Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Avatar4321

Julie Rowe rumor

Recommended Posts

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

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. 

Yes they're melting all summer so it matters a great deal if you're photographing in early summer or the end of summer. However where it's water now was 30' of ice not that long ago.

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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;  

The worst thing that happened to climate change concern, in my opinion, was Al Gore. He was a divisive figure due to the tie election in 2000. Democrats were saying Bush wasn't legitimate and Republicans reacted by disliking Gore even more. Prior to Gore's film it was rather mainstream in the GOP to accept human climate change. The debate was really over costs and approaches for solutions. After Gore's film there was a big backlash in the GOP that made it difficult for people in the GOP to support climate change. It'd been irrevocably politicized and polarized in a very unhealthy way. Suddenly it because a signal of ones tribe. One one side there was a push for outright denying or at minimum ridiculing it. People would pollute just to troll the left. On the other side it wasn't enough for it to be a significant problem with huge costs. Now it had to be apocalyptic. To not be all guns blazing and taking the worst predictions was to not really be supporting the tribe. This polarization and move to signaling "authenticity" to one's tribe rather than science made the problem worse. While figures like Limbaugh or Fox News deserves a lot of blame, honestly I think the whole thing ends up due to Gore's film.

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

As I noted and you can see on the graph for a period of a little more than 10 years there was a pause in surface temperatures due to deep water absorption. No one expected that. It was a very reasonable assumption. However as you can see by the graph it seems like warming has picked up a great deal so we may be in for the higher end of predictions from now on. I hope not. We were lucky that our predictions including conservative ones, were high for a short time. However our predictions for the next phase could also just as easily be low.

It's worth noting though that at this stage were the US to drop its emissions it wouldn't do that much simply because of the size of Asia. They're in the drivers seat now. I'd also add that had liberals pushed for a heavy move to nuclear in the 70's through 90's it would have made a huge difference in global warming. Yet they opposed it. While the benefits aren't quite as significant now simply due to the improvements in solar, it's still something that could reign in a lot of emissions. Extremely few who accept climate change are willing to go nuclear.

I think we're at the stage where large scale geo-engineering projects are needed. However I can't see countries coming together for that.

 

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Exiled said:

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

As I explained in a previous post: Hyrum had the gun. It was smuggled in by an outsider. Both Hyrum and Joseph were fathers. Would you have said no to the gun when it was offered? Hyrum was shot dead almost immediately when the mob was rushing up the stairs. Joseph reacted by picking up the gun and firing it into the mob. It misfired. And the rest is history. Once Joseph was dead....the other people in the jail were left alone and they returned to their families.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, why me said:

As I explained in a previous post: Hyrum had the gun. It was smuggled in by an outsider. Both Hyrum and Joseph were fathers. Would you have said no to the gun when it was offered? Hyrum was shot dead almost immediately when the mob was rushing up the stairs. Joseph reacted by picking up the gun and firing it into the mob. It misfired. And the rest is history. Once Joseph was dead....the other people in the jail were left alone and they returned to their families.

I don't blame him for self-defense in the face of a criminal mob, bent on killing him. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/5/2019 at 12:25 PM, Exiled said:

Jerk? I disagree with you.  I disagree with your "follow the brethren" mantra that comes out in almost all of your comments but I don't think I was a jerk about it. I don't think people want to have an echo chamber here. So, disagreements will happen.

4 hours 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.

Exiled did not write that you uttered the follow the Brethren mantra. He wrote that it comes out in almost all of your comments. Using this phraseology, mantra could be thought of as a concept that doesn't have to use that exact wording that you are asking for in your CFR.

I haven't read every single one of your 28,000 posts, but I don't remember reading one in which you opposed the brethren. In fact, you seem to always be defending the brethren, which suggests the follow the brethren mantra referred to by Exiled.

Have you ever written a post that opposed the brethren?

