I am the first of 11 children. When my mother took us out on the town with her, she sometimes got dirty looks or lectures from alarmed citizens who were shocked at such irresponsible behaviour. That was back in the 70s and 80s when people were still bracing for the imminent apocalyptic scenarios spelled out in Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb. My mother had no reason to doubt Ehrlich’s thesis that human populations would dramatically outpace the world’s resources leading to mass starvation. But she felt a strong spiritual call as a mother in Zion and trusted that God would honour His promise that “the earth is full and there is enough and to spare.” Ironically, alarmists today say precisely the opposite: that declining birthrates in the developed world are leading us to economic disaster.
When Ehrlich predicted imminent mass starvation, he was simply noting that the world’s resources were already stretched to capacity and couldn’t possibly sustain the billions of additional children coming into the world. But as it turned out, world population doubled, caloric consumption increased by 24% per person, and yet global death rates dramatically declined. When mass starvations did occur, their root causes were political instability, not global food shortage.
The Myth of Unsustainability
When people argue for “sustainability” they frequently fall into the Population Bomb trap. They make judgements about tomorrow based on the limitations of today. They don’t take into account the scientific innovations, economic transformations, and political changes that will likely take place. And by trying to restrict future consumption to match what is sustainable by today’s standards, they stifle the economic growth that fuels innovation and transformation, making their own apocalyptic scenarios all the more likely.
Some things in life are unsustainable. Elephant ivory is unsustainable. Overfishing in the ocean is unsustainable. We need regulations in place to protect these sorts of resources. But when we get to global warming, the conversation becomes much more complicated and our arguments increasingly hysterical and irrational. On the one hand, 50% of Americans don’t even believe in human-caused global warming. And on the other hand, we have frantic environmentalists who advocate unrealistic and counter-productive measures. Here are a few of the glaring blind spots in the debate on global warming.
Global Warming Blind Spots
1. Global warming is already here and it is here to stay. This doesn’t seem to be part of the conversation and yet it is the most urgent fact of the matter. Instead we argue endlessly about tiny reductions in CO2 emissions, as if any of that could make any difference or somehow turn back the clock. If we wanted to stop or slow down global warming, we should have started thinking about it 150 years ago, before we had created our massive fossil fuel dependent economy. It is too late for that conversation.
2. A reduction in worldwide CO2 emissions can’t come from government regulation. Government regulations won’t work because there is no central authority to enforce those regulations worldwide. And there is no moral authority either, because the US and other developed nations can’t ask developing nations to try and grow their economies while hobbling themselves with regulations that we never followed when we were growing our economies decades ago. Yet almost our entire conversation centres around trying to come up with the political will to enact regulations in one particular country or group of countries, regulations which can do nothing realistically to combat a problem as big as global warming. Subconsciously we all sense that it is a lost cause, which is why progress is never made.
3. A reduction in worldwide CO2 emissions can’t come from self-regulation either. Any economist will tell you that guilt is a poor economic incentive. If it makes you feel better to buy a fuel efficient car rather than an SUV, rest assured that a mother in Utah will more than counteract your environmental sensitivity by choosing to have yet another resource-gobbling baby. And she will be applauded for helping to prop-up a low-birthrate economy.
4. Solutions will come through innovation, not regulation. The solutions are already within reach: solar, nuclear, and wind. These resources are infinite, and once we learn how to harvest them cheaply, the world will experience a wave of technological innovation unlike anything we have ever seen. Imagine what could be done with cold fusion. We could be like gods with such power. We could create machines so big that they could suck all the CO2 right out of the atmosphere, pack it into little rockets and shoot it out into deep space. There is nothing in the laws of science that forbids us from doing such things. Currently we lack the knowledge, but we are constantly expanding our knowledge.
5. Regulation is only good in the service of innovation, not sustainability. Regulations can create financial incentives to innovate in cleaner directions. Cap and trade can be strategically utilised to encourage the development of green technology. But if regulations are aimed at sustainability rather than innovation, they will do little to reduce CO2, and little to encourage progress. We saw something similar happen in Europe during the Great Recession when depressed economies tried to balance their budgets. A depression is the wrong time for austerity. Likewise, a world grappling with the terrors of global warming needs to continue its economic activity full throttle in order to find innovative solutions which will actually work.
David Deutch and the Spaceship Earth Delusion
Some of the above ideas come from my reading of physicist David Deutsch’s book, The Beginning of Infinity. Here is a entertaining TED talk of Deutsch discussing the environmentalist philosophy of Spaceship Earth: the notion that the earth is fragile spaceship with limited resources which must be sustained at all costs. Deutsch notes that earth is not a habitable spaceship, but rather a frequently inhospitable place of death and starvation, which we must protect ourselves from through innovation. Humankind thrives not by sustaining the resources on Spaceship Earth, but by innovating our way to further progress. He asks, how might global warming actually help us continue to progress as a species? What could be the unexpected benefits of a warmer planet? These are questions I think we should also be asking ourselves. It’s well worth a view.
https://embed-ssl.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_on_our_place_in_the_cosmos.html
Questions:
- Does the Global Warming debate fall into the “Population Bomb” trap by overemphasising sustainability at the expense of innovation?
