Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Avatar4321

Julie Rowe rumor

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

How have you come to the conclusion that this description is in any way accurate when talking about the vast majority of the membership of the Church?  Your own experience?  I've got a lot of experience as well.  And this is certainly not what I find.

The example you gave of Adam in the PoGP tells a very different message than what you are characterizing here.

  1. Adam first had a testimony that the one he was speaking with was indeed God.  And he also had a testimonty of His benevolence.  So, when he was told to do something, he did it. 
  2. Then we find that the angel asked Adam why he did it.  Do you honestly believe the angel did not know?  This was a set up for giving the answer that Adam had probably already asked earlier.  You're supposed to ask.  But until we receive an answer, we have faith that the source was genuine.
  3. Finally, the very fact that the angel gave Adam the answer signifies that we are not intended to remain in ignorance forever.  But we receive no such (explanation) until after the trial of our (obedience).

I've known PLENTY of children, youth, and adults that may ask ahead of time,"Why do I need to do this?"  And certainly a certain level of explanation can be given.  But at some point, you just have to do it to fully understand.  Too many will actually refuse to do something once they learn the "why", declaring,"Well, now that I understand, I don't need to do it."  No. They totally missed the point.

Another issue here is that the "mantra" of "Follow the Prophet" is not a call for blind obedience.  It is a reminder that the entire world is going all to hell in a handbasket.  And we keep hearing 100 different ideologies all with studies, politicians, media heads, celebrities all touting their issue of the day.  I agree that the idea is to keep us "in the Church boat".  And why wouldn't we want that?  But the characterization that we're blindly following without questioning anything is false.  That simply hasn't been my experience.  Plenty of people refuse a calling because it takes too much time or ... reasons.  So, when you say things like you're saying in the quote above, I have no idea what you're talking about.

The bottom line here is that you have said some things that are "possibly" accurate.  The main problem here is your characterization.  That is simply not how I feel nor many dozens of others I know quite intimately.

I guess how you feel or how you perceive how others feel should govern this?  Thanks for the testimony in any event.

"But we receive no such (explanation) until after the trial of our (obedience)."  I think that sums up what I am talking about.  Do it, for the organization and for heaven sake don't complain, then wait for however long it takes to get some answer that will supposedly rationalize what you've been doing all these years.  Perhaps even wait until after death ....  Too bad this method is also what the nefarious use to trap the unwary.  I just don't think a God would require such.  For what end?  Learning can be had without all the pressure and discomfort of going down a path blindly.  I don't perform trust games on my son just to see if he will follow whatever I think to impose on him.  We are not in the military where blind obedience represses the instinct to run the other way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I guess how you feel or how you perceive how others feel should govern this? 

I don't know what you mean by "govern".  But what I meant was that the pushback you're feeling on this board is not about forensic facts of obedience and sacrifice or faith.  It is your characterization that we don't appreciate.  So, yes, how we perceive our own experience is a BIG DEAL.  And you're ignoring and/or perverting our experience.

Through such endeavor, you imply very strongly that we're nothing but a bunch of mindless automatons who never exercise free will or independent thought.  And this is patently false.  Just because we choose to do things that you will never understand does not mean that we haven't considered, pondered, weighed, and made heartfelt decisions on how to live our lives.  Take that out of your complaint throughout this thread, and you will understand just how little there is left of your arguments.

Edited by Carborendum
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Exiled said:

It's tough to talk to the defensive but I will try anyway.  I think you know what I am talking about.  The idea is to keep people in the church boat.  The idea is to shut-down the wrong kinds of questions.  The idea is that in certain areas of life, such as paying tithing first and foremost, and going to the many meetings, etc. (20 to 25 hrs per week for some), one should follow the prophet unquestioningly and do these things.  Don't question why and follow the example of blind obedience given of Adam in the PofGP where he told the angel, heroically, that he didn't know why he was doing what he did, only that God commanded him.  Don't question the many areas of church history because it will be solved in the future at some point so keep on giving the tangible to the church today because some intangible reward awaits the faithful in some future world.  Don't listen to questionable podcasts or read questionable literature because they might give one ideas.  Don't think for yourself when it comes to the church.  Just believe, etc., etc.

