Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion

[justme]

Allison and others, If you have not I strongly recommend that you read the book "Reflections of a Scientist" by Henry Eyring.

It should go without saying that you can trust the author to give a solid LDS perspective. He also was a world class chemist whose work is still taught at any university. He masterfully deals with the reconciling of science and theology. Reading it would be worth every second it takes and probably more beneficial than this forum.

[larsenb]

No thanks. You're still up against the limitation of the vocabulary/understanding of the person purveying his apocalyptic visions.

I've learned to keep scriptural renditions largely separate from my science after a long, hard fought effort, which has had some rough consequences.

"Limitations of vocabulary"! It's the simplest wording there is. The waters are "above" the firmament. It can't be misinterpreted. If you can't trust such simple language, you can't trust anything in all of scripture. Is the Second Coming also subject to the same "limitations"?

Is it so hard to admit that people put science ahead of the creation narrative?

Is it so hard to concede that the Pearl of Great Price seems to say that, at least at face value, even if you're free to add on that you personally don't interpret it that way?

Without delving into the whole subject, I assume firmament means the solid earth. Correct? Now waters above this firmament could possibly refer to oceans/lakes/etc., that reside above the solid earth. Or perhaps to the moisture in the air, governed by temperature/dew points, and how buoyant clouds are.

How do you read "waters above the firmament"?

No, I think firmament is understood to be our atmosphere, or better yet, the dome that encases our atmosphere. And that is what confuses a lot of people, and they'll try to assert that the clouds are the waters above the firmament, but I personally don't believe that. I'm trying to remember some other thing a friend of ours had to wrest "waters above" out of something else going on...it might have been something like moisture being found in space, or on planets in space or something. To me, it was ridiculous.

I have some thoughts about what those waters probably are, but it might be casting pearls before a herd of wild boars here, so I'll just say that I believe there is a dome covering with moving luminaries. That's me though, it's not a model; it's a belief. You asked a scriptural question.

Further clarification of your position. Thanks.

[braingrunt]

Sorry Allison, the Book of Mormon says the earth is moving, in such a way as to be responsible for the sunset.

If we are talking about the same verse, I don't recall it saying anything about the sunset, but maybe I am thinking of something else. And, do you believe one verse in the Book of Mormon can debunk everything else in the Bible? Do you believe the story of Joshua stopping the Sun and Moon were only figurative? Or was that also a mistranslation? Has any latter-day prophet written off that story?

We have it on good authority that the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book (and I think that means, theologically, for a number of reasons), but where has it ever been asserted that every word is perfect? Even the title page acknowledges that there may be some errors of men, as well as 1 Ne. 19:6 and Mormon 8:17. I say this not to cast any doubt on the teachings of the Book of Mormon, but just that we should be careful about using one verse to "slay" 200 Bible references.

Yes I believe the Book of Mormon can debunk everything else in the bible.

You placing limits on its correctness in this arbitrary area, is just another way your bias is determined to reinterpret or dismiss globe evidence.

Hel 12 (apparently a direct reference to the Joshua story you are citing)
14 Yea, if he say unto the earth—Thou shalt go back, that it lengthen out the day for many hours—it is done;
15 And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun.

This trumps in clarity and directness anything the bible has to say about the motions of the sun and earth. BY FAR. This is not a poetic remark. It's the coldest kind of factual statement interjected into a praise prayer.

There are at least two more verses in the BOM which factually assert earth movement, well outside any poetical context. I showed them to you before. Apparently you forgot. I don't know why I keep showing them when you just keep forgetting them. Somebody is stealing some word out of your heart.

So these 3 (and more) verses in modern scripture easily slay 200+ bible verses especially since you're just misinterpreting them. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... arth-flat/

Also note that most Globe Deniers fall short of a biblical cosmology because they do not believe the sun goes down as the bible says it does. When they do that they sound hypocritical to me.

You never answered any of my simple questions, some of which would provide a barometer of the consistency of your faith in the entire scriptural canon, including the latter-day library.

Do you believe in evolution (as taught in modern academia) or not?

Do you believe in the creation as the Bible and latter-day scripture describes?

And, implore you again to leave the venom out or I will discontinue speaking with you, which would be a shame, because this is otherwise a very interesting discussion.

To be fair you didn't answer whether the Book of Mormon teaches earth motion exists and is the direct cause of sunset.

But I will answer you.

Do I believe in moon landings: yes. I can find no reason how this relates to scriptural cannon. Maybe the firmament, if there is a solid one like you think, is beyond the moon's orbit. Of course I don't find the argument for a solid firmament compelling at all.

