Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

179 Excellent

About janderich

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

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

565 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
  3. Climate Change is false doctrine

    You would need a new thread to discuss this topic in any detail.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Climate Change is false doctrine

    Here is how we know we are burning fossil fuels in excess...
  8. Climate Change is false doctrine

    The general unwillingness from the left to accept the science of climate change is disappointing, but I have to say that your ridged religious interpretation is even worse. Please go study the science of climate change with an open mind. The data for global warming is almost overwhelming.
  9. New Narrative History - Chapter 1

    The context of Bushman's quote is in regards to Joseph's statement wherein he said, "I was left to all kinds of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the corruption of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations to the gratification of many appetites offensive in the sight of God.” (Papers of Joseph Smith, 1:275–76). Here are the references he gives: BofC, 24:5 (D&C, 20:5); Man H A-1 (Manuscript History of the Church) PJS 1:276 n. (The Papers of Joseph Smith) Saints' Herald, June 1, 1881, 163, 167. Here is a link to an online version which has interviews and statements about Joseph's drinking: http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/il/sain1872.htm#060181
  10. New Narrative History - Chapter 1

    Right. It might tarnish the image of Joseph in the minds of the saints so it is not discussed.
  11. New Narrative History - Chapter 1

    George MacDonald was a Scottish preacher. The story of his father's leg surgery is strangely similar to the story of Joseph Smith's surgery. Here is the relevant portion: As is stated, this story of George MacDonald Sr. is provided to show his strength of will. This was likely Lucy Mack Smith's reason for providing the very similar story regarding her son. I don't know if Lucy Mack Smith had heard this story when she wrote her biography of Joseph but it appears Joseph didn't strictly reject alcohol. In fact Richard Lyman Bushman in Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling says frankly, "From time to time he [Joseph] drank too much." (p. 43). He provides this additional detail in the end notes: So to me this whole story about Joseph not taking alcohol during his operation seems to be at odds with his later life. For instance, why was he so against taking alcohol when he was a boy but then drank on occasion when he was a young man? Even when he was older he was not strictly apposed to alcohol.
  12. Youth trek historical accuracy

    We must not continue to present false stories and rumor as fact. In the end this damages credibility of the church and causes many to question their testimony. If we strip away all the embellishments and have nothing left, then so be it. Apparently we never had it anyway. But if the entire truth was told as far as it can be found I think there would be more things of interest, not less. We would see situations that are perhaps more morally difficult to resolve but wouldn't that better represent what we all face anyway?
  13. Youth trek historical accuracy

    I helped organize a Trek in my stake about four years ago. We went to the Willie and Martin handcart sites in Wyoming. There were some good experiences and I saw some of the youth open up to the spirit. But historical accuracy (or lack thereof) was on my mind much of the time. I heard the false quote attributed to Brigham Young that the three young men who helped the saints cross the Sweetwater River had assured themselves salvation in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. I heard this quote, "We suffered beyond anything you can imagine and many died of exposure and starvation, but did you ever hear a survivor of that company utter a word of criticism? Not one of that company ever apostatized or left the Church, because everyone of us came through with the absolute knowledge that God lives for we became acquainted with him in our extremities." (Relief Society Magazine, Jan. 1948, p. 8). The words are beautiful but the idea that no one ever left the church from that company is false. I could hardly watch when they did the women's pull. One girl had problems and would pass out if she over exerted herself. She insisted on doing the women's pull. Just at the top of the hill she started passing out. She fainted multiple times. Eventually she passed out and wasn't coming back around. I had to run back to camp and get our camp medic. She survived the ordeal. I do believe there is an important lesson regarding the handcart pioneers, but it is one we will never teach. It has to do with blindly following leaders despite the knowing better. In fact, Brigham Young criticized the leaders of the handcart companies for permitting the the saints to go forward but I seriously doubt anyone will ever share that message. Why are we so hyper focused on the handcart pioneers anyway? It was a terrible experience, why do we then have to re-enact it? Does anyone re-enact the Donor Party's struggles? Since you have said that the location you are going to is close to a Mormon Battalion site, why don't you focus on them instead? You don't need to bring the handcarts into it. In fact, I wish that saints all over the world would look to their own history. Who started the church in the Congo, what challenges did they face? Who moved the work forward in the Dominican Republic? Aren't these saints just as important as those who were with the handcarts?
  14. Stoning people to death

    I agree. Take as an example what Jesus said of divorce: Note the Pharisees statement, "why did Moses then command us to give a writing of divorcement". But Jesus makes a clear separation between the law of Moses and the Lord's way. He says that from the beginning it was not so and that it was because of the hardness of the peoples hearts that divorce was written into the law. I see stoning in the same way. Because of the hardness of the hearts of the people at that time Moses added it to the law, but we would be foolish to believe the stoning for relatively minor offenses was commanded of God.
  15. Progression Between Kingdoms

    I addressed the "body" problem. Go look at my previous posts.