I think that you are a little out of date Every organization wants to keep their membership. What would an organization be without a membership. And I don't see anyone closing down questions about the lds church. People are free to read what they wish to read.I see no book burnings from salt lake. Of course dues must be paid. Without dues an organization will not survive. Every organization need money to survive and to grow. No problem there. Many members read Leonard Arrington's book in the 70s abut church history. It was pretty open about history. And now there are the JSP with much detailed information about Joesph Smith. And we also have Rough Stone Rolling from 2005 written by Bushman.

People have less critical thinking skills these days. In the past, members in the US had huge personal libraries full of church books. And they read them. Many had BYs Journal of Discourses among other books. And old timers knew much about church history. It didn't matter because many people had strong personal testimonies built upon by spiritual experiences. It had very little to do with follow the prophet than with strong spiritual experiences that could not be explained. I had two. And this has kept one of my feet in the church door.

People have been listening to podcasts for years and some have fallen away. Others have grown stronger. Here is the foundation: there is a book of mormon. How did it come about? Who wrote it? where were the pens and paper bought? Much paper needed to be used by the writer, not to mention feathered pens. Why did 11 people have a 'groupthink' testimony written inside the book. And many of these men never denied their testimony. And emma? Why did she allow so many people to head west...some good friends of hers if she knew of the fraud? And JS went to his death with his brother. No cool aid was past out for the groupthink suicide.

I think that you are barking up the wrong tree.

https://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Experience-HISTORY-LATTER-DAY-SAINTS/dp/0252062361

 

Edited by why me

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, you're saying that Groupthink can be applied when people say "the debate on climate change is over", or does that only apply to people you disagree with?  

Tell me, how is "I'm going to trust the majority..." any different than "my religion is true above all others"?

Groupthink can be applied by anyone.

Trusting the majority of scientists who've worked on the subject of climate change is based on the scientific method. The ability to use empirical evidence draw conclusions.

As for the religion...that is merely an opinion that cannot be empirically tested and relies on Hebrews 11:1 as a rationalization for an assumed reality.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, why me said:

Here is the foundation: there is a book of mormon. How did it come about? Who wrote it? where were the pens and paper bought? Much paper needed to be used by the writer, not to mention feathered pens. Why did 11 people have a 'groupthink' testimony written inside the book. And many of these men never denied their testimony. And emma? Why did she allow so many people to head west...some good friends of hers if she knew of the fraud? And JS went to his death with his brother. No cool aid was past out for the groupthink suicide.

I think that you are barking up the wrong tree.

https://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Experience-HISTORY-LATTER-DAY-SAINTS/dp/0252062361

 

It's a little different than what you characterize hereinabove.  The actual history isn't so heroic.  But sometimes the truth is dull.

How did it come about?  Interesting question but irrelevant when DNA, literary criticism, deutero isaiah, anachronisms, impossible population growth of bofm people, geography problems, etc., etc., etc. clearly show a 19th century composition.

Who wrote it?  Oliver Cowdery wrote down most of the dictation that Joseph Smith did.

Where were the pens and paper bought?  I don't know.  What does that matter?

11 witnesses - see Dan Vogel and others for how Joseph the magician performed this act

Emma had the power to stop people from going west? 

JS didn't want to die as is evidenced by his firing his weapon into the attackers.  He had every right to defend himself and shouldn't have been murdered like that.  Political/religious leaders get assassinated from time to time.  It was definitely a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Groupthink can be applied by anyone.

So, you are admitting you're also guilty of groupthink.  At least you're being consistent.

23 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Trusting the majority of scientists who've worked on the subject of climate change is based on the scientific method. The ability to use empirical evidence draw conclusions.