- Do you agree that regulations are ineffective in reducing CO2 emissions to any effective degree?
- Do you agree that the US and Europe lacks the moral authority to ask developing nations like China to follow regulations, since we didn’t follow those regulations ourselves as we were developing?
- Should regulations such as cap and trade be used to encourage green innovation?
Wheat & Tares 
I think the world is doing exactly what it is suppose to be doing at this point in it’s evolution. There are are enough resources globally to meet every person’s basic needs of food, water and medicine as needed, yet some are greedy and want to keep these resources for themselves. Individually human beings have an innate ability to survive and survive we will. Unfortunately this is often at the expense of the health and welfare of others.
What is global warming, anyway? How do we know that things are not as they are supposed to be? We need to be more self regulating and that means everyone. Recently the law changed in the UK concerning free plastic carrier bags, which are no longer free, but in my mind is a government fallacy to make money. In my home those plastic bags were used to line waste bins, but now i buy rolls of plastic bags to do the same thing. Eventually the government will realize that their strategy to save the country from too many plastic bags as failed, bang their heads against a few walls and then try again. The same for recycling, i do my best, but it will never be enough and it is so much more expensive to recycle something, anything almost than it is to produce the same thing new, and companies do not want to pay the extra. We need to use what we have until it can no longer be repaired rather than replacing an item because there is a newer version available and our ‘best friend’ has it and we want it and that’s what it comes down to in the end – we want it…whatever it is.
The greatest threat to global warming is travel, either by road or by air. People need to travel less, use less personal transport, do people really need two or three cars in one household? The fact that companies presume that everyone owns or as access to a car is proven by the fact that they build great big shopping centres in the middle of nowhere and then expect people to get to then, and the thing is, people actually still do.
I don’t anything can stop, turn back or prevent global warming. I think as humans we will have developed the ability to live on another planet long before this planet draws its last breath. I would to live in a world where there was no money, then they would be no greed and the need to make more money and everything would be given out as needed not wanted.
I dream of living a simple life, but then we all do, but would people really be willing to give up their things??? Stuff!!!
“Global Warming” (or Climate Change) is far more a political agenda than a meaningful scientific challenge. It is being used as an excuse to impose a globalist agenda and globalist control.
10 Climate Myths BUSTED in 60 Seconds (James Corbett)
I largely agree with Howard (gasp!).
I’m an environmental economist who models adaptation strategies for various sea-level-rise scenarios for coastal cities, and sometimes it gets a little frustrating dealing with the environmentalists.
1) Their sea level projections are a total departure from the historical trend (predicting a rise of over 6 feet by 2100!).
2) They have no regard for the economics, not because it isn’t precise (which is certainly isn’t), but because they think that any cost/benefit analysis is totally beside the point.
3) A great deal of their efforts and results (like most fields that are grant based) are aimed at keeping themselves employed in the medium-to-long run.
4) Related to (3), a lot of what they do is simply trying to solved problems that their previous interventions had caused. (Trying to prevent the ice plant – which they introduced to the California coast – from over-running all other plant species.)
5) Their “solutions” that we are all supposed to implement (driving hybrids, etc.) are little more than sentimental “tokenism” in that they make little to no difference on our environmental impact.
And on and on.
Yes, I worry about the future sustainability of our way of life, I just have a hard time trusting these decisions to a group of people that are much more like a religion than they are a science.
It can be hard for the average Joe to really get to the bottom of the probability that we are headed for disaster or not. I gather that most scientist would agree that things are changing and then from that agreed upon point they go from “no big deal” to “we have already driven off the cliff and the point of no return is in our rear view mirror.”
If the more dire predictions are correct, I don’t see me driving a hybrid or pushing a can of recyclables to the corner is going to make the slightest dent. It is going to take a astounding scientific breakthrough, something like nearly free clean energy, to solve the issue. Anything short of that is just extending the inevitable by a minuscule amount of time.
Like so many things we need to balance things. The economy is more powerful that any one (or group) of governments and certainly more powerful than a bunch of scientists. Ignoring that fact and proposing things that fly in the face of economic forces is naive (IMHO).
Speaking of maintaining a balance, it reminds me of something that just happened. My kids recently went on a camping event with a 20 something as a leader. He told them that he would rather a human, even one of them, be killed instead of a bear. If I was there I would have said, “so if a bear attacks you, you want us to make sure we do absolutely nothing to prevent that and even maybe even help the bear?” I wonder if he would have reconsidered. BTW – I am quite pro-nature and even support things like restoring wolves in Yellowstone.
Jeff and Howard, in the video post, David Deutsch starts talking about global warming by saying: “I’m a physicist, but I’m the wrong kind of physicist to talk about global warming. When it comes to global warming, I’m a novice, and when one is a novice, the rational thing to do is to accept the prevailing scientific wisdom.” He then goes on to evaluate the situation from the perspective of the scientific consensus.
While it could be perfectly true that consensus science is wrong about global warming, unless one is truly educated in the field, the rational thing for a novice to do, would be to go with the consensus. Perhaps this doesn’t apply as much to Jeff since he is an environmental economist.
