You are entirely correct SZ, and this is another component against the mythology of the origin of the bom. Even if a lower weight used - say 60 lbs - that would still make the 'plates' unmanageable for handling as well as running with them and jumping over fences, etc.
So objectively one is faced with hard facts-
The weight of the plates
The testimonies of non-viewing with physical eye but with 'spiritual' eyes
The multi-year history of writing the bom
The lies of D&C 10 to cover-up lies in the composition timeline
The abundance of other writings predating the bom that covers the EXACT SAME story lines and material - hebrew origins of amerindians, scrolls found in a stone box buried on a hill, massive genocidal battles, horses and elephants in the americas, etc
The lack of moral character of the so-called 'witnesses'
The 4000+ changes to the most perfect book on earth
The 'translation' method that didn't even require the presence of the plates - just stuffing ones face into a hat and viewing an occultic 'seer' stone - same used earlier in smith's career to bilk people looking for buried treasure.
TOTAL failure to uncover ANY bom artifacts in the Americas that clearly show an advanced, hebraic society here.
Not only does the whole thing "not compute" SZ, it doesn't even pass the smell test. It is all based upon a subjective "feeling" about the whole matter and the only way one can reach the desired 'feeling' is to ignore the huge pile of evidence AGAINST the bom.
very heavy golden placemarker
... “I hefted it in my mind” testimony!
Changes in the Bible text from the original 1611 Authorized Version, through the dozens of English translations, must surely number in the millions. What is vital is whether or not changes are wise or unwise. If through millions of changes in the wording of the Bible in English, we are moving towards the meaning in the best critical texts based on the best manuscripts, then there is nothing sinister about those millions of changes.
The same situation exists for the Book of Mormon, which has only two manuscripts to deal with, the dictated manuscript of which only parts and fragments still exist (all of which can be studies on microfilm), and the printer's manuscript, which is virtually complete and on display to the general public in the Community of Christ Temple in Independence, Missouri (which can be studied on microfilm in the Temple library).
Although there are only two manuscripts to deal with, textual criticism is still needed, which has revealed that the printer's manuscript, used for the original 1830 edition has some changes marked that show up in the 1837 edition. Also, by comparing what remains of the dictated manuscript with the printer's manuscript, it can be seen that the Hebraic nature of the dictated manuscript was sometimes changed to read better in English, since Cowdery and Smith did not understand what Hebraisms are.
In 1999, the first Book of Mormon entirely based on the two manuscripts with favor towards the dictated manuscript was published, restoring the Hebraisms from the dictated manuscript. This is the Restored Covenant Edition, published by the Zarahemla Research Foundation.
This publication by a small organization with ties to the RLDS/Community of Christ stirred up some jealousy in the huge Mormon church with its many scholars, who were already engaged in a project to produce a Book of Mormon similar to what ZRF beat them to the punch with. While staying in a hotel with a Book of Mormon in a drawer, I noticed that the Mormon church is already moving their Book of Mormon text back towards the original manuscripts, with their full restoration still in the works as their scholars engage in textual criticism.
So scoffing at 4000+ changes in the Book of Mormon is rather foolish at this time when changes are being made in the right direction, back towards the original manuscripts. Many of the millions of changes in the English Bible were in the wrong direction, away from good textual criticism, but many of them have also been in the right direction, back to the best textual criticism of the most faithful scholars.