We have yet to see that evidence or any empirical evidence that has proved it conclusively.

The "majority of scientists" you cite does not coincide with the deference to scientific method.  Of the polls taken of climate scientists, over 70% of them never did any scientific investigation.  They did not do any independent models.  They did NOTHING that would be considered scientific investigation.  They simply read the IPCC report and said,"OK, that's the accepted fact now.  I guess I'll have to go with it."  Talk about groupthink!!

Of the 30% who remained, most of them were not agreeing that man causes all of our climate ills due to carbon emissions.  They only agreed that there was such a thing as greenhouse gases, and that CO2 was among them.  And it is also agreed that an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere will cause a rise in temperatures.

What is disagreed on is the extent to which man contributes and the extent to which CO2 contributes.

23 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

As for the religion...that is merely an opinion that cannot be empirically tested

Yes and no.  It can be empirically tested on an individual level.  But it cannot reliably be repeated on a mass level simply because there are too many variables which cannot be controlled or accounted for.  But this can be said of many so called "scientific truths" that we base our current technology on.

23 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

and relies on Hebrews 11:1 as a rationalization for an assumed reality.

I'm afraid that taking a single verse out of context does you no favors.  It is also unfortunate that the word "faith" has taken on a completely different meaning than the original meaning.

Quote

complete trust or confidence in someone or something

 -- Google dictionary

Faith is trust to the point of action.  By definition, it was not proof.  I trust my wife that she will pick me up when I get off of work.  Is that proof?  No, of course not.  But that doesn't mean it's nothing more than a "rationalization for an assumed reality".  It is the trust/belief that is strong enough to motivate me to get out on the curb outside of my building and wait for her.

The rest of the chapter (Heb 11) talks about what faith can bring us.  If we simply trust in the Lord strong enough to live according to His commandments, then we will find out there is SO much more to the reality of existence than we perceive with our senses.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Exiled said:

11 witnesses - see Dan Vogel and others for how Joseph the magician performed this act

Emma had the power to stop people from going west? 

JS didn't want to die as is evidenced by his firing his weapon into the attackers.  He had every right to defend himself and shouldn't have been murdered like that.  Political/religious leaders get assassinated from time to time.  It was definitely a crime.

Was Dan there?

Emma did not like polygamy nor did she like Brigham. She also had friends who went west. She only had to say: It's all a fraud. And the church is history. She didn't.

The gun was smuggled in. It was in the possession of Hyrum. He was shot in the head and Joseph picked up the gun and fired the pea shooter because he saw his brother die. See Rough Stone Rolling page 549

Edited by why me

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Exiled said:

Who wrote it?  Oliver Cowdery wrote down most of the dictation that Joseph Smith did.

Where were the pens and paper bought?  I don't know.  What does that matter?

 

No one saw a manuscript. And emma account is quite compelling. Put your head in a hat and write a book with your friend writing what you say on paper. And see what happens.

It is an interesting point about the pens and paper. Let me put it this way. Lets say Joesph goes to the general store and buys 100 pieces of paper and five pens. He begins to write. Rough drafts, crumpled paper etc. He goes back to the store for 50 pieces of paper and another pen etc.  Suspicious? Suddenly a book comes out and Joesph claims divine origin. What does the store clerk do? Remain silent? And lets just say that the clerk or store owner knew Joseph. A great starter for a conversation would be a simple question: So, Joe, why all the paper and pens?

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, why me said:

No one saw a manuscript. And emma account is quite compelling. Put your head in a hat and write a book with your friend writing what you say on paper. And see what happens.

It is an interesting point about the pens and paper. Let me put it this way. Lets say Joesph goes to the general store and buys 100 pieces of paper and five pens. He begins to write. Rough drafts, crumpled paper etc. He goes back to the store for 50 pieces of paper and another pen etc.  Suspicious? Suddenly a book comes out and Joesph claims divine origin. What does the store clerk do? Remain silent? And lets just say that the clerk or store owner knew Joseph. A great starter for a conversation would be a simple question: So, Joe, why all the paper and pens?

