[Global Warming Thread]

On 12/21/2015 at 0:15 PM, LeSellers said:

I will accept responsibility (on behalf of all mankind) for "Global Warming" when "scientists" can answer these questions:

1) Why is CO₂ (a minuscule fraction of the atmosphere) the culprit when H₂O (a much, much larger fraction of the air) and which has far higher specific heat not considered a (or the) problem?

Well intrigued by this discussion I thought I would tackle these questions.

it is certainly true that water vapor has a greater impact on temperature than carbon dioxide in the short term. But there are a couple of aspects to water vapor that make it less of a concern. First, the concentration of water vapor in the air is directly related to the temperature. As the temperature increases the amount of water vapor increases, and as it decreases so too does the water vapor. Second, water vapor stays only weeks in the atmosphere. It falls as rain or snow and then is added again during evaporation. In contrast, CO2 can remain for a century or more in the atmosphere. What's more CO2 creates a positive feedback loop by raising temperature which in turn increases water vapor in the air and so exacerbates global warming.

On 12/21/2015 at 0:15 PM, LeSellers said:

2) Why have Mars and Venus also experienced "global warming" during the same period as Earth (and proportionally at about the same rates)?

Consider that for decades we have been arguing about whether earth is warming. We have thousands of temperature probes, satellites, etc. and yet we still debate. How is it then that with just a few satellites orbiting Mars/Venus we know these planets are warming? Do we really know what is going on there? Not only that, but you claim they are warming at the same rate as earth. Please provide evidence in support of such a claim. I don’t see how anyone could have such definitive information.

On 12/21/2015 at 0:15 PM, LeSellers said:

3) If man has caused global warming, why have there been ice ages in the past, with subsequent periods of warming following each of them?

I addressed a portion of this previously, but let me run through it more completely. CO2 and methane have been implicated in most climate changes in earth’s past. Ice ages have primarily been caused because of cyclical changes to the earth’s orbit, tilt, or wobble, known as Milankovitch cycles. As the oceans cool more CO2 is absorbed. This decreases CO2 in the atmosphere and allows more heat to escape into space creating an ice age. This process takes tens of thousands of years. However, this is not the case now. Our orbital and rotational cycles show that we should be cooling. However, we are heating. What’s more, it is not happening over 10,000 years but over a few centuries. 

On 12/21/2015 at 0:15 PM, LeSellers said:

4) Why is global warming a problem in any case? Do plants not grow better with higher levels of CO₂. Would a warmer climate not make Russia and China, Canada, Chile, and Argentina more productive of grains and other food products?

The answer to this question is complex. For example, t is not completely clear how global warming combined with El Nino and La Nina conditions impact different areas of the earth. In some areas it appears to cause heat waves and in other areas more rain and hurricanes. On going research will need to uncover more of the exact effects. So let me just discuss effects on plants and animals. Global warming helps some plants and animals to grow, but it hurts others. As you have noted, warming and cooling of the earth has happened in the past. But the problem with the current trend has to do more with the speed of the change than the change itself. It takes many plants and animals a long time to adapt. As the earth warms some plants and animals cannot make the transition to warmer climates because they have not evolved to handle them. Because of this, many species will die. 

However, heat is not the only issue, as we pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere a fair portion of it is absorbed into the oceans and so are becoming more acidic. Coral have been found to be particularly susceptible to the acidity change. Coral support many species of plants and animals similar to rainforests on land. As it dies off, so too will these other living organisms whom depend on it to survive.

Based on what I’ve read, it appears likely that global warming will ultimately cause earth’s life forms to be less diverse. On some level it is similar to other extinction periods. So, is this a huge deal? In my book it is.

On 12/21/2015 at 0:15 PM, LeSellers said:

5) Who's paying for all this "science" that tells us we're the guilty parties? Why are global warming alarmists to be believed any more than deniers when their funding comes from those who would benefit from the proposed governmental controls "required" to reduce "greenhouse" gas emissions?

I don't agree with alarmists on either side but prefer to try and weigh the evidence. As to funding, I would say it’s a mixed bag. For instance companies who depend on fossil fuels for profit pay for research to contradict some scientific studies. While other research centers are funded by governments, universities, and private donors who may have something to benefit from global warming findings. From my perspective I don’t see a compelling case to suppose that the large majority of scientists who believe anthropomorphic global warming are trying to twist results to fit their agenda.

On 12/21/2015 at 0:15 PM, LeSellers said:

6) Why do the countries who have the lowest per capita emissions have to pay for further lowering theirs while countries with the highest per capita emissions get to do nothing at all?