If you reject the scientific consensus, you have to find another model to adopt, and how do you know if you can trust a non-consensus model any better than a consensus model? In making a particular decision to support some particular non-consensus model, you have to have some kind of criteria, and that criteria is often emotional in nature, based on feelings of distrust of science or prejudices of one sort or other. For this reason it is most rational to go with consensus. If Galileo comes up and tells you that the earth revolves around the sun, the rational thing to do is to dismiss him as a crackpot, unless you are an educated scientist and peer who can actually understand all the equations and reasons Galileo might give you. But even then, global warming debunkers are not budding Galileos. They are not brilliant geniuses who have some kind of transformative scientific insight that the scientific consensus has yet to grasp. Rather, they hold conspiratorial views towards the authority of science as an institution. Their debunking is not based on superior science, but on a fundamental mistrust of consensus scientific interpretation.
Jeff, I think this relates to the nature of authority. In the LDS church, it is our belief in the divine authority of the church which influences the degree of support we give their teachings, not whether we superficially agree or disagree.
The same is true of science. In its domain, scientific consensus is a powerful authority, the authority of expertise, education, and the authority of an ongoing tradition of continual technological transformation and growing body of knowledge. But like religious authorities, or any authorities for that matter, authority presents a challenge to our individuality. We like to think we know better than the authorities. We love to believe in grand conspiracies that turn us into valiant warriors in the face of oppressive and corrupt authorities.
In my own way, that is what I am doing in this post, by rejecting the political consensuses surrounding global warming. This makes me feel superior to the political consensuses of the day. But I still embrace scientific consensus. This is because I hold the authority of consensus science in higher regard than the authority of consensus politics.
I would guess that Jeff and Howard both reject the authority of both political and scientific consensus. Jeff only accepts the authority of the church, and Howard accepts only the authority of personal revelation.
But I think that authorities are important, both ecclesiastical and worldly. “The powers that be are ordained of God” as Paul says.
Very well said HappyHubby. I absolutely agree.
Thanks for your comment Beverly. That’s an interesting perspective on the plastic bags. I think you are often right that these sorts of regulations can backfire in unexpected ways.
Nate,
I do not reject scientific consensus. The problem is science is becoming highly politicized so much so that Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet says:
Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell and the former Editor-in-Chief at the New England Journal of Medicine agrees”
The problem is profit motive and political power motive that are out of control. I reject junk science and politicized science, not scientific consensus. Scientific consensus has simply not been presented.
My model is follow the money and follow the control.
“While it could be perfectly true that consensus science is wrong about global warming, unless one is truly educated in the field, the rational thing for a novice to do, would be to go with the consensus.”
I disagree on two points:
1) I don’t think this consensus is all that “scientific” in nature. (Which is exactly what makes Galileo such a good comparison. See Feyerabend’s Against Method where he argues that given the information available at the time, the Catholic church was right.)
2) I refuse to grant any group of scientists have that kind of authority over me and my beliefs. Where did they ever get such an authority? I don’t pretend to be a better expert, only that expertise doesn’t give them the right to tell me what I ought and ought not believe. They can share their information with me, but once you start talking about deference to their authority, I definitely jump ship.
That said, I’m not against a healthy dose of caution when it comes to our shared future.
This is how junk science and politicized science is sold to us in a way that seems convincing.
Astroturf and manipulation of media messages| Sharyl Attkisson | TEDxUniversityofNevada
Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink
To me, global warming is just the latest “the sky is falling” views we take of science in the hopes we can make others change for our benefit. There have likely been many more beyond my memory, but I recall similar hyper-ventilating over Population Growth, Global Cooling, Amazon Deforestation, and the Hole in the Ozone Layer.
Not that there wasn’t some basis to the concerns. It’s just the usage tends to be more for selling textbooks and speaking engagements than for helping people find good ways to change habits with minimal cost.
Jeff, going with consensus may not be “scientific” per se, but an educated consensus of a body of men and women much more highly educated than myself automatically has a kind of authority which I reject at my own peril. There ARE revolutionaries like Galileo who are destined to overthrow consensus. But for some nobody like me, you, or Howard to take on the role of such a revolutionary, or fight alongside one, that takes EITHER a lot of hubris, OR some kind of hidden insight which we alone are somehow brilliant or unbiased enough to recognise.
“I refuse to grant any group of scientists have that kind of authority over me and my beliefs. Where did they ever get such an authority? I don’t pretend to be a better expert, only that expertise doesn’t give them the right to tell me what I ought and ought not believe. They can share their information with me, but once you start talking about deference to their authority, I definitely jump ship.”
Perhaps you and I have been using the word “authority” in different ways in our discussions all these years. It seems to me that you see authority as the legal power to enforce something, the “right to tell you what you ought to…” Whereas, I’m thinking of authority in a broader way, as the powers that external forces exert upon us by virtue of the deference we give to them. That is why I kept saying that Jehovah’s authority in the Old Testament was predicated upon His ability to save and redeem His people from the Egyptians, etc. This salvic power inspired the Israelites to give Him their deference, and it is their deference that in turn gave God power and influence over their souls and their actions. Without the real power to save, redeem, or otherwise impress the populace, there is no authority.
Science is very much like the ancient Jehovah in this regard, which has taken the people out of the bondage of the dark ages, through the red sea of the Enlightenment, and transformed the world. Thus we give scientific consensus due deference and grant it the same sorts of authorities the Israelites granted their Jehovah. The scientific redemption from mediaeval darkness is very real, so the authority they have in our lives is consequently very real as well.
You can lead a horse to water but…
Nate,
“a kind of authority which I reject at my own peril.”
What peril? For the most part, the only consequences there are for me rejecting a scientific consensus are social in nature – frustrated name calling, more than anything (superstitious, ignorant, irrational, etc.). It’s not clear to me why any Christian should care if the world calls them names like this.
“Perhaps you and I have been using the word “authority” in different ways in our discussions all these years.”
This is absolutely right, but this is hardly news (or so I thought). My thinking on the subject is very influenced by Weber’s tripartite taxonomy of authority:
1) Traditional authority: this is basically modeled on the authority that a father wields over his children. They are supposed to obey his righteous commands, not because he is a expert, nor because he has special powers or anything, but because he is their father and nothing else. The authority of a king is very similar to this…. his subject obey him because he is their king.
2) Rational/legal authority: this is basically modeled on expertise in that, whereas (1) was a chain of being, (2) has a ladder up which we can all climb based on our “qualifications” and “expertise on some matter. Whereas (1) sees God as a father figure, (2) sees Him as super-scientist/clock-maker. Deism would be the purest form of religion here.
3) Charismatic authority: this is the authority that comes not from expertise/training or from some ascribed status/birth-right, but from the possession of supernatural powers. The charismatic is the miracle worker or war-lord that can accomplish things that no normal person can. Your version of Jehovah as war-lord obviously fits best in here.
Of course nobody is 100% pure any of these types, if only because they are not 100% mutually exclusive. Thus, if I had to quantify our positions, I would guess:
Me: 1) 50%, 2) 25%, 3) 25%.
You: 1) 0%, 2) 50%, 3) 50%
Howard: 1) 0%, 2) 25%, 3) 75%
“Thus we give scientific consensus due deference and grant it the same sorts of authorities the Israelites granted their Jehovah.”
Unless science can show me evidence that I have such a moral obligation, I refuse to accept this. Of course, they can’t provide evidence for obligations, which is exactly what makes teachings non-binding. Science simply does not have the conceptual resources to legitimize its own rule in our lives.
Nate,
How does your view that authority is “real power to save, redeem, or otherwise impress the populace” differ from “might makes right”? You make it sound like we owe our loyalty to whichever god is strongest.
Assuming one is capable of it does any leadership trump following the spirit? Isn’t follow the Prophet then second to following the spirit? So isn’t unquestioningly following the Prophet reserved for those who can’t hear the spirit well enough to follow him? If so shouldn’t we all strive to follow the spirit rather than the prophet?
Howard,
I’ve answered that question for you so many times that I can’t help but think that answering it again won’t do any good. This can be said for well over half of the comments you direct to me here.
Maybe if, for starters, you start by explaining how your comment relates to anything we’ve discussed in this thread, maybe then I won’t be so bleak in my outlook.
The ‘is global warming even real’ side of the argument is a particularly frustrating one to confront, so I simply say I think Nate is completely right on that aspect of it. Moving instead to the substance of the post:
1. I strongly agree that the idea that global warming is here to stay is an important one, and one often neglected in the conversation. I disagree with the suggestion that we should therefore not be discussing CO2 reductions, for the same reason I support gun control. I don’t think gun control would eliminate all gun violence, but I don’t see that as a good enough reason not to take some steps, even if very small, as long as they can be shown to have some impact, and my sense of the scientific community, at least generally, is that some level of control over CO2 levels is useful mitigation. Again, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also acknowledge some level is here to stay, and that CO2 regulations may do not adequately deal with those specific issues. But we can keep it from getting even worse.
2. I disagree that international climate change efforts are useless. We’ve managed to create a large number of international institutions. Some are much less effective than others, but that doesn’t mean we should look at global warming and say ‘this is too big a problem, let’s just throw up our hands and give up.’
3. I agree self-regulation is unlikely to be of much use, insofar as it is guilt-based. But I think distinguishing self-regulation from innovation, as you seem to do by separating #3 and #4, is a mistake. Your thesis is that innovation is ultimately the key–we develop phenomenal technologies that help us adapt and save the day. But isn’t self-regulation part of that process? Plenty of research in fuel efficiency and solar energy is driven by economic incentive (this is going to make me rich!), but it also, clearly, is driven by the very self-regulation you dismiss. If I buy a more fuel-efficient car out of guilt, I may not individually be solving global warming, but I am convincing engineers and business people that there is a market for this kind of car; that’s part of what spurs the innovation you talk about. And then they think, “Well, hey, if someone is willing to spend $100k to have this kind of car, how many more people do you think would be willing to spend $50k? And how many more would spend $15k?” In that way, self-regulation is a part of the innovation you promote.