The printer saw the manuscript and offered to insert punctuation in order to make it more readable. I guess the EmodE or backwoods crew (unsure which) didn't believe in punctuation?

The three supposed unimpeachable witnesses say the rock 'n hat method was used. I thought that was settled.

Your paper and pens point is meaningless speculation without any witnesses. I don't see where you are going with this. Are there any witnesses to back up your story?

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, why me said:

Was Dan there?

Emma did not like polygamy nor did she like Brigham. She also had friends who went west. She only had to say: It's all a fraud. And the church is history. She didn't.

The gun was smuggled in. It was in the possession of Hyrum. He was shot in the head and Joseph picked up the gun and fired the pea shooter because he saw his brother die. See Rough Stone Rolling page 549

I think there is every indication that by firing the pistol, Joseph was defending the unarmed occupants of the room — John Taylor And Willard Richards — who were not there as accused individuals but as supportive friends. 

Consider the fact that Joseph jumped from the window into the clutches of the bloodthirsty mob and the certain death that awaited him below. Was it not to divert the mobbers’ Attention away from Elder Taylor and Elder Richard, a heroic act in which he succeeded? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/10/2019 at 9:57 AM, Exiled said:

I guess how you feel or how you perceive how others feel should govern this?  Thanks for the testimony in any event.

"But we receive no such (explanation) until after the trial of our (obedience)."  I think that sums up what I am talking about.  Do it, for the organization and for heaven sake don't complain, then wait for however long it takes to get some answer that will supposedly rationalize what you've been doing all these years.  Perhaps even wait until after death ....  Too bad this method is also what the nefarious use to trap the unwary.  I just don't think a God would require such.  For what end?  Learning can be had without all the pressure and discomfort of going down a path blindly.  I don't perform trust games on my son just to see if he will follow whatever I think to impose on him.  We are not in the military where blind obedience represses the instinct to run the other way. 

One is, of course, free to not accept Divine counsel and obey Divine law.  The process you describe, and object to, is of God, not of man (or the Church).  Jesus said doing God’s will is a prerequisite to knowing His doctrine.  He also referenced on many occasions those who heard but did not understand and those who saw but did not see.

So believers don’t obey for the “organization” as you suggest but out of love for God and a desire to see and understand.

You are free to raise your child as you see fit, including no “trust games.”  Our Eternal Father is also free to raise His children as He sees fit in His infinite wisdom.  And faith and trust appear to be core principles in His divine parenting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think there is every indication that by firing the pistol, Joseph was defending the unarmed occupants of the room — John Taylor And Willard Richards — who were not there as accused individuals but as supportive friends. 

Consider the fact that Joseph jumped from the window into the clutches of the bloodthirsty mob and the certain death that awaited him below. Was it not to divert the mobbers’ Attention away from Elder Taylor and Elder Richard, a heroic act in which he succeeded? 

I think that you are right. Unfortunately, our friend will not accept it. The poster has their own interpretation of lds history that has been taken from the more negative side of interpretations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 6/10/2019 at 9:57 AM, Exiled said:

Too bad this method is also what the nefarious use to trap the unwary.  I just don't think a God would require such.  For what end?  Learning can be had without all the pressure and discomfort of going down a path blindly.  I don't perform trust games on my son just to see if he will follow whatever I think to impose on him.  We are not in the military where blind obedience represses the instinct to run the other way.

But it isn't going down a path blindly in my experience.  While there are many things I am waiting on for understanding, I have been given answers for many other things.  So the path is at least partially lit, a map with quite a few basic details provided...

I don't see it as a trust game either, God withholding information just to test our faith.  Rather I see the current lack of understanding in somethings as a necessary part of the learning experience, needed so that we have the opportunity to create our own meaning for what we experience rather than have it imposed on us....including learning what is important to us.

