One Sure Thing about Global Warming: Loss of Liberty

In all of my reading about man-made global warming, never once have I come across the statement that 'we are absolutely sure' that mankind is causing irreversible global warming by our behavior. No one has dared make this claim yet. The closest anyone has come is being pretty sure that something bad might happen in fifty to one hundred years if we don't act now.

One thing that several people have stated (on both sides of the debate), however, is that slowing the supposed effects caused by man on the warming of the globe will require significant strengthening of governments around the world, along with a significant reduction in your freedom to choose.

My religion teaches

You may think, from this article, that I am having a hard time separating my views of church from my views of state. That would be correct.

that there was a great war in heaven between two ideologies. The first faction advocated our Heavenly Father's plan, which was a blueprint for freedom of choice. The opposing faction, much smaller but much more vociferous, advocated that individuals could not be relied on to make proper choices, and that they must thus be compelled by some sort of overlord to make (what were deemed by the overlord to be) the proper choices.

I'm glad the freedom-of-choice crowd won the day

Just like "godless Communism" that came before it, man-made global warming alarmists advocate as the only workable solution the taking away of your freedom to choose. That's pretty weird considering that they have never once said that they are absolutely sure that you are the problem.

in the eons of eternity. But the more I think of it, the more I have become convinced that one side of today's global warming debate is much less about shepherding the environment through reduction of global warming than it is about global control of our choices. Our "war in heaven", it appears, has spilled over to earth, and the global warming alarmists are now in the vanguard.

In his new book, Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed, Christopher C. Horner refers to statements made by environmentalist Mayer Hillman:
..."leading green thinker Mayer Hillman [says] that rationing is the only way to prevent runaway climate change," because "When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life..."

"'The Chinese live in a totalitarian state,' [Hillman] points out. 'You don't have to persuade the Chinese, you've got to persuade the Chinese government.'"

Red Hot Lies, pp. 215-216
That's much easier! How nice!

But why are we persuading anyone to constrain freedom of choice, especially by holding up the Chinese government as something worthy of emulation, when no one is sure that man is causing irreversible global warming in the first place?

Temperature figures are so narrow that statistical tolerances leave the possibility that man is having no effect at all on global warming.

Horner paraphrases a PhD associate of his by stating that
...in the global warming agenda we are dealing with a premise that, once adopted, leads to no other conclusion than to accept government control in nearly every aspect of our lives.
Vaclav Klaus, current President of the Czech Republic, has lived through Communism, and he sees much of the same totalitarian agenda in the green movement. In fact, when Communism fell, many of its advocated gravitated rather quickly to the environmentalist movement. Klaus abhors the
politicians, journalists and scientists [who]are exploiting an unproven issue for their own advantage.

"Utopia is an excellent escape for politicians because they can busy themselves with far-away goals and don't have to worry about immediate problems," [said] Klaus. "Climate change is an excellent issue for that escape."
The alarmists and the news media regularly harp on the millions of dollars that man-made global warming skeptics receive for their research. What they usually conveniently forget are the BILLIONS of dollars awarded by government entities--cities, states, countries, and the United Nations--to those who claim to believe that man's activities are causing irreversible global warming. That money is given out overwhelmingly to one side for only one reason--control.

You may think, from this article,

Why are we persuading anyone to constrain freedom of choice, especially by holding up the Chinese government as something worthy of emulation?

that I am having a hard time separating my views of church from my views of state. That would be correct. My politics are often colored by my religious outlook.

In this case, my religion has help me to find a modern-day equivalent of what I believe went on in heaven before any of us came to earth. Just like "godless Communism" that came before it, man-made global warming alarmists advocate as the only workable solution the taking away of your freedom to choose.

That's pretty weird considering that they have never once said that they are absolutely sure that you are the problem.




Comments

  1. To the anti-human crowd, man is *always* the problem. The answer is always coercion and/or fewer people. It is interesting how often shades of this are found in various (seemingly competing) political philosophies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let's leave aside the Global Warming. The freedom your Church speaks about is about individual freedom of choice of a religion, rather than freedom of action. You seem to not understand the difference. Whatever you are advocating here is not an individual freedom of choice of religion, beliefs, lifestyle, but rather freedom of action of a capitalist to poison everybody's air, water and food. Do you really like poisoned food?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Reach,

    Exactly. Man (except for themselves). A speaker in my LDS sacrament meeting quoted Spencer W. Kimball as saying that when we here a positive aspect about life that we generally think that we fall into that category, but when we here something negative, we generally ascribe that to everyone else.

    Gnostic,

    That's the most provocative and bizarre sidetrack that you've attempted yet.

    Please re-read the article and see if you can see my main point. I didn't say a word about the freedom to pollute. ALMOST THE VERY FIRST commandment given to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden was to take care of the earth. You as a member (former member?) of the LDS Church should know this, and know that I wouldn't pick and choose which doctrines of the Church to advocate and which to ignore.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Frank, is it fair to say that people wrapped up in religion don't think global warming is a problem because God is on our side?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Frank, I do not have to read the article again. You are saying that by using the global warming as an argument, some invisible forces are trying to impose a dictatorship all over the world. But when you are stamping the environmentalists while saying no word against those (capitalists or monopolists, in general any industrialist) who are actually polluting the same Earth which was commanded to take care of, the reader naturally understands that you are not against those polluters but rather are against the environment. And being a Church member does not automatically guarantee utter adherence to all the principles of the Doctrine. Most of the Church members still do not understand what the FIRST commandment is all about.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Richard,

    I'm sure some people think that, and that would be wrong. I'm sure you know (don't you?) that that is not a point of my article.

    Gnostic,

    It seems when you read one of my articles that you forget anything I have ever said in any of the rest of them. I didn't say a thing about pollution. The article was about global warming. Of course we need to not pollute our environment. Ironically, a carbon tax is one of the worst ways to reduce things that actually pollute, such as sulfur and mercury. (See "Red Hot Lies" p. 221.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry, in the great multitude of your articles I have not met any statement condemning the pollution. Please direct me where to look for it. The "Red Hot Lies" (p. 221) is not one of your articles, or is it?

    Also, I forgot to ask, why do you think that being an active Church member automatically prevents you from picking and choosing which precepts of the Doctrine to adhere to. Just because you "wouldn't pick and choose which doctrines of the Church to advocate and which to ignore" does not necessarily mean you would not ignore the Doctrine. The "doctrine of the Church" has a very distant resemblance with the Doctrine. The "doctrine of the Church" you mention is actually a pseudo-doctrine. So, actually you are possibly right that you do not pick and choose there. The point is that your "doctrine of the Church" is already picked and chosen.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I did a search for "pollution" and found this article and this article. You're right, it's not much. I should probably balance that out a little more.

    Would you mind elaborating what you mean by

    The "doctrine of the Church" you mention is actually a pseudo-doctrine.

    ?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Frank, it is good you noticed the imbalance. Also, you have only one word "pollution" in each article. Additionally, You are not referring to it, the pollution, in your articles as an issue, moreover the issue.

    Concerning my claim that the "doctrine of the Church" is a pseudo-doctrine, in other words, does not have much in common with the true Doctrine. I (as Anonymous) have expanded on it in my comments under "Amazing Grace: Why Do So Many Mormons Not Get It?" I will not be against to continue the debate. Check out also my last comment under your article about Tithing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm afraid you don't understand one of the fundamentals of science Frank, as well as most policy makers. Nothing is 100% sure.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "anti-human crowd," Reach? You really want to go there? Someone has been watching Saturday’s Warriors a bit too much. The fact that environmentalists want to prevent the privileged and elites from being able to ruin the public commons in their pursuit of self-interest (or greed) does not make one "anti-human."

