Jump to content
bsjkki

Oaks on Global Warming and Trump

Recommended Posts

BYU Hawaii commencement speech by Elder Oaks Feb. 25th. https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/push-back-against-the-world?lang=eng&_r=1&cid=HP_WE_1-3-2017_dPFD_fCNWS_xLIDyL2-3  In it he states,

"These are challenging times, filled with big worries: wars and rumors of wars, possible epidemics of infectious diseases, droughts, floods, and global warming. Seacoast cities are concerned with the rising level of the ocean, which will bring ocean tides to their doorsteps or over their thresholds. Global warming is also affecting agriculture and wildlife. Nations whose prosperity depends on world peace and free trade worry about disturbing developments that threaten either or both of these. We are even challenged by the politics of conflict and the uncertainties sponsored by the aggressive new presidential administration in the world’s most powerful nation."

He doesn't seem to like the new administration much. This seems less politically neutral than most comments by apostles. Maybe the church did have a hand in the Deseret News editorial. (It would not have had to be overt--a phone call or comment from the proper person would nudge the board in the direction they wanted.) Here is the story in the SL Trib. http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/5021251-155/mormon-leader-dallin-oaks-points-to

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I did like very much to avoid bad contributions in social media..it is so way out there! 

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I did like very much to avoid bad contributions in social media..it is so way out there! 

Yes...there is a lot of great advice in the speech. This election cycle broke my Facebook. There is no winning a political argument on social media so why bother being devisive with friends.  He does council us to also engage. I'm not sure how to do that because any political opinion seems to be devisive right now. He states: 

"Of course this counsel to love, to avoid contention, and to be examples of civility is not meant to discourage us from participating in discussions, debates, and even taking adversarial positions against what we believe to be wrong or inadvisable. Within the limits of our own resources of time and influence we shouldtake a position, make it known, and in a respectful way attempt to persuade others of its merit, at least for us. Positive action is essential to our responsibility to push back against the world."

In the current climate, what does this look like for the average member?

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Yes...there is a lot of great advice in the speech. This election cycle broke my Facebook. There is no winning a political argument on social media so why bother being devisive with friends.  He does council us to also engage. I'm not sure how to do that because any political opinion seems to be devisive right now. He states: 

"Of course this counsel to love, to avoid contention, and to be examples of civility is not meant to discourage us from participating in discussions, debates, and even taking adversarial positions against what we believe to be wrong or inadvisable. Within the limits of our own resources of time and influence we shouldtake a position, make it known, and in a respectful way attempt to persuade others of its merit, at least for us. Positive action is essential to our responsibility to push back against the world."

In the current climate, what does this look like for the average member?

You know what?  I don't have a clue...can one speak their mind without initiating any kind of conflict..does that conflict matter?  So many different kinds of mormons on different levels and some have fear of speaking out at all...If permission is granted by an authority..this is a huge.  After all is said and done..it is a scary world.

Share this post


Link to post

In his BYU-H commencement address on 25 Feb 2017, Dallin Oaks made the following remarks:

"These are challenging times, filled with big worries: wars and rumors of wars, possible epidemics of infectious diseases, droughts, floods, and global warming. Seacoast cities are concerned with the rising level of the ocean, which will bring ocean tides to their doorsteps or over their thresholds. Global warming is also affecting agriculture and wildlife. Nations whose prosperity depends on world peace and free trade worry about disturbing developments that threaten either or both of these. We are even challenged by the politics of conflict and the uncertainties sponsored by the aggressive new presidential administration in the world’s most powerful nation."

 

Sounds like an endorsement of global warming and not necessarily the most flattering description of the Trump administration. 

Entire speech is posted on LDS.org in the "Prophets and Apostles" section:

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/push-back-against-the-world?lang=eng&_r=1&cid=HP_WE_1-3-2017_dPFD_fCNWS_xLIDyL2-3

Share this post


Link to post

The data is increasingly pointing to more cooling.  In a few decades we may see another 'Little Ice Age.'   Now more than ever, we NEED to increase CO2 to 600 PPM just to keep agriculture production up.   But that probably won't work.   A better alternative will be to construct giant space mirrors in orbit to direct more of sunlight onto Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, rockpond said:

In his BYU-H commencement address on 25 Feb 2017, Dallin Oaks made the following remarks:

"These are challenging times, filled with big worries: wars and rumors of wars, possible epidemics of infectious diseases, droughts, floods, and global warming. Seacoast cities are concerned with the rising level of the ocean, which will bring ocean tides to their doorsteps or over their thresholds. Global warming is also affecting agriculture and wildlife. Nations whose prosperity depends on world peace and free trade worry about disturbing developments that threaten either or both of these. We are even challenged by the politics of conflict and the uncertainties sponsored by the aggressive new presidential administration in the world’s most powerful nation."

