thesometimesaint Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 The Hindenburg fell down and went BOOM. Ever since then folks have been wary of Hydrogen. The infrastructure required to move to hydrogen stations everywhere as gasoline stations are now will be an enormous project. Not that it shouldn't be planned for. Hydrogen's problem is storage. Currently large heavy metal tanks are used but there is some hope for light fiber tanks and chemicals that act as a hydrogen' sponge' ( I forget the name) to avoid the disasterous explosive quality of pure hydrogen.As for coal, North America has a thousand years supply of the stuff at least. Germany has made significant progress in reducing the environmental problems of coal. It may be a stop gap process but it will be necessary for most coal-fired plants to adopt similar methods in the near future. If the Hindenburg was lifted by natural gas the BOOM would have been much much bigger. The flames we saw were from the aluminum powder in the fabric used to reflect sunlight, and not the hydrogen itself. A hydrogen flame is virtual invisible in normal light. We're not afraid of gasoline. Yet gasoline is far more dangerous than hydrogen. If gasoline was invented today it would never make it to market. It is that dangerous. While economics of scale will substantially lower the cost of distribution. It will still be a massively large undertaking. Metal hydride is the word you're looking for. They are very safe means for the storage of pure hydrogen, including on our cars. They can't sustain a flame by themselves like fossil fuels. They just release more hydrogen when heated. Any projection of availability of supply is subject to demand. Coal, along with all fossil fuels, is a finite resource. The good Lord just isn't making any more of the stuff.We will never entirely run out of any fossil fuel. What will happen, and is happening, is that the price will continue to go up until it is no longer economically viable for most applications. Why do you think the companies that are looking for fossil fuels are going to more and more inaccessible places? So as demand for coal goes up, not only does the price go up, the long term availability of that coal of necessity goes down. That doesn't even consider the negative consequences for burning the stuff. As I said high efficiency burning along with CO2 sequestration offers some short time hope for stationary power sources. With some 40% of our energy dollars going just to our transportation needs that is not an option.
shark81 Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 I'm confused at why so many immediately dismiss a heartland setting for the Nephites. Regardless of geography, culture, finds, etc we know Moroni was physically in NY and buried the plates there. Someone put it there. Is that not a big lead? Yes, but that was 30 years after the Great Battle. It is not so much as a "big lead" but deceptive where some are unable to conceive that more than one hill can have the same name. A "bigger lead" is whether the hill fits the description of the geography, from the actual text of the BOM. Name somewhere in South or Central America where we have a known link? We don't. The ancient names of sites in mesoamerica are unknown -- with a few exceptions, they are only known by modern names. One interesting exception is Lamanai in Belize. It has a BOM name (a Lamanite king mentioned in Alma) in a location identified as Lamanite -- southern part of mesoamerica. So, we now have that link, not only with the geography but also with a BOM name. Just a matter of doing your homework. I know you may not agree with Meldrum or others proposing the Heartland model, but why be so quick to debunk the heartland theory? I'm not talking about Meldrum or May, since I know you are suspicious of them... I'm just talking about a general Hearland theory. Even Meldrum supporters admit there is little external evidence for this theory. Instead they primarily depend on statements by early church leaders, almost none of whom had direct knowledge of BOM location. And name calling -- we are "weak in the faith" by not accepting their "inspired" statements. Joseph Smith talks about finding a white lamanite (Zelph) and talks about walking through nephite lands (in a letter to Emma) during the Zions camp march. So as far as evidence goes, why is it so far fetched to you that indeed these are nephite lands? North America is within the BOM "land northward" which was indeed Nephite territory. But very little of this history is found in the text of the BOM. That is why the main story of the BOM, incluiding the Battle of Destruction, is properly found in mesoamerica, not North America. The first missionaries sent to teach the lamanites were sent to midwest indian areas. Yes, after 2000 years, there would be lamanites there. I'm open to both ideas of a heartland or central/south america model... or perhaps something else. I don't think hostility should be part of our discussions though. BOM geography is not a doctrinal issue, but a factual issue subject to research and informed discussion. Meldrum supporters, on the other hand, consider this a matter of doctrinal pronouncements. Honestly I'm not sure what model I believe in as they both have their issues. At this points it truly takes faith to believe in the BOM because evidences will drive you CRAZY. In some senses it appears church leadership favors mesoamerica by what has been stated in temple dedications and other remarks. Early leadership seemed to favor heartland. Heartland seems to have gained a little ground again in the last few years but overall I remain confused and will try to stop worrying about all of these geography questions. Not really a faith building venture to get into.
cdowis Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 As I said, it is simply a matter of factual investigation. Interesting, challenging but it needs to be put into its proper context.
Calm Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) Honestly I'm not sure what model I believe in as they both have their issues. At this points it truly takes faith to believe in the BOM because evidences will drive you CRAZY. In some senses it appears church leadership favors mesoamerica by what has been stated in temple dedications and other remarks. Early leadership seemed to favor heartland. Heartland seems to have gained a little ground again in the last few years but overall I remain confused and will try to stop worrying about all of these geography questions. Not really a faith building venture to get into.Heartland is a limited geography. I would say early leaders thought it was more widespread. Some heartlanders often seem to get into the the theory because it reserves prophecies and promises for the US alone....disregarding temple dedications among other things. Edited May 31, 2014 by calmoriah
canard78 Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Joseph Smith believed the earth to be 2.5 Billion years old. Source please
thesometimesaint Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Source please Your wish is my command.http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/27/2555000000/ Well, now, Brother William, when the house of Israel begin to come into the glorious mysteries of the kingdom, and find that Jesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been from of old, from eternity; and that eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years…
Recommended Posts