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, why me said:

But in a previous post, you more or less did. Or the way you spun it, made it seem so.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/saints-v1/44-a-lamb-to-the-slaughter?lang=eng

Try and take a look at it as an outsider would, without all the religious extras added in and you'll probably see a case of an unjust, criminal, angry mob seeking to murder some prisoners and the prisoners trying to defend themselves. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

To portray this as groupthink though bespeaks a certain misunderstanding of how science works and is pursued.

No misunderstanding.  It's a matter of trust.  Did all these scientists actually study all the information in the report and independently study and scrutinize it as if they were independently peer reviewing it?  No.  There has been no series of papers by said scientists that would support that.  No series of second generation reports that would account for the large number of those surveyed that included an analysis of the data points or critique of the models.

There was simply acceptance of the conclusions without any scrutiny by the population at large.  They simply accepted it and repeated it.  That is groupthink.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

No misunderstanding.  It's a matter of trust.  Did all these scientists actually study all the information in the report and independently study and scrutinize it as if they were independently peer reviewing it?  No.  There has been no series of papers by said scientists that would support that.  No series of second generation reports that would account for the large number of those surveyed that included an analysis of the data points or critique of the models.

There was simply acceptance of the conclusions without any scrutiny by the population at large.  They simply accepted it and repeated it.  That is groupthink.

This is an example of a false dichotomy. Either they acted like full peer reviewers for an article or their views are untrustworthy. Can you see why that might be a problematic stance even ignoring the fact you don’t know how much knowledge they have?

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

This is an example of a false dichotomy. Either they acted like full peer reviewers for an article or their views are untrustworthy. Can you see why that might be a problematic stance even ignoring the fact you don’t know how much knowledge they have?

What raises red flags for me is dogmatic insistence about it being “settled science” or reflecting the “scientific consensus.” Those are claims made by Bill Nye, for one. I know he is not a scientist, but he does appear to purport to speak for the “scientific community.” 

Earlier in this thread, Valentinus said there is no debating it. He soon backed away from that as a poor choice of words. But it does seem to aptly summarize the attitude of many today, an attitude that strikes me as unscientific 

And going against the political winds can adversely affect objective science where such matters as the awarding and sustaining of academic grants are concerned. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What raises red flags for me is dogmatic insistence about it being “settled science” or reflecting the “scientific consensus.” Those are claims made by Bill Nye, for one. I know he is not a scientist, but he does appear to purport to speak for the “scientific community.” 

Do scientists saying relativity is settled science also raise your ire? If not, why not?

In general I think judging science by what non-scientists, particularly political actors, say is not wise. But human caused global warming really is settled at this stage. The debate is about rates of change, as I mentioned.

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Earlier in this thread, Valentinus said there is no debating it. He soon backed away from that as a poor choice of words. But it does seem to aptly summarize the attitude of many today, an attitude that strikes me as unscientific 

One can always debate it. It's just that most who debate it don't do a good job or are also political actors engaged in sophistry. Again I think there's a very valid debate to have over how to respond or expected rates. Unfortunately these tend to get conflated.

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And going against the political winds can adversely affect objective science where such matters as the awarding and sustaining of academic grants are concerned. 

There's lots of issues with how grants are given. I think funding higher risk studies and fewer established scientists would be wise. However if someone has a grant proposal over why very established science is wrong they better have a very compelling argument.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

This is an example of a false dichotomy. Either they acted like full peer reviewers for an article or their views are untrustworthy. Can you see why that might be a problematic stance even ignoring the fact you don’t know how much knowledge they have?

I'm not sure it is a false dichotomy.  You're simply turning it into a question of semantics and characterization.  Have you considered the necessary ties between "scientific consensus" and "groupthink"?  Do you not see the similarities in denotation, but obvious connotative differences?

To get to a deeper understanding of my meaning I'll give this disclaimer.  Just because a person gives an quick answer to a single quick question doesn't mean they aren't generally speaking a trustworthy person.  There is much in the context that can change that characterization.  So, no I'm not saying that they really are untrustworthy people.  But do I trust them on this one issue?  How can I?  I don't even know what question was asked in the survey.