Think of it as similar to watching a well done movie of a favourite book.  The experience of the book will be very different if one sees the movie first for most people.  They will see the book through the eyes of the director and actors who have already interpreted the book for them to a great extent.  (I had read a small part of Good Omens prior to seeing the series...while prior to watching it, I was still working on vizualizing the characters, understanding context, motivations, etc., once I watched it, all that was dropped in my lap without effort on my part...reminds me of why I always need to read the book first, even with great productions; the movie experience is fun, but when reading a book, I want a book experience, not a repeat with slight modifications movie 'night').

By not telling us what the commandments mean for him first, God allows us to find out what they mean to us and then when we learn more of his point of view, it can add great additional insight and commitment to the behaviour or it may help teach us what limits we prefer to put on our choices in accepting or refusing God's blessings.

I don't see much purpose to mortality beyond getting a body if we were given a detailed Tour Guide book/care and maintenance manual for mortal life.

 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 6/10/2019 at 12:00 PM, Carborendum said:

The "majority of scientists" you cite does not coincide with the deference to scientific method.  Of the polls taken of climate scientists, over 70% of them never did any scientific investigation.  They did not do any independent models.  They did NOTHING that would be considered scientific investigation.  They simply read the IPCC report and said,"OK, that's the accepted fact now.  I guess I'll have to go with it."  Talk about groupthink!!

I think this is confusion over how the scientific method works. Most scientists examine data by looking at papers and replication of experiments in other papers to form their conclusions. Even within pure empirical papers you'll find lots of footnotes referencing other papers and in particular defended theoretical models. What scientists do is look at this data, look at how many others have investigated the data, look at the measuring methods, and try to find flaws. While in one sense the views of scientists in other fields isn't a strong indication as scientists within the field, most scientists understand the types of flaws. In this case someone might not be an expert in meteorology or climate but say be an expert in physics and understand the theory behind work. This doesn't mean everything is correct. So for instance the so-called pause in heating from a few years ago was due to the ocean absorbing an unexpected amount of heat deeper in the ocean. Any science always has the unexpected and only a fool thinks predictions are fully determinate. Yet the evidence for human caused climate change is extremely overwhelming. Where scientists disagree, even within climate studies, is over the rate in the future.

To portray this as groupthink though bespeaks a certain misunderstanding of how science works and is pursued. That's not to say scientists don't get attached to theories. There's a joke that new theories advance when the promoters of old theories die off. But that's more than a little of an exaggeration. New models typically face resistance precisely because science as a social endeavor demands skepticism as part of the replication process. Human climate change has faced numerous tests by skeptics and survived all of them. That's telling.

Again this doesn't mean future predictions are correct. There is I think no shortage of hyperbole in the press over the future of climate change. But it is a real worry that I think is pretty solidly established.

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think this is confusion over how the scientific method works. Most scientists examine data by looking at papers and replication of experiments in other papers to form their conclusions. Even within pure empirical papers you'll find lots of footnotes referencing other papers and in particular defended theoretical models. What scientists do is look at this data, look at how many others have investigated the data, look at the measuring methods, and try to find flaws. While in one sense the views of scientists in other fields isn't a strong indication as scientists within the field, most scientists understand the types of flaws. In this case someone might not be an expert in meteorology or climate but say be an expert in physics and understand the theory behind work. This doesn't mean everything is correct. So for instance the so-called pause in heating from a few years ago was due to the ocean absorbing an unexpected amount of heat deeper in the ocean. Any science always has the unexpected and only a fool thinks predictions are fully determinate. Yet the evidence for human caused climate change is extremely overwhelming. Where scientists disagree, even within climate studies, is over the rate in the future.

To portray this as groupthink though bespeaks a certain misunderstanding of how science works and is pursued. That's not to say scientists don't get attached to theories. There's a joke that new theories advance when the promoters of old theories die off. But that's more than a little of an exaggeration. New models typically face resistance precisely because science as a social endeavor demands skepticism as part of the replication process. Human climate change has faced numerous tests by skeptics and survived all of them. That's telling.