 

Sounds like an endorsement of global warming and not necessarily the most flattering description of the Trump administration. 

Entire speech is posted on LDS.org in the "Prophets and Apostles" section:

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/push-back-against-the-world?lang=eng&_r=1&cid=HP_WE_1-3-2017_dPFD_fCNWS_xLIDyL2-3

I guess you had to have been there but what you cited dies not necessitate an "endorsement" but an empathetic voice to real concerns of people, legitimate or not. Despite all of one's concerns there is always a real comfort which comes through Christ and in Christ and my guess is that Oaks mentioned that at least once in the speech.

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

Posted earlier in the "News" forum: 

 

We can move the discussion here but let me repeat the question from my last post. Oaks encourages us to refrain from "contentious communications." I responded to Jeane: 

Yes...there is a lot of great advice in the speech. This election cycle broke my Facebook. There is no winning a political argument on social media so why bother being devisive with friends.  He does council us to also engage. I'm not sure how to do that because any political opinion seems to be devisive right now. He states: 

"Of course this counsel to love, to avoid contention, and to be examples of civility is not meant to discourage us from participating in discussions, debates, and even taking adversarial positions against what we believe to be wrong or inadvisable. Within the limits of our own resources of time and influence we shouldtake a position, make it known, and in a respectful way attempt to persuade others of its merit, at least for us. Positive action is essential to our responsibility to push back against the world."

In the current climate, what does this look like for the average member?

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

BYU Hawaii commencement speech by Elder Oaks Feb. 25th. https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/push-back-against-the-world?lang=eng&_r=1&cid=HP_WE_1-3-2017_dPFD_fCNWS_xLIDyL2-3  In it he states,

"These are challenging times, filled with big worries: wars and rumors of wars, possible epidemics of infectious diseases, droughts, floods, and global warming. Seacoast cities are concerned with the rising level of the ocean, which will bring ocean tides to their doorsteps or over their thresholds. Global warming is also affecting agriculture and wildlife. Nations whose prosperity depends on world peace and free trade worry about disturbing developments that threaten either or both of these. We are even challenged by the politics of conflict and the uncertainties sponsored by the aggressive new presidential administration in the world’s most powerful nation."

He doesn't seem to like the new administration much. This seems less politically neutral than most comments by apostles. Maybe the church did have a hand in the Deseret News editorial. (It would not have had to be overt--a phone call or comment from the proper person would nudge the board in the direction they wanted.) Here is the story in the SL Trib. http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/5021251-155/mormon-leader-dallin-oaks-points-to

Wow.  Pretty impressive, I love it.

I suspect if anything was said to DN, it was probably along the lines of "we wouldn't have a problem if you were rather forceful in your editorials.

"Seacoast cities are concerned with the rising level of the ocean, which will bring ocean tides to their doorsteps or over their thresholds. Global warming is also affecting agriculture and wildlife"

Oh, that is going to annoy some members.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I guess you had to have been there but what you cited dies not necessitate an "endorsement" but an empathetic voice to real concerns of people, legitimate or not.

"Global warning is also affecting agriculture and wildlife."

Are you suggesting he is being sympathetic to the feelings of plants and animals here?

Looks like a statement about the physical effects of global warming, not the emotional or political ones.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

We can move the discussion here but let me repeat the question from my last post. Oaks encourages us to refrain from "contentious communications." I responded to Jeane: 

Yes...there is a lot of great advice in the speech. This election cycle broke my Facebook. There is no winning a political argument on social media so why bother being devisive with friends.  He does council us to also engage. I'm not sure how to do that because any political opinion seems to be devisive right now. He states: 

"Of course this counsel to love, to avoid contention, and to be examples of civility is not meant to discourage us from participating in discussions, debates, and even taking adversarial positions against what we believe to be wrong or inadvisable. Within the limits of our own resources of time and influence we shouldtake a position, make it known, and in a respectful way attempt to persuade others of its merit, at least for us. Positive action is essential to our responsibility to push back against the world."

