Fitting Evidence

[zerinus]

But, shouldn't it be possible to find a reliable source who could give us an idea of how many Egyptian hieroglyphs one could place on a 6" by 8" plate, and what the approximate number of English words that would equate to is? We could even adjust the ratio up or down based on whether we think Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics were smaller or larger than plain old Egyptian hieroglyphics.

No. The â??Reformed Egyptianâ? was a system of writing that the Nephites had developed among themselves to enable them to condense a large amount of test in a small amount of space. It was something like shorthand. In shorthand, you can represent a whole word with what looks like a single glyph. Here is a sample to look at. Moroni says that the reason why they wrote in Reformed Egyptian is because they couldnâ??t have fitted everything on the plates if they had written in Hebrew:

Mormon 9

:

33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

Exactly how it worked, and how they were able to achieve this, is anybodyâ??s guess. It is futile to try to speculate on that, since we know nothing about it, and next to nothing about the actual plates.

We do not know what sort of Egyptian characters (not necessarily hieroglyphs,

[LeSellers]

Surely we can make an educated guess.

We can, but it's still a guess. And the "educated" part is little more than ****'n'Jane level.

For instance, it's highly unlikely that a single glyph would equate to 100 words, right?

"Unlikely" is not "impossible". It is conceivable. At what point would it be likely? Twenty words? Fifteen? Thirty-five?

It's reformed Egyptian, so it must be similar to Egyptian or else why call it a form of Egyptian at all?

The questino is not "is it based on Egyptian?" The question is "Which form of Egyptian is it based on?"

The question extends, also, to how did the Nephites reform the Egyptian characters they used? We have no idea.

Making your "educated guess" is no more reasonable than simply throwing a dart at a dictionary as it falls from the fifth story then using the word it strikes as the next one in a random sentence.

Lehi

[Areabird]

We can, but it's still a guess. And the "educated" part is little more than ****'n'Jane level.

"Unlikely" is not "impossible". It is conceivable. At what point would it be likely? Twenty words? Fifteen? Thirty-five?

The questino is not "is it based on Egyptian?" The question is "Which form of Egyptian is it based on?"

The question extends, also, to how did the Nephites reform the Egyptian characters they used? We have no idea.

Making your "educated guess" is no more reasonable than simply throwing a dart at a dictionary as it falls from the fifth story then using the word it strikes as the next one in a random sentence.

Lehi

Well, I wouldn't say my educated guess would equate to throwing a dart. In fact I would say it is at least a reasonable way of looking at how many plates there should be. I don't mind critiques of my logic, but my proposal doesn't warrant the comparison you just made.

The idea of 'shorthand' hadn't occurred to me before. I was thinking of something much less drastic in terms of modifying the language, but a kind of short hand would certainly be plausible.

Granted, I have become very disenchanted with Mormonism (even though I was raised Mormon) in the past few years and I am constantly questioning the assumptions I was taught and continue to be taught at church each week. I wouldn't say it is impossible that it is all true, but as I look at events, doctrine, etc. anew it is just difficult to accept that there are so many leaps of faith one must make across so many areas and have it all still be true. I thought perhaps the idea in this thread might have been another one I put in the 'couldn't have happened' column, but perhaps not. I'll have to keep thinking about it.

Thanks for the dialogue.

[ERayR]

Well, I wouldn't say my educated guess would equate to throwing a dart. In fact I would say it is at least a reasonable way of looking at how many plates there should be. I don't mind critiques of my logic, but my proposal doesn't warrant the comparison you just made.

The idea of 'shorthand' hadn't occurred to me before. I was thinking of something much less drastic in terms of modifying the language, but a kind of short hand would certainly be plausible.

Granted, I have become very disenchanted with Mormonism (even though I was raised Mormon) in the past few years and I am constantly questioning the assumptions I was taught and continue to be taught at church each week. I wouldn't say it is impossible that it is all true, but as I look at events, doctrine, etc. anew it is just difficult to accept that there are so many leaps of faith one must make across so many areas and have it all still be true. I thought perhaps the idea in this thread might have been another one I put in the 'couldn't have happened' column, but perhaps not. I'll have to keep thinking about it.

