Mahonri's Watercraft

[zerinus]

Whatever. It doesn't matter to me- it's wrong, or out of context or something.

See my previous post. It is neither wrong nor out of context.

[Mariner]

Zerinus,

This widely quoted statement by Gorden B. Hinkley certainly appears to support your position on literal vs metaphorical.

Q. Our film [features] a very strong statement you made. You are talking about the foundational story of Mormonism and why it must be taken literally, that Joseph Smith had the vision he described and obtained the plates the way he did. You said there is no middle ground. Other churches are approaching their foundational stories and turning them into metaphor at times and going perhaps for the essence of the meaning. But that isn't true for you or for this church. I'm wondering if you can develop that idea: Why can't there be a middle ground in the way those foundational stories are understood?

A. Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith.

--- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley; Interview "The Mormons"; PBS Documentary, April 2007...

[blackstrap]

Everything President Hinckley said I can agree with.I find,however no mention of the creation story or the flood or Ether's message .He is speaking of the foundational events as literal events.

[zerinus]

Everything President Hinckley said I can agree with.I find,however no mention of the creation story or the flood or Ether's message .He is speaking of the foundational events as literal events.

He does mention the translation for the Book of Mormon from the plates. Does he have to sign off every word in the Book of Mormon for him to say what you think he should be saying?

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Holy cow... I don't get on for the weekend, and it looks like there is a ton to catch up on this single thread! If I missed someting... I willt ry and catch up tomorrow. Hopefully it hasn't moved beyond my reach.

[blackstrap]

He does mention the translation for the Book of Mormon from the plates. Does he have to sign off every word in the Book of Mormon for him to say what you think he should be saying?

I believe the translation was a literal event.I also believe the events described in the BoM were literal ,but that was not what his statement referred to.I try not to put words or even inferences in his mouth.

[zerinus]

I believe the translation was a literal event.I also believe the events described in the BoM were literal ,but that was not what his statement referred to.I try not to put words or even inferences in his mouth.

I beleive his comments were equally applicable to a literal interpretation of the Book of Mormon, including the book of Ether.

[ERayR]

Okay, I found it. This is the quote:

Q. Our film [features] a very strong statement you made. You are talking about the foundational story of Mormonism and why it must be taken literally, that Joseph Smith had the vision he described and obtained the plates the way he did. You said there is no middle ground. Other churches are approaching their foundational stories and turning them into metaphor at times and going perhaps for the essence of the meaning. But that isn't true for you or for this church. I'm wondering if you can develop that idea: Why can't there be a middle ground in the way those foundational stories are understood?

A. Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith.

That is not saying that your or my personal inerpretation is correct. The Book of Mormon is right and true but not everybodies understanding is. For instance I take molten rocks to be produced by high heat and you do not. One of us must not be right yet the Book of Mormons truthfulness has not been affected at all.

[mfbukowski]

Okay, I found it. This is the quote:

Q. Our film [features] a very strong statement you made. You are talking about the foundational story of Mormonism and why it must be taken literally, that Joseph Smith had the vision he described and obtained the plates the way he did. You said there is no middle ground. Other churches are approaching their foundational stories and turning them into metaphor at times and going perhaps for the essence of the meaning. But that isn't true for you or for this church. I'm wondering if you can develop that idea: Why can't there be a middle ground in the way those foundational stories are understood?

A. Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith.

Are you SERIOUS?

I wasn't talking about the "foundational story". There is NOTHING to NOT take literally in the foundational story. It is a report of a spiritual experience- a personal subjective experience. It is totally non-falsifiable. If I told you that I I saw a Yeti, it would be totally unfalsifiable. Either I saw a Yeti or I thought I saw one- there is no difference, or I am lying. There is no other possible interpretation.

Pres Hinckley is totally correct. The story is either true or a fraud- a lie Joseph made up.

We are talking about a story in the BOM which is not based on a personal experience of the person who wrote about the personal experience- it is an inspired translation of an ancient document- and as has been pointed out, that story was probably passed down unwritten from generation to generation.

No comparison at all, and if you cannot see that.......

So now you and Mariner are on the same side, what does that tell you?