Do I believe in creation as taught in scripture: I believe the temple version where things were organized for us. I'm not overly tied to 7 earth days. Abr version gives me leave to doubt that when it calls the creation periods "first time" and "second time" etc, instead of "first day" and "second day"; I'm not overly tied to an absolute order of events either, as you cannot rationally be either, since even with only the bible we have different ordering in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Throw in the temple account and you have even less rational basis to be sure of strict ordering.

Do I believe in evolution: I maintain some doubts about evolution but they have been in decline thanks in part to you. How do I blame you? (Maybe I should thank you actually) : I recognized that my objections were no more rationally founded than yours. That's possibly how you are actually working for the antichrist. I see antichrists all over the "great debate community" and all they have to do to mock all faith is just point to Glober Deniers. It's highly effective.

[Allison]

Allison and others, If you have not I strongly recommend that you read the book "Reflections of a Scientist" by Henry Eyring.

It should go without saying that you can trust the author to give a solid LDS perspective. He also was a world class chemist whose work is still taught at any university. He masterfully deals with the reconciling of science and theology. Reading it would be worth every second it takes and probably more beneficial than this forum.

We could consider the perspective of my great grandfather, John A. Widtsoe. He was a renowned scientist and an apostle:

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=9571

[larsenb]

Even though...for all intents and purposes...it's experienced as flat. I guess I just disagree, recalling simply what I could see from 300' in the air on an amusement park ride. What was brought into view wasn't just curve-obscured detail, it was what you said, "unsquashing horizontal detail." Flat, or practically flat, we see more from higher elevations. Call it what you want, I am finished.

Good luck.
Taking or auditing classes sounds like a great idea.
I know this is offensive but don't look up to your husband with respect to earth geometry. Get your own ideas and challenge them with someone who can really tell you the other side of the story.

the phrase earth geometry is literally redundant

Still, I am curious. Is there a way to set up a poll here? I'd like to know what percentage of globe believers also believe in NASA and the Space Program as presented to the public. How many believe in the moon landings 50 years ago?

Anyone willing to make a public commitment for or against the NASA Narrative?

I'm a believer. Having played a small part in the Apollo program and knowing and working with several people who played a much bigger role, basically in training astronauts for their mission and debriefing them on their return. I'm also a co-author on a paper in the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report and have worked with moon rocks. My wife's father worked for Allison Corp., doing heat transfer work with the Saturn rocket, and he knew many, many people working with that end of the program. Does that count??

One of the things you're up against in trying to posit fraud and conspiracy on the part of NASA and its supporting institutes and agencies, are the thousands of people who would have to be in on it. Could NASA push the limits on some of the PR videos/films they produced? Possibly. Governments and other organizations tend to do this for PR purposes.

But I had access to hundreds of photographs taken on the moon during previous Apollo missions, with every conceivable angle, etc., under the circumstances. Fake? Hardly.

[Allison]

If we are talking about the same verse, I don't recall it saying anything about the sunset, but maybe I am thinking of something else. And, do you believe one verse in the Book of Mormon can debunk everything else in the Bible? Do you believe the story of Joshua stopping the Sun and Moon were only figurative? Or was that also a mistranslation? Has any latter-day prophet written off that story?

We have it on good authority that the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book (and I think that means, theologically, for a number of reasons), but where has it ever been asserted that every word is perfect? Even the title page acknowledges that there may be some errors of men, as well as 1 Ne. 19:6 and Mormon 8:17. I say this not to cast any doubt on the teachings of the Book of Mormon, but just that we should be careful about using one verse to "slay" 200 Bible references.

Yes I believe the Book of Mormon can debunk everything else in the bible.

You placing limits on its correctness in this arbitrary area, is just another way your bias is determined to reinterpret or dismiss globe evidence.

Hel 12 (apparently a direct reference to the Joshua story you are citing)
14 Yea, if he say unto the earth—Thou shalt go back, that it lengthen out the day for many hours—it is done;
15 And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun.

This trumps in clarity and directness anything the bible has to say about the motions of the sun and earth. BY FAR. This is not a poetic remark. It's the coldest kind of factual statement interjected into a praise prayer.

There are at least two more verses in the BOM which factually assert earth movement, well outside any poetical context. I showed them to you before. Apparently you forgot. I don't know why I keep showing them when you just keep forgetting them. Somebody is stealing some word out of your heart.