4. I’m all in on innovation.
5. I think it’s great to focus regulation on the pursuit of innovation. As I noted in #1, I don’t necessarily agree that there is no role for regulation to play on sustainability, of course. And as I didn’t note under #2, but as I would put here, I think you’re wrong to malign regulations that impede developing country’s growth by limiting their use of fossil fuels. On the contrary, I think those regulations can themselves spur innovation. What’s wrong with convincing these countries, “Hey guys, this method of economic growth comes with some serious costs; it sucks to live in cities full of pollution; this fuel source empowers a lot of dictators; it’s going to run out anyway; you should be finding ways to grow in more innovative ways. We know it’s hypocritical, we know it’s not how we industrialized, but learn from our mistakes, because this will be better.”
Suburbs,
You’re exactly right. Over a billion people are going to start driving over the next 50 or so years in China, India and Nigeria. To expect all these people to buy hybrids, or thinking that our driving hybrids will solve this is a pipe-dream. Innovation is the only hope.
Thanks Suburbs, for articulating that so well. I do so agree.
Nice picture, Nathan!
Lots of things to respond to.
First, your definition of sustainability is unnecessarily narrow. You might consider, for instance, the famous definition from “Our Common Future”:
“Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs. The concept of sustainable development does imply limits – not absolute limits but
limitations imposed by the present state of technology and social organization on
environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human
activities. But technology and social organization can be both managed and improved to make
way for a new era of economic growth.”
Sustainability has traditionally been a holistic way of looking at things–it is the intersection between the environmental, the social, and the economic realms. Too often, people narrow it to the environmental realm and then focus on the limits and what we can do to reduce our environmental impact. But most scholars of sustainability are not interested in environmental health at the expense of a healthy economy and healthy societies. We must learn to consider them all together.
Innovation is surely a big part of sustainable development. Consider, for instance, the famous I=PAT equation in sustainability studies where I = environmental impact, P = population growth, A = Affluence, and T = Technology or innovation. Sustainability studies recognizes that technology growth, population growth, and affluence are all interrelated and can have both positive and negative impacts on the environment. Technological innovation, for instance, can have a much bigger impact on cutting down electricity use by developing energy-saving devices than society can by imposing regulations about how often you should turn off or on your devices. And the unfortunate truth is that the more affluent you are, the more likely you are to impact the environment in negative ways, no matter how many solar panels you have. The places where population growth is highest are often the places where affluence is lowest, so it balances out to some extent, which is why you don’t see so big of a push for limiting the number of kids these days.
I’ll dip my toe into the water of the global warming debate a little. It does seem clear that we are in a warming pattern, and that it’s having drastic consequences–from fires, to floods, to changes in crop growth, the spread of mosquitos, etc. The civilizations that are the poorest will likely suffer the most from climate change. What’s less clear is how much our actions are contributing and how much we can change the course of climate change if we change our actions. I’m not very hopeful that we can do much to reverse the tide at this point, but I do think the changes need to be made for a host of other reasons–some of them economic and societal.
You might try reading or watching the documentary of Naomi Klein’s “This Changes Everything.” It’s a very well-reasoned discussion of climate change and capitalism. She criticizes many of the failed programs that you criticize but focuses more on system-level changes. It’s a hopeful and game-changing book. Some are comparing it to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring.
Jeff,
Thanks so much for your condensation, I’m happy you are willing to join me at my remedial level of understanding even though I wasn’t addressing you directly. How does my #16 relate to this discussion it is another way to look at authority.
condescension
Doing nothing is certainly the wrong approach, but that is what one major American political party is devoted to. This is a significant problem. We are seeing the effects of global warming—increasing acidity in the oceans, more extreme weather events, severe and lasting droughts, and so on—so doing nothing is asking for a world that is increasingly more difficult to deal with. I’m not sure the extreme environmentalists are wrong. Of course we should be encouraging innovation so that burning fossil fuels becomes too expensive. But let’s not use this argument as an excuse to do nothing.
Howard,
I thought your questions were intended as a counter-argument to my comment, and I apologize if I read you wrong.
Out of curiosity, would you more or less agree with the way that I characterized you, Nate and myself in 14? (Obviously, the numbers won’t be exact.)
Jeff,
I find it very restraining and largely irrelivant to attempt to consider religous or spiritual authority from the tripartite taxonomy (apparently your?) point of view which is one of the reasons I offered #16 to the audience after my name was mentioned in your #14. The highest authority I recognize is God himself (not someone claiming to speak for God) confirmed by my own direct experience and that seems to be missing from your list. In other words God is the authority not some charismatic mortal selling God to me.
Using your yardstick I recognize that there are differences between the three of us. In the mortal world I certainly yield to legal authority and I give attentive audience to creditable sounding charismatic claims but I use discernment and check these claims for myself. As a adult my default is generally to reject “because I said so” kinds of claims but as a child I yielded to my parents. I think the biggest difference between the three of us is my high level self confidence in trusting my own judgdment wherever it leads though this is often comes after checking with the spirit.
You really think our disagreements stem from Nate and (especially) me just being more insecure than you? You really think that my utterly contrarian position is based in being “too trusting” of others?