I was surprised to find out that I fit the category of a "climate scientist" in my profession -- at least from an article I once read on Huffpo.  I never considered myself to be.  But apparently my profession (Certified Floodplain Manager) was in the list.  (ASIDE: as a CFM, I often have to deal with rainfall estimates and am part of committees that determine what data is sufficient to change the tables and charts used by others who calculate flood properties.)

As such, I'll tell you that I often just read articles and papers to get the information.  Other people are responsible for peer reviewing it.  And by reading enough of these papers and articles on the same topic, I can get a sense of a consensus.  I'll read it enough to see that it at least appears to have been done right.  Nothing jumps out at me.  Nothings seems amiss.  So, it looks good.  I accept it.  This is not because I've thoroughly evaluated the data and methodology or studies or whatever all by myself.  I'm just reading other people's work.   Yes, scientific consensus really does mean groupthink to that degree. 

Only on a few topics that pique my interest do I really look at data or methodology.  And when I do, I can say that I'm usually satisfied.  But every once in a while I see something that doesn't make sense.  I try to contact people who can get my objection out there.  Sometimes it falls on deaf ears.  Sometimes it results in a change.

Then there is the matter of trusting the survey itself.

You are trusting whoever presented the statistic or gathered the statistic.  What was the question that was asked?  What specifically did these climate scientists believe or reject?  The thrust of my argument from the beginning was that there are certainly a few scientific truths that are the consensus.  But those items of consensus are not what you're purporting them to be.

A climate scientist is asked,"Do you believe global warming is real?"  Well, duh-uh.  That's just a matter of looking at temperature data for the past 1000 years.  It has risen, overall. I don't think there is anyone who is going to say that we have not seen a pattern of warming over the past couple centuries.  But there is a question of how much and what the cause is.

A climate scientist is asked,"Do you believe greenhouse gases are a real phenomenon?"  Again, absolutely. This is just plain physics that we can calculate from all known quantities.  I would say "basic" physics.  But it is far from basic.  However, those who know the equations and variables can certainly show that greenhouse gases do exist and they do what people say they do.  But again, how much?

The whole thrust of my argument was not that climate alarmists have it all wrong.  They don't.  And neither do the people on my side of the aisle.  I can't tell you how many people I've had to correct when they said that CO2 does nothing to the temperature.

My argument was about what variables produce how much impact on our climate?  And that is where the media that you're listening to have it all wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I was surprised to find out that I fit the category of a "climate scientist" in my profession -- at least from an article I once read on Huffpo.

To be polite that might not be the best source for information. If you're going to discuss a particular survey it might be wise to narrow which survey we're talking about. If the point is just that some surveys are bad or untrustworthy I certainly agree. I'm not sure that really gets at the issue though.

Rather than going to the Huffington Post, I'm willing to discuss a peer reviewed paper like "Consensus on Consensus: a Synthesis of Consensus Estimates on Human-caused Global Warming." I'm admittedly far less likely to engage with some random article on a news site with questionable scientific accuracy.

25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

My argument was about what variables produce how much impact on our climate?  And that is where the media that you're listening to have it all wrong.

The main consensus claim is that the primary cause is human activity. While I suspect the moderators will shut down the thread if we veer too far from theology, I think you have it wrong if the "media that I'm listening to" (i.e. scientific journals) "have it all wrong." I don't get my science news from the popular press - it just gets things wrong too often. I'll frequently get a first order description from narrow popular science journals like New Scientist or Scientific American but it's so trivial to go to the original source that I usually do that if I find the topic interesting. Good news reports like NS or SA, while they may sensationalize somewhat, also provide links to the original sources.

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Do scientists saying relativity is settled science also raise your ire? If not, why not?

In general I think judging science by what non-scientists, particularly political actors, say is not wise. But human caused global warming really is settled at this stage. The debate is about rates of change, as I mentioned.