    Frank, environmentalists do not exclude themselves from responsibility for our environmental problems, as you implied in your agreement with Reach’s slander. There are hundreds of blogs and informational websites out there by and for those who consider themselves environmentalists in which we share ideas on how we can voluntarily reduce our ecological footprint. We are not perfect, but we do not follow the pattern President Kimball mentioned any more than any other human group. For example, plenty of conservatives want to point to liberalism as the cause of the hypersexualization of our culture, completely turning a blind eye to the role of the market which they so adore in the increasingly public presence and commodification of sexuality.

    Yes, Warnick, I believe it is very fair to say that many religious conservatives do not believe in global climate disruption or other environmental problems simply because they do not believe economic market activity can be harmful to our environment, either because market activity by its very nature cannot (they believe) be harmful, or because they believe that since God is a proponent of capitalism, He will not allow capitalism to cause any negative consequences.

    It may not be the point of your article, but you do seem to be reaffirming that idea in the post. You are also wrongly imputing sinister motives to our actions. Environmentalists are not trying to enact "control" to become global overlords. We simply recognize that unregulated market activity leads to those who have the power to do so to chose actions which infringe on the freedom of others (see my recent post on Appalachian mining). Your post is thus incredibly misleading.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Derekstaff – I think this may be a case where you have fallen into a case of mistaken identity. When a statement is made regarding a group and a person feels they belong to that group they then take the statement personally. The problem is they may not actually belong to the group the statement was intended for. In this case comments were made regarding anti-human crowd you interpreted that to be environmentalists. Now it could be that the intent was to label all environmentally minded people as Anti-Human, or it could be that there is a group of people that really do think that humans are the source of most of the planets problems and the planet would be better off with out the humans. While it sound like you categorize your self as an environmentalist it would seem you are not one of the people who shares this view of humanity. But please do not think that because you are an environmentalist and you do not hold that point of view it means there are not other people, perhaps labeled as environmentalist, who do hold that view.

    I like to think that most people are sensible. They drink upstream from the cows and such. But when it comes to complicated things like global climate it is a little harder to grasp. The general populous looks to those they view as more intelligent or education for guidance on what to do and think. The challenge with this particular topic is that it is really controversial. There are too many intelligent people with different views, Frank posted about the consensus or the lack previously.

    We are presented with measurements and the extrapolation of the data far into the future saying that there will be such and such outcomes. Then the next year some new measurements are made or a scientist from a different discipline shares a different theory that also matches the data. It then becomes a lot less obvious to the general populous who to believe. This is where the politicians come into the picture, nothing like ambiguity to get them really excited. They can yell and posture and make claims and their rivals do the same, each holding up the results of the study that backs their agenda, or which they claim does. They do not always even care about the date just their agenda. I think Frank is just pointing out that there could be groups who are using the hot topic of climate change to promote their agenda, which usually includes them getting more power, and in a causal fashion we loose liberty.

    I think we all agree that pollution is bad. Is CO2 really a pollution? Should we really change all of our energy production to solar? Do you know what it takes to produce solar cells? Should all of our vehicles be changed to have hundreds of batteries that are extremely toxic? Wind is great but it is hard to harness in every location. Should we focus on harnessing tidal forces?

    I personally believe that over time we will figure it out. I am skeptical of those that say if we do not make drastic changes today we are all doomed, or our children are. Just as the acid rain in the eastern United States led to changes in air quality standards and improvements continue to be made. I think that we will, over the next couple of decades, make changes that will move us in a more environmentally friendly direction; after all it is the environment in which we live and self preservation is a fairly strong trait.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There is an anti-human crowd. Some choice quotes include,

    Who cares anymore. With idiots reproducing up to eight kids and demanding that they are "right" because there are more of them gives little chance for rational humans to exist on this planet knowing that there are limited resources available.

    You want to take a realistic aproach to solving any of our resourse needs, you might want to address the fact that some families choose to tax our resources more than others.

    This is a natural out growth of the planets over population, there will continue to be a competition for the worlds scarce resourses, you better get used to it because there are limited amounts of the earth's oil, water, precious metals, wilderness etc. and no glimpse of population control in sight."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rap, I believe that there are a group of people who do believe in zero-population or negative-population growth, a belief which could be categorized as "anti-human." This group is a minute, fringe part of the environmentalist movement, and for Reach to tar the broader movement with that perception is a disingenuous attack.

    If we are going to recognize that there are those among the environmentalist movement who are using the possibility of global climate disruption to promote an ulterior agenda, we should also recognize that there are among the free market movement who are using those principles to promote their own agenda of power (such as the power to externalize the costs of their economic activity).

    Self-preservation is indeed a strong trait. Unfortunately, so is self-interest and its close cousin, selfishness. Given that the health of the environment is a fairly subtle thing to measure, and that money is an easily quantifiable object, all too often self-interest and selfishness take precedence over the self-preservation related to our environment--particularly since individuals with the power to pursue their self-interest rarely do so in ways that put their own preservation at risk, but rather the preservation of others who lack power (again, see the mining in Appalachia). We as a society have a right to exert control to prevent that from happening. If Frank wants to dispute the evidence of global climate disruption, that is a valid position. For Frank to imply in his post that the very principle of exerting controls is not valid.

    BTW, Frank, I don't think your representation of the LDS faith's premortal doctrine is accurate. Many have suggested that Lucifer's plan was not to force us all to be right, but rather that he believed he could save us all despite our sins; that we could do anything we want and his version of the atonement would cover us without the need for the essential principles (faith, repentence, baptism, et al). He was wrong; the "physics" of divinity do not work that way, which is why Our Father supported Jesus' plan. The conflict between the plans was not a vote on which plan to implement, but an opportunity for His children to make their choice of whom to follow. No matter how many chose Lucifer, his plan could not have been successful.

    So goes the argument, anyway. I find it more logical and rational than the position you described. FWIW.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Frank, please do not have any hard feelings because of the attacks on your article. You are of course raising a legitimate concern, particularly that maybe the environmentalist movement is often being used by the same polluters to get their bread buttered by the government or to promote their agenda to expand the sphere of their control and dictatorship over the world. One may think though that they couldn't do it without environmentalists. Instead of blaming the environmentalists you should rather focus and blame those polluters who caused the environmentalist movement to appear in the first place. In your article you have again displayed a superficial approach. Additionally, metaphorically speaking, you are attacking the gun rather than the gunman.

    Since you brought up the FIRST commandment, given to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, particularly to take care of the earth (actually, to multiply and replenish the Earth), it is consequently expected from you to condemn the capitalist industrialists, the polluters of the Earth first, before anybody else. Also, as a faithful adherent of the First Commandment you were supposed to call to return back to an agrarian society. Taking care of the Earth does not include industrialization, moreover pollution. In other words you were supposed to be the most fervent defender of the environment. In contrast, you blame environmentalists. Do you see the disbalance?

    Overpopulation maybe is a problem, considering the limited natural resources, particularly the water (drinking water). Although if that same water was not used for industrial purposes it would be amply enough for any number of population. You cannot do both, to multiply to populate the planet and industrialize it. Either one or the other. Industrialization, though, was not in God's plan. His plan was to have people multiply and spread all over the Earth while replenishing it, i.e. enlarging the boundaries of the Garden of Eden, thus eventually covering the whole Earth with gardens of Eden, which would bring the Earth back to its paradisaical glory. If Adam and Eve kept following the plan (Plan A), planting more gardens the whole Earth by now would be a Paradise, which actually was the Father's plan. But Zion is needed to accomplish the replenishment of the Earth. It won't work without Zion.

    Unfortunately Eve chose a different path, consequently we found ourselves in the midst of capitalism, actually monopolism, a society governed by vipers and the sons of vipers. So, to me, whoever favors capitalism, he favors vipers, consequently is a viper himself or at least is a misled sheep.

