jungles, deserts spring outta nowhere when necessary (no matter
that gawd hisself never made mention of this this when he had JSjr
speakin' outta his hat), prepositional modifying clauses turn into
hebrew at the wink of an eye. Small wonder one needs a whole battery
of elders, bishops, prophets, quorums, councils to get the details
straight.
>
> > and just plain stubborn bull-
> > headed refusal to read.
>
> Actually, here Woody is lying. In fact, he posted some clap trap from
> FARMS and I posted a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis showing that
> FARMS was misrepresenting the Book of Mormon.
>
> I also posted dozens of verses from the Book of Mormon.
But without faith...
>
> > It went for months.
7 years always makes a good starting point in those scriptures.
>
> Woody made quite the show of himself.
>
> > I wanted to
> > see if he would ever run down, but he never did.
>
> This is how Woody explains his failure to himself.
>
> > I'm
> > going to decline to waste any further time on his problem.
>
> Woody cuts and runs. Just like before. Lots of wind and accusations,
> but no ability to deal with the issues.
Zat Voody, he's a beezy mon.
Lee Paulson
Woody Brison
> That's the beauty of using an unknown language for the writing. We do not
> know its alphabet, syntax, or basic vocabulary. The phrase "and it came to
> pass", I'm told, is either omitted from the German version, or replaced by a
> single German word--can't remember which. That made the German edition
> significantly smaller. Since most of the BoM is extremely repetitive, it could
> have been written in condensed or shorthand form. It is amazing just how much
> the so-called Anthon Transcript looks just like the computer gibberish from a
> zipped file.
Um, no. The so-called Anthon transcript (SCAT) exhibits
characters that could have come from various ancient
alphabets. This is consistent with samples of the writing
from the eastern Med of 600 BC, there is often a hodgepodge
of various alphabets. (Someone looking at a very short
sample of late 20th century English might see Latin, Greek,
Saxon, and Arabic letters mixed together, it's actually a
normal thing)
Also, the script on the SCAT contains about 60 unique
symbols. This is much larger than the typical alphabet
with about 20-30 symbols. The frequency distribution
however looks like a real message in a real language.
If someone wants to discredit the BofM on the basis of
the SCAT, the proof is missing that the SCAT was really
one of the papers carried by Martin Harris to NY. But,
to discredit the SCAT is difficult because it has pretty
good characteristics of ancient writing, and it is at
least as old as 1844; two other samples of essentially
the same lines of text in the same character set were
printed in that year.
> That means very little, since we know that the Nephites could not have had
> computers. But they would have had to, considering that their library was in
> Tennessee (Bat Creek Stone), their agricultural facilities in Arizona (barley),
> their gold and silver mines in Central America, and their landing site in
> Chile, and their colisseum for wars of extermination in New York State..
>
> As a matter of fact, they would have needed both jet propelled helicopters and
> huge VTOL transport planes to ship all that barley down to Central America
> without using airports, superhighways and railroads.
The North Vietnamese would disagree, while walking along
the Ho Chi Minh Trail, carrying everything needed to fight
a war against America, and win.
I saw a documentary a few years ago, sorry I don't know the
title, etc. but it showed how a scientist went to Central
America somewhere and hired the locals to show him how they
thought their ancestors used to build burial mounds/pyramids.
There were several hundred people, and each one brought a
woven reed basket with straps to carry it like a backpack.
They formed a line at the source of dirt and started walking
in single file carrying dirt from the source to the designated
location, then returning on a parallel path for more dirt. The
resulting flow of dirt was pretty substantial, and steady. In
about 3 days IIRC they had built this huge dirt mound, and
the experiment was judged a success.
I offer these items because it looks like you are partly
serious with the sarcasm. Sarcasm can be a great tool to
find truth, but needs to be careful not to just blithely
ride past facts.
Wood
Woody Brison
> Another thing that seems kind of silly on the face of it is that these
> apologists are apparently claiming that the Nephites where smart enough to
> manufacture a gold alloy but not smart enough to beat it flat.
Have you ever tried to beat a piece of metal flat?
Hammering doesn't work. You beat down one high place
only to have several others come up (or down thru) and the
stretching that takes place in all this just accumulates.
You need good, accurate flat faces in a press, or near
perfect rollers and great pressure, or else you have to
melt it and flow it out over a nice flat surface. Of
course, the flat surface has to be something that
won't melt. It's not a trival problem. With the
resources available to a primitive smith, the most likely
thing would just be to beat it approximately flat and let
it go at that. If you make 200 sheets they weigh the same
whether laid together perfectly flat or loosely from
being irregular.