The US is first in per capita emissions and will be for many years. So based on your statement we should be doing the most to curb greenhouse gas emissions of all people on earth, and yet we are not. Countries in Europe are much more proactive. But further, consider that many countries with the lowest per capita emissions are being impacted by our emissions without significantly contributing to the problem or without receiving any benefits from fossil fuel technology.

[Global Warming Thread]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You've succeeded in completely losing me.  Please explain.

1. If this is the graph of the IR range that reaches earth, then why is wavelength as indicated by the X-axis showing parts of the visible light spectrum?
2. Why is CO2 only indicated in one line?
3. If it does not address absorbtion coefficients, then what are the various gases supposed to indicate?
4.If it is coming IN, then how is the CO2 going to let the heat IN , but not OUT?  This goes against all the IPCC reports and common greenhouse science.

I'm doing this from a phone so let's see how it goes....

1. The wavelength is not part of the visible light spectrum. The units are in recipricle centimeters ( for more information see https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/virttxtjml/Spectrpy/InfraRed/infrared.htm. 

2. C02 is not the line coming down but the first large hump. Same with the other gases. 

3. They indicate radiation from greenhouse gases which reach the earth. So this would primarily be radiation which was initially reflected from the earth's surface before being reflected back to it  

4. This doesn't go against any standard findings. Solar radiation initially enters earths atmosphere centered around the visable light spectrum. At these wavelengths greenhouse gases largely do not block it. However, after the radiation is reflected by the earths surface it enters the atmosphere in the IR range. This reflected light is blocked by the greenhouse gases which reflect a portion out to space and a portion back to earth. The graph shows the portion reflected back to earth from the greenhouse gases. 

[Global Warming Thread]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You've succeeded in completely losing me.  Please explain.

1. If this is the graph of the IR range that reaches earth, then why is wavelength as indicated by the X-axis showing parts of the visible light spectrum?
2. Why is CO2 only indicated in one line?
3. If it does not address absorbtion coefficients, then what are the various gases supposed to indicate?
4.If it is coming IN, then how is the CO2 going to let the heat IN , but not OUT?  This goes against all the IPCC reports and common greenhouse science.

I'm doing this from a phone so let's see how it goes....

1. The wavelength is not part of the visible light spectrum. The units are in recipricle centimeters ( for more information see https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/virttxtjml/Spectrpy/InfraRed/infrared.htm. 

2. C02 is not the line coming down but the first large hump. Same with the other gases. 

3. They indicate radiation from greenhouse gases which reach the earth. So this would primarily be radiation which was initially reflected from the earth's surface before being reflected back to it  

4. This doesn't go against any standard findings. Solar radiation initially enters earths atmosphere centered around the visable light spectrum. At these wavelengths greenhouse gases largely do not block it. However, after the radiation is reflected by the earths surface it enters the atmosphere in the IR range. This reflected light is blocked by the greenhouse gases which reflect a portion out to space and a portion back to earth. The graph shows the portion reflected back to earth from the greenhouse gases. 

[Global Warming Thread]

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

This is a highly simplified and therefore misleading graph.  In fact, it doesn't really say much at all.  There are multiple ranges of each of these gases at multiple intensities (absorbtion coefficients) which are not depicted here in any readable sense.

It is also mislabeled.  What does "greenhouse radiation" refer to?  Is it the earth's radiation spectrum?  If so, it is inaccurate.  Is it solar radiation?  If so, it is a self-defeating argument because it would lead to cooling instead of warming.  And all this must be adjusted for mass, specific heat, and comparative concentration to earth's historical levels.

I don't have time to put together all the graphs, but I'll get to it later as I have time.

The graph does not deal with absorption coefficients. It is a graph of radiation in the IR range which reaches the earth. For this reason it is labeled green house gas radiation. It does not include solar radiation because solar radiation is short wave centered around the visable spectrum which is outside the range of the graph. 

[Global Warming Thread]

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It shows a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature.  But the radiation characteristics of heat are proportional to T^4, not to T directly.  So, this likely shows a reverse correlation.   i.e. temperature drives atmospheric CO2 levels, not the other way around.

Your summation that temperature drives CO2 levels is too simplistic and ultimately in accurate. In the past ice ages have been caused by Milankovitch Cycles, in which changes to the orbit, tilt, or wobble of the earth cause the earth to begin a warming or cooling cycle. However, these orbital/rotational cycles cannot by themselves account for the temperature changes. Rather, as the earth begins to warm outgasing of CO2 from the oceans continues the cycle. In fact over 90% of the warming occurs after the CO2 increase. 

[Global Warming Thread]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I asked him about methane vs CO2.  He couldn't answer it.