Again this doesn't mean future predictions are correct. There is I think no shortage of hyperbole in the press over the future of climate change. But it is a real worry that I think is pretty solidly established.

At Glacier National Park, they were obliged to change the information panels this year. Seems they hadn't been updated in a while. The signs were still saying that the glaciers would be gone by 2020. That's next year.

Oops.

A new application to Al Gore's words "an inconvenient truth."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/07/glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs/

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, why me said:

I think that you are right. Unfortunately, our friend will not accept it. The poster has their own interpretation of lds history that has been taken from the more negative side of interpretations.

Yes, isn't it touching how tenaciously they cling to their negative view of things? It's almost like religious devotion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

At Glacier National Park, they were obliged to change the information panels this year. Seems they hadn't been updated in a while. The signs were still saying that the glaciers would be gone by 2020. That's next year.

Oops.

A new application to Al Gore's words "an inconvenient truth."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/07/glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs/

 

Having grown up there, most of the glaciers are disappearing sadly. Glacier looks very different from when I used to hike there as a teen or even during college. We used to hike up to Grinnell  Glacier in the late 90's, rappel down into the crevices and climb out to practice ice climbing. (You get a lot of upside down stuff that tends not to form as frequently on small waterfalls) While it's not completely gone, doing that sort of climbing is impossible and it's a tiny shadow of itself. 

As I said the disputes aren't over whether human caused global warming is happening but the rate it was happening. Some tend to pick the top end of predictions for activist reasons while those really aren't nearly as likely as the middle of predictions. Also as I mentioned there was a "pause" in the naughts due to the heat going into deep water heating. However since then heating has increase.

That_Global_Warming_Hiatus__It_Never_Happened__Two_New_Studies_Explain_Why____InsideClimate_News.png.7ad342f3e5d085caa003babc7f636889.png

Here's a picture of Grinnell Glacier now I found online. When I climbed there 20 years ago most that lake was deep glacier. When my dad was a kid it was nearly all covered. Here's a wider look. Basically all that's left is what is in the shade of the mountain most of the day. So it's not gone, but it's dramatically retreated. Other glaciers in Glacier Park have shrunk substantially.

If you look at Athabasca glacier up in Banff it's shrunk a ridiculous amount. My wife and I went there a little while after my son (now 14) was born. At that time the glacier came up to near the road. So these things are happening, just not as fast as the worst fear mongers were saying. But in a way that's the difference between having six months to live and finding out you lived two years. It's still better not to have a terminal illness.

 

 

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, isn't it touching how tenaciously they cling to their negative view of things? It's almost like religious devotion.

Let us pray. Please let us view the world as an outsider views us. Amen.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think there is every indication that by firing the pistol, Joseph was defending the unarmed occupants of the room — John Taylor And Willard Richards — who were not there as accused individuals but as supportive friends. 

Consider the fact that Joseph jumped from the window into the clutches of the bloodthirsty mob and the certain death that awaited him below. Was it not to divert the mobbers’ Attention away from Elder Taylor and Elder Richard, a heroic act in which he succeeded? 

Oh, let mercy reign and let us move toward a more rational position.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Having grown up there, most of the glaciers are disappearing sadly. Glacier looks very different from when I used to hike there as a teen or even during college. We used to hike up to Grinnell  Glacier in the late 90's, rappel down into the crevices and climb out to practice ice climbing. (You get a lot of upside down stuff that tends not to form as frequently on small waterfalls) While it's not completely gone, doing that sort of climbing is impossible and it's a tiny shadow of itself. 

As I said the disputes aren't over whether human caused global warming is happening but the rate it was happening. Some tend to pick the top end of predictions for activist reasons while those really aren't nearly as likely as the middle of predictions. Also as I mentioned there was a "pause" in the naughts due to the heat going into deep water heating. However since then heating has increase.

