Gold Plates: Theoretical Minimum Thickness

[ELF1024]

We still seem to be avoiding the point that the idea of using one symbol to represent several words would inflate the required symbol set to an unmanageable level, probably beyond the ability of the human brain to store them for practical writing and reading purposes.

It would help the case to identify a written language that can be demonstrated to have ever done that. The example of the alleged "came to pass" glyph doesn't help much, because even if that's what it really means, that phrase is really little more than "and so" or "and then." Many more examples would be needed to show a condensed writing system.

Since you haven't attempted to answer this part of my question yet, I thought I remind you of it...

The writers of the Book of Mormon weren't doing translation, they were doing writing in their own native tongue. I would hope that there is a better way to say something that has the same meaning in Mandarin that isn't a direct transalation but gives the same basic meaning in a different manner using fewer characters.

How would you say "and my father dwelt in a tent" or something that converys that meaning in a dialect such as Japanese or Mandarin in as few symbols as possible?

[frankenstein]

What would be the minimum thickness per each page of the Golden Plates need to be to:

1. be bound together with metal rings

and

2. be able to turn the leaves without them ripping or tearing as they are turned. A book intended to be read should be made of material strong enough to withstand leafing through the pages -- should also be able to withstand dear Emma Smith rustling the side of them

and

3. be able to engrave upon them without poking through to the other side. This one is important because presumably the story would be written on two sides of the pages, and unless the pages were thick enough there would be deformities pushing through to the opposite side as Mormon & Moroni used rocks & meteroic iron to engrave them.

and

4. contain all the information written in "reformed Egyptian" that Joseph produced from it (not including the "sealed" portion)

The witnesses describe them in different ways. Were they the thickness of thick paper as David Whitmer said? How thick is thick paper ("thick" is unwarranted -- how is that defined?)? If they were as thick as common sheet tin would there be any big air pockets or would they compress/flatten out under their own 40-60lb weight?

http://en.wikipedia....i/Golden_plates

brail is double sided. so spacing between lines would allow for double sided writing.

as fro thickness, I think it could as thin are foil. due care would prevent the pages from tearing or break. but regardless of thinness of the material, the next question would be "well no one can run through the woods carrying Xlbs of gold".

[LeSellers]

The writers of the Book of Mormon weren't doing translation, they were doing writing in their own native tongue.

This is probably untrue.

Moroni tells us that he (and his father) wrote in characters called reformed Egyptian, and that had they written in Hebrew, things would have turned out even better.

We are left to ponder whether they were writing in (their dialect of) Hebrew, using Egyptian -derived) characters, or in Egyptian in Egyptian (-derived) characters, or in another language entirely, using Egyptian (-derived) characters.

My preference is for a hierolect (a priestly language) in Egyptian-derived characters, and that very few (especially in Moroni's time) even among the Nephites could read it, and, for all intents and purposes, no one spoke it at all.

Lehi

[jadams_4242]

What would be the minimum thickness per each page of the Golden Plates need to be to:

1. be bound together with metal rings

and

2. be able to turn the leaves without them ripping or tearing as they are turned. A book intended to be read should be made of material strong enough to withstand leafing through the pages -- should also be able to withstand dear Emma Smith rustling the side of them

and

3. be able to engrave upon them without poking through to the other side. This one is important because presumably the story would be written on two sides of the pages, and unless the pages were thick enough there would be deformities pushing through to the opposite side as Mormon & Moroni used rocks & meteroic iron to engrave them.

and

4. contain all the information written in "reformed Egyptian" that Joseph produced from it (not including the "sealed" portion)

The witnesses describe them in different ways. Were they the thickness of thick paper as David Whitmer said? How thick is thick paper ("thick" is unwarranted -- how is that defined?)? If they were as thick as common sheet tin would there be any big air pockets or would they compress/flatten out under their own 40-60lb weight?

http://en.wikipedia....i/Golden_plates

Oh jeesh everyone knows that! they were the excat same thickness as standard gold plates!

[mfbukowski]

In my view, this entire thread does not ever take into account the fact that the BOM was revealed.

It presents the usual literalistic, and fundamentalistic point of view found throughout this forum of late.

Suppose there were no plates at all and Joseph produced the revelation out of nothing? Is God capable of that?

On the other hand, suppose the entire revelation was based off of two characters, total, period. Is God capable of that?

I have often wondered in conversations like this one and others about the BOA, how members of the church could be so obtuse as to ignore the fact that these are revealed texts- yes translated in a sense, but not in any conventional sense of the word.

"Translated by the gift and power of God" is very different from mere translation, and imo, eliminates any need for discussions like these. Either you believe they were revealed or not- that is the bottom line.

[mfbukowski]

Oh jeesh everyone knows that! they were the excat same thickness as standard gold plates!

Those standards are published right next to the scoop size for the "two scoops" of raisins in the cereal box- everybody knows that!

[krose]

How would you say "and my father dwelt in a tent" or something that converys that meaning in a dialect such as Japanese or Mandarin in as few symbols as possible?

I don't follow. Are you saying that an original composition in your own language would take up substantially less space than one that is translated from a foreign tongue? That would only be true for words or concepts that have no correlation in the target language and need to be explained.

[Macabus]

In my view, this entire thread does not ever take into account the fact that the BOM was revealed.

It presents the usual literalistic, and fundamentalistic point of view found throughout this forum of late.

Suppose there were no plates at all and Joseph produced the revelation out of nothing? Is God capable of that?

On the other hand, suppose the entire revelation was based off of two characters, total, period. Is God capable of that?

I have often wondered in conversations like this one and others about the BOA, how members of the church could be so obtuse as to ignore the fact that these are revealed texts- yes translated in a sense, but not in any conventional sense of the word.

"Translated by the gift and power of God" is very different from mere translation, and imo, eliminates any need for discussions like these. Either you believe they were revealed or not- that is the bottom line.

Sperry makes a pretty good case for the Book of Mormon being a translation in a conventional sense.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=4&num=1&id=91

He also mentions the possibility of Reformed Egyptian being a form of shorthand with Hebrew influence.

[mfbukowski]

Sperry makes a pretty good case for the Book of Mormon being a translation in a conventional sense.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=4&num=1&id=91

He also mentions the possibility of Reformed Egyptian being a form of shorthand with Hebrew influence.

Yes but this has nothing to do with my point. The discussion is about how much data could fit in a defined space.