are the submarines in the book of mormon just a bit much to believe..

joneysd · Jan 5, 2015

MormonFriend said:
I think this discussion qualifies as straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel.

17 And they were built after a manner that they were exceedingly tight, even that they would hold water like unto a dish; and the bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the sides thereof were tight like unto a dish; and the ends thereof were peaked; and the top thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the length thereof was the length of a tree; and the door thereof, when it was shut, was tight like unto a dish.

so why did they need holes in the vessel, why not open the door for air, what race at that time could have built an air tight door...

Ran77 · Jan 5, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Is there a particular problem you have with this text, which definitely is historic?

Here again we see the process in action. What I actually stated was "There is nothing historic about your posts." I went on to explain that it is the portion of your comments which are made up and don't reflect what the LDS believe on virtually any topic that has nothing to do with history. And you have turned it around (more invention on your part) to direct my comment toward something else, in this case the actual text.

I'm at a loss to understand what this accomplishes. I understand that my continued encounters with this sort of three card monty tactic results in a complete destruction of any chance that I might accept your posts as having some value to me. Surely, this is not your goal. So why do you post such ridiculous statements?

Ran77 · Jan 5, 2015

joneysd said:
so why did they need holes in the vessel, why not open the door for air, what race at that time could have built an air tight door...

Going back a few posts we have this:

joneysd said:
if the holes are doors, how come the builders did not think, "how are we going to get in to these things"....

This just demonstrates that no matter what answer is given our critics will find a way to fault it. What purpose does it serve to argue a point and then flop to argue the exact opposite. This seems a pretty obvious case of arguing for the sake of arguing. I choose not to take part of this spirit of dissention any longer.

bbbbbbb · Jan 5, 2015

Ran77 said:
Here again we see the process in action. What I actually stated was "There is nothing historic about your posts." I went on to explain that it is the portion of your comments which are made up and don't reflect what the LDS believe on virtually any topic that has nothing to do with history. And you have turned it around (more invention on your part) to direct my comment toward something else, in this case the actual text.

I'm at a loss to understand what this accomplishes. I understand that my continued encounters with this sort of three card monty tactic results in a complete destruction of any chance that I might accept your posts as having some value to me. Surely, this is not your goal. So why do you post such ridiculous statements?

On numerous occasions I have posted the text from Ether in an effort to keep the discussion focused on the actual text. Yet, you complain that I "have turned it around (more invention on your part) to direct my comment toward something else, in this case the actual text. " You seem to prefer not addressing the text, but engaging in ad hominem attacks against me. Please limit your comments to the actual text at hand.

Thank you.

joneysd · Jan 5, 2015

Ran77 said:
Going back a few posts we have this:

This just demonstrates that no matter what answer is given our critics will find a way to fault it. What purpose does it serve to argue a point and then flop to argue the exact opposite. This seems a pretty obvious case of arguing for the sake of arguing. I choose not to take part of this spirit of dissention any longer.

If you cannot answer it that's fine and hardly surprising.

Ran77 · Jan 5, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
On numerous occasions I have posted the text from Ether in an effort to keep the discussion focused on the actual text. Yet, you complain that I "have turned it around (more invention on your part) to direct my comment toward something else, in this case the actual text. " You seem to prefer not addressing the text, but engaging in ad hominem attacks against me. Please limit your comments to the actual text at hand.

This is a debate forum. When you make a statement that is flawed, it is within my right to point it out. I have done that. Doing so does not constitute an ad hominem attack.

I have asked about the purpose of conducting tactics that seem to serve no apparent purpose other than to alienate the LDS, but that is primarily to find out if there is a reasonable explanation for it. So far, no explanation has been forthcoming.

As far as addressing the text, that was done several times. The tactic I mentioned in my previous post is the normal method of response, I. E. taking my statement and directing it toward something that I wasn't addressing.

The solution is quite simple. If you deal with what the text actually says, what the LDS actually believe, and what I actually state then I won't need to point out that you have invented some element to attack, or have switched the intended object of my comment. The choice lies fully within you.

Ran77 · Jan 5, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
I suppose the top hole would have probably served the purpose, although that would have required ladders. I am not so sure that livestock would have done very well on ladders.

Here is an example of how the text states one thing and you have presented something different. Verse 17 states that the barges had doors, which when they were shut were tight like unto a dish. Verse 19 introduces the idea that a watertight ship will not allow the passengers to breathe. In order to remedy that situation two holes (hatches) are made to allow fresh air inside the ships.

We can all see by your comment above that you have ignored the actual text that states there is a door and instead offer the premise that they used these air holes to enter the boat and then made it as ridiculous as possible by suggesting that it meant livestock would have to use ladders to climb down.

What the text says = the barges had doors and holes were additionally added to provide air for the passengers.

What you presented = livestock would have to use ladders to climb down into the boat through the air holes.

The conclusion = you are inventing the need to use the air holes as doors, because the actual text has already described them as having doors. Which means your argument does not deal with the historic evidence of the text.

MormonFriend · Jan 6, 2015

joneysd said:
so why did they need holes in the vessel, why not open the door for air, ...

