Mormonism: technology, astronomy, and physics - Page 5 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

SeattleUte · 12-04-2006, 07:25 PM

Brigham Young's doctrine was original at least in this sense. By the mid-ninetheenth century no one whpo had ever cracked a book believed people lived on the sun. That was not so long ago. Did he really believe that?

Jeff Lebowski · 12-04-2006, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

What is the cause of your doubt? The fact that math can hypothesize it gives me comfort that it might exist, and it seems reasonable to me, to not so limit the physical world. I have also read about quarks which cause people to believe they might be four dimensional aspects.

I'm NOT certain they exist, but your doubt is interesting to me.

Here is an article on high dimensional spheres.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061014/fob4.asp

Well, I am not an expert in this topic, so take it with a grain of salt.

The article in the link talks about solving the math for sphere-packing in higher dimensions but does not offer any proof that higher dimensions exist in reality.

Archaea · 12-04-2006, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Well, I am not an expert in this topic, so take it with a grain of salt.

The article in the link talks about solving the math for sphere-packing in higher dimensions but does not offer any proof that higher dimensions exist in reality.

You're correct. The article is something that has helped spur this discussion.

Jeff Lebowski · 12-04-2006, 08:14 PM

I was thinking more about this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

What is the cause of your doubt? The fact that math can hypothesize it gives me comfort that it might exist, and it seems reasonable to me, to not so limit the physical world.

Let me put it this way: I can use the most trivial math possible to add two zeros to my bank account balance, but that still doesn't make it so. (rats!)

hyrum · 12-04-2006, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Brigham Young is remembered for his administration, rather than his revelation.
.

Well BY certainly administered that handcart trip well. He certainly could have used some revelation then, or at least some common sense.

The way I look at it Smith had this strange desire to bring back all the Old Testament Hebrew concepts and did so as far as he could, eventually to even bring back polygamy, even though he condemmed it in the BoM. Fawn Brodie covers pretty well the sources for ideas for the stories in the BoM, the parts not heisted and retold in N.Amer. from the King James bible.

MikeWaters · 12-04-2006, 08:57 PM

You just shot your credibility by citing Brodie. No one gives any credence to Brodie's theories about the Book of Mormon.

Except you, apparently.

SeattleUte · 12-04-2006, 09:11 PM

deleted

SeattleUte · 12-04-2006, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You just shot your credibility by citing Brodie. No one gives any credence to Brodie's theories about the Book of Mormon.

Except you, apparently.

Come on. You know better than that. It isn't true. For one thing, Bushman and any other reputable biographer is heavily indebted to her. As Lebowski will confirm much of Bushman's book rehashes her material.

Waters is getting nuttier every day. I bet in his current mind frame he'd have been happy on CB and felt no need to start CG.

MikeWaters · 12-04-2006, 09:18 PM

You are trying to say that Brodie's theory as to the origin of the Book of Mormon is given credence today? ("Spaulding hypothesis")

Interesting. Do you like mayonaise or mustard on your baloney?

Jeff Lebowski · 12-04-2006, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

As Lebowski will confirm much of Bushman's book rehashes her material.

Huh??

He refers to her work occasionally, but I seriously doubt anyone would characterize his book as a "rehashing" of her material.

12-04-2006, 07:25 PM	#41
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	Brigham Young's doctrine was original at least in this sense. By the mid-ninetheenth century no one whpo had ever cracked a book believed people lived on the sun. That was not so long ago. Did he really believe that? __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster

12-04-2006, 09:11 PM	#47
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	deleted __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster Last edited by SeattleUte; 12-04-2006 at 09:13 PM.

12-04-2006, 08:57 PM	#46
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	You just shot your credibility by citing Brodie. No one gives any credence to Brodie's theories about the Book of Mormon. Except you, apparently.

12-04-2006, 09:18 PM	#49
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	You are trying to say that Brodie's theory as to the origin of the Book of Mormon is given credence today? ("Spaulding hypothesis") Interesting. Do you like mayonaise or mustard on your baloney?