Since I don't have enough time for every item, let me spend just a minute answering the above comment. I believe your contention here is that methane has a larger impact on global warming than CO2 because of it's absorptive and radiative properties and therefore should be the gas we address, not CO2. The problem here is that there is over 200 times more CO2 in the troposphere than Methane. This is because Methane only accounts for 9% of green house gas emissions (CO2 accounts for 82%), and because Methane only lasts 12 years in the atmosphere while Carbon Dioxide can last 100's to 1000's of years.  

Further, if you question the above, more direct evidence can be provided. Using high resolution FTIR Spectroscopy scientists can measure the percent of long wave radiation reaching the earth. This will give a direct indication of which gases have the greatest impact. Note also that the Suns radiation is centered around the visable spectrum and so is not much of a factor. After filtering for the effect of water vapor, CO2 has by far the largest impact. Methane (CH4) still has an impact but it is less significant.

[Global Warming Thread]

39 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

The left is the only one injecting politics into the discussion. So, I agree, we need to divorce politics form the science. And thus, we will arrive at the point where "climate change" is just a natural phenomenon, one that will most likely reverse itself, as it has many tmies in the past.

I think we must recognize that politics is coming from both sides of the fence. But I do agree with you about reviewing the science. 

Now, I personally am Republican and lean Libertarian on many issues. I want freedom for people. But a capitalistic economy does not, by itself, deal well with externalities. In fact Milton Freedman, one of the great voices for freedom, once addressed the issue of pollution on the Phil Donahue show. He said:  

Quote

Phil Donahue: Is there a case for the government to do something about pollution?

Milton Friedman: Yes, there’s a case for the government to do something. There’s always a case for the government to do something about it. Because there’s always a case for the government to some extent when what two people do affects a third party. There’s no case for the government whatsoever to mandate air bags, because air bags protect the people inside the car. That’s my business. If I want to protect myself, I should do it at my expense. But there is a case for the government protecting third parties, protecting people who have not voluntarily agreed to enter. So there’s more of  a case, for example, for emissions controls than for airbags. But the question is what’s the best way to do it? And the best way to do it is not to have bureaucrats in Washington write rules and regulations saying a car has to carry this that or the other. The way to do it is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2014/10/12/what-would-milton-friedman-do-about-climate-change-tax-carbon/#6716ac5b4573)

I agree with this statement. In fact, if I had much say in the matter I would push for a revenue neutral carbon tax to deal with pollution and global warming. The reason I like this option is that it allows Adam Smith's invisible hand to still influence the direction of the economy while not adding any net tax increase. In fact I like it even more because we could reduce capital gains and income taxes which might benefit the economy. I would also aim to remove subsidies and tax breaks from companies and special interests across the board.

[Global Warming Thread]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

@james12,

First, I'm going to do some research to verify the data (it has been falsified before).  Even so, we're still talking about less than 1 deg C over 35 years.  Is that what you consider proof that there is no correlation?  I'd consider that still pretty close.

I simply give it as evidence, not proof. But at some point the evidence continues to mount until we find ourselves being buried by it.  

[Global Warming Thread]

41 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What was it that caused you to change your mind?  Is it really because you just don't know enough about the science behind it and therefore have to have faith in "experts"?

To some extent we all have faith in "experts". The only difference is you have faith in different "experts". Certainly you don't believe you yourself have a better understanding of all the issues than many researchers and scientists?

41 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Wow.  I get a completely different view from those statements.  I see them as the same statements repeated over and over again until people start believing them.  And the more power is fed to government, the more strongly worded the statements get.  These statements do not indicate a change in the data.  The Executive Summaries are written by politicians, not the scientists.  

In case you didn't read my comments before the hiatus:  They keep making more and more certain statements.  But when you go to look for the new evidence, or new argument, or new data, etc. there is none.  It is purely political pressure that is causing any changes in the consensus.  And it is still a pretty weak consensus.

First, the consensus for significant human caused global warming is not weak at all. In fact, I think the consensus against human caused global warming is the weak argument. For instance NASA's website says this:  

Quote

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals¹ show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)

They go on to quote statements affirming the above from 18 scientific journals.

[Global Warming Thread]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

It is not too difficult to discount these pronouncements since the IPPC advocates curtailing freedom (with the concomitant expansion of governments around the world) as the only means of preventing the "carastrophe".

I think you discount the IPCC much too quickly. It evaluates studies carried out by thousands of researchers across the globe and tries to synthesize the results to help policy makers. It represents hundreds of researchers from dozens of countries nominated by government or non-government entities. 