Wood
rtbaird
Ah, but it's not so, and you are misrepresenting what you SAID. Here's the
quote:
Winfried: Not having that much time here, I'm not an expert on this man,
but from what I can see so far he's about as intellectually dishonest as
they come.
You said that Duwayne is "intellectually dishonest". That is an ad hominem.
What you DID NOT say is that Duwayne's ARGUMENT is "intellectually
dishonest". Had you have criticized his argument instead of his person,
that would NOT have been ad hominem. I myself described your ARGUMENT as
"illogical", which is likewise not ad hominem. I did so because any
argument that contains a logical fallacy is illogical in nature.
Here's a helpful site regarding logical fallacies:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/
Here's a decent explanation of ad hominem:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm
RTBaird
rtbaird
>
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.02071...@posting.google.com...
> > "Winfried Nelson" <w...@athome.com> wrote in message
> news:<O2iZ8.131202$iB1.7...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
> >
> > like the Book of Mormon is the issue.>
>
> They might be the issue, but simply asserting this doesn't make your
point.
> It actually weekens it because it demonstrates an angry and emotional
> motive.
>
Lesson #5:
Appeal to motive is another form of ad hominem.
RTBaird
Winfried Nelson
Oh right. Hate the sin, love the sinner. That would make it alright to
condemn, say, anal sex while sincerely loving the person doing it.
> I myself described your ARGUMENT as
> "illogical", which is likewise not ad hominem. I did so because any
> argument that contains a logical fallacy is illogical in nature.>
But elsewhere you (or perhaps Xan) said that it's not ad hominem to
personally attack someone Duwayne was criticizing (Joseph Smith) so long as
it wasn't directed toward the person he was debating against. No one ever
said it was ad hominem against his debate partner, but against JS. Are you
saying it's never ad hominem to attack a third party not present to defend
him or herself?
Xan Du
<snip>
> > I myself described your ARGUMENT as
> > "illogical", which is likewise not ad hominem. I did so because any
> > argument that contains a logical fallacy is illogical in nature.>
>
> But elsewhere you (or perhaps Xan) said that it's not ad hominem to
> personally attack someone Duwayne was criticizing (Joseph Smith) so long
as
> it wasn't directed toward the person he was debating against.
Wasn't me. But I have followed some of the conversation with mild
amusement.
-Xan
<snip to end>
Winfried Nelson
Lesson #6. Please understand the malady being remedied.
rtbaird
Usually it is ad hominem, but not in all cases. If the credibility of the
aforementioned third party is the SUBJECT of the ARGUMENT then no, it's not
ad hominem to attack the credibility of the third party, since that is the
actual subject under discussion.
RTBaird
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> > Then deal with the issues, Winefried. Deal with the issues. When you
> > use ad hominem arguments (like Woody) you are undermining the issues
> > and using bogus logic.>
>
> It's always bogus to you when someone catches you in the very act of
> dishonesty.
Winfried continues to use his ad hominem arguments while ignoring the
issues.
> >
> > Deal with the issues, Winefried.>
>
> That's Winfried, Bozo.
Winfried engages in name calling.
>
> >
> > Your OWN scriptures state the at the plates were gold. Why do you have
> such a problem with that?>
>
> I have no problem with anything. It's gold.
That's right. Remember that. The angel never said it was some much
lighter alloy.
The problem is, if the plates were made of gold, and the size Smith
described, he would not have been able to run around, dodging the evil
anti-Mormon crowd that was chasing him. This suggests Smith lied. He
ether lied about the evil anti-Mormons chasing him, or he lied about
the angel saying the plates were gold. Or both.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> > Smith's acts of fraud are the issue. His writing of a clumsy fraud
> > like the Book of Mormon is the issue.>
>
> They might be the issue, but simply asserting this doesn't make your point.
I have not simply asserted it. I've pointed to supporting evidence
such as the Book of Mormon's failure to properly describe any
non-trivial aspects of ancient American life.
> It actually weekens it because it demonstrates an angry and emotional
> motive.
Oh, I think we can tell who has the angry and emotional motive. Are
you going to start calling names again?
>
> >
> > > It's childish.
> >
> > No, it's the issue, and you cannot deal with it.>
>
> Can you deal with this issue? What is the gold purity of my friend's "gold"
> naval ring? Any ideas?
What does minor purity have to do with weight, Winfried? Can you say
strawman argument?
> She was quite clear that it's "gold". She didn't
> say it was a "lighter gold alloy" so you don't need to assume anything.
I assume that if your girl friend got a gold ring, but it was some
other "much lighter alloy" she was dealing with a con man.