Thanks for the dialogue.

Please don't take this as being anything other than a suggestion as to the root of your problem. Perhaps the reason for your disenchantment with Mormonism is because you are concentrating on the wrong things (how many gold plates, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, etc) and not enough on the message of hope in the message and atonement of Jesus Christ. Get back to reading the Book of Mormon instead of worrying about how many gold plates it was engraved on.

[Mortal Man]

No. The â??Reformed Egyptianâ? was a system of writing that the Nephites had developed among themselves to enable them to condense a large amount of test in a small amount of space. It was something like shorthand. In shorthand, you can represent a whole word with what looks like a single glyph.

Hieratic is a shorthand form of hieroglyphic and could reasonably be referred to as "reformed Egyptian". To me, it bears a closer resemblance to the Anthon transcript than hieroglypic does. Joseph Smith did not know the difference between the two, as evidenced by his copying hieratic characters (upside down) from JSP XI into the hieroglyphic sections of Facsimilie 2. So a reasonable approach might be to write out the BoM in hieratic and then see how small you'd have to make it to fit on 20 or so golden plates. My guess is you'd need a microscope.

[zerinus]

Hieratic is a shorthand form of hieroglyphic and could reasonably be referred to as "reformed Egyptian". To me, it bears a closer resemblance to the Anthon transcript than hieroglypic does. Joseph Smith did not know the difference between the two, as evidenced by his copying hieratic characters (upside down) from JSP XI into the hieroglyphic sections of Facsimilie 2. So a reasonable approach might be to write out the BoM in hieratic and then see how small you'd have to make it to fit on 20 or so golden plates. My guess is you'd need a microscope.

You are talking nonsense. We don't know that "Reformed Egyptian" of the Nephites looked like, and we don't know how many gold plates there were.

zerinus

[Areabird]

Please don't take this as being anything other than a suggestion as to the root of your problem. Perhaps the reason for your disenchantment with Mormonism is because you are concentrating on the wrong things (how many gold plates, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, etc) and not enough on the message of hope in the message and atonement of Jesus Christ. Get back to reading the Book of Mormon instead of worrying about how many gold plates it was engraved on.

Well, that's another thing I have thought about. I often hear people say that the Gospel of Jesus is what is important. And I agree. But so much of what we have in Mormonism bears no resemblance to anything that you find in the New Testament. Jesus didn't talk about ordinances in the temple or teach polygamy (that folks should practice it) or the United Order or many, many other things that Mormonism considers doctrine. Mormonism says all these new ideas were really what Jesus would have (or did) teach, but I have my doubts.

[Areabird]

You are talking nonsense. We don't know that "Reformed Egyptian" of the Nephites looked like, and we don't know how many gold plates there were.

zerinus

We also don't know that Joseph really saw the First Vision. People have faith that it happened, but we don't know it because we weren't there. So if an entire religion can be built on something that no one has proof of, then why can't we estimate based on the 'first hand' accounts how many plates there are?

[Tchild2]

The Book of Ether is 31 pages long and was originally written on 24 plates; hence, 1 plate =~1.3 pages of printed text. The Book of Mormon is 531 pages long. It was produced from a handwritten manuscript of ~480 pages. Adding in the 116 pages from the lost manuscript gives ~596 pages of manuscript. Thus if we had the lost Book of Lehi, the BoM would be 596(531/480)=~659 pages of printed text. Using the Jaredite plates as a guide, 659/1.3 = ~507 unbound plates buried by Moroni. Now look at the replica of the golden plates, which was constructed as a best match to all the various witness' descriptions.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

How many plates do you count?

Based on the first hand accounts where we find Joseph Smith translating while peering into a hat, with all light excluded and the plates distant or out of sight entirely...the necessity of having plates present, whether the size of a postage stamp or voluminous, filling a large library, are irrelevant.