In the current climate, what does this look like for the average member?

 

I had a conversation with my aunt (whose ironically around the same age as me.....mormon families ;)) that could probably fit this. We have very different views. I'm fairly liberal (not super extreme) and democrat leaning. She's pretty dang conservative and libertarian leaning. So there's not a lot of obvious common ground. But we went back and forth with our positions and concerns on topics of race, immigration, healthcare, Trump, welfare, etc. And though neither of us necessarily agreed or changed our basic ideals, there were moments that we could find something in common to agree with or potential merit in our positions. One simple example was healthcare. She talked about the concerns and problems. I pointed out that some of her points had other points that could either contradict or change the picture a bit. She pointed out other's problems with it and the short comings with one of our relatives. I pointed out that for the most part I'm a major beneficiary to ACA legistlation. At that point we came to an agreement that things could be fixed about the law to improve healthcare. I don't say this to talk about the merits of ACA, but to point out that even with differences that seem extreme, there's often room to have good and respectful conversation.

One of the big hurdle to this, IMHO is the potential to lose people in the pursuit of being right about position. I've had moments where that was really really hard. That happened when someone I talked to who agreed with the first immigration/travel ban. He'd mentioned a point and I started seeing red. I realized that at that point and in the mood I was in, the conversation and potential for persuasion would be lost in my anger and frustration  about something I found fundamentally wrong and harmful. So I chose not to engage, leaving with simple disagreement and moving to a topic that was more relevant to what was needed at that time. Figuring one day I could have a more civil conversation when I could see him a little more than the issue... that just wasn't the day to have it.

As for positive action.....participating in civic engagement in one way or another. Finding areas that you can help. etc. I especially liked his focus on making personal sanctuaries, in a sense, to work on making a safe space to personal bombardments or world problems. Sometimes I think we have a tendency to take on too much of the world. Every cause becomes our cause. What it leads to is an inability to focus our energy in areas to make a difference. I can't do everything, but I can make a difference in my space and my time. I can't give money to every charity, but I can go to the local service activity preparing kits to make shoes for children in Africa. I can't personally alter climate change, but I can do small things to reduce my impact such as being a vegetarian and reusing/recycling materials. I can't fix the immigration bill but I could (and did) take a moment out of my day to call my representatives to voice my complaint. I can't heal all people of their wounds and ailments, but I can work with those who come to me and work to find healing in prayer and scriptures and God. Etc. It's not much, it's not everything. But it's something. And I thing if we all look at ourselves and our own lives we can find our own things that we can contribute to make safe havens for ourselves and those within our influence.

 

With luv,

BD    

Edited by BlueDreams

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I had a conversation with my aunt (whose ironically around the same age as me.....mormon families ;)) that could probably fit this. We have very different views. I'm fairly liberal (not super extreme) and democrat leaning. She's pretty dang conservative and libertarian leaning. So there's not a lot of obvious common ground. But we went back and forth with our positions and concerns on topics of race, immigration, healthcare, Trump, welfare, etc. And though neither of us necessarily agreed or changed our basic ideals, there were moments that we could find something in common to agree with or potential merit in our positions. One simple example was healthcare. She talked about the concerns and problems. I pointed out that some of her points had other points that could either contradict or change the picture a bit. She pointed out other's problems with it and the short comings with one of our relatives. I pointed out that for the most part I'm a major beneficiary to ACA legistlation. At that point we came to an agreement that things could be fixed about the law to improve healthcare. I don't say this to talk about the merits of ACA, but to point out that even with differences that seem extreme, there's often room to have good and respectful conversation.

One of the big hurdle to this, IMHO is the potential to lose people in the pursuit of being right about position. I've had moments where that was really really hard. That happened when someone I agreed with the first immigration/travel ban. He'd mentioned a point and I started seeing red. I realized that at that point and in the mood I was in, the conversation and potential for persuasion would be lost in my anger and frustration  about something I found fundamentally wrong and harmful. So I chose not to engage, leaving with simple disagreement and moving to a topic that was more relevant to what was needed at that time. Figuring one day I could have a more civil conversation when I could see him a little more than the issue... that just wasn't the day to have it.