“The highest authority I recognize is God himself”
All three types agree with this claim (I’ve never found any believer anywhere that disagrees with it), so you’re obviously not getting something. Is this why you wrongly think other people are “less confident” than you – you think they do not recognize God as being higher than any mortal?
Perhaps it would be easier if I asked why you think God is so high? Is it because He is your heavenly father, because He has supernatural powers and knowledge, or because He knows more about “natural law” and how to use it than any other being? Yes, we all believe and accept all three of these claims, but which do you think is more (or less) fundamental than the other two?
Jeff,
Well for example Nate cedes to the authority of a group of people who are *more highly educated than himself* as if education is the magic elixir but without acknowledging that groups like this have a political agenda that typically includes social control and profit motive that often bends “science” to fit, which of course isn’t science at all. The problem is scientists career have become captive by the state. But I don’t have to be a highly educated climate scientist to be able see the corruption and the motivation that bend “science” into something that isn’t science at all.
Why do I think God id so high, well so far he’s the only one who has been able to demonstrate miracles in my life.
“Why do I think God id so high, well so far he’s the only one who has been able to demonstrate miracles in my life.”
I thought so. So it’s not His “position or status” nor His “rational expertise and knowledge” but His “transcendent powers and spiritual gifts”. Your focus on revelation and miracle is exactly what the word “charisma” referred to, originally (as opposed to the watered-down, modern definition that simply means “charm”, “persuasiveness”). This is the definition that Weber was working with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charism
*****************************
As for your other claims, perhaps a yes/no answer to the following will clear things up; Do you or do you not agree with the following statement?:
“We do not consider ourselves bound to receive any revelation from any one man or woman without his being legally constituted and ordained to that authority, and giving sufficient proof of it…
“It is contrary to the economy of God for any member of the Church, or any one, to receive instructions for those in authority, higher than themselves; therefore you will see the impropriety of giving heed to them; but if any person have a vision or a visitation from a heavenly messenger, it must be for his own benefit and instruction.”
Exactly? No, not exactly. The charismatic is the miracle worker or war-lord that can accomplish things that no normal person can. This definition offered by you in #14 seems to me to more strongly imply a mortal rather than God himself. Why do I need a mortal between myself and God?
Those two statements deal exclusively with the LDS church but not with God’s interaction with others, in other words God is highly available to non-Mormons without those restrictions but if you’re a practicing LDS Mormon you have additional restrictions to God placed upon you when acting or participating in the LDS community. It amounts to a license. You may know how to drive but until the state issues you a license you will be restricted from driving on public streets.
It seems pretty clear to me that you just are the Hiram Page of the bloggernacle. Your attempt at resisting JS’s teachings (above) has two, fairly obvious errors built into it:
i) Your claim that this statement only applies to church members – and church members alone – is made up out of thin air. Indeed, the passage explicitly says that it is referring to “any member of the Church, or any one”.
ii) JS was obviously not saying that Hiram – or any other person – had no access to God’s revelation, or that the church “restricts” this access that every person has to God. Again, you’re making this up out of thin air.
At the heart of the matter is the difference between two, mutually incompatible conceptions of the restoration:
(A) All people naturally have the right to receive revelation for every other person – and that JS’s restoration constitutes a “restriction” on these natural, universal rights.
or
(B) No person naturally has the right to receive revelation for any other person, and that JS’s restoration adds a rights that were not already there rather than restricting some preexisting rights.
Your dismissal of JS’s teachings as (A) a “restriction upon” rather than (B) an “extension of” rights is about as non-LDS as it gets. It is a whole-sale rejection of pretty much this entire chapter: https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-16?lang=eng
It is in this sense that you are, indeed, far more “confident” than the rest of us when it comes to 1) thinking your revelation applies to other people and 2) passing judgement on what other people have or have not experienced spiritually. This, however, is not something to wear as a badge of honor.
No it’s not made up out of thin air it come from my personal experience with my experience with many other charismatics.
On the other hand your claim is demonstrated to be false by D&C 10:67-68
Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.
All people may receive ANY revelation from God.
Should read:
No it’s not made up out of thin air it come from my personal experience and my experience with many other charismatics.
“it come from my personal experience and my experience with many other charismatics.”
Well, as JS says, we do not consider ourselves bound to any such things. You, by contrast, seem to say that we should be bound to your revelation because your revelation says so. Do you have anything other than your own revelation for why we should pay any attention at all to your revelation?
“On the other hand your claim is demonstrated to be false”
It isn’t *my* claim that you’re rejecting. I must ask, then, do you explicitly acknowledge that you think JS’s claim is demonstrably false? Or is it less false since a different mortal said it?
I said nothing about being bound to anything. I said nothing about any revelation I may have received.
JS was creating a church. But JS also received a revelation clearly and expressly defining God’s church and God’s church has only three rules; 1) repent 2) come unto him 3) there are no other rules.
Linda, thanks for stopping by to respond. It was very enlightening to hear your more holistic take on the word “sustainability” and indeed, my own definition was much more narrow. I’m glad to hear that sustainability experts are looking at it more broadly these days. Is this a new trend? All I can remember hearing from environmental activists of the past 15 years has been a kind of doom and gloom about depleting resources that could only be counteracted by drastically reducing consumption. It would be great if we were past that.