Didn't you just say in post # 99 "so no mention of a door then, how odd..." And now you see that you missed that detail in your reading. Perhaps a few more readings of the Book of Mormon will show you more details you missed on many subjects. But if your approach is to mock or disprove what is says, you will never see the details. Like the Bible, many things are hidden from us until we approach it correctly.

joneysd said:
...what race at that time could have built an air tight door...

Any race or people who know how to communicate with God, and have the obedience to follow His directions.

joneysd · Jan 6, 2015

MormonFriend said:
Didn't you just say in post # 99 "so no mention of a door then, how odd..." And now you see that you missed that detail in your reading. Perhaps a few more readings of the Book of Mormon will show you more details you missed on many subjects. But if your approach is to mock or disprove what is says, you will never see the details. Like the Bible, many things are hidden from us until we approach it correctly.

Any race or people who know how to communicate with God, and have the obedience to follow His directions.

i think the technology, materials and metallurgy of the time would dictate if it were possible but then the bom seems to omit those things as unimportant or are you saying they did not build them but God made them appear...

so these doors , don't they make the holes unnecessary, nothing of the building or design of these ocean going vessels say a God or godly intelligence were either behind or involved in their building...

bbbbbbb · Jan 6, 2015

joneysd said:
i think the technology, materials and metallurgy of the time would dictate if it were possible but then the bom seems to omit those things as unimportant or are you saying they did not build them but God made them appear...

so these doors , don't they make the holes unnecessary, nothing of the building or design of these ocean going vessels say a God or godly intelligence were either behind or involved in their building...

Let's just face reality here. The entire account is nothing more than mythical and miraculous (take your pick). It is entirely absurd from start to finish. It would require a total miracle from God to do. Actually, it probably would have been easier for all parties concerned if God had parted the water of the Atlantic Ocean and they would have walked, dryshod to America.

Theway · Jan 6, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Let's just face reality here. The entire account is nothing more than mythical and miraculous (take your pick). It is entirely absurd from start to finish. It would require a total miracle from God to do. Actually, it probably would have been easier for all parties concerned if God had parted the water of the Atlantic Ocean and they would have walked, dryshod to America.

If that is what you truly believed, then why the need for you to change the wording and add in your own faulty misrepresentation at every turn?
Why also the need to constantly create strawmen to compare the account to? I.e. Parting of the Atlantic...

I get that simply stating that they were airtight barges with a sealable hole in the top and bottom isn't exactly that ridiculous and sensational... I even gave it to you that there is one thing which falls into the "mythical and miraculous" category, and that is the glowing rocks they used for lights....
Funny thing is that that is the only thing you haven't even commented on.

I mean... Just who are you trying to convince anyway??? Look around, all the Mormons here see your ridiculous arguments for what they are, and so one can only guess you are trying to convince yourself of your own AntiMormon propaganda, cause ain't nobody else buying it. All you actually do is make the Mormon position less ridiculous by comparison to your own made-up account.

joneysd · Jan 6, 2015

Theway said:
If that is what you truly believed, then why the need for you to change the wording and add in your own faulty misrepresentation at every turn?
Why also the need to constantly create strawmen to compare the account to? I.e. Parting of the Atlantic...

I get that simply stating that they were airtight barges with a sealable hole in the top and bottom isn't exactly that ridiculous and sensational... I even gave it to you that there is one thing which falls into the "mythical and miraculous" category, and that is the glowing rocks they used for lights....
Funny thing is that that is the only thing you haven't even commented on.

I mean... Just who are you trying to convince anyway??? Look around, all the Mormons here see your ridiculous arguments for what they are, and so one can only guess you are trying to convince yourself of your own AntiMormon propaganda, cause ain't nobody else buying it. All you actually do is make the Mormon position less ridiculous by comparison to your own made-up account.

I think all the people in this forum do is demonstrate the bom to be fallible to say the least....

bbbbbbb · Jan 6, 2015

Theway said:
If that is what you truly believed, then why the need for you to change the wording and add in your own faulty misrepresentation at every turn?
Why also the need to constantly create strawmen to compare the account to? I.e. Parting of the Atlantic...

I get that simply stating that they were airtight barges with a sealable hole in the top and bottom isn't exactly that ridiculous and sensational... I even gave it to you that there is one thing which falls into the "mythical and miraculous" category, and that is the glowing rocks they used for lights....
Funny thing is that that is the only thing you haven't even commented on.

I mean... Just who are you trying to convince anyway??? Look around, all the Mormons here see your ridiculous arguments for what they are, and so one can only guess you are trying to convince yourself of your own AntiMormon propaganda, cause ain't nobody else buying it. All you actually do is make the Mormon position less ridiculous by comparison to your own made-up account.

I am not trying to convince anyone, much less you. Your mind has been made up long before you ever entered this forum. If you can't comment on the actual text, but have to resort to ad hominem attacks against me, then I can't reall respond to much of what you post.

Concerning the miraculous (and, perhaps, mythical) light source, I certainly did not find it worth commenting upon because it is over the top and patently unscientific, as we all know. If you wish to explain a scientific basis for the light, please do.

are the submarines in the book of mormon just a bit much to believe..

Newbie

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

bbbbbbb

Guest

Newbie

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Newbie

bbbbbbb

Guest

Senior Member

Newbie

bbbbbbb

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency