Jump to content

janderich

Members
  • Content Count

    342
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

190 Excellent

About janderich

  • Rank
    Foreigner In the Land
  • Birthday 08/11/1976

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

689 profile views
  1. I’m trying to reconcile what President Nelson said in my own mind. For instance, why are we supposed to call the Holy priesthood after the Order of the Son of God the Melchizedek priesthood and avoid too frequent reputation of Jesus’s name, and yet are supposed to use the name of Jesus Christ all the time to denote his church? Is it right to nickname the Holy Priesthood after a man? Or alternatively, if we should avoid the common repetition of the name of diety shouldn’t we also avoid it in the name of the church?
  2. Along with marijuana, heroin, LSD, and cocaine are on the schedule 1 drug list. Over the last 50 years petitions have come before the DEA to change it's classification to schedule 2 or a lower which would allow drug companies to conduct further research without the ultra strict regulations. However, the FDA and DEA have held firm. In 2016 they again affirmed their commitment to keep marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. Yes, they have approved a marijuana base product recently and in 2016 they allowed research companies to use marijuana grown from other facilities besides there own, but this is ridiculous. Marijuana is legal in 9 states but research of the drug itself is severely limited?! It's time to change the drugs status. This is a clear indication of the problems we have with regulatory agencies and their ability to make rules in which we the people have very little influence over. I wish the fight form medical marijuana was being fought on this front.
  3. janderich

    Church Statement on Medical Marijuana

    It definitely is debatable. Based on your statement I would say you support some form of legalization of marijuana.
  4. janderich

    Church Statement on Medical Marijuana

    Because there have been zero deaths attributed to marijuana use it does not mean that it's effects have been adequately studied and it's completely safe.
  5. Certainly could be, but marijuana was used medicinally before it was put on the list and it is clear now that it has medical uses.
  6. janderich

    Church Statement on Medical Marijuana

    I don't think it is useful to debate if it's a drug or an herb. Those who want it legalized call it an herb and those who want it band call it a drug. The real issue here is about whether it's safe and whether it is effective in treating certain conditions.
  7. Agreed. And the first thing to treating it like other prescription medications is to get it listed as a schedule II drug instead of a schedule I drug by the DEA. This will allow researchers to study it without a special license. By the way cocaine is listed as a schedule II drug.
  8. janderich

    Church Statement on Medical Marijuana

    I agree with authorizing medical control over marijuana in the same regulated way as other medicinal drugs. They're prescription drugs and marijuana should follow the prescription drug approval and use model. Scientific studies need to be completed and then the risk and benefits need to be weighed by a medical board before receiving FDA approval. Once approved it can be dispensed by doctors through prescription. Somehow the legalize marijuana crowed fails to talk about this path. What's more interesting to me is that the DEA still considers marijuana a schedule I drug the same as heroine, LSD, and ecstasy. Because of this status researchers need a special license to study the drugs effect and this license requirement has restricted investigation into it's benefits. Those who are really concerned with medicinal marijuana should be arguing to change it's status from a schedule I to a schedule II drug, not bypassing the entire system.
  9. I was the Varsity Coach then the Young Men's President when the church did away with Varsity and Venturing. I was the High Priest Group leader until about a month ago when the church did away with the High Priest Group. I was just put in as the 11 Year Old Scout leader and have been rapidly getting up to speed only to hear that the church is parting ways with the Scouts. I seriously need to be able to catch my breath for a minute. Unlike most people who post here I'm saddened to see that the church has parted ways with the Scouts. I suppose it was time with all the homosexual and transgender issues among other things. But the new 14-17 year old program is not as well organized as the Scout programs. It doesn't have the training, methods, and infrastructure Scouting has. The activities on the church's website for YM simply have a few suggestions. But youth learn by accomplishing hard things and thrive off a little recognition. I hope the new program will be more robust than the current 14-17 year old program. It needs to be filled with activities that are multi-week, multi-month. It needs to have a challenge or large activity at the end of the module. Activity instructions can't just say, "as a service project go clean the church". The activities and learning need to teach them new skills and help them get out of their shell. There needs to be some sort of recognition program. The Eagle Scout Award is gone but what has taken it's place? Nothing yet. Duty to God was designed to be completed in conjunction with the Eagle. Our young men still need something. Adult leaders also need guidance. Many adults don't understand youth leadership. They either do the puppet leadership where they pull all the strings, or they give the youth way to much autonomy without guidance where needed. How are adults going to learn these skills? The Sunday School Presidency!? I don't know, maybe I'm just a little jaded today because of all of the changes. I'm sure I'll get over it but I hope the new program is a good one.
  10. janderich

    Climate Change is false doctrine

    Must the Lord provide revelation through his prophets and in no other way? Can he not speak to many people and pour down knowledge from heavens? If he given knowledge through science then act on it accordingly. Despite all of Longview's comments he has not been able to change these basic facts: Carbon dioxide is a gas that traps heat and makes the planet warmer. The use of fossil fuels is adding more of this gas to the Earth's atmosphere. We should expect rising carbon dioxide concentrations to warm our planet. The evidence is all around us, the planet is warming, the polar ice caps are shrinking, sea level is rising, the ocean is acidifying. How much more evidence do we need? Now, this is not a call to be an alarmist but it is a call to recognize the truth. Don't wait for a prophet to speak before you act. The Spirit of the Lord is in you, pray to him and obtain revelation for yourself, for it is not meet that he should command in all things.
  11. janderich

    Climate Change is false doctrine

    Compared to CO2 water vapor cycles quickly through the atmosphere. Water vapor stays in the atmosphere only about 9 days on average (https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/water-cycle). This average accounts for jet streams, clouds, etc. CO2 on the other hand stays in the atmosphere 3 - 4 years on average. Now, when I say that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades and even centuries I am not talking about an individual molecule, but rather how long the excess CO2 would stay in the atmosphere if we stopped emitting extra carbon. Scientists estimate it would take about 50 years to drop down to to pre-industrial levels if carbon cycles out of the atmosphere at the current rate. However, it is unlikely to stay at the same sink rate. Rather, the cycle would likely slow down such that a percentage of extra carbon would stay in the atmosphere for not just decades but centuries (see https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/common-climate-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/). This "data" about the Iceland volcano emitting as much as 5 years worth of human CO2 emissions is false. This has been debunked multiple times. Regarding volcanoes and extinction level events: The scientific community has rejected Abdussamatov's comments. Here is a summary from Wikipedia:
  12. janderich

    Climate Change is false doctrine

    You would need a new thread to discuss this topic in any detail.
  13. janderich

    Climate Change is false doctrine

    1. It is true that there is only about 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is also true that water vapor contributes more to the "greenhouse effect". But the reason water vapor is not the driving factor is because it cycles in and out of the atmosphere very quickly through evaporation on one end and rain and snow on the other and is largely dependent on temperature. CO2 on the other hand remains in the atmosphere for decades and even centuries. So, if CO2 raises the temperature slightly then the atmosphere can handle more water vapor, which then traps more heat. In short, water vapor amplifies climate change but does not cause it. 2. Normal volcanic activity does not compare with the amount of CO2 emitted by humans. Volcanic emissions amount to about 65 - 300 million tons of CO2 per year. Humans emit between 20 - 34 billion tons per year (see https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/ as a point to start your investigation). There have been very rare occasions where more CO2 was belched into the air but these are extinction level events. 3. Solar output is a significant factor in the earths temperature. However, solar activity has been down over the last 35 years so it cannot be the main cause of the temperature increase.
  14. janderich

    Climate Change is false doctrine

    Alright, lets forget the science for a minute, in fact lets forget about the issue of climate change. Which of these is more likely: 1. Thousands upon thousands of well respected scientists the world over have been involved in an elaborate scheme to prove something that is in fact not true. Despite opposition they have continued over decades to compile more false reports and graphs in order to lie to the public, to politicians, and to other scientists. or... 2. Despite evidence upon evidence provided by a host of scientists, a few conspiracy theorists refuse to accept the facts presented and cling to their view of how the world should be. I guess you can stick with #2 if you want but I wouldn't base my foundation on such shaky ground. The Lord gives us truths in many ways including through science. By the way, the truth of climate change is simple. Carbon dioxide is a gas that traps heat and makes the planet warmer. The use of fossil fuels is adding more of this gas to the Earth's atmosphere. We should expect rising carbon dioxide concentrations to warm our planet.
  15. janderich

    Climate Change is false doctrine

    Very well, below is the correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels for the last ice age. Note that the global temperature (data painstakingly pulled from tiny shells from the seabed and pollen from lake bottoms) increases generally occur after CO2 concentrations increase. Yes, temperatures can sometimes preceded the CO2 increase but this is as expected since small changes in the earths orbit are what start to reverse ice ages (not CO2). The details of this we first published in Nature volume 484, pages49–54 (05 April 2012) (see https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915. So no surprises here, C02 is still the main cause of the global warming we are now experiencing.
×