Two yes/no questions:
1) Stop dodging. Do you think JS’s claim (in 29) is “demonstrably false”, as you indicated (in 32) or not?
2) “All people naturally have the right to receive revelation about and for any and every other person. The restoration of an organized church with priesthood authority constituted a restriction on these natural, universal rights.”
Do you think that this is a fair depiction of your own mindset or not?
Jeff, I think your three definitions of authority do a lot to highlight our disagreement.
I have a hard time seeing LDS church authority as a number 1. When Joseph Smith began converting followers, he never did it like Darth Vader, saying “I am your father.” His authority came as converts received personal spiritual witnesses of the truth of his call. Joseph Smith was not an obvious father figure, nor an obvious prophet or king. He had no claim of some revered patriarchal tradition. His authority was predicated entirely upon supernatural experiences with angels, which were said to be restoring to him the priesthood. But these experiences were not self-evident. (If I had not experienced it myself, I would not have believed.) They were only believed based on trust in Joseph’s charisma, or in a personal revelation from the Spirit, telling them to trust Joseph.
A father has an obvious authority over a child based on his self-evident biological relationship. The church has no such self-evident relationship with us. It claims things which are not self-evident, and which must be acted upon with faith, a faith which, the authority assures us, will bear fruit in the form of spiritual evidence upon which we can further build our faith.
Therefore, it seems to me that the nature of the authority of the church cannot be separated from the personal decision to exercise faith in it, and the subsequent personal revelation that may or may not come to a particular individual. The church does not have the authority of a centurion to say, “go and he goeth or come and he cometh.” They cannot enforce such commands. All their commands are predicated upon the faith of the follower.
That is why I think the church is better understood in the 2 or 3 categories, because those two categories factor in the individual’s personal submission to the authority as an essential dimension of it.
I’m not dodging, stop being so binary simplistic, this isn’t preschool allow for some nuance. Let me explain.
JS needed organization not chaos within his new church so he probably asked God what to do and was probably given a mortal answer to a mortal problem which was to create stewardships. But does this represent God’s church? Clearly not based on D&C10:67-68! So what are God’s rules? There are only three and they are listed above. Which means outside the LDS church anyone can receive any revelation God sends them. Why would God send them something they weren’t “allowed” to receive? The concept is just nonsense.
Nate,
I think the main point of traditional (1) authority is that it is a status that comes purely and solely through ascription: birth, coronation, ordination, etc. There is no “audition”, etc.
With that in mind, JS absolutely did see himself as a King in the Nauvoo period. Indeed, almost all of the D&C promises are described as “kingdoms, principalities, dominions, thrones, etc.” Similar, when the council of 50 asked if they should establish a constitution for this kingdom on earth, he strictly forbade it. Rather, these proto-kings were to be “living constitutions” as corresponded to their status. This is a VERY (1) authority…… But I fully acknowledge that there are elements of (2) and (3) to be bound as well.
At least it seems that I got you right in that you merge or blend (2) and (3) together.
Howard,
You were the one who said my claim was “demonstrably false.” But when I point out that it was JS’s claim rather than mine, your very own “binary thinking” and lack of “nuance” suddenly becomes a bad thing. This is dodging if ever there was such a thing.
Time to take a stand:
A) Does the quote in 29 go beyond “repent and come unto Jesus”?
B) Do you reject the quote as demonstrably false?
C) Also, you still have not answered (2) in #37… Which is somewhat strange. That description is not incoherent, nor is it a straw-man of any kind. I definitely reject it, but I think a lot of people in the ‘nacle would be relatively partial to it.
D) “Why would God send them something they weren’t “allowed” to receive?” Do you think the quote in 29 denies this?
These aren’t complicated questions.
What quote in 29?
I addressed (2) in 37 in my 39 response.
Oops! Sorry, I didn’t read your 39 as an answer to that question. I’ll take 39 as an unnecessarily indirect “yes”: JS created a mortal church and priesthood relations that constrains our natural and universal rights to revelation with the intent (I assume you would add) that us mortals would eventually grow out of those the mortal constraints that just are the organized church and priesthood relations.
While I acknowledge that this is a coherent view of things, I find exactly zero support for it in JS’s revelations. Indeed, I find much that suggests the exact opposite.
As for the quote in 29, I’ll repeat it – even though it shocks me that I should even have to:
“We do not consider ourselves bound to receive any revelation from any one man or woman without his being legally constituted and ordained to that authority, and giving sufficient proof of it…
“It is contrary to the economy of God for any member of the Church, or any one, to receive instructions for those in authority, higher than themselves; therefore you will see the impropriety of giving heed to them; but if any person have a vision or a visitation from a heavenly messenger, it must be for his own benefit and instruction.”
Now, to repeat yet again:
1) Does here JS goes beyond “repent and come unto Jesus” (as you claimed in 32)?
2) Do you reject JS’s teaching here as demonstrably false (as you did in 32)?