One can always debate it. It's just that most who debate it don't do a good job or are also political actors engaged in sophistry. Again I think there's a very valid debate to have over how to respond or expected rates. Unfortunately these tend to get conflated.

There's lots of issues with how grants are given. I think funding higher risk studies and fewer established scientists would be wise. However if someone has a grant proposal over why very established science is wrong they better have a very compelling argument.

And why do they need such a compelling argument? To get past the group-think obstacle, of course. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not surprised at all that Julie Rowe was excommunicated--listening to her podcasts last year, I was certain that it was only a matter of time.

Because I read Near death books and have heard a lot of NDE'ers speak about their experiences, I read her initial book in 2014 when it came out.  I want to give a writer the benefit of the doubt, but with her, it was difficult. From her own description, she had not had an NDE, she could claim an out of body experience or 'vision', but not an NDE.  Her style of telling of her experiences was odd.  She spent a lot of the book padding it with Bible stories which could have been found in an institute manual,  most of what she told, I knew from reading commentaries, so there was not really any new information; however, for a member who didn't have a lot of information on gospel info, she would be telling them things they did not know.  There were also little discrepancies in what she claimed.

The big red flag, though, was her references to healing--I did not know about energy healing at the time, and she was vague in the book--but what she said made me uncomfortable.  Later, as I learned about her involvement with a thing called emotion code/energy healing, my 'bad feeling' made complete sense to me. 

Then, when she started to write more books and do public firesides and radio shows, and then started her 5013c charity,  I was more concerned.

Then, she started saying some really strange things and sharing more her own narcissistic views of her 'prophetic' calling.  Since then, it's just gotten worse and worse.  She also displayed unreasonable paranoia and none of her prophesies ever came true.

 

It's amazing, if you've followed her evolution over the last five years from a 'simply housewife' who had an NDE to now--She believes  herself to have lived as Joan of Arc (she'd call it Multiple Mortal probations and for some reason thinks it's different from reincarnation) , she believes she will be plotted and killed by her former friends turned enemies and then in three days, she'll be translated and play a central role in the end times leading up to the second coming.   Regarding her excommunication, she believes that church leaders will come beg forgiveness one day for what they did (when the church has moved it's headquarters to Rexburg).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, alter idem said:

... Regarding her excommunication, she believes that church leaders will come beg forgiveness one day for what they did (when the church has moved it's headquarters to Rexburg). [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]


Where, other than the "book(s) of Julie Rowe" is that in prophecy? :huh::unknw:

 

Edited by Kenngo1969

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:


Where, other than the "book(s) of Julie Rowe" is that in prophecy? :huh::unknw:

 

In her podcast about her excommunication.  Iirc, I posted about it when someone asked in April and I may have included a time stamp

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, alter idem said:

... Regarding her excommunication, she believes that church leaders will come beg forgiveness one day for what they did (when the church has moved it's headquarters to Rexburg). (Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.)

 

 

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:


Where, other than the "book(s) of Julie Rowe" is that in prophecy? :huh::unknw:

 

 

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

In her podcast about her excommunication.  Iirc, I posted about it when someone asked in April and I may have included a time stamp

Oh, I have no doubt that she has prophesied that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will move its headquarters to Rexburg.  (I hear it's lovely in January. :rolleyes:)  I was hoping for, you know, chapter and verse from canonized scripture and/or from a current or former Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. :D 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/14/2019 at 9:09 AM, alter idem said:

I'm not surprised at all that Julie Rowe was excommunicated--listening to her podcasts last year, I was certain that it was only a matter of time.

Because I read Near death books and have heard a lot of NDE'ers speak about their experiences, I read her initial book in 2014 when it came out.  I want to give a writer the benefit of the doubt, but with her, it was difficult. From her own description, she had not had an NDE, she could claim an out of body experience or 'vision', but not an NDE.  Her style of telling of her experiences was odd.  She spent a lot of the book padding it with Bible stories which could have been found in an institute manual,  most of what she told, I knew from reading commentaries, so there was not really any new information; however, for a member who didn't have a lot of information on gospel info, she would be telling them things they did not know.  There were also little discrepancies in what she claimed.