By all accounts, the plates were never necessary for the translation to occur.

[LeSellers]

Based on the first hand accounts where we find Joseph Smith translating while peering into a hat, with all light excluded ...

David Whitmer's was not a "first hand account. He was never involved in the translation.

Lehi

[Areabird]

David Whitmer's was not a "first hand account. He was never involved in the translation.

Lehi

So that's not how Joseph translated the Book of Mormon? I thought the head in the hat method was pretty well accepted even at at FARMs.

Or are you just saying that David Whitmer wasn't there so how would he know for sure?

[Mortal Man]

You are talking nonsense. We don't know that "Reformed Egyptian" of the Nephites looked like,

Sure we do.

In the broadside, the alternating arrangement of scripture verses with reformed Egyptian text suggests a translation.

and we don't know how many gold plates there were.

Not exactly, but we can set a minimum on the thickness of each plate as well as a maximum height for the stack. I don't think this allows for more than 30 unbound plates.

[Mortal Man]

Based on the first hand accounts where we find Joseph Smith translating while peering into a hat, with all light excluded and the plates distant or out of sight entirely...the necessity of having plates present, whether the size of a postage stamp or voluminous, filling a large library, are irrelevant.

By all accounts, the plates were never necessary for the translation to occur.

Yup. So a possible way out of this mess would be to claim that Joseph translated all the plates, including the bound ones. That get's you a lot closer to the needed volume.

[ERayR]

Well, that's another thing I have thought about. I often hear people say that the Gospel of Jesus is what is important. And I agree. But so much of what we have in Mormonism bears no resemblance to anything that you find in the New Testament. Jesus didn't talk about ordinances in the temple or teach polygamy (that folks should practice it) or the United Order or many, many other things that Mormonism considers doctrine. Mormonism says all these new ideas were really what Jesus would have (or did) teach, but I have my doubts.

How do you know Jesus didn't teach these things? We actually have very little of what Jesus did say. Temple Ordinances would have been for those with a temple "recommend" and not for common despersal. You are wrong, Mormonism does not say they are new ideas but part of the restoration.

[Areabird]

How do you know Jesus didn't teach these things? We actually have very little of what Jesus did say. Temple Ordinances would have been for those with a temple "recommend" and not for common despersal. You are wrong, Mormonism does not say they are new ideas but part of the restoration.

Assuming Christ actually taught those things, and they were important to our salvation (temple ordinances) don't you think the disciples would have included them in their teachings to the people after Christ's death? Surely someone would have recorded those items in addition to all the other events that happened during Jesus life.

[LeSellers]

So that's not how Joseph translated the Book of Mormon? I thought the head in the hat method was pretty well accepted even at at FARMs.

No, it's not how he translated the Book of Mormon, certainly not all of it, if any at all.

Whether it is accepted or not, the evidence is that Joseph employed many ways of translating, and the method he used at the end barely involved the plates at all.

Or are you just saying that David Whitmer wasn't there so how would he know for sure?

I am saying the David Whitmer was not there, so his account is second-hand at best. Using other-than-primary sources is only valid when no primary sources exist, and calling them primary sources, as Tchild2 did here, is not good form.

Lehi

[ERayR]

Assuming Christ actually taught those things, and they were important to our salvation (temple ordinances) don't you think the disciples would have included them in their teachings to the people after Christ's death? Surely someone would have recorded those items in addition to all the other events that happened during Jesus life.

Temple content was never mean for general disemination. I do suppose that they were taught to those who could qualify for a recommend. I for one don't think that we have all that was taught.

[Areabird]

Temple content was never mean for general disemination. I do suppose that they were taught to those who could qualify for a recommend. I for one don't think that we have all that was taught.

I agree that they would not teach all the sacred aspects of the ordinances, but wouldn't they talk about the need to be married in the temple, be sealed to your family, endowments, baptism for the dead, etc. We talk about that all the time in church and with our non-member friends. We don't go into the details, but we still talk about them.