Edited March 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

See my previous post. It is neither wrong nor out of context.

Give me a break.

It is wildly out of context. He's not even talking about the same thing we are!

[mfbukowski]

He does mention the translation for the Book of Mormon from the plates. Does he have to sign off every word in the Book of Mormon for him to say what you think he should be saying?

I am not arguing with you, my brother, about this. It is totally silly. Say what you like- I will ignore the rest of this line of argument should you choose to respond. Arguing about this silliness just benefits the adversary- no one else.

[zerinus]

That is not saying that your or my personal inerpretation is correct. The Book of Mormon is right and true but not everybodies understanding is. For instance I take molten rocks to be produced by high heat and you do not. One of us must not be right yet the Book of Mormons truthfulness has not been affected at all.

Agreed. But neither interpretation challenges the literalness of the Jaredite story. Neither is dependent on the story being a myth. That is what I was arguing against.

[zerinus]

I am not arguing with you, my brother, about this. It is totally silly. Say what you like- I will ignore the rest of this line of argument should you choose to respond. Arguing about this silliness just benefits the adversary- no one else.

Just as well.

[bcuzbcuz]

Actually, it may not have required any kind of contraption beyond the "plug" at all--if you keep the top plugged up, and the whole ship is watertight, unplugging the bottom should actually prevent water from seeping in at any real quantity--it's like taking an upside down cup, and pushing it into a sink filled with water--the air has no where to go, so it prevents the water from coming in.

Sorry to disappoint you but if you examine your "upside down cup in a sink of water" you might just discover that air pressure and water pressure do not equal each other. Water will rush in to the point that the remaining air is pressurized to equal the water pressure, but you still end up with a measurable amount of water at the bottom. In a water tight vessel, the size of a boat, all persons and livestock are going to get very wet feet.

Anyone who has even owned a wooden sailboat can tell stories about how untight the hull can be. Maintenance is a troublesome issue.

You're going to need a better analogy.

[Tepui]

Not to belabor this, but here's an excellent video of an "angry sea" The navy destroyer is shorter "than the length of a tree." Ether 2:17.

While it's, of course, under its own power, "the mountain waves" "dashed upon" it. Gives a good perspective, imo.

[blackstrap]

The first ship was tree length but the destroyer was longer than a tree I think. Remind me to never be in a life raft in the middle of that type of stormy sea. Terrifying!!

[Flyonthewall]

My 2 bits on this...not that I know anything.

Jared and his brother were not left to their own devices and knowledge in building these ships and navigating.

They were built according to the instructions from the Lord....not according to the knowledge of the day.

Perhaps I believe in magic, but I believe the holes in the top and bottom were more than just holes. Sure it was mentioned in the record that they allowed fresh air in, but it would be a good bet that there was more functionality than that. Another good bet would be that the instructions given by the Lord provided a more advanced ship/boat/barge than was known in the day, and was fully capable of making the voyage as described.

The record lacks detail on the ships because it was not written as a technical manual for ship building or navigating unknown waters. It was written with spiritual matters in mind, not technology.

The scriptures are full of instances of the Lord providing a way to do things that could not be done under normal circumstances.

[tana]

I grew up being taught that the reason for the holes in the top and bottom were for when the ship flipped over in the tempest. With the advent of the Internet I think perhaps critics have sunk their teeth into this, shared notes and pointed out reasonable reasons for why flipping ships isn't reasonable. In the latest threads I've been reading it seems many apologists have abandoned ship and argued for non-flipping barges. They theorize that the reason for the hole in the bottom is for discarding waste and siphoning in oxygen.

To me this seems so contrived. The only thing I can think of as reason for having a hole in the bottom of your ship would be for counting fish, torturing mutineers or scuttling your vessel. If one happens to have a pump that can discharge waste water under pressure, you could have a" through hull" below waterline, but short of that, the sensible thing to do to discharge waste would be to put the through hull *above* waterline.

Also, In the video posted I never did see a navel destroyer, I saw some type of fishing vessel. Walls of water were not cascading down on it because waves were breaking down on it, it was plowing into the seas under power. It is a heavy, cumbersome vessel (not light like a fowl). And, the heavy seas breaking at the sea walls were doing so because, as I described in an earlier post, waves build and break over when they reach the shallows. If you look out to sea in that vid you will see that the seas are not breaking....other than small white caps.