The big red flag, though, was her references to healing--I did not know about energy healing at the time, and she was vague in the book--but what she said made me uncomfortable.  Later, as I learned about her involvement with a thing called emotion code/energy healing, my 'bad feeling' made complete sense to me. 

Then, when she started to write more books and do public firesides and radio shows, and then started her 5013c charity,  I was more concerned.

Then, she started saying some really strange things and sharing more her own narcissistic views of her 'prophetic' calling.  Since then, it's just gotten worse and worse.  She also displayed unreasonable paranoia and none of her prophesies ever came true.

 

It's amazing, if you've followed her evolution over the last five years from a 'simply housewife' who had an NDE to now--She believes  herself to have lived as Joan of Arc (she'd call it Multiple Mortal probations and for some reason thinks it's different from reincarnation) , she believes she will be plotted and killed by her former friends turned enemies and then in three days, she'll be translated and play a central role in the end times leading up to the second coming.   Regarding her excommunication, she believes that church leaders will come beg forgiveness one day for what they did (when the church has moved it's headquarters to Rexburg).

 

 

The shocking part is not that she says and may believes all this and much much more (cain tried poisoning her in the SLC airport;  certain spirits made secret pacts w lucifer in the pre-existence that God didn't know about and they slipped through and made it to mortaity anyway;  she is 4th member if the 1st presidency in NJ; all the encounters w evil spirits she details...) after all she is a deeply disturbed and sad individual.  No, the shocking part is how many people believe her.  There are FB pages with people pledging their undying belief in her.  Also the positive comments on the youtube vids railing against her excommunication was startling.

Really, my only question is why did it take so long to X her?

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Durangout said:

 my only question is why did it take so long to X her?

More than likely compassion.

Her leaders may have had as hard of time comprehending others believed her as you and therefore weren't fully aware of the life shattering impact she had on some.

My understanding is her following has dramatically shrunk, but even just a dozen or two diehard supporters can spread a lot of support online.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/20/2019 at 10:33 AM, Durangout said:

The shocking part is not that she says and may believes all this and much much more (cain tried poisoning her in the SLC airport;  certain spirits made secret pacts w lucifer in the pre-existence that God didn't know about and they slipped through and made it to mortaity anyway;  she is 4th member if the 1st presidency in NJ; all the encounters w evil spirits she details...) after all she is a deeply disturbed and sad individual.  No, the shocking part is how many people believe her.  There are FB pages with people pledging their undying belief in her.  Also the positive comments on the youtube vids railing against her excommunication was startling.

Really, my only question is why did it take so long to X her?

The Church doesn't usually rush to do this type of discipline

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/21/2019 at 3:52 PM, Avatar4321 said:

The Church doesn't usually rush to do this type of discipline

It can depend greatly on the person’s potential to lead others astray. Amasa Lyman, an early apostle, was removed from the quorum and the Church after he persistently denied the divinity of Christ in his public teachings though the Brethren felt this stemmed from mental illness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 6/11/2019 at 8:06 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

By and large there's a bias towards those in naturalism and park type things to be on the environmentalist side of politics for understandable reasons. (They aren't exactly well paying jobs) It's not at all surprising that there's a bias to most park signs and information. I could point you to lots of other examples I'm sure were we to go through the park signs. 

A better example from my family history was my grandfather who grew up on the Canadian side of Glacier and was a well known fixture there. He had been a trapper in the region back in the 30's and knew the area very well. At the time (1980's) the black footed ferret was listed as extinct in the region and was held up as an example of human interference in nature. Only problem was my grandfather saw them rather regularly in the area. He told the park naturalists this and they didn't react very well. That in turn angered him. So he set up cameras with motion detectors and got pictures of the black footed ferrets in the area. They still dismissed him. Nothing like facts to spoil a good narrative so sometimes the facts get dismissed if they are inconvenient.