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

I believe you have missed the thrust of the counter argument. Perhaps the form has changed from "no global warming" to no "anthropogenic global warming" (ignoring the far more questionable change from "global warming" to "climate change" or even "climate weirding" — whatever that may mean — and going somewhat further back, to global cooling, an impending ice age predicted in the 60s and 70s). The primary argument has always been that climate changes naturally over time, and the past has a host of examples.

I know of no one who denies that mankind may have some impact on climate, but there is simply no convincing evidence that this impact is "significant". The sun is the source of climate, and it has demonstrated changes enough to account for all but a minuscule fraction of any supposed climate change, and we have absolutely no reason to assume that the known solar cycles will reverse themselves and return us to "normal", whatever that is.

If mankind is responsible for climate change (itself a mystical term, since it has become both warmer and colder over the recent past), what caused exactly the same phenomenon in the past? For climate has undergone both cooling and warming in historical time as well as prehistoric periods, when "man" has had no technology or capacity to affect climate in the least?

Lehi

I certainly do know of people who reject global warming, in fact, Donald Trump comes to mind... 

The sun is just one factor in the global climate (though a very important one). However, it does not account for the entire warming trend. In fact over the last 35 years there has been a slight cooling trend with regards to the sun. Below is a graph of this (see http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm) 

[Global Warming Thread]

45 minutes ago, Vort said:

When the global warming trumpeters produce convincing evidence. So far, pretty much everything I have heard has been, "All the smart people think this, so it must be true." Yet exactly no one -- and I mean, literally, no one -- has ever offered to explain to me what's going on. I have a reasonably good education and am reasonably smart, yet no one wants to tell me what's going on. I'm just supposed to believe them because they say it's so.

Really accurate data is not available from earlier than maybe 20 or 30 (max) years ago, yet that is supposed to establish a baseline for climate -- which we know perfectly well changes on a cyclical basis that varies between hours and 100,000 years. We are stabbing in the dark when we try to say that this or that temperature fluctuation is "abnormal".

Global warmingists further damage their credibility when they change their rhetoric so drastically, as e.g. changing "global warming" to "global climate change". Guess what? The climate ALWAYS changes! That's a feature of the Earth's climate! But now a cooling trend can be dismissed by a hand wave, and the orthodoxy of Global Warming reaffirmed.

The fixes proposed for Global Warming always, in every case, increase governmental power and regulatory abilities. This aligns with the political thought of some parties, but not with others (like me). And guess who just happens to be behind the push to control this environmental catastrophe? By an utterly astounding coincidence, it just happens to be the folks who want more government control and less freedom of self-determination. How about that.

I am perfectly willing to believe in anthropogenic global warming, but I want a great deal more than the say-so of so-called "experts". I also want evidence that any supposed "global warming" is harmful. We know beyond reasonable doubt that we emerged from an ice age about 12,000 years ago, and that the interglacial periods tend to be on the order of 10,000 years. So we have fairly good reason to suspect that a global catastrophe beyond our reckoning might come at any time, perhaps in the next 1000 years or less, in the form of giant sheets of ice covering the northern parts of Asia, Europe, and North America. It appears that the Earth's climate reaches a "tipping point", then suddenly plunges into a glacial period in a very short time, perhaps only decades or even less. Might anthropogenic global warming preclude or delay this?

Most of the "global warming" arguments strike me as a naked power grab. I'm all for reducing oil usage, both from an environmental and a political standpoint. So show me some ways to "go green" that do not involve increasing government power, and I'll jump on that bandwagon. Until then, paint me deeply skeptical.

In regards to global warming there are many factors that effect the earth's temperatures. These many factors no doubt do make the science more complex. Moreover, I'm sure on this forum I will not be able to provide all the science to change your mind. So my suggestion would be to investigate attribution studies on global warming. But maybe for some this graph can represent a start. The National Center for Atmospheric Research evaluated five different factors: volcanoes, sulfate aerosol pollution, solar activity, greenhouse gases, and ozone depletion. Each factor had a distinct influence. They attempted to model the current warming trend without accounting for human induced factors. The model could not reproduce our recent warming trend without including greenhouse gases. 

Let me just quickly comment on the politics of the issue... Unfortunately, politics is a significant player in the information we receive and our attitude to global warming. I certainly do agree that the left has tried to use global warming as an opportunity to gain more control over industry and individuals, just as the right has tried to distort the message on the other extreeme. However, in evaluating the issue it is critical to divorce the science from politics until evidence has been well evaluated. So many do not do so, and around and around we go carried by every wind of doctrine.

[Global Warming Thread]

I have changed my tune on this issue recently. I think it is getting harder and harder to argue with scientific consensus on the matter of global warming. 