As for positive action.....participating in civic engagement in one way or another. Finding areas that you can help. etc. I especially liked his focus on making personal sanctuaries, in a sense, to work on making a safe space to personal bombardments or world problems. Sometimes I think we have a tendency to take on too much of the world. Every cause becomes our cause. What it leads to is an inability to focus our energy in areas to make a difference. I can't do everything, but I can make a difference in my space and my time. I can't give money to every charity, but I can go to the local service activity preparing kits to make shoes for children in Africa. I can't personally alter climate change, but I can do small things to reduce my impact such as being a vegetarian and reusing/recycling materials. I can't fix the immigration bill but I could (and did) take a moment out of my day to call my representatives to voice my complaint. I can't heal all people of their wounds and ailments, but I can work with those who come to me and work to find healing in prayer and scriptures and God. Etc. It's not much, it's not everything. But it's something. And I thing if we all look at ourselves and our own lives we can find our own things that we can contribute to make safe havens for ourselves and those within our influence.

 

With luv,

BD    

Love this!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, longview said:

The data is increasingly pointing to more cooling.  In a few decades we may see another 'Little Ice Age.'   Now more than ever, we NEED to increase CO2 to 600 PPM just to keep agriculture production up.   But that probably won't work.   A better alternative will be to construct giant space mirrors in orbit to direct more of sunlight onto Earth.

The oceans have been rising for thousands of years, and continue. The average temperature has indeed increased about 2 deg F over the last 50 years. We are not in danger of going into another ice age... that is for sure. And that won't happen.

 8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.

 9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

 

We definitely need to end our use of coal and gasoline. If we don't go new nuclear, we need to switch over to gas power plants which burn much cleaner and produce about a quarter of the CO2 of coal as well as solar, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

"Global warning is also affecting agriculture and wildlife."

Are you suggesting he is being sympathetic to the feelings of plants and animals here?

Looks like a statement about the physical effects of global warming, not the emotional or political ones.

Here's the paragraph:

Quote

These are challenging times, filled with big worries: wars and rumors of wars, possible epidemics of infectious diseases, droughts, floods, and global warming. Seacoast cities are concerned with the rising level of the ocean, which will bring ocean tides to their doorsteps or over their thresholds. Global warming is also affecting agriculture and wildlife. Nations whose prosperity depends on world peace and free trade worry about disturbing developments that threaten either or both of these. We are even challenged by the politics of conflict and the uncertainties sponsored by the aggressive new presidential administration in the world’s most powerful nation.

To me Oaks clearly out lined hypothetical and possible situations but not concrete ones. No, he wasn't sympathetic to "feelings of plants and animals" but to those who are concerned about plants and animals over global warming. I imagine there's quite a lot of them in Hawaii where the political mindset is firmly on the side of man-made global warming threats and how "aggressive" President Trump is.

This is one of the great things about the gospel of Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter your politics. Christ will succor the worried without being a "respecter of persons".  

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, longview said:

The data is increasingly pointing to more cooling.  In a few decades we may see another 'Little Ice Age.'   Now more than ever, we NEED to increase CO2 to 600 PPM just to keep agriculture production up.   But that probably won't work.   A better alternative will be to construct giant space mirrors in orbit to direct more of sunlight onto Earth.

jiFfM.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

"Seacoast cities are concerned with the rising level of the ocean, which will bring ocean tides to their doorsteps or over their thresholds. Global warming is also affecting agriculture and wildlife"

Oh, that is going to annoy some members.

The counsel of Harold B. Lee may be appropriate:

Quote

There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord Himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory” 

 

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I had a conversation with my aunt (whose ironically around the same age as me.....mormon families ;)) that could probably fit this. We have very different views. I'm fairly liberal (not super extreme) and democrat leaning. She's pretty dang conservative and libertarian leaning. So there's not a lot of obvious common ground. But we went back and forth with our positions and concerns on topics of race, immigration, healthcare, Trump, welfare, etc. And though neither of us necessarily agreed or changed our basic ideals, there were moments that we could find something in common to agree with or potential merit in our positions. One simple example was healthcare. She talked about the concerns and problems. I pointed out that some of her points had other points that could either contradict or change the picture a bit. She pointed out other's problems with it and the short comings with one of our relatives. I pointed out that for the most part I'm a major beneficiary to ACA legistlation. At that point we came to an agreement that things could be fixed about the law to improve healthcare. I don't say this to talk about the merits of ACA, but to point out that even with differences that seem extreme, there's often room to have good and respectful conversation.