So these 3 (and more) verses in modern scripture easily slay 200+ bible verses especially since you're just misinterpreting them. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... arth-flat/

Also note that most Globe Deniers fall short of a biblical cosmology because they do not believe the sun goes down as the bible says it does. When they do that they sound hypocritical to me.

You never answered any of my simple questions, some of which would provide a barometer of the consistency of your faith in the entire scriptural canon, including the latter-day library.

Do you believe in evolution (as taught in modern academia) or not?

Do you believe in the creation as the Bible and latter-day scripture describes?

And, implore you again to leave the venom out or I will discontinue speaking with you, which would be a shame, because this is otherwise a very interesting discussion.

To be fair you didn't answer whether the Book of Mormon teaches earth motion exists and is the direct cause of sunset.

But I will answer you.

Do I believe in moon landings: yes. I can find no reason how this relates to scriptural cannon. Maybe the firmament, if there is a solid one like you think, is beyond the moon's orbit. Of course I don't find the argument for a solid firmament compelling at all.

Do I believe in creation as taught in scripture: I believe the temple version where things were organized for us. I'm not overly tied to 7 earth days. Abr version gives me leave to doubt that when it calls the creation periods "first time" and "second time" etc, instead of "first day" and "second day"; I'm not overly tied to an absolute order of events either, as you cannot rationally be either, since even with only the bible we have different ordering in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Throw in the temple account and you have even less rational basis to be sure of strict ordering.

Do I believe in evolution: I maintain some doubts about evolution but they have been in decline thanks in part to you. How do I blame you? (Maybe I should thank you actually) : I recognized that my objections were no more rationally founded than yours. That's possibly how you are actually working for the antichrist. I see antichrists all over the "great debate community" and all they have to do to mock all faith is just point to Glober Deniers. It's highly effective.

This is actually funny, and I am not bugged that you accuse me of working for the antichrist, mainly because of how comical and brilliant it is! I asked you to stop with the venom or I would not speak to you anymore, so you doubled down on it, thus guaranteeing that you'll be able to attack and smear all you want and never receive a rebuttal of any kind. Be careful, brother; one of the titles of the Adversary is Accuser.

[Allison]

Good luck.
Taking or auditing classes sounds like a great idea.
I know this is offensive but don't look up to your husband with respect to earth geometry. Get your own ideas and challenge them with someone who can really tell you the other side of the story.

the phrase earth geometry is literally redundant

Still, I am curious. Is there a way to set up a poll here? I'd like to know what percentage of globe believers also believe in NASA and the Space Program as presented to the public. How many believe in the moon landings 50 years ago?

Anyone willing to make a public commitment for or against the NASA Narrative?

I'm a believer. Having played a small part in the Apollo program and knowing and working with several people who played a much bigger role, basically in training astronauts for their mission and debriefing them on their return. I'm also a co-author on a paper in the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report and have worked with moon rocks. My wife's father worked for Allison Corp., doing heat transfer work with the Saturn rocket, and he knew many, many people working with that end of the program. Does that count??

One of the things you're up against in trying to posit fraud and conspiracy on the part of NASA and its supporting institutes and agencies, are the thousands of people who would have to be in on it. Could NASA push the limits on some of the PR videos/films they produced? Possibly. Governments and other organizations tend to do this for PR purposes.

But I had access to hundreds of photographs taken on the moon during previous Apollo missions, with every conceivable angle, etc., under the circumstances. Fake? Hardly.

Thank you for this clarification. I think I remember that about you. Didn't you have a relative or close family friend that was an astronaut, too?

[larsenb]

Allison and others, If you have not I strongly recommend that you read the book "Reflections of a Scientist" by Henry Eyring.

It should go without saying that you can trust the author to give a solid LDS perspective. He also was a world class chemist whose work is still taught at any university. He masterfully deals with the reconciling of science and theology. Reading it would be worth every second it takes and probably more beneficial than this forum.

We could consider the perspective of my great grandfather, John A. Widtsoe. He was a renowned scientist and an apostle:

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=9571

Who was in favor, apparently, of the open duration for the creation of the earth ( i.e., believed in undefined periods of creation, not days).

Joseph Smith, btw, once said that it wouldn't surprise him if the earth was ~62 million years old, picking up on the general idea of the age of the earth at that time. As a geology student (transferred from UC Davis), we were handed that quote, which I still have stashed somewhere.

[larsenb]

the phrase earth geometry is literally redundant

Still, I am curious. Is there a way to set up a poll here? I'd like to know what percentage of globe believers also believe in NASA and the Space Program as presented to the public. How many believe in the moon landings 50 years ago?