As I said, one can dismiss the extremism of people for whom these things are like a religion without dismissing the actual science which is rather alarming. But I'd definitely not trust what a park ranger says about the science just because they're a park ranger. There's definitely a selection bias at work.

On 6/13/2019 at 7:36 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

What raises red flags for me is dogmatic insistence about it being “settled science” or reflecting the “scientific consensus.” Those are claims made by Bill Nye, for one. I know he is not a scientist, but he does appear to purport to speak for the “scientific community.” 

Earlier in this thread, Valentinus said there is no debating it. He soon backed away from that as a poor choice of words. But it does seem to aptly summarize the attitude of many today, an attitude that strikes me as unscientific 

And going against the political winds can adversely affect objective science where such matters as the awarding and sustaining of academic grants are concerned. 

I think it is pretty settled science. I think the magnitudes are unknown although we can make predictions. However since it's a complex system with elements we don't understand any prediction will be flawed. I think the problem is that skeptics who often have adopted skepticism for tribal reasons as much as anything always assume the predictions are too high. Likewise many political proponents, who often also adopt the issue as a tribal marker, always assume the predictions are too low. The reality is that we don't know, but the costs for it being too high are pretty high. Although hardly the apocalyptic scenario some portray. Neither side particularly wants to reason through the issue rationally and do a cost/benefit analysis. 

There is of course a lot of debate that's ongoing. The problem is that the skeptics who want to debate it often don't do so in an honest fashion. This makes those who see it as fairly settled annoyed. That in turn means they sometimes dismiss those with good questions when they shouldn't. There are those in the field raising questions such as Judith Curry or others. They accept climate change but also emphasize how much is not understood well and offer skepticism for the worst case scenarios. And for raising the questions of how apocalyptic it is even if we assume the worst UN figures, I think Bjorn Lomborg has interesting theories even if I don't buy him on everything. He did a recent EconTalk that was quite interesting - particularly the economic question of how to approach the problem. I think he dismisses extinction events a tad too much though.

 

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

By and large there's a bias towards those in naturalism and park type things to be on the environmentalist side of politics for understandable reasons. (They aren't exactly well paying jobs) It's not at all surprising that there's a bias to most park signs and information. I could point you to lots of other examples I'm sure were we to go through the park signs. 

A better example from my family history was my grandfather who grew up on the Canadian side of Glacier and was a well known fixture there. He had been a trapper in the region back in the 30's and knew the area very well. At the time (1980's) the black footed ferret was listed as extinct in the region and was held up as an example of human interference in nature. Only problem was my grandfather saw them rather regularly in the area. He told the park naturalists this and they didn't react very well. That in turn angered him. So he set up cameras with motion detectors and got pictures of the black footed ferrets in the area. They still dismissed him. Nothing like facts to spoil a good narrative so sometimes the facts get dismissed if they are inconvenient.

As I said, one can dismiss the extremism of people for whom these things are like a religion without dismissing the actual science which is rather alarming. But I'd definitely not trust what a park ranger says about the science just because they're a park ranger. There's definitely a selection bias at work.

I think it is pretty settled science. I think the magnitudes are unknown although we can make predictions. However since it's a complex system with elements we don't understand any prediction will be flawed. I think the problem is that skeptics who often have adopted skepticism for tribal reasons as much as anything always assume the predictions are too high. Likewise many political proponents, who often also adopt the issue as a tribal marker, always assume the predictions are too low. The reality is that we don't know, but the costs for it being too high are pretty high. Although hardly the apocalyptic scenario some portray. Neither side particularly wants to reason through the issue rationally and do a cost/benefit analysis. 

There is of course a lot of debate that's ongoing. The problem is that the skeptics who want to debate it often don't do so in an honest fashion. This makes those who see it as fairly settled annoyed. That in turn means they sometimes dismiss those with good questions when they shouldn't. There are those in the field raising questions such as Judith Curry or others. They accept climate change but also emphasize how much is not understood well and offer skepticism for the worst case scenarios. And for raising the questions of how apocalyptic it is even if we assume the worst UN figures, I think Bjorn Lomborg has interesting theories even if I don't buy him on everything. He did a recent EconTalk that was quite interesting - particularly the economic question of how to approach the problem. I think he dismisses extinction events a tad too much though.