    Hopefully there is a way to stop the vipers from polluting the Earth. We were given a commandment "Get out of Babylon." Although currently it is almost impossible to do it. If you somehow decide to get out of Babylon, to take yourself a piece of land out there, somewhere, the Babylon will come after you and will return you back. I am afraid it is too late now. We, actually our grandparents, were supposed to listen to the commandment and avoid the Babylon at all cost back then, at least, in the early days of the Church. They did not do that. Therefore we have to wait for the divine intervention.

    But again, favoring any industrialization is contrary to the Doctrine of God (not the doctrine of the Church). Am I saying the LDS church is a den of vipers. Yes, particularly the top. (There are maybe misled sheep on the bottom, though.) Why? Because they favor capitalism (exploitation of one by another), pollution (they have never spoken out against pollution, environmental degradation), riches (they themselves are rich and strive to be rich, the Church is the richest organization in the world, while having so many poor members). In other words, the Church does everything what the Babylon does. No wonder it is not being persecuted as before.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ryan,

    Humor me, then, and state what you think the percentage is with which we can say that mankind is causing significant global warming. If you're honest, it will be a far smaller number than "99-point-9-with-a-line".

    Cameron,

    Thank you for an excellent example of what Reach was describing. This group might not include a large percentage of environmentalists, but I think it does include a lot of the alarmists.

    RAP08 points out that Derek may have taken offense where it was not intended. It wasn't. Governments throughout history have wanted to take away freedom of choice. So have corporations with their customer focus research and subliminal advertising. It's not hard to imagine that, absence a very high confidence level (right, Ryan?) there might be a few of those at the top of the "man-caused-global-warming" food chain.

    Derek,

    I visited about your definition of Satan's plan with some of my co-workers. One of them suggested that your definition was the selling point of his plan while my definition would have been the result. I think Moses 4:1-3 in the Pearl of Great Price describes both of these perspectives.

    Also, I think you raise a fabulous point that we should look for the impostors amid the free market. I've done that here from a financial sector perspective and a corporate perspective, but Gnostic (and probably you, Derek) have pointed out that I haven't done as good of a job from an environmental perspective.

    Gnostic,

    I actually appreciate the attacks (which usually I take as constructive criticism). It helps me polish my own ideas and opinions into a hopefully better product.

    I guess, though, that we're going to have a gentlemen's disagreement about the leaders of the LDS Church being a den of vipers. I see no proof of this.

    You say "unfortunately eve chose a different path". Are you saying that the Pearl of Great Price is not scripture? Because you would have to to disagree with what it says in Moses 5:10-12 about Eve's realization that what she did was a benefit to mankind.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Derek, Oh I absolutely think there are opportunists in all movements.

    I think changes need to happen, it is just the rate at which those changes take place. I think there are costs associate with the proposed changes and also costs for doing nothing, these cost are of course not all monetary in nature. I would like to think there is a minimum cost where we continue investing in new "green" technologies, but until they are viable we continue to use the ones that are currently available.

    I agree that greed and selfishness are strong drivers for people’s choices, but if you look at the support the environmental movement has I think this shows that people are also very concerned about where they live. Today with the wealth of information available I think people are even more aware of the impact of actions taken across the world on them personally. This mostly applies to the developed countries

    I of course agree that it is wrong to get rich by destroying someone else’s environment as your example of mining in the Appalachian probably demonstrates as I am sure the mining executives do not live in rural West Virginia. I also think that it is wrong for external entities to try and force locals to conform to their standards. I think that the people should be allowed to determine for themselves when to make the changes. I have no problem with education and other means of persuasion. I think China is an example of a people that are going to have to decide for themselves to clean up their country. I know they are quick to point out that the United States went through the stages of growth and ecological destruction and I hope they will be quicker to turn away from the practices that are so harmful.

    I think in the case of WV mining is one of the few industries and by far the largest. I think you need to convince the people who live there that the damage done to the habitats along their rivers are more important than make a living, or stop buying the electricity the coal generates. We should also go to the plains states and convince the farmers to stop using fertilizers as it runs off into the major rivers and causes algae blooms in the Gulf of Mexico killing large swaths of marine life, or we can stop buying the food produced with fertilizers.

    I think everyone compromises and determines what they are comfortable with and to use one metric for all people is wrong.

    I am sure that President Obama will write a whole pile of executive orders of his own once in office, one of which may reverse the one you mentioned. Which by the way I could not read as it required a login.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I am glad to know that you appreciate any attack by taking them as constructive criticism. It is good to know that without offense you are utilizing them for the betterment of your ideas. Although you better said uncovering the truth. I am actually using information from your site to see things which I had overlooked.

    It is always an option to agree to disagree. But it is a dead end option. In other words, one that stops the progress. Let's choose not to choose it, at least for now. You say you do not see any proof of the Church being a den of vipers. I have presented some in my same comment above. Although, it will be difficult for you to see those things, and remain in the system while knowing about its corrupt state. Is it not true all what I have stated about the LDS Church above? Have they aver condemned capitalism together with the inherent to it competition, fierce struggle to remain afloat, survival of the fittest, love of money, and the rat race we are all in? They have and are currently encouraging their young to get education in order to keep up with the rat race. Have they ever condemned any pollution and degradation of the environment caused by industrialization? Have they ever called to get out of Babylon? As far as I remember they have always called their people to remain in Babylon, while being no part of it, of course, which is a pseudo-doctrine. There is absolutely no such a principle in the Doctrine. How about riches? Aren't they themselves rich (having more than they need)? Do they not praise riches and rich people? Do they not preach that reaches are blessings from God? Isn't the Church rich itself, while having so many poor (not having sufficient for their needs) in it? Is the Church implementing the commandment "you should have no poor among you...", or " you should be equal in your temporal things..." Is the Church engaged in building up of Zion? Isn't it preaching that we are not called upon yet to do it? That Zion will come by the divine intervention, etc. How about your temple covenant to devote all in your posession to build up Zion? Do those leaders, and all of us actually, keep our covenant? Don't those leaders preach that we do not have to keep our temple covenant yet, that it is not the time, that we are not called upon yet? Do they not preach that the Law of Consecration is revoked? How about their interpretation of the Law of Tithing? Read my comment under your article about Tithing.

    The Pearl of Great Price is a scripture. Moses 5:10-12 is not about Eve's realization that what she did was a benefit to mankind. Where did you see implication about the benefit, moreover for mankind. Here is what Eve said, "Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient." It is about all obedient, whose number is very slim, even counting from the beginning of times. So it is not about mankind. Eve's joy is all about herself and her husband. Also, Moses 5 you are quoting is about post expulsion. Have you ever asked yourself questions, like, if it was necessary for Adam and Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit, why had God forbidden it. Also, why was God so angry that drove them out of the garden to the wilderness, to a sure death. Why did god put angels with swords on the gates of the garden to prevent Adam And Eve from returning back. Are you saying a post expulsion phrase of Eve nullifies all these? Even if Moses 5:10-12 is about Eve's realization that what she did was a benefit to mankind it is just Eve's realization. It is not God's approval. God did not approve what Eve did. Bring me a passage where supposedly God approves Eve's deed, saying like, good girl, you did a good job by disobeying my commandment, it was expected of you, you proved to be smarter than your husband, actually more intelligent than myself, etc.

    So, your Moses 5" 10-12 has said nothing so far about God's approval of Eve's disobedience. Notice though that Eve speaks about 'their' transgression rather than hers.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Gnostic – you make an excellent point that we are indeed stewards of the earth and all the living things there on. You make the statement that we should have the goal of reverting to an agrarian society if we believe in the first commandment. You quoted part of the verse, here is the same from Abraham 4 28 And the Gods said: We will bless them. And the Gods said: We will cause them to be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and to have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And from Moses 2 And I, God, blessed them, and said unto them: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    I am at a loss how you would come to the conclusion that we should be subsistence farmers and shepherds if we are obedient to God’s commandments. You must realize that if we tried to support the current population of the world with horse pulled plows and gravity fed irrigation that billions of people would die. Industry is what has enabled us to multiply to the extent we have today. In your past postings you have affirmed that the church departed from the truth sometime after Brigham Young who was the prophet until 1877. The Industrial Revolution had been going on for over 100 years at his passing and I am not familiar with any statement by modern prophets that would back your claim that we should shun industrialization. I think the Church even encouraged people to work on the railroad.

    Let’s consider some definitions, from Webster's Disctionary:

    Replenish
    1 a: to fill with persons or animals : STOCK b archaic : to supply fully : PERFECT c: to fill with inspiration or power : NOURISH
    2 a: to fill or build up again “replenished his glass” b: to make good : REPLACE

    Steward
    1: one employed in a large household or estate to manage domestic concerns (as the supervision of servants, collection of rents, and keeping of accounts)
    [In this case I think Encarta has a better definition:]
    2. somebody who manages somebody else's property, finances, or household

    So I do not see the correlation between replenish and pollution. I think we are steward with the commandment to multiply, have children, and replenish, fill with persons, the earth. We are to use the resources the lord has provided to this end. Now I would concede that if we poisoned the entire planet that we would be violating the commandment because then all life would end. So I think the true path lies between the 2 extremes, the one you propose of rolling back the clock to the 14th century or perhaps earlier where we had a small population with small impact on the planet and the complete destruction of life on the earth.

    I would also observe that early industrialization was simply the harnesting of non biological power and the use of machines to do the same things man had already been doing. The machines allowed the mass production of the goods that people needed/wanted. Textiles industry for instance was the application of these principles to generate large quantities of cloth quickly and efficiently. Many of the early industries use hydro power, and then converted to steam and finally electricity.

    We can then consider the benefits that have come from industries, well like this enlightening conversation. Trust me I would never have had the time to post to blogs, or write letters, with strangers if it were not for modern technology. The message of the Gospel is more readily accessible because of modern technology.

    Finally:
    "The glory of God is intelligence"
    "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith"

    PS are you a farmer?

    ReplyDelete
  20. There may well be a few, even quite a few, among the global climate disruption leaders who are deliberately using the issue as a Trojan horse by which they can restrict freedom for their benefit. For the essay to suggest that they are the essence of the movement is wrong.

    On purely theological speculation, I don’t believe that your definition would have been the end result because Satan’s plan could not have been implemented.No matter how many chose Satan’s plan, even had it been 99%, our Father wouldn’t have put it into action It was simply unworkable. Even as Savior, Satan could not rewrite the laws of (meta)physics. That 99% would have ended up where the one-third are now, and a relatively lonely 1% would be making the terrestrial sojourn.

    IMO, anyway.

    Rap, I agree that persuasion is a crucial aspect of environmentalism. However, when we as a society also have a right--indeed, and obligation--to curtail the ability of people to make decisions which impact those not involved in those decisions. As you mentioned, the mining execs do not suffer the consequences of their environment plunder, so we absolutely should control their actions in that regard. Because the agribusiness operations in the plains states impact people downstream, we should not merely hope that we can convince them not to use environmentally destructive agricultural techniques, but use force of law to ensure they minimize their externalization.

    To an extent, I agree with the statement that:

    I would like to think there is a minimum cost where we continue investing in new "green" technologies, but until they are viable we continue to use the ones that are currently available.

    I recognize that the changes cannot occur immediately, and while we might disagree on the speed, I agree that the change will be gradual. However, as I mentioned in my post Earth Day Reflections on Consumption, the real solution to our environmental problems will never be solved by technology, but a change in our lifestyles. I do not believe that an Amish lifestyle is necessarily the ideal, and such a complete reversion is hardly feasible. But our conventional, market-driven conspicuous consumption is a dereliction of our roles as wise stewards.

    ReplyDelete
  21. RAPO8,
    As I have said previously you have a special talent in seeking and finding all wrong stuff. You did not have to go so far to Webster's. It would be enough to open the web, to use technology, to find definitions of REPLENISH in dictionary.com. See them below:

    –verb (used with object)
    1. to make full or complete again, as by supplying what is lacking, used up, etc.
    2. to supply with fresh fuel.
    3. to fill again or anew.


    1. To fill or make complete again; add a new stock or supply.
    2. To inspire or nourish.

    To become full again.

    1. To fill again after having been diminished or emptied; to stock anew; hence, to fill completely; to cause to abound.

    Multiply and replenish the earth. --Gen. i. 28.

    The waters thus With fish replenished, and the air with fowl. --Milton.

    2. To finish; to complete; to perfect. [Obs.]
    We smothered The most replenished sweet work of nature. --Shak

    1. To recover former fullness.

    So, replenish does not mean to fill with numbers of people only. And industrialization, together with resulting devastation of the environment, is not a commandment. If people worked as they were supposed to, there would not be a need to industrialize food growing and processing. God planted a garden, put Adam in there and commanded him to do the same. Are we doing it? No. Why? It is a long story. If all the lands were not occupied by very few and sold in cookie-cutter sizes for cookie-cutter houses we probably would be able to keep the commandment to take as much land as we need, to plant our garden and feed ourselves and our families. Are Amish unable to feed and cloth themselves? So, change of lifestyle is sufficient.

    You are also saying that without internet you would not be able to communicate. Because of our current lifestyle we are separated from each other and are confined into our respective cells. That is why we need internet to communicate. If not for our separation we would not need internet. Did Abraham need internet to commune with God and with his people? He did not have any scriptures, by the way.

    We would not need to mass produce clothes if we were not forced to keep up with ever changing styles. Remember "the beauty of your garments must be the beauty created by your own hands." If we were allowed to take as much land as we need and work on our land we would not need roads (to go to work) and cars.

    Am I a farmer? No. I am a shepherd of scattered and disobedient sheep who have put their trust in wolves in sheep clothing rather than the scriptures and Godly intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Gnostic,

    I guess I should have been more clear when I posted the full scripture; a major failing I have not stating what I think is obvious. My point was that you removed the ',' between "multiply" and "and replenish". Which may seem like a minor thing but punctuation is critical for written communication in English.

    "be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth"

    vs
    "multiply and replenish the earth"

    The second one sounds like the earth is the focus of both activities. I may be reading more into what you are writing, could be you just did not bother with the punctuation.

    The other reason I feel the punctuation is important is it helps us to understand which definition of replenish fits in context. You say I found the wrong one, but I think it makes more sense, given the context, that the others.

    Adam was commanded to tend the garden while he was there, but he was cast out and the earth was cursed. He was told it would be hard to gather food and feed his family. I have worked on a farm and let me tell you even with modern machinery it is a lot of back breaking work.

    You must be some kind of Romantic to look back with fondness on the "simpler" days when everyone worked from sunrise to sunset to keep food on the table, not to mention praying for rain, or for the rain to stop. What was the average life expectancy of the pre-Industrial era? I know I would probably be dead by now, being over 35. But then I would not even have lived past the first year as emergency surgery was required to save my life at the tender age of 4 months.

    You state “industrialization, together with resulting devastation of the environment, is not a commandment”. To my knowledge neither is using the restroom, should we stop doing that? We are not commanded in all things. We are to use the talents and resources we have been given to do God’s work, raise children in righteousness if we are fortunate enough to have them. Take care of the less fortunate and share the good new of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To those ends we need to work to feed our children and those who have come upon hard times. What career we choose is not a commandment. The type of food we provide is not a commandment. The color of the house is not a commandment, is painting it wrong?

    I must admit I am constantly amazed as the things you post. At times I am incredulous.

    Here is some math for you to think about.
    World Arable Land Area: 14,894,000 sq km
    World Population: 6.707 billion
    Arable Acres per person: 0.55
    So for my family of 5 we would have 2.5 acres to raise all the food we would need for the year. I guess we could cut down all the forests but then that would just increase the desertification of the planet. I can see how if you look at it in this light you may think there is a population problem, but amazingly enough the population still grows. This is due to the ingenuity of the human family, the doomsayers of the 70’s said we could not feed more people, but we do. Thanks in a great measure to the technology advancements that have been made and to industrialization.

    “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.”
    You claim to be a shepherd but, I for one am not one of your sheep. To my ears your call is the sound of a thief coming into to steal away that which is precious.

    So I say “Readers beware”. Or should I write “Bleat!!”

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sorry Frank, another perfectly good thread ruined by me and the G-man beating each other up.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rap08, don't worry. Nothing is ruined.

    You may say whatever you want. So do I. That is the beauty of the first amendment.

    In order to clarify your position on the first commandment, tell me, are you saying that multiplying and filling with numbers is all that is required? I think it is both. Your modern day punctuation of English is not compatible with the time of English when the Bible was translated.

    And 0.55 acres of arable land for each individual is very sufficient. You are also failing to consider that by following God's plan, by enlarging the boundaries of the Garden, there would be more arable land than we have now. If we followed the plan the deserts would recede, the subterranean moisture would be pushed up, the climate in general would be brought to equilibrium, consequently we would not need to depend on rain, or pray for it to stop.

    You are also forgetting that to be fed does not necessarily mean to fill the stomach. Yes, the industrialization of food growing has filled your stomach with all sorts of chemically generated substances, but it has failed to feed you with necessary nutrients. Additionally, your lazy and inert lifestyle (from the table full of food to the toilet and back) makes you sick, both physically and mentally. This is why our hospitals are full of sick people.

    More about the food. God has provided all the vegetation for our nourishment. He has provided it amply. That is why He has called us not to toil excessively, while bringing in the comparison with the lilies of the field. In other words, He, before creating us, has made sure that we have enough to get nourishment without toiling excessively. He has provided all sorts of herbs also fruits and vegetables. We have forgotten His gift, the herbs, have declared them weeds and are fighting against them like crazy, by poisoning them and also the soil around them. Instead we have favored the real weed, the grass and are growing it at all cost. We have forgotten that herbs are what we should eat predominantly Instead we have switched to other types of foods, invented by us, which require a lot of work to be generated. Do you know any edible herb? How many do you know? If you knew and ate 5 or so, you did not need to go to a grocery store very often. Additionally, in a city setting, confined in your individual cell, you cannot know and utilize any of those herbs which are already poisoned through the poisoned air.


    It is good you are constantly amazed at my posts. It means that so far I have said amazing things. I have not done yet. And I am not doing it though to amuse.

    Of course you are not my sheep. If you were you would recognize your shepherd. You are a misled one trusting in the pack of wolves in sheep clothing.

    Why are you so afraid, though. I have not called you to listen to me, moreover to give heed unto my words. I have called you to study the scriptures, to listen to God's words, to exercise your intelligence. Has ever Satan called to do that?

    ReplyDelete
  25. P.S.
    Finally:
    "The glory of God is intelligence"
    "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith"

    This was entirely your passage. Aren't we engaged in teaching each other words of wisdom? Words of wisdom are not only about strong drink and tobacco. There are numerous other wisdoms.

    You better ponder about them before labeling. It is, hough, hard for blinded to get liberated and see things. My advice, don't sleep like babes. Ask question and question things. Lack of questions is a sign of orthodoxy, which is the dead end.

    Only Satan would call you not to ask questions. Now, considering that it is almost a taboo in the Church to ask questions, moreover to question things, one should ask if there is anything from God there. Oh, forgot, you cannot question, or ask questions, moreover that one. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Gnostic,

    Great now we get to talk about food, I really love food. I hope you will explain what herbs are as I would probably get ill if all I ate were the herbs I am thinking of: rosemary, parsley, sage, marjoram, thyme, mint, rue, angelica, bay, oregano, dill and basil. My mom would drink herbal teas, but I found them all rather distasteful.

    I do like eating the grasses, or at least the seeds of grasses such as wheat, barley, oats, and the occasional rye sandwich. In fact I really like pesto pizza or pasta, wow herbs and grasses together, yummy!!

    Ah the internet have to love it. I read up on wikipedia:
    A herbaceous plant (or in botanical use, a herb) is a plant that has leaves and stems that die down at the end of the growing season to the soil level. A herbaceous plant may be annual, biennial or perennial.
    Examples of herbaceous biennials include carrot, parsnip and ragwort; herbaceous perennials include peony, hosta, mint, most ferns and most grasses.


    Wait, what did that say, grass is an herb, excellent!! You really had me worried there for a nanosecond. I now can continue to eat pasta with pesto and I am fulfilling the commandments by predominately eating herbs.

    Enough levity, back to the points you raised regarding your dire warnings. Of course Satan has people read scripture, or at least the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. He would have them distort the meaning of the words to twist the truth to fit some other convenient view. We have talked about scripture in our parrying before and I think I pointed out that the words of themselves are of little value if the spirit does not confirm the truth to us. I am sorry but the things you espouse are so far removed from the truths that have been confirmed to me I can’t really consider them for long with out finding holes in them.

    I have been a member my whole life and the lessons I enjoyed the most were the ones where questions were asked. I know I have heard some questions go unanswered, but then there may be some things we are not ready to know, unable to grasp or the question itself is meaningless. I do have questions of my own that I do not know the answer to like is the dark matter and energy that physicist are talking about related to spiritual matter? But then I figure I will not be a better person for learning the answer so I do not stay up nights trying to get an answer.

    By the way I do sleep well, always have been a deep sleeper, but I don’t always get the sleep I would like. I, in my lazy and inert lifestyle, get up at 5:30 to get some exercise before taking the kids to school.

    Food, I really do like food.

    I do wish you would get a account with a picture, I would like to put a face with your comments. :) Would it be to much to ask for your full name, birthday and even confirmation date?

    ReplyDelete
  27. You forgot to ask for my social security number.

    The herbs you have mentioned in your first paragraph are actually spices. Edible herbs are those which you consider weeds, like the Stinging Nettle, for example. If you truly find herbal teas rather distasteful then similar to your understanding of the Doctrine you have gone far astray in that area too. You have become used to lavishly sweet and spicy, ornately fatty foods designed to please the tongue rather than to nourish the body. By the way, gluttony was considered one of the vices throughout the Middle Ages.

    Similar to your craving habits you want to hear things that please the ear rather than nourish the soul. I am also very sorry that whatever I had said are so far away from the 'truths' that have been taught to you throughout your membership in the Church that you have become impossible to unplug.

    Can you recall which were those questions that were left unanswered in the Church? If someone has come up with a question, then he is ready to know. Can you recall who decided to leave the question unanswered. Was it the Sunday School teacher, or the Bishop himself? None have the authority to decide whether to leave the question unanswered or not. Here is the first sign of directing a member what to know, what not. How doctrinal is that. Recalling, "Ask and it will be given." Is it really given? If you reluctantly let someone else to decide for you whether you are ready, or not to receive the answer, then they will direct you. Why are you so sure then that they have not already misled you so far astray from the Doctrine that any doctrinal principle seems too odd to you now?

    Rap08, I do not have time to cater to your levity. It looks you have too much time on your hands.

    I would rather spend my time more productively.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Gnostic,

    Stinging nettle is an herb? I knew dandelions can be eaten, and have been stung by nettle. What part of the plant do you eat? I think mentioning stinging nettle as an herb flies in the face of your previous statement:

    “He has provided it amply. That is why He has called us not to toil excessively”

    We may not need to toil excessively but it may be painful. I think I will stick with basil, smells better and is easier to pick. Besides I don’t know that nettle is native to my part of California. I saw plenty near my grandparent’s farm but that was in Idaho.

    The herbs I listed were also from Wikipedia, shoot I don’t even now what rue is. By the way they are seasonings not spices. I am still curious what other “weeds” you consider herbs. If you have a link to a site that discusses some of these plants and their benefits, this is the only one I could find even calling herbs weeds

    I am again surprise with the familiar statements you make about my personal habits. I wonder do you look at my full face and see an obese typical junk/fast food American? Or was it the way I said I really like food. I will admit I like cream sauces and chocolate anything, preferring dark over milk. I will never turn down BBQ ribs, carne asada or fillet mignon. I have been known to finish my kids ice cream cones if they can’t finish them, again chocolate being a favorite or rocky road. But for the most part I eat unsweetened cereal for breakfast, microwaved leftovers for lunch and what ever my wife, who is quite accomplished, chooses to prepare for dinner. She by the way does not like chocolate so you can guess how often that is served :)

    To answer you I think the questions that went unanswered were the ones no one knew answers for. Speculation may have been shared but there was no definite answers given. They may have been questions like was Zarahemla in Mexico or Costa Rica. They were not the type of questions you seem to think are so critical, so sorry I don’t know any sheep that will want to follow your call.

    I have never seen a bishop or any other leader try to squelch or silence an honest question. They have always answered the best they can. We must remember that we have a lay ministry and they are not doctors of religion. Though I have been impressed time and time again with the inspiration they receive and share.

    I agree full heartedly that our progression is determined by our efforts. If we are content to sit on our laurels and not seek learning then we have damned ourselves.

    How do I know I am not being led astray?

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith.
    I have experience these fruits.

    I have experienced a change of heart, and I have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, and I even feel so now.

    I have awaken and aroused my faculties, even to an experiment upon the word, and exercised a particle of faith. And because I have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, I must needs know that the seed is good or that the word is right.

    When I read your posts and I get a sense of anger, injury, frustration and perhaps envy. You make claims about the leaders of the church implying they are money grubbers. Last time I check the Bishops and Stake presidents are not paid. They donate of their time, a lot of it I might add, in the service of the ward and the community. It may be that many of the men who serve in these capacities are more successful in providing for their families but then it would be hard for a struggling father working 2 jobs to give of themselves as much. Concerning wealth I have always been taught the principles found in Jacob 2 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted. I have seen this principle in action, even during these economically troubling times the members are very generous. Why is that? because they have been taught by their families and leaders.

    I do not know what happened to you that have brought you to the state you are currently in, but I am at times truly sorry for you. The rest of the time my natural man takes over and I am plain offended.

    I must admit I struggle with a principle taught by Nephi:

    “For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.”

    I guess as long as we keep it less than warm we should be ok.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Gnostic,

    I just thought of this "in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established"

    care to bring in another witness?

    I guess to be fair I should solicit comment from anyone who agrees with me.

    In the case of additional differing opinions, we should welcome them also.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "We must remember that we have a lay ministry and they are not doctors of religion." That was one of my points, LAY. And we, the Priesthood Holders, the Godly Intelligence Holders, should be doctors of our religion.

    You have noticed also that, as a rule, Bishops are called from among the rich people. Have they truly shared with you their riches. Maybe only a couple of items they wouldn't use. They give away only whatever they do not need, rather than whatever you need. Did your Bishops seek the riches to do good to others only? I doubt it. I would strongly suggest you to read Elder Christopherson's talk in the last General Conference. Also, have you read The Road Less Traveled by Scott Peck? Do you need other witnesses? How about Joseph Smith? Read, actually study, the D&C. How about Christ himself. Have you paid attention that Saint Peter was actually implementing the Law of Consecration, i.e. temporal equality for all the early Christian congregations. Have you noticed that Saint Paul was doing the same? Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were committed to the same idea. Remember John Tailor's famous expression, "Either Kingdom of God (meaning Zion), or nothing." Are you saying I am more radical than these people? Saint Peter actually caused the man, who did not consecrate all the money he was supposed to, to collapse and die. Additionally, Peter did the same with the wife of that man.Christ violently drove away the money changers fro the Temple Square, while crushing their tables. You wouldn't argue against the idea that He did it with anger, or would you?

    So, what is it so surprising in my points.

    When scriptures speak of spirit of contention, they do not mean a spirit of contention in general. There is no spirit of contention in general. They mean contention against the Doctrinal principles. Which of those principles did you feel I am contending against?

    "Dandelions can be eaten"? Dandelion is one of those edible herbs. And if you do not see any stinging nettle around in California, then God has not provided it amply? Quite a conclusion, to judge things based on local observations and personal understanding. Here is another example where you stumble, namely, judging the new information based on already existing one. Which may or may not be true. If your previous conviction is in conflict with the new information, then there is a 50% chance that yours is not true.

    But you have started to doubt a little in your previous information. That is why you are looking for other witnesses. this is good. But there is a better way. Remember, Wrong is wrong even if everybody does it, and right is right even if nobody does it. In other words, you have to rely only on your Intelligence, on the scriptures, especially the words of God spoken either by Himself or through His true prophets. Also try to listen more and leave the stiffness of your current structure of beliefs. It is more shaped by the non scriptures rather than scriptures. It will be a good start to differentiate whether a belief is shaped by a scripture or by a Church leader's talk or opinion. Don't rely on anybody, even if he is a church leader. Rely on and build on scriptures, the word of God, rather than words of men, including myself.

    Edible herbs are provided amply. In a city setting where we currently live they have been eradicated. They have been eradicated also from our collective memory. So, no wonder you will not find much in the internet. Try to look for edible herbs at least in the Church scouts' booklet.

    No offense, but your description of your eating habits is typical for middle class Americans. The eating habits of the Western World are harmful. No wonder we have more sick than the third world countries. They have more infectious diseases though, because of dirty water and unsanitary living conditions, but they do not have pandemic cancers and heart diseases as we do.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "as a rule, Bishops are called from among the rich people"

    Wrong.

    I had a bishop who worked two jobs, lived in a small apartment with his wife and kids, and in general was about as far away from "rich people" as you can get.

    It's one anecdotal piece of evidence. But I think it shows your complete disregard for truth.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "One Protestant scholar has inquired tellingly into the erroneous doctrine of a closed canon. He writes:

    'On what biblical or historical grounds has the inspiration of God been limited to the written documents that the church now calls its Bible? . . . If the spirit inspired only the written documents of the first century, does that mean that the same spirit does not speak today in the church about matters that are of significant concern?' (Lee M. McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, rev. ed. [1995], 255-56).

    We humbly ask those same questions."

    Elder Jeffrey R. Holland

    ReplyDelete
  33. Cameron, "as a rule" does not necessarily mean there are no exceptions to it, moreover when there are no rich people in the ward or when all of those rich people have already served their terms. While advocating for truth one needs to take into account all the relevant circumstances.

    About the inspiration of God being available not only to the individuals of the canonized scriptures. I agree with the idea that inspiration, in other words spirit of God, or the Holy Ghost may be bestowed on any individual. Although you have been always taught in the Church that none before Joseph Smith had been in touch with the Holy Spirit of God (a pseudo-doctrine). The truth is all are entitled to receive revelations from God without any restrictions. In other words, any member or non member of the LDS Church may receive revelations of whatever nature. Therefore it is a pseudo-doctrine to preach that only the leading prophets of the Church are entitled to receive revelations, even for the entire Church. Remember there are no restrictions. Consequently all, both members and non members are entitled to receive revelations even for the entire Church. The only thing the others cannot do, except for the leading prophet, is that they cannot come up with a commandment based on their revelation. The only person that can come up with a commandment to the whole Church is the leading prophet. But if you ask your immediate leaders, they will tell you, that none except for the leading prophet, may receive revelation for the entire Church, that every Priesthood holder may receive only personal revelations and revelations only for his family (a pure pseudo-doctrine).