Are you saying Smith was a con man? Because the gold plates were
actually some "much lighter alloy?
Duwayne Anderson
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.02071...@posting.google.com...
> > "Winfried Nelson" <w...@athome.com> wrote in message
> news:<u1iZ8.190286$Im2.9...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Well, when I see this guy first admitting that "gold" doesn't mean "pure
> > > gold" and then arguing that it does, what should I make of it?
> > <snip>
> >
> > Winefried is lying. I've simply stated that the LDS scriptures state that
> the plates were gold. Not a gold-like substance. Not a much lighter alloy.
> Just gold.>
>
> And I just stated that someone told me her naval ring is "gold". She didn't
> say it was a gold-like substance, nor a much lighter alloy than pure gold.
> Just "gold". Based on that fact alone, which is identical to the fact
> regarding the "gold" plates, I'm sure you will have no difficulty in telling
> everyone what type of gold the naval ring is.
Are you now trying to justify the way you lied about what I said,
Winfried?
> Please be specific. Or at least tell us what type of gold the ring isn't.
> If you believe it isn't a gold alloy, then plainly state this fact. I'll
> let you know if you're right or wrong after you tell us all on the record
> for everybody to see.
I've done it now for you several times, Winfried. I've said that the
angel described the plates as gold. Nothing more, nothing less. For
purposes of estimating their weight, one should use the density of
gold. Not the density of some un-stated and imaginary "much ligher
alloy."
When you said I had argued that the plates were "pure" gold, you lied.
Are you now trying to justify the way you lied about what I said,
Winfried?
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > According to Joseph Smith, Moroni simply said the plates were gold.>
>
> Did he specify what kind of gold? Pure gold; 14 carot gold?
He simply said gold. Nothing more. Nothing less. For purposes of
estimating the weight of the plates, you are not justified in using
anything other than the density of gold. Imagining that the plates
were some "much ligher alloy" of gold denies what your own scriptures
say.
>
> >
> > So why this desperate game of semantics by the apologists -- to call the
> plates a "lighter alloy of gold?" The answer is obvious. They realize that
> Joseph Smith's story does not make sense. So they are> changing the story
> to try and save it.>
>
> Actually, there is no need for the gold to be an alloy. I simply point out
> that you overstate the issue when you insist it was pure gold.
Once again, Winfried lies. I've never argued that the plates were
"pure" gold.
Duwayne Anderson
> > > > Another thing that seems kind of silly on the face of it is that these
> > > apologists are apparently claiming that the Nephites where smart enough
> to
> > > manufacture a gold alloy but not smart enough to beat it flat.
> > > >
> > >
> "plates"
> > > weren't really thin sheets of gold that were beaten so flat as to be
> thin
> as
> > > paper and quite light weight. Since ultra thin sheets of metal can't be
> > > made and kept perfectly planar, they wouldn't be expected to form a
> solid
> > > block of metal, but would leave lots of space within the overall volume
> of
> > > plates. Never mistake beating a metal sheet flat and thin with keeping
> it
> > > perfectly planar. They are two separate concepts and challenges.
> Thanks
> > > for helping out here.
> > >
> >
> > I don't agree that flat and planar are totally independent, and to the
> extent that they are not, then I shall have to restate my observation to
> accommodate YOUR particular vernacular.>
>
> Perhaps. Flat is a general concept that distinguishes from round or other
> general geometric categories. Planar is the concept of being perfectly flat
> on top and bottom. Wrinkle and bend free, which is not likely in the case
> of very thin sheets. To test my theory (and yours), why don't you take a
> roll of Reynolds Wrap and cut about a hundred "plates", punch some holes and
> place rings through them. Then inscribe them and turn them as if to read
> them a few times. Then let me know if every page remains perfectly planar.
> If you can do, great!
Don't forget to let them sit for 1600 years, with all the weight of
the metal above pressing the ones on the bottom flat over the ages.
Duwayne Anderson
What makes you so sure the plates were "beaten?" If I wanted to make
thin plates, I'd ROLL them. You'd think a society (like the imaginary
ancient-American Nephites) that made machinery and had the technology
to build horse-drawn chariots as well as smelt steel would be able to
figure out something as simple as rolling their gold plates.
Furthermore, according to Smith's story, the plates were laid out for
roughly 1500 or so years. With the weight of the plates, themselves,
the plates on the bottom (at least) would have been pretty well
smashed flat.
Winfried Nelson
Ok, you're on!
Winfried Nelson
Doubtful. That would only be true for the very bottom plates. Moving up
the weight gets less and less until there is little or no weight on the top
plates.