 

Politics is a pretty large fly in the ointment of discussion of this particular issue. That much is clear. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/20/2019 at 9:33 AM, Durangout said:

The shocking part is not that she says and may believes all this and much much more (cain tried poisoning her in the SLC airport;  certain spirits made secret pacts w lucifer in the pre-existence that God didn't know about and they slipped through and made it to mortaity anyway;  she is 4th member if the 1st presidency in NJ; all the encounters w evil spirits she details...) after all she is a deeply disturbed and sad individual.  No, the shocking part is how many people believe her.  There are FB pages with people pledging their undying belief in her.  Also the positive comments on the youtube vids railing against her excommunication was startling.

Really, my only question is why did it take so long to X her?

I think they give people plenty of time to fix the problems themselves, when that doesn't happen they have to do something.  I think that's what happened with Julie Rowe.  If you listened to her podcasts, there was no question she was drifting off into apostasy with the false doctrines she was teaching and with all the claims she was making about her own 'mission'.  Her claims set her outside the chain of priesthood authority--Julie does not recognize any priesthood leader above her.  It reminds me of the story of Miriam and Moses---when she was struck with leprosy.  Maybe Eric Smith (he helps her with the podcasts and is credited as the scriptural scholar by her) should tell her about that bible story so she can learn something.  She claims the charges against her were false, but as one who has listened to her radio interviews and podcasts, I say she was rightly charged and since she refused to humble herself and even consider the charges, she was excommunicated.

 

She was also excommunicated for her continued practice of Energy healing, which she even stepped up.  She was warned, all the LDS energy healers were warned three years ago with the church's statement against Energy healing and then the next year when Elder Ballard reiterated that statement against the practice.  Some energy healers listened to the counsel of the Prophets and stopped, but not Julie--she has doubled down in her practice and has amped it up. 

She was accused of hurting the good name of the church--that comes from the fact that she is a public figure and was spreading false doctrines and practicing priestcraft (her energy healing) and was working diligently to try to raise publicity and popularity for herself, as she promoted her 5013c charity, books and podcasts.

Julie Rowe has a dedicated following who, if they don't wake up that she's leading them away, will likely follow her out of the church. I know she and Eric Smith both say that they believe in Pres. Nelson and that the CofJCofLDS is the true church, but I fully expect that in the next couple of years, that will change and she will decide the church is corrupt and apostate.  She already claims that the church has been infiltrated by wicked people and she's 'predicting' that we will see tons of general authorities leave the church.  When that doesn't happen, what is she to believe, but that the whole church has been taken over? And if she still has followers among the members, what will they believe, but what Julie Rowe tells them?

I don't think her Stake President had any choice but to excommunicate her(because of her obstinate and proud response to the disciplinary process) and it was obvious, listening to some of her podcasts that this was the way she was headed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/20/2019 at 1:58 PM, Calm said:

More than likely compassion.

Her leaders may have had as hard of time comprehending others believed her as you and therefore weren't fully aware of the life shattering impact she had on some.

My understanding is her following has dramatically shrunk, but even just a dozen or two diehard supporters can spread a lot of support online.

I'm quite certain Durangout never believed Julie's claims.  I think he was inferring that they should have held a disciplinary council a lot sooner!

While she's definitely lost some followers, you'd be surprised how much she still has.  She's still got lots of Energy healing clients, she's putting her podcasts back up, she does radio interviews and is popular on those (partly because she's controversial)  Last I heard she was still adored at AVOW.  I used to be on LDSFF and she had a following and many posters, while they didn't follow her, they felt she had every right to assume the role of LDS prophetess and saw the church's efforts as persecution.  Among the end-times doomsayer crowd, she's still effective.

  • Like 1

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...