Also, I have a hard time understanding why the Jaradites needed to build *previous* barges. To cross what? A river? Raft it. The red sea? Walk around it. The Med? Sail out the straits.

Also, if the the waters were subjected to terrible tempests that required unorthodox vessels that lasted longer than god wanted to wait, Wouldn't the lands be also subjected to these tempests? How does a crew build a barge in a permanent hurricane?

Also, how many man years would it take to build a barge....in a hurricane? One man 10 years, ten men one year. I think it would take more men to build than it could support for one year at sea.

Also, I never have understood the reason for these unorthodox designed dish ship. A person could take a mid 20th century, Alden or Rhodes, or Sparkman and Stevens design wooden sailing vessel, close up the hatches and sail that sucker through a hurricane. That little Westsail from the "Perfect Storm" was found a few weeks later....still making way.

Plus with a vessel that has a deck and propulsion and steering and ballast and ground tackle and secondary skiffs has the advantages of not having it's occupants starved and suffocated and wet tumbled and going stir crazy....to name a few.

I submit that that a contemporary wooden sailing vessel, which the Jaradites could have built under gods direction just as easily, would withstand the supposed forces subjected on the barges as well if not better.....and made the narrative plausable.

Edited March 10, 2012 by tana

[ERayR]

I grew up being taught that the reason for the holes in the top and bottom were for when the ship flipped over in the tempest. With the advent of the Internet I think perhaps critics have sunk their teeth into this, shared notes and pointed out reasonable reasons for why flipping ships isn't reasonable. In the latest threads I've been reading it seems many apologists have abandoned ship and argued for non-flipping barges. They theorize that the reason for the hole in the bottom is for discarding waste and siphoning in oxygen.

So much for folk lore. How would any of your teachers know they were not on the barges and I don't recall the account giving any detailed usage of the holes?

To me this seems so contrived. The only thing I can think of as reason for having a hole in the bottom of your ship would be for counting fish, torturing mutineers or scuttling your vessel. If one happens to have a pump that can discharge waste water under pressure, you could have a" through hull" below waterline, but short of that, the sensible thing to do to discharge waste would be to put the through hull *above* waterline.

It seems some what contrived to me too. Come now you are surely not that lacking in imagination. If you are then may I suggest you learn to use Google.

Also, In the video posted I never did see a navel destroyer, I saw some type of fishing vessel. Walls of water were not cascading down on it because waves were breaking down on it, it was plowing into the seas under power. It is a heavy, cumbersome vessel (not light like a fowl). And, the heavy seas breaking at the sea walls were doing so because, as I described in an earlier post, waves build and break over when they reach the shallows. If you look out to sea in that vid you will see that the seas are not breaking....other than small white caps.

Try it in a storm. The seas get much more exciting.

Also, I have a hard time understanding why the Jaradites needed to build *previous* barges. To cross what? A river? Raft it. The red sea? Walk around it. The Med? Sail out the straits.

Maybe for practice.

Also, if the the waters were subjected to terrible tempests that required unorthodox vessels that lasted longer than god wanted to wait, Wouldn't the lands be also subjected to these tempests? How does a crew build a barge in a permanent hurricane?

Come now, you are being deliberatly obtuse. Now where is it recorded that that was a permanant condition. Only that it happened.

Also, how many man years would it take to build a barge....in a hurricane? One man 10 years, ten men one year. I think it would take more men to build than it could support for one year at sea.

If you can't/won't work any faster than that I certainly would not hire you by the hour. Besides that I don't remember God giving them a deadline.

Also, I never have understood the reason for these unorthodox designed dish ship. A person could take a mid 20th century, Alden or Rhodes, or Sparkman and Stevens design wooden sailing vessel, close up the hatches and sail that sucker through a hurricane. That little Westsail from the "Perfect Storm" was found a few weeks later....still making way.

You don't have to understand it it wasn't your project. The only propulsion systems at that time, that I am aware of, was oars or sails, both of which don't do well in storms.