For example the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) has more strongly worded their summary statements over the years. Here are some examples: 

Quote

 

1995: "The balance of evidence suggest a discernible human influence on global climate."

2001: "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activitites."

2007: "Human-induced warming of the climate system is wide-spread."

2013: "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century"

 

Further the rhetoric on the other side of the argument has changed from, "There is no global warming", to, "There is global warming but it is not caused by humans", until now we hear, "There is global warming and it is caused by humans, but our impact is negligible". At what point will republicans and big business acknowledge the significant impact of humans on global warming? 

[Is it possible/common/normal for church members to have a tree of life vision?]

It is indeed our privilege to seek for, and obtain, revelation. Joseph Smith speaking in third person stated plainly, "God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what he will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them. …” (TPJS, p. 149).

 

Of course there is a process to these things and we do not seek such experiences to consume it upon our lusts, but we should see a process unfolding in our lives. Nephi's examples is instructive. First, he cried unto the Lord, "and behold he [the Lord] did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe" (1 Ne 2:16). We don't know exactly what "visit me" means, but I suspect it was just a feeling of peace. Many members time and time again receive such a visit and feeling of peace. It is one of the most common personal revelations in the church.

 

Second, Nephi cries to the Lord for his brothers and the Lord speaks to him (2 Ne 2:19). I may be wrong, but I suspect, that it was not an audible voice. Read Enos's words about the experience he had and note what manner the voice comes, "behold, the voice of the Lord came into my mind again, saying..." (Enos 1:10). A voice came to his mind. I believe this also happens in the church fairly regularly however some cannot well distinguish the voice of the Lord speaking in their minds and their own thoughts. They have not yet learned to "hear" his voice.

 

Third, an angel visits Nephi and his brothers. However, the interesting thing here is that Laman and Lemuel do not care at all about the angel. I wonder if they even recognized that it was an angel of the Lord, because right after he departs Laman and Lemuel question what the angel said.

 

Finally, Nephi sees the vision of the tree of life in which he is caught away in the Spirit of the Lord. This is a culmination of all the faith he has exercised in the Lord up to this point. Fewer can rend the veil as Nephi did. It takes discernment, confidence in the Lord, and a determination to follow him. But surely it is possible for any saint. The scriptures testify of it again and again.

 

The brother of Jared traveled a similar spiritual path. After the he sees the Lord Moroni cannot contain himself. He testifies boldly and then gives us the Lord's words as he himself received them:

Come unto me, O ye Gentiles, and I will show unto you the greater things, the knowledge which is hid up because of unbelief. ...Behold, when ye shall rend that veil of unbelief which doth cause you to remain in your awful state of wickedness, and hardness of heart, and blindness of mind, then shall the great and marvelous things which have been hid up from the foundation of the world from you - yea, when ye shall call upon the Father in my name, with a broken heart and contrite spirit, then shall ye know that the Father hath remembered the covenant which he made unto your fathers, O house of Israel. (Ether 4:13,15)

Of this very scripture Elder Holland says:

Once and for all it was declared that ordinary people with ordinary challenges could rend the veil of unbelief and enter the relms of eternity. And Christ, who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem his people, would stand in all his glory at the edge of that veil, ready to receive the believers and show them "how great things the Father had laid up" for them at the end of faith's journey. (Christ and the New Covenant, p 29)

And so it is, and indeed must be. It is we who will not pierce the veil, and it is we who prevent the Lord from manifesting himself in various ways and means. 

[Spiritual DNA?]

Here is a statement that roles around in my head from time to time in relation to this topic. I comes from Theodore M. Burton in General Conference many years ago. He referred to the following scripture, "Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers - for ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God" (D&C 86:8-9). Then made this point: 

"oh," I can hear some of you say, "there must be something wrong with that statement, for I am the only member of my family who has joined the church. How could I receive the priesthood from my parents?" In this scripture the Lord was not talking about your priesthood line of authority. He was talking about your inherited right to receive and use priesthood power. ...This means we receive a right to priesthood blessings from our blood ancestry. ("Salvation for the Dead: A Missionary Activity" Ensign May 1975)

 
In relation to this, on one occasion Brigham Young said:

“You have heard Joseph say that the people did not know him; he had his eyes on … blood-relations. … His descent from Joseph that was sold into Egypt was direct, and the blood was pure in him. … He had the sole right and lawful power, as he was the legal heir to the blood that has been on the earth and has come down through a pure lineage. The union of various ancestors kept that blood pure. There is a great deal the people do not understand, and many of the Latter-day Saints have to learn all about it.” (Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine, July 1920, 107, see also Robert L. Millet, "The Ancient Covenant Restored" Ensign Mar 1998)

I've wondered about the above statements. Not particularly as it relates to males receiving the priesthood, but rather, me exercising and using priesthood and my blood relations. Is the interpretation of D&C 86:8-9 correct? If not, how should we interpret it? Is Brigham Young's statement wrong? 