    I have called to exercise one's intelligence to discern right from wrong. This is the golden rule. But because the opposite speakers were respecters of persons, I have called them to study and adhere to the scriptures before studying and sticking to the teachings of men, (whoever they may be). I have suggested to stick with the scriptures not as a golden rule but as an alternative safer one, again because I was addressing to respecters of persons. And again, the Golden rule is to exercise one's intelligence, Godly Intelligence. In case if one does not have it, the Priesthood, it is again safer to stick with the scriptures rather than with talks of persons.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Also, Elder Holand's talk starts as an opulent toast. Additionally it is hypocrisy from his side to condemn others for "pronouncing the canon of revelations closed" while failing to notice that we are doing the same. Have we added any revelation to the Doctrine and Covenants after Section 138? Again, if the talks of the same Church leaders were revelations they would be added to the D&C. Where there no revelations, or maybe there were so many of them that if added to the D&C it would make it impossible to lift it up? Notice that none of the talk givers has dared to classify his talk as a revelation. Such as any literary work those talks are products of inspired efforts, but never revelations. Again, whenever any talk was classified as a revelation, it was added to the D&C. So, after 138, we have not had any revelation from God.

    Meanwhile others, like the School of Prophets, have had revelations and have compiled them in their Second Book of Revelations. Elder Holand is for some reason forgetting about this. And again if you ask Elder Holand he will reiterate to you that revelations had been stopped before Joseph Smith, that whatever Martin Luther came up with was not an inspiration and had nothing to do with the Holy Ghost, at least he had not any Priesthood. Or Thomas More, or Thomas Campanella, or Francis Beckon or many others of the enlightenment movement, or even before them.

    ReplyDelete
  35. In other words, it is hypocrisy from Elder Holland's side to declare about his, consequently the Church's, support of the idea of continuing revelations, while negating the same continuing revelations throughout the huge period of time between the first century and Joseph Smith. Also, failing to recognize that the LDS Church has not added any revelations to the D&C after the section 138.

    It is, at least, dereliction from the side of the Church. I think though that it is a deliberate misguidance. Isaiah was right, "...your leaders cause thee to err."

    ReplyDelete
  36. I would like to propose a new moniker for our friend Anonymous/Gnostic, I think Anti-Gnostic would fit well.

    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Considering that gnosis comes from 'gignoskein' "to learn, to come to know", you've probably got a valid suggestion. The reason I say this is that I am not sure of any time when Gnostic has commented on this weblog that he has admitted a mistake in his thinking--let alone whether someone has a good point.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Unable to continue an intelligent conversation you have thus packed with each other to call names. if this is the best you can do, I guess I was mistaken to consider you intelligent people. That is the only mistake from my side.

    Goodby

    ReplyDelete
  39. Gnostic said: "That is the only mistake from my side."

    You've proved my point entirely. How can it be an intelligent conversation in the first place when one side (you) is completely unwilling to learn anything from the other side.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Gnostic,

    Sorry I was out of touch for the last few days, did you miss me?

    I thank Cameron for his addressing your statement regarding Bishop’s being rich. I would like to add a general statement regarding consecration. It is not currently practiced in the full extent as outlined in the D&C but a lot of people give of that which is most precious in great amounts. I am speaking of time, money is just an abstraction that can be used to trade for goods or services which are gathered with time or the direct offering of a person’s time. In my mind it is a cheap substitute, I am mindful of children that are given money when what they need is the personal attention of a parent. The Bishop has at his disposal the resources of fast offerings, but I think the most valuable thing he offers is his personal time and inspired counsel. This is one thing that all bishops have exactly the same amount of. I also remember learning that after leaving Missouri that consecration was not practiced in the church as a whole. The principles may have been adapted by different people at other times but I don’t think it was under the ecclesiastical leadership of the church. I believe that if consecration were to be introduced again my bishop would be one of the first to sign over his possessions to the church for distribution. He is a very successful lawyer so trust me it would be significant. I think your speaking in generalities is insulting to the many honest, humble leaders who give of themselves in so many ways.

    You miss understood my comments regarding nettles. I did not imply that just because they are not in my local location that God does not provide for me. Frankly I think your whole thread regarding herbs is kind of silly. I think eating of fruits and vegetables are in line with the Word of Wisdom, I do not know why you try to make it apply to only the “weeds”. I think with modern understanding of nutrition that we can see how inspired the word of wisdom is and chose to consume the variety of foods provide to keep ourselves healthy. What is the church’s scout handbook? The BSA has a handbook and the older version had much more information regarding plants, the new one is not as good a resource in this regards, one of the things I noticed when I served as scout master.

    You state that the third world countries eat more healthily than we do. I agree that our society has embraced eating in excess, I am guilty of this at times, and of course it is easier to eat less when it is all you can obtain. I think it has been clearly shown that the eating habits of many are to blame for their health issues. I watched “Super Size Me” and did not eat fast food for over a year. The problem is that it is tasty, cheap and readily available. Hmm, tape worm or triple bypass - choices, choices, choices!!

    Lol, I am doubting by asking for additional witnesses? You think that you can make me feel inadequate because I ask for confirmation? You go on to state: “In other words, you have to rely only on your Intelligence, on the scriptures, especially the words of God spoken either by Himself or through His true prophets.” You left out the point I have raised many time the importance of having the Holy Ghost confirm the truth. Lean not unto your own understanding!!! I seek additional witnesses so their testimony can be joined with mine. I would call on the Holy Spirit, but he does not post on the internet :) How do you know a true Prophet any way? Is it just by comparing their statements against those that have come before? You seem to pick the ones that you like best and then the rest are bogus. Please explain how the 14 apostles who had served with Brigham Young all of a sudden apostatized in mass following his passing!

    Moving on to the Holy Ghost’s influence from the time of the apostles to Joseph Smith. I have no idea where you got the impression that the church believes he was on vacation for 1700 years. I remember on a number of occasions the brethren teaching that there have been many inspired leaders in that time, especially those involved in the reformation and institution of this country. In the Book of Mormon we even learn that Columbus was influenced by the Holy Spirit to make his historic journey. Please post some documentation to back you statements. “Although you have been always taught in the Church that none before Joseph Smith had been in touch with the Holy Spirit of God” Who has ever taught that we are not able to receive revelation? You state: “ Therefore it is a pseudo-doctrine to preach that only the leading prophets of the Church are entitled to receive revelations, even for the entire Church.” Joseph Smith taught “But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses. … And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church” D&C 28:2,6. I think it has always been taught that we can receive the same revelations as the prophets, much like Nephi was able to see Lehi’s dream. The difference is it is not our place to claim to receive revelation that is in opposition with the established teaching of the Church or her leaders.

    I also find it interesting you would point to Elder Holland’s talk for this subject when he quotes Mormon speaking to his son Moroni regarding the ministry of angels: ”… has the day of miracles ceased? Or have angels ceased to appear unto the children of men? Or has he withheld the power of the Holy Ghost from them? Or will he, so long as time shall last, or the earth shall stand, or there shall be one man upon the face thereof to be saved? Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain.” Clearly this applies to the period in question!!!

    Regarding the D&C and adding additional sections to it, do you think that only the teachings placed therein are accepted as revelation? I think it is commonly accepted: “And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” D&C 68:3-4. Things need not be put in a book to make it scripture. I think the whole history of the church proclaims this, we have added to canonized scripture the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and have untold volumes of scripture that is accepted even if it is not put in book form and carried by every member.

    PS my request for personal information was a jest, these are the things needed to pull your membership record. I don’t really need the confirmation date or you SSN, I am not interested in stealing your identity, I am happy with the one I have already.

    PPS my sugestion on the moniker was just a play on words, Anti-Gnostic - Antagonistic. You may not intend it but that is the way some of your posts are percieved by me.

    ReplyDelete
  41. excerpt of my previous post as some may not read the whole thing:

    "my sugestion on the moniker was just a play on words, Anti-Gnostic - Antagonistic. You may not intend it but that is the way some of your posts are percieved by me."

    ReplyDelete
  42. I would also add that the "Anti" portion would relate to your view of the current church leadership.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Frank,

    How intelligent is it from your side to fail to notice the obvious dictionary definitions of a term?