Anyone willing to make a public commitment for or against the NASA Narrative?

I'm a believer. Having played a small part in the Apollo program and knowing and working with several people who played a much bigger role, basically in training astronauts for their mission and debriefing them on their return. I'm also a co-author on a paper in the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report and have worked with moon rocks. My wife's father worked for Allison Corp., doing heat transfer work with the Saturn rocket, and he knew many, many people working with that end of the program. Does that count??

One of the things you're up against in trying to posit fraud and conspiracy on the part of NASA and its supporting institutes and agencies, are the thousands of people who would have to be in on it. Could NASA push the limits on some of the PR videos/films they produced? Possibly. Governments and other organizations tend to do this for PR purposes.

But I had access to hundreds of photographs taken on the moon during previous Apollo missions, with every conceivable angle, etc., under the circumstances. Fake? Hardly.

Thank you for this clarification. I think I remember that about you. Didn't you have a relative or close family friend that was an astronaut, too?

Only one that seems to be in outer space a good part of the time.

[Allison]

Still, I am curious. Is there a way to set up a poll here? I'd like to know what percentage of globe believers also believe in NASA and the Space Program as presented to the public. How many believe in the moon landings 50 years ago?

Anyone willing to make a public commitment for or against the NASA Narrative?

I'm a believer. Having played a small part in the Apollo program and knowing and working with several people who played a much bigger role, basically in training astronauts for their mission and debriefing them on their return. I'm also a co-author on a paper in the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report and have worked with moon rocks. My wife's father worked for Allison Corp., doing heat transfer work with the Saturn rocket, and he knew many, many people working with that end of the program. Does that count??

One of the things you're up against in trying to posit fraud and conspiracy on the part of NASA and its supporting institutes and agencies, are the thousands of people who would have to be in on it. Could NASA push the limits on some of the PR videos/films they produced? Possibly. Governments and other organizations tend to do this for PR purposes.

But I had access to hundreds of photographs taken on the moon during previous Apollo missions, with every conceivable angle, etc., under the circumstances. Fake? Hardly.

Thank you for this clarification. I think I remember that about you. Didn't you have a relative or close family friend that was an astronaut, too?

Only one that seems to be in outer space a good part of the time.

An astronaut then? Or in the spirit world?

[braingrunt]

Ps if you think there's evidence we didn't land on the moon you should watch:

There are others as well.

My attitude is: I don't have sufficient faith reason to think we didn't go to the moon.
And I don't have sufficient reason reason either.
So I say it's true.

[larsenb]

So who else believes in:

1. Evolution?
2. NASA and the Space Program as presented to the public?
3. The Moon Landings?
4. A new one...Aliens?

1. Micro evolution is a reality: adaptation to environmental changes. Macro? No. Why? The probability of producing complex biological systems, not just biological 'machines' after Behe, that require complex proteins, etc., etc., to be able to work, is infinitely minute. Chance genetic mutations, most of which are rejected generationally, are simply not up to the task. There are several PhD scientists who get into this. One of the first was Fred Hoyle, with many, many others jumping onto the wagon. Listen to some interviews of Dr. David Berlinski, for instance.
2. NASA, etc. I've already posted on this.
3. Moon Landings, likewise.
4. Aliens. I would put this under UFOs, for which there is a massive amount eyewitness evidence from highly credible people, with many independent verifications of the same phenomenon. There is also a certain amount of eyewitness testimony regarding Aliens being associated with UFOs. What it all means is another issue. The Bible does talk about the 'Watchers'. Who or what were/are they? . . . for instance.

It's a very yeasty reality we find ourselves in. Not very smart, imo, to put limits on what there is or what there may be in the future.

[larsenb]

I'm a believer. Having played a small part in the Apollo program and knowing and working with several people who played a much bigger role, basically in training astronauts for their mission and debriefing them on their return. I'm also a co-author on a paper in the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report and have worked with moon rocks. My wife's father worked for Allison Corp., doing heat transfer work with the Saturn rocket, and he knew many, many people working with that end of the program. Does that count??

One of the things you're up against in trying to posit fraud and conspiracy on the part of NASA and its supporting institutes and agencies, are the thousands of people who would have to be in on it. Could NASA push the limits on some of the PR videos/films they produced? Possibly. Governments and other organizations tend to do this for PR purposes.

But I had access to hundreds of photographs taken on the moon during previous Apollo missions, with every conceivable angle, etc., under the circumstances. Fake? Hardly.