Plus with a vessel that has a deck and propulsion and steering and ballast and ground tackle and secondary skiffs has the advantages of not having it's occupants starved and suffocated and wet tumbled and going stir crazy....to name a few.

It says the top was tight like a dish. It doesn't say there was no ventalation. It doesn't say anything about being tumbled, that is somebody reading things that are not there. Why would they starve? They took supplies.

I submit that that a contemporary wooden sailing vessel, which the Jaradites could have built under gods direction just as easily, would withstand the supposed forces subjected on the barges as well if not better.....and made the narrative plausable.

Perhaps but I find it much safer and the outcome is always better if one doesn't second guess God.

[tana]

If one squints hard enuf, they could see the GPS reads Lattitude 000

Being a "Shellback" doesn't make me an expert oceanographer, but I do at least have a wee bit of knowledge on the subject.

Edited March 11, 2012 by tana

[rodheadlee]

If one squints hard enuf, they could see the GPS reads Lattitude 000

Being a "Shellback" doesn't make me an expert oceanographer, but I do at least have a wee bit of knowledge on the subject.

Where did you cross? We crossed at about 131*W. 1979 Catalina 38, tiller steered.

[tana]

Come now, you are being deliberatly obtuse. Now where is it recorded that that was a permanant condition. Only that it happened.

click on image to enlarge

Near Noumea in New Caledonia

This is "Glorie", a Santana 39. Originally designed as a racer/cruiser to compete in the TransPac, S.F. to Hawaii yacht race. I sailed her single handed from San Diego to New Zealand via Hawaii. I spent the most part of three years on her.

The passage from SD to Kona Hawaii was approx 2200 miles. I did it in 21 days, but I spent 7 days parked, becalmed....ocean flat as a mill pond. I still averaged about 35 miles a day (24 hrs.) drifting with the current.

The current record for the Transpac crossing for mono-hulls is 5 days 14 hrs.

Point being, You can't have it both ways. Either there was a constant weather pattern that engulfed the ocean basin in question, AND adjacent land.....and didn't allow a weather window for god to get his people across in conventional ships in a couple of months, or there were breaks in the weather..... which would allow god to get his people across conventionally. If there were weather windows, it would seem that god in his wisdom would get them across in conventional craft in much less time than the one year narrative. If there were no weather windows, these people would be building their crafts in a constant gale.

Believe it or not, I also happen to be a contractor/builder. Ever try putting sheathing on a roof in even 20 knot winds? If you insist in hanging on to your sheet of plywood when a gust hits you will find yourself in the next county.

I figured out how to "google" man hrs to build a 50' boat and get readings of 10-15 K.....in a shop with many pre-manufactured parts.....and not hand hewing planks and timbers in a tempest.

Edited March 11, 2012 by tana

[tana]

Where did you cross? We crossed at about 131*W. 1979 Catalina 38, tiller steered.

My sig on the wall of the Palmyra "yacht club".

Hey Rod, good to hear from you again. I drove S from Hawaii to Palmyra atoll : longitude162 04' 59.05" W Latitude: 005 52' 55.54" N. so, just south of Palmyra. When I hit the equator I fell off my course and drove west to allow me enough time on the equator to take that picture.

What are you guys up to now? Last I remember you were reparing your boat in Samoa, from the tsunami.

[rodheadlee]

My sig on the wall of the Palmyra "yacht club".

Hey Rod, good to hear from you again. I drove S from Hawaii to Palmyra atoll : longitude162 04' 59.05" W Latitude: 005 52' 55.54" N. so, just south of Palmyra. When I hit the equator I fell off my course and drove west to allow me enough time on the equator to take that picture.

What are you guys up to now? Last I remember you were reparing your boat in Samoa, from the tsunami.

We fixed it and sold it. It sold in 2 weeks on a free internet board. Then we bought a Mason 43 cutter in Annapolis and we are working our way south to go through the canal and back to California. We worked on our boat all summer and we got a really late start with 30 day stops in New Bern, Charleston and Cocoa, Florida to make repairs and get some cruising gear online. We're on the move now and we need to be in Panama late April.