[What is the most important verse in Section 89?]

I've been eating cereal for 35 years, and for some reason I'm still alive and going strong. I don't think processed foods are the major issue in the word of wisdom.

[Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law]

The confusion, I assume, I am experiencing is the notion that the "letter" becomes antiquated (obsolete). Would you expound, clarify, the teachings that you feel highlight this point?

Sure I'll give a few. Nephi says, "And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled. For, for this end was the law given: wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith: yet we keep the law because of the commandments" (2 Ne 25:24-25). Now typically we take this statement by Nephi and say Christ came to give us better rules and rituals and the old rules/rituals (ie Law of Moses) are done away. But we do not take Nephi's words far enough for all we have done is replaced old rules with new rules which we claim are better. But ultimately the very rules themselves must become dead unto us so that the spirit of the Lord may live in us. Or as Paul put it, "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law" (Gal 5:18)

 

Nephi continues, "Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away" (2 Ne 25:27). Let us not harden our hearts because we find that at some point the letter of the law must be done away in us.

 

Please understand, this is not an argument to forget all the commandments, stop striving, or to do less than our duty. It is an acknowledgement that rules bind but the spirit gives life. It is a recognition that Christ is the culmination of the law and following his spirit will lead us right. 

 

My understanding of the spirit and letter is that they are both complimentary.  The letter and law exist much like the physical and spiritual exist, and compliment each other (Spiritual being higher than (Supreme than) the physical as the spirit is higher than the letter). 

 

Nephi is a common exemplum used to illustrate difference between the spirit and letter of the law.  In many cases, people will use Nephi as a reason to break the letter, or to ignore the letter.  I find the exact opposite in this experience of Nephi. The letter and spirit are both adhered to.

 

We have been given two great commandments (laws). 1) Love the Lord thy God with all they heart... 2) Love thy neighbor as thyself.  These are both letters, and the spirit of each commandment is given as well.  These two laws/commandments engulf all other laws, letter and spirit.  

 

When Nephi killed Laban he was honoring the spirit and letter of the first great and second great commandments (laws).  He also honored other letter of laws, 1) Keep the commandments and you will be blessed.  2) Laban sought his life, and under the letter of the law of Moses Nephi had every right to kill Laban. 3) Laban had stolen their property 4) The Lord hath delivered...  Nephi was informed, and remembered all of these things and then this letter entered his mind, "Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, thy shall prosper in the land of promise."  The letter, and the spirit of each law, complimented Nephi such that he knew taking Laban's life honored the first great commandment, and right before he kills Laban he then honors also the second, "Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments..." (emphasis on "they")

 

The spirit and letter were obeyed; although, if not for the Spirit telling him to kill (the first great commandment) he would not have done so.

Let me again point to definition. If by letter you simply mean all the words and commandments ever given then sure at any one time we will find ourselves obeying some written commandments while breaking some others. As Joseph Smith said, "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed" (Personal Writings of Joseph Smith p. 507-509). So, Nephi can kill Laban and follow some commandments and so we could say that he was following the letter of the law. But this is not the sense in which Paul talks about the letter/spirit of the law and in this conversation we would do well not to confuse written commandments with the letter of the law as defined by Paul.

 

To further this point consider this, if the Law of Moses contains the two commandments upon which all others are based as you have noted; then according to your logic the Law of Moses cannot be done away. For it contains within it these supreme laws. If this is the case how then does what Nephi says, and what Paul says about doing away with the law make any sense?

[Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law]

James12,

 

Which particular action, thought, choice, behavior, etc., falls under the spirit of the law but is not covered by the letter? If you're going to stand by the idea that the letter of the law is insufficient then you must be able to answer this question plainly. You cannot, of course, without narrowly defining "the law". Well what "law" are we talking about here? Once again, sure, if we narrow it to mean the law of Moses or the like, then we might be able to view the letter and the spirit of the law differently. But if we mean, as we clearly do in our time, the law of God as given by His prophets and apostles and by Christ himself, then there is no principle of good that can rightly be ascribed to outside the law. If you know of something, please...share.

Any action which is not done willingly, with real intent, and according to the spirit of the Lord follows the letter of the law. It does not matter if the commandment can be written in words.

 

If you will consider what you have said you will see that even the Law of Moses does not follow your definition of letter of the law. But let me comment more to Anddenex on this matter since his question is more to this point.

[Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law]

Highlighted portion:

 

In Jesus the Christ, "The law required all males to present themselves before the Lord at the feast. The rule was that women should likewise attend if not lawfully detained; and Mary appears to have followed both the spirit of the law and the letter of the rule, for she habitually accompanied her husband to the annual gathering at Jerusalem."

 

How does an individual follow both the letter and the spirit of rules/laws if they contrast each other?  It appears you are saying you obey one or the other, not both.

 

The spirit of the law compliments the letter, and often when acting on the spirit of the law (for minor laws) they are acting upon a different letter of the law.  You mention Nephi, what letter of the law was Nephi obeying when he killed Laban?  

 

The contrast is when traditions of the letter of the law were lived upon while ignoring the spirit, or truth, of the letter of the law given, Or as Elder Maxwell presents, "'Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath?' Jesus counter-challenge.  Can we not keep the spirit of the law without leaving other things undone?  Without such spiritual balance, staying on the strait and narrow path will be a great trial for us."

 

The contrast is the tradition lived with regard to the letter of the law the Jews were living.  Wait you can't heal a person on the Sabbath?  A tradition which truly contrast the spirit.  The letter of the law given to Moses never included it is not lawful to do good.  This was the tradition taught and lived upon the letter, which were inaccurate.  Paul speaks out against the same traditions, which contrast not only the spirit of the law, as well as the letter (the actual letter) provided.

Hi Anddenex,

I think contrast is not the ideal word. They are not polar opposites. Generally one can follow both the letter and spirit of the law, in fact this should be the normal situation should it not? After all the letter is meant to lead us to the spirit of the law, so I have nothing against the letter. But if were not careful we may lose the spirit of the law and simply follow the letter of it. So at some point we must come to the spirit of the law and then it will not mater about the letter of the law for the spirit of the law encompasses it. 

 

I'm not sure I understand your point about Nephi, maybe you can further explain. However, I would say that the letter of the law is designed to compliment the spirit of the law, not the other way around. 

[Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law]

...what exactly was the point of giving that law in the first place?

 

What you and others seem to be saying is that the laws God gives us will lead us to damnation. That we are, somehow, apparently, supposed to ignore them in favor of some higher way. Same question then...what is the point of giving us laws if we're supposed to ignore them?

Paul, who I urge you to consider again in the wider sense of which I discussed, addressed this very point. He says, "What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet." (Romans 7:7 NRSV). Before we are experts in the spirit, the law teaches us about right and wrong (Paul would say it is our school master to bring us to Christ). It gives us guidelines on our behavior so we can start to feel the spirit and distinguish good from evil. However, once we can recognize the spirit in all it's forms we do not need the specifics. This is not ignoring the law, rather it is fulfilling the law in every way shape and form. And it is not, living in a more lax fashion but in a more exact one as Elder Maxwell stated. 

[Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law]

I'm pretty sure that we're conflating a variety of things. It never does good to use Paul to try and argue a contemporary point related to "the law" however. Paul was speaking, very plainly, to the Jews and about the law of Moses.

What's being confused here is that Paul, in speaking of the "deadness" of the law or the how the letter "killeth" is that he is speaking of Eternal law rather than the law of Moses.

If you are also speaking of the law of Moses then you are right. If you're translating it to our current law...the law given as a replacement for the law of Moses...the law given by Christ...then you are wrong. To live the letter of the law is to live the spirit of the law. It is one and the same, and that is, in fact, exactly the law the Christ brought and taught.

when talking about the letter and spirit of the law Paul is the authority on the subject so I disagree that we should push Paul into obsolescence. I also disagree with your narrow interpretation of Paul's words. Certainly he often referred to the law of Moses but his words are of much wider application. To not see this misses an important truth about how to live the gospel.

I could also point to Nephi and Mormon/Moroni who talk about living the spirit of the law. So again by definition the letter is in contrast to the spirit of the law and an important distinction is lost when the two are mistakenly defined as the same term.

[Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law]

I found this quote from BYU.

 

“One of the ironies which is fostered, at times innocently, in the Church, is the feeling we have that the spirit of the law is superior to the letter of the law because for some reason it seems more permissive or less apt to offend others. The reverse is true. The spirit of the law is superior because it demands more of us than the letter of the law. The spirit of the law insists that we do more than merely comply superficially. It means, too, that we must give attention to the things that matter most and still not leave the others undone.”