Thank you for this clarification. I think I remember that about you. Didn't you have a relative or close family friend that was an astronaut, too?

Only one that seems to be in outer space a good part of the time.

An astronaut then? Or in the spirit world?

My younger brother. He was very smart, but was in a horrific auto accident when he was 9 years old. So he has an excuse.

[Allison]

Thank you for this clarification. I think I remember that about you. Didn't you have a relative or close family friend that was an astronaut, too?

Only one that seems to be in outer space a good part of the time.

An astronaut then? Or in the spirit world?

My younger brother. He was very smart, but was in a horrific auto accident when he was 9 years old. So he has an excuse.

I am sorry to hear this. That must have been difficult. If only they could come back and tell us all the things we don't know!

[larsenb]

Only one that seems to be in outer space a good part of the time.

An astronaut then? Or in the spirit world?

My younger brother. He was very smart, but was in a horrific auto accident when he was 9 years old. So he has an excuse.

I am sorry to hear this. That must have been difficult. If only they could come back and tell us all the things we don't know!

He's still here. He also got caught up in the psychedelic space patrol, which didn't help him much.

[Allison]

An astronaut then? Or in the spirit world?

My younger brother. He was very smart, but was in a horrific auto accident when he was 9 years old. So he has an excuse.

I am sorry to hear this. That must have been difficult. If only they could come back and tell us all the things we don't know!

He's still here. He also got caught up in the psychedelic space patrol, which didn't help him much.

Oh! Poor kid.

[Shawn Henry]

Without delving into the whole subject, I assume firmament means the solid earth. Correct? Now waters above this firmament could possibly refer to oceans/lakes/etc., that reside above the solid earth. Or perhaps to the moisture in the air, governed by temperature/dew points, and how buoyant clouds are.

How do you read "waters above the firmament"?

It seems you haven't even spent the 90 seconds to read the account, never mind having "delved" into it. The firmament is the sky and the sun, moon, and stars are within the firmament.

[Shawn Henry]

Sorry Allison, the Book of Mormon says the earth is moving, in such a way as to be responsible for the sunset.

No it doesn't.

[braingrunt]

Sorry Allison, the Book of Mormon says the earth is moving, in such a way as to be responsible for the sunset.

No it doesn't.

Please expound. If it's still possible for us to skype Saturday (did you see my PM's?) we can also see if it's possible to come to some agreement then.

[Shawn Henry]

Helaman 12:15 shows Book of Mormon is Copernican.

No it doesn't. Helaman 12 is geocentric, reread it.

Nephi is talking about the power of God's voice (verse 12).

To demonstrate that power, he says "if" God speaks the following things, then they happen. If He doesn't speak them, they are obedient to their natural laws.

Verse 13: "If" he says to earth-Move-it is moved.
When He hypothetically says to the earth to "move" and "go back", then (and only then) does the sun appear to "stand still". Because then, according to "appearance" as stated in 15, it would appear that the earth is moving. When God doesn't speak it, the earth does not move but the sun moves, according to Nephi's understanding of cosmology.

Notice in verse 16, he says if God says to the waters "be dried up", then it is done and in verse 17, if He says to the mountain to be raised up, then it is moved.

This is an example of how we tend to not let the scriptures say what they say, but impose upon them our preconceived notions.

[braingrunt]

Alma 30
44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

You still say the Book of Mormon doesn't teach about the earth moving? Ps I think you're wresting the Helaman scripture. You go more on a limb for you readings of flat-earth verses, true?

[justme]

So the earth doesn't move? Does that include rotate?

[Shawn Henry]

the fact that a common person can see an orb through a telescope, and watch it rotate puts doubt into the flat earth theory.

Watch at least the first 3 minutes of this 6 minute video and tell what you think of what this "common person" sees and if you still think the same.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x0lI5crAeeU" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[justme]

So you want the earth to hold still. Fine. The orbit of the earth relative to the sun is an ellipse with the sun at a focus. That means then that the sun must be moving just right to maintain this ellipitical orbit. Or do you question Kepler, and Newton?

[Shawn Henry]

Yes, Alma did think the earth had motion, that's plain to see, but you attributed more than simply motion to his belief. Let's at least agree that that was Alma's understanding and not a BoM teaching.

You still say the Book of Mormon doesn't teach about the earth moving? Ps I think you're wresting the Helaman scripture. You go more on a limb for you readings of flat-earth verses, true?

There's no wresting there, that's what the verses say in plain English.