3) You claimed that God would not “send them something they weren’t “allowed” to receive”. Do you think this claim of yours contradicts the quote above of JS (as you suggested it did in 39)?
One more question, Howard:
Isn’t Hyrum Page exactly what you think all members should be like?
unnecessarily indirect? What compels me to use the limitation of your wording to express my thoughts? No, not with the intent…and also I’m not sure I would use the word “rights” here.
Learning to receive revelations and interpret them takes time we know this from JS history and others and I know this by personal experience and by watching others go through it. When these newbies are spread out it doesn’t cause much trouble but collect them put them all in the same meeting house and you could easily have have chaos!
WowI I made it to coherent in your view? Thanks so much!
29 quote? Sorry but isn’t that two quotes? A little hard to tell with three quote marks
1) Yes. This is more than repenting and coming to him. Is it not? But I gave a reasonably plausible explanation for it above.
2) It is apparently JS’s teaching and JS’s church but God clearly states that God’s church wouldn’t include this rule.
God would not send someone a revelation they aren’t (by him) allowed to receive now would he? What would be the point? If God sends it to you, clearly you may receive it. But the church is another matter, JS’s church has impose additional restrictions.
Yes, that was just one quote. The middle quote mark was to indicate that the quote continued in the second paragraph.
Do you think that Hyrum Page is the highest kind of church member? Indeed, the entire Section 28 fiasco seems to be nothing less than an exact replica of your conflict with the church.
Jeff,
I don’t know Hyrum Page’s story well enough to answer that question. Why do you insist on overlaying your frame of reference on mine when your apparent goal is to find out what I think???
You don’t see any reason to want to find an entire section of the D&C that is explicitly addressed to your ideas and their relationship to the church that you condemn on a daily basis?
C’mon, it’s a short section and wikipedia also gives a decent overview:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/28?lang=eng
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Page
Okay I read both links and based on them no Hyrum Page isn’t what I think all members should be like.
Btw I don’t condemn the church on a daily basis but I would like to see revelation (not group inspiration) return to the church as it has been missing (or nearly so) for a long time.
What is it about Hiram Page that you disapprove of? The way I read it, he thought that all people had equal access to all revelation, including revelation regarding the church and for this he got shot down. Isn’t this exactly what you think church members can and should do?
Yes all people do have equal access to revelation. Here is what Bruce R. McConkie had today about that in a General Conference talk called How to Get Personal Revelation
But it would be chaos if everyone did what Hiram Page thought he was doing. Denver Snuffer did something similar to Hiram Page, was he wrong? I can’t say, only God knows but it caused chaos for some.
I don’t think you answered my question. After all, what’s the difference between Page/Snuffer and what you say?
To whit:
” 2 But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses.
3 And thou shalt be obedient unto the things which I shall give unto him, even as Aaron, to declare faithfully the commandments and the revelations, with power and authority unto the church.”
Isn’t this exactly the placing men between us and God that you said was demonstrably false?
What commandment(s) or revelation(s) have I received for the church?
These aren’t complicated questions Jeff.
In this very thread you claim that the entire Section 28 is false (it doesn’t say “repent” or “come unto Christ” so it must be false) and when asked to justify this over the top claim, you appeal to extremely weak proof texts and your own spiritual experiences.
You’re favorite claim is that the priesthood restriction was not guided by God in any way. You’re second favorite claim is that the church today is not guided by revelation. When asked for evidence of either claim, the same old canard of personal revelation comes out.
In short, just because you do not use the words “commandment” or “revelation” does not mean that this isn’t exactly what you’re doing.
I can’t believe I actually just read the entire Howard / Jeff G trainwreck (rubbernecking, I suppose)…
As a (bored) outsider who knows nothing of either of you, Jeff G comes off as pitbull with blinders on. Howard comes off as a boy with a stick.
Shall I keep watching to see if Jeff G ever gets Howard cornered so he can go in for the kill? Or will Howard get bored poking and head for home and a PB&J sandwich?
I was going to write that this better than TV, but err… It’s not actually. It’s kind of embarrassing that this is the best the followers of God can do.
I didn’t claim that the entire Section 28 is false.
If I didn’t use the words “commandment” or “revelation” how did you come to the erroneous conclusion that I was making such a claim?
(eating my PB&J)
ReT,
I would definitely agree with that. I thought that I could get Howard to commit to something – heck, anything at all! – but I was wrong. I’m the fool who keeps playing the shell-game at the county fair, thinking that this time I’ll get ’em for sure. But I’ll never win because the game is rigged.
Poor Jeff
I’m sure Jesus spends lots of time playing shell games thinking ‘this time I’ll get ’em for sure’. Is it coincidental that we’re having PB&J pancakes for breakfast this morning? I think not!
Ha. The ‘we’re’ of that PB&J sentence is my family, not meant to include the W&T club as I hope you are having something better (not a fan of pancakes).
You’re absolutely right that Jesus would not be doing as I have done here. He was, however, a big fan of binary thinking:
“Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”
6 min CSPAN2 video Michael Crichton – On Michael Mann’s Climate Temperature Graph
4 min. video Climate Scientists Jump Ship as CO2 Theory Collapses