That_Global_Warming_Hiatus__It_Never_Happened__Two_New_Studies_Explain_Why____InsideClimate_News.png.7ad342f3e5d085caa003babc7f636889.png

Here's a picture of Grinnell Glacier now I found online. When I climbed there 20 years ago most that lake was deep glacier. When my dad was a kid it was nearly all covered. Here's a wider look. Basically all that's left is what is in the shade of the mountain most of the day. So it's not gone, but it's dramatically retreated. Other glaciers in Glacier Park have shrunk substantially.

If you look at Athabasca glacier up in Banff it's shrunk a ridiculous amount. My wife and I went there a little while after my son (now 14) was born. At that time the glacier came up to near the road. So these things are happening, just not as fast as the worst fear mongers were saying. But in a way that's the difference between having six months to live and finding out you lived two years. It's still better not to have a terminal illness.

 

 

What I've gathered as a casual observer of this topic and fairly avid reader and watcher of current political events in general is that there aren't very many (if any) outright "deniers" of climate change or even very many who deny that human activity contributes to it.

Where I think those who promote an awareness of it do themselves and their cause a disservice is in hysterical alarmism, such as that exhibited by Al Gore and his now-largely-discredited "An Inconvenient Truth" movie of a couple of decades ago;  and Ocasio-Cortez, who wrings her hands about the world ending in 12 years, then backs away from it, deriding those who took "literally" what she now calls "dry humor" and "sarcasm" as having the intelligence of "a sea sponge," this despite her having obviously been very much in earnest at the times she uttered the warning and her followers and fellow party members having jumped on the bandwagon with her; and faux-scientist popularizers such as Bill Nye, who hinted that "climate-change deniers" ought to be imprisoned like the Enron perpetrators, thus prompting the derisive nickname "Bill Nye the fascist guy."

I have little doubt that two or three dedades ago or whatever the time frame, those who fashioned the signs and the broshures and the videos for Glacier National Park forecasting that the glaciers would have vanished by 2020 thought they were being very measured and rational. Yet we're almost there, and the glaciers are still with us. 

Perhaps the lesson to be learned from all this is to be very careful about declaring something as "settled science" or having gone beyond a fit topic for reasoned discussion and debate or being supported by "extremely overwhelming" evidence.

Edited to add:  I admit to knowing next to nothing about Glacier National Park, but I was interested in what it said in the article I linked to about how the accuracy of “before-and-after” pictures can be influenced by the fact that glacier size can fluctuate considerably in the course of a single season. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Let us pray. Please let us view the world as an outsider views us. Amen.

 

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Oh, let mercy reign and let us move toward a more rational position.

So have you found any posts yet where I uttered the "follow the Brethren mantra"? Remember, you said it was in "almost all" of my posts."

The CFR is still on the table.

 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

So have you found any posts yet where I uttered the "follow the Brethren mantra"? Remember, you said it was in "almost all" of my posts."

The CFR is still on the table.

 

Follow the brethren permeates your thoughts. Just admit it and let's be done with this. Unfortunately, I can't enter therein, so it will be impossible to prove, given your favorite team is probably the Dodgers and mine the Giants.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Follow the brethren permeates your thoughts. Just admit it and let's be done with this. Unfortunately, I can't enter therein, so it will be impossible to prove, given your favorite team is probably the Dodgers and mine the Giants.

Then perhaps it would be best for you to forebear from making ignorant assertions about what “permeates” another’s thoughts. Or from making rash, and transparently false declarations about the content of another’s posts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Then perhaps it would be best for you to forebear from making ignorant assertions about what “permeates” another’s thoughts. Or from making rash, and transparently false declarations about the content of another’s posts. 

Ok Scott. I know and you know and everyone else knows that you want to follow the brethren and want to let everyone know this at certain times where you think the faith is being attacked and "follow the brethren" is needed to bolster faith.  I disagree with this as I know personally some of the brethren and believe that they are just men, all the time. The ones I know are good people but just ordinary like you and me. So, why just follow them, just because they make some pronouncement?

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...