One of the big hurdle to this, IMHO is the potential to lose people in the pursuit of being right about position. I've had moments where that was really really hard. That happened when someone I talked to who agreed with the first immigration/travel ban. He'd mentioned a point and I started seeing red. I realized that at that point and in the mood I was in, the conversation and potential for persuasion would be lost in my anger and frustration  about something I found fundamentally wrong and harmful. So I chose not to engage, leaving with simple disagreement and moving to a topic that was more relevant to what was needed at that time. Figuring one day I could have a more civil conversation when I could see him a little more than the issue... that just wasn't the day to have it.

As for positive action.....participating in civic engagement in one way or another. Finding areas that you can help. etc. I especially liked his focus on making personal sanctuaries, in a sense, to work on making a safe space to personal bombardments or world problems. Sometimes I think we have a tendency to take on too much of the world. Every cause becomes our cause. What it leads to is an inability to focus our energy in areas to make a difference. I can't do everything, but I can make a difference in my space and my time. I can't give money to every charity, but I can go to the local service activity preparing kits to make shoes for children in Africa. I can't personally alter climate change, but I can do small things to reduce my impact such as being a vegetarian and reusing/recycling materials. I can't fix the immigration bill but I could (and did) take a moment out of my day to call my representatives to voice my complaint. I can't heal all people of their wounds and ailments, but I can work with those who come to me and work to find healing in prayer and scriptures and God. Etc. It's not much, it's not everything. But it's something. And I thing if we all look at ourselves and our own lives we can find our own things that we can contribute to make safe havens for ourselves and those within our influence.

 

With luv,

BD    

"And though neither of us necessarily agreed or changed our basic ideals, there were moments that we could find something in common to agree with or potential merit in our positions." - Yup. I do that a lot when driving for Uber and my riders get political. My best and most favorite conversation was from a young lady I picked up from a Bjork concert self-described ultra Progressive and I'm very ultra NOT Progressive. We had a great conversation. We laughed a lot and talked a lot on common ground with finances which is her profession at Goldman Sachs. In fact, after I told her I supported Ted Cruz for President until the very end she said, "oh, my boss is Heidi Cruz and I absolutely love that lady! She is the most kind and brilliant woman I've ever known". Before that that we talked a lot about President Trump and we are bot apprehensive about him. I dropped her off at the liquor store of her choice and she said, "yeah, now my street cred's ruined, having the need to get a drink". "I said, hey, we just talked a lot about President Trump, I totally understand why you may need a drink right now. Enjoy!". :) 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

jiFfM.jpg

I agree with the double facepalm but probably for differing reasons than yours.  :)

Share this post


Link to post

calm;

 

If I had any photoshopping skills, I'd insert Elder Oak's face over Saint Francis' and do it just for you. Just for fun. :)

saint-francis.gif

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

If I had any photoshopping skills, I'd insert Elder Oak's face over Saint Francis' and do it just for you. Just for fun. :)

How many books about climate science have you read? No, political websites don't count. 

How many research papers (not free internet articles) have you read? 

Edited by MormonVideoGame

Share this post


Link to post

A team of UK climate experts published a critique of a talk given by climate skeptic scientist Richard Lindzen. 

I share that before someone mentions Richard Lindzen. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The counsel of Harold B. Lee may be appropriate:

the scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelming. Do we need a prophet to tell us that Global Warming is real? So sad. 

Edited by MormonVideoGame

Share this post


Link to post

I am in a snide mood.  Cleaned too many toilets today perhaps (helped out a family member who just had surgery along with too many kids in and out of her house).

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, longview said:

The data is increasingly pointing to more cooling.  In a few decades we may see another 'Little Ice Age.'   Now more than ever, we NEED to increase CO2 to 600 PPM just to keep agriculture production up.   But that probably won't work.   A better alternative will be to construct giant space mirrors in orbit to direct more of sunlight onto Earth.

Sound like you are trolling for a job in the EOB or EPA.  You should fit right in.  B:)

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×