    RAPOB

    Regarding nettle and edible herbs in general, you better remember temple endowment sessions. God did not say He had provided ice cream, BBQ ribs or hot dogs for your nourishment. Whether it is "silly" or not to advise to eat herbs, you better bring it up with Him from now on.

    And again you have been selective in choosing which verse to quote. D&C 68:3-4 speaks about the missionaries of the Church, who have gone forth to preach and teach.

    Additionally your examples with Columbus and the Founding Fathers does not cover the rest of the 1700 year period. Also the period between Moroni and Joseph Smith.

    It seems you like to talk too much, to fool around. I guess you have too much time on your hands too.

    I hope also you may some day figure out what to do with my identity you claim you have stolen.

    Best regards

    ReplyDelete
  44. Gnostic,

    I have concluded that you are intentionally misunderstanding what I am saying for some reason which is beyond me, I will not propose other reasons for your statements. But to clarify one last time:

    1) I think what we consider vegetables fit the bill as herbs and they provide the needed nutrients. YES EATING HERBS ARE IMPORTANT!!!! We just need not eat all of them; I would chose not to eat "weeds" like nettle.

    2) My point was that Elders, from missionaries on up to GAs and certainly Apostles and Prophets, can give scripture when moved upon by the spirit. I think we have been blessed in abundance with additional scripture. You claimed we had no new scriptures since section 138.

    3) You claim the church teaches that no one was influence by the spirit before Joseph Smith. You made an absolute statement so only one example is needed to prove you wrong, I provided several. You have not shared a single quote that backs your position.

    4) You complain to us how we don't appreciate all the time you spend to explain you views then when I take time to reply to them you state I like to talk to much!?!?!

    5) I never claimed to steal your identity. Do you even bother to read what I write?

    Like Frank said you never respond to any of the points which I think are valid and constructive, you merely move on, you also rarely answer my questions in a direct fashion. I agree with Frank you must not be to sincere about your desire to have a discussion, just want to spout your views which I continue to view as misleading at best.

    ReplyDelete
  45. RAPO8
    1. You better go to the temple and listen carefully to what God says about herbs, which you call weeds.

    2. If anyone in the Church had received revelations for the whole church, they would be added to the D&C.

    3. Your very few examples do not cover all the time between the first century, and Joseph Smith. I have never argued against the Book Of Mormon prophets.

    4. I said I did not have time for your levity. I said also you were talking too much since you could not keep focused in your massive responses and were SELECTIVE in choosing verses, while interpreting them your own way. I have showed you how you pick and choose and misinterpret scriptures several times. The major reason I did not bring in new scriptures to disprove you was that your examples were enough to do that also, do not have as much time as you do.

    5. I may have misunderstood your statement, "I am not interested in stealing your identity, I am happy with the one I have already." If you mean you are happy with yours, that's a sure sign of stoppage of progress. Permanent dissatisfaction with one's condition is the only driving force along the road of the spiritual progress.

    I just do not have time to respond to all your points. One may think you or Frank have addressed all mine. Why is it so hard to understand that I do not have time? I guess, maybe because both of you enjoy being paid from the tithing funds (in addition enjoying all the corresponding benefits, including safe retirement) to chit chat on-line. I do not have that luxury.

    So long

    ReplyDelete
  46. Gnostic,

    You think I could get a paying church job in California? There is no way CES would have me, my brother tried and did not make the cut and he is a much more familiar with scriptures than I. The only job I could get with the church is building maintenance, unfortunately while that may be rewarding I would not be satisfied with that as a career. I am much happier working in the tech industry :)

    I am surprised you would be able to have a temple recommend as your statements regarding the brethren would be at odds with question #3.

    If you do have a current recommend I would suggest a candid conversation with your bishop so he can understand that you are currently struggling with supporting the leaders of the church.

    I guess I have been working under a misconception that you were a disillusioned member who was not active.

    1) I have been searching my memory and the only reference I can think of that discusses eating of any kind in the endowment ceremony is the reference to eating any of the fruits other than that of the tree of knowledge. So I am not sure what you may be referring to. I think the scriptures have plenty of references but I can’t think of any from the temple. Are you referring to something other than the endowment? Sealings, I don’t think so. Washings? Baptism? again I doubt it, of course it has been 6-8 months since I participated in those ordinances.

    2) Why would you suppose that all scripture would be added to the D&C if it applied to the whole church? I have never heard any statement or read any scripture that would lead one to believe such a thing. I wonder how much scripture Mormon left out when he compiled the BofM. He was inspire to include the things that we would need not all the things that applied to his people and previous generations. Do you think the D&C contains all of the revelations that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young received? Brigham Young was prophet for 40 years and not one single section in the D&C. God did not talk with his prophet for 40 years? He had nothing to say to the saints during that whole time? I do find it interesting that you have previously stated that after Brigham the leaders went astray yet you included section 138 as valid scripture. It was recieved in 1918 64 years after Joseph Smith seal his testimony with his blood.

    3) Ok I have providied a few examples please provide one in support of your claim. Just one, surely you must have one that you can share off the top of your head.

    4) I agree that I am not the best writer in the world, yet another reason I would not be employed by CES. I hope you, like my college political science professor, can look past my weaknesses and see the content nested in the poor grammar and disjointed thoughts. I got an A in that class, my history professor gave me a C because of my essay writing, ignoring my command of the facts.

    5) I am happy with who I am and who I hope to become, my potential is not in question, nor is yours only what I chose to do with it.

    Have a nice day!

    ReplyDelete
  47. RAPO8,
    I guessed correctly then that, like your friend Frank, you have found a safe refuge in the Church system, enjoying benefits paid by the tithings of the Church members (not only Americans, by the way).

    FYI, I do not struggle, I just do not support the Pack of Wolves in sheep clothing together with Mister Boyd Packer as their president. God does have a sense of humor after all.

    Refresh your memory by attending a temple endowment session to be taught that God created all the herbs for our nourishment.

    Haven't you been taught that D&C is an open book, that new revelation are to be added to it? Why shouldn't a scripture be added to the D&C if it applied to the whole church? I did not say 138 is a revelation. None of the declarations are revelations. I only said that after 138, which the Church revers as revelation, no revelation was added. Brigham Young had addressed the Church with inspired talks and interpretations. While God had not addressed to the whole Church through him. So, whatever Brigham Young said are his own words, his explanations and interpretations of the scriptures. Again, God did not find the Church worthy to be addressed through Brigham Young. And still He does not. It is pointless to address someone who is unable to understand, to put pearls before swine.

    As for your choice, you have chosen to abide with the Church principles rather than the Doctrine. You know that if you do otherwise, you will lose the temporal benefits you are currently enjoying. No wonder my messages found vigorous opposition from your side, also Frank's.

    All the best

    ReplyDelete
  48. Gnostic

    repost of my previous statement with emphasis:

    You think I could get a paying church job in California? There is NO way CES would have me, my brother tried and did not make the cut and he is a much more familiar with scriptures than I. The only job I could get with the church is building maintenance, unfortunately while that may be rewarding I would not be satisfied with that as a career. I am much happier working in the tech industry :)

    If you want more info about me go read this, you will need to scroll to the bottom or search for RAP08.

    ReplyDelete
  49. RAP08
    I am glad that now you have a job you like. Now I understand that the building maintenance job with the Church you had was a temporary one. You are a good man. I would only advise not to read for fun. Read the books sent to you by your father instead, and try to see their content as fulfillment of BoM predictions.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life"

    I say it would be better for the entire planet be obliterated and every man, woman, child, animal, and plant die, than for Human Beings to lose their freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  51. How about the planet being obliterated and you have lost your freedom.

    "None are more enslaved than those, who believe they are free."
    Goethe

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

"Mormon Leaks": What They Really Said-Senator Gordon Smith Discusses Politcs

World Peace Depends Upon the Book of Mormon