Neal A. Maxwel

For the Power Is in Them, Pgs. 46-47

 

There is really no dichotomy between living the letter of the law and living the spirit of the law. One has to live the letter of the law in order to live the spirit of the law; one must live the spirit of the law in order to be able to live the letter of the law.

http://emp.byui.edu/...rit-Maxwell.pdf

 

I love the quote by Elder Maxwell and agree with it entirely. However, I'm not sure where the second statement came from and do not believe it follows what Elder Maxwell said.

[Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law]

How can - be ye therefore perfect - only contain a small portion of the spirit of the law? What about love God with all your heart, might, mind and strength? Only a portion? Really?

Maybe think on this a bit more thoroughly.

Your post and a few others are confusing the definition of letter and spirit of the law. As defined by Paul the two take different paths. For example he said, "[God] who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" (2 Cor 3:6). The letter killeth. Why? Because it is about exact rules and regulations which have no heart in them. In the strict sense of the term, the letter of the law is about following specific commandments with unwavering exactness. So if Nephi followed the letter of the law he would never have killed Laban. If Abraham followed the letter of the law only he would never have taken his son Isaac up into the mountain to be sacrificed. If the Savior himself had followed the letter of the law he would never have allowed himself to knowingly be killed. 

 

Commandments like, "love the Lord your God with all your heart might mind and strength" do not even compute for one who follows the letter of the law only. Why? Because by definition a strict letter of the law person cannot even understand the spirit of love and its various nuances. A letter of the law person needs tangible acts to perform and specific rules to follow. Thus you may say something like, "nurse your neighbor to health when he is sick" but simply saying "love your neighbor" is way too vague.

 

Now of course, there are no people who entirely live the letter of the law, but let's not confuse the definition and say that to live the letter of the law is to live the spirit of it. No. The two lead to completely different results. One brings life, the other death.

[Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law]

I do not believe there is any difference between the two because keeping the spirit of the law is part of keeping the letter. If one fails to keep the spirit of the law, then they are not keeping the letter of the law because the letter of the law states that we must keep the spirit of the law.

There is confusion here between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. See my above distinction. The letter of the law can only contain a small portion of the spirit of the law. The letter of the law may try to define how we must act, but it cannot define every point.

 

Now you may say that some statement like, "always do good" is the letter of the law but such a statement is meaningless to one who only lives the letter of the law for they do not even know what "good" is. 

[Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law]

I was talking with my darling about the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. My question was: Is it just as serious to break the spirit of the law as it is the letter of the law? For example, while the Church has no official position regarding the consumption of caffeinated soft drinks as violating the WoW, several church leaders have stated either directly or by implication that it violates the spirit of the WoW. Additionally, there are many articles on the Church web site that condemn drinking them, yet members persist in justifying their drinking by saying “there's no official position.”

 

I think breaking the spirit of the law goes back to being commanded in all things.

 

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

(Doctrine and Covenants 58:26)

First, let me make a distinction about the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. The letter of the law contains well defined rules, commandments, and rituals. If we live the letter of then we must obey all the rules for if we fail to live one commandment we have broken the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is different. It looks at the intent of the letter and thus contains the spirit of what the letter points to.

 

So, regarding your question as to whether it is just as serious to break the spirit of the law as the letter of the law, I would conclude that it is more serious to break the spirit of the law than the letter of the law. In fact, I would go so far as to say that ultimately the spirit of the law is what matters. The letter of the law is just a school master to lead us to the spirit. 

 

As to the WoW example you bring up, the spirit of the law certainly does not mandate that we must avoid caffeine. In fact, stating that it does defines the letter of the law, not the spirit of it. 

[2 Ne 2 questions]

Regarding #4: It seems pretty clear that they were not fully mortal in the garden.  In all probability, they were something like translated.  It seems probable that in that state, whatever it was, they couldn't procreate.*  The way scriptures describe translation, it seems like a sort of temporary not-quite-resurrection (you won't get sick, won't die, won't have physical pain - but it's not permanent), and we know that procreation between resurrected, exalted beings will produce spirit children, not mortal children.  We also know that not all resurrected beings will be capable of procreation.  So, it's reasonable to assume that in a translated state, one can't do either - the body perhaps cannot be used to create mortal children - it not being fully mortal at that stage - the whole is not yet exalted to a state which can produce spirit children - therefore, no procreation.

 

*I personally have no problem believing either way: that Adam and Eve didn't have sex / know about sex; or that they did, but it would not produce children.  I think arguments could be made for either.  I also think it's utterly irrelevant and none of our business. :)

I always like thoughts like these. Consider these questions.

 

1. How is it that there are children in the eternal state? Aren't babies a condition of mortality and all spirits mature?

2. How can there be growth like we have here, because on this earth our knowledge is hidden from us, but such is not the case in the eternities.