Jump to content
bsjkki

Oaks on Global Warming and Trump

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The counsel of Harold B. Lee may be appropriate:

 

Or you could  just appeal to the Newsroom "Approaching Mormon doctrine" commentary and point out so far, he is the only one saying it so we can ignore it.  Also, there is always multiple interpretations. He wasn't talking about what we were thinking, obviously! :P 

I hope we get more detailed comments in the future and more leaders saying things like this.  I will be surprised if it happens, pleasantly so.  As a global Church, I think it is something we need to pay attention to, whatever it is (I prefer the term climate change because it appears to me to be complicated and Global Warming looks simple to some...like turning up their home's thermostat...or so it seems when they talk about it).

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

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? 

None. It takes me years to read just one book. Besides my comment to Nehor, which I left unspecified and did so as to avoid a climate change debate, what does that have to do with what I posted?

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

This ain't party politics, folks! I've always liked what the Church does and encourages her members to do in the political arena:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/political-neutrality

 

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
11 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

This was a refreshing read, thanks for sharing.  

Now, I'm looking forward to reading all the comments from people that think of the Apostles as virtual mouthpieces for God, but that are conservative republicans and don't believe in Global Warming.  It should be fun to see what kind of excuses they make for disagreeing with Elder Oaks.  

Which I always find interesting, that at the end of the day it seems that political allegiance is stronger than religious conviction.  

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours 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    

I love this. People are probably  getting tI red of my finding connections to 7 Habits for Highly Effective People, but this just really shows an example for being reactive or proactive. You choose not to engage when you know you will be reactive. You know you can't change some things, but are proactive about what you can. 

So much of our political climate is because people are reactive on both sides. 

It's inherently to me that one of the first things that Elder Oaks talks about doing is to keep the Sabbath day holy. It had never occurred to me that it would directly help someone take a step back and not be reactive, think things through and be proactive! The last several years there has been a lot of talk about the Sabbath. It makes perfect sense in this regard!

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours 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?

 

Perhaps we need to come at it in a different way. Instead of arguing outright about different things, show how people are being proactive and the positive outcomes. 

People often get caught up in the idea of doing alms to be seen of men so much that they forget to let their light show so others can know of God. What if instead of arguing about refugees coming in, that people started posting their stories of helping refugees and the relationships they are gaining through this and how they see God's love in it all?

Or I could share my experience with Muslim school girls giving compassion to my daughter in the streets of Jerusalem. 

How about instead of arguing about global warming, you take your cub scouts to the landfill and share what you learned of how to take care of this great blessing of the earth that God have to us?

Sometimes speaking up means we find a different way to do it when the other person won't listen.

Share this post


Link to post
12 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

Good for Elder Oaks!

Share this post


Link to post

When I think about what's happening today, I'm reminded of my two favorite comedy shows...Johnny Carson's "Who Do You Trust?" and Groucho Marx's "You Bet Your Life!"

It's the only way to maintain sanity with all the silliness pouring in from all sides.

Share this post


Link to post
12 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.

We should probably detonate some more nuclear weapons too. Real scientists are saying the level of strontium 90 in the earth's atmosphere is getting dangerously low. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

This was a refreshing read, thanks for sharing.  

Now, I'm looking forward to reading all the comments from people that think of the Apostles as virtual mouthpieces for God, but that are conservative republicans and don't believe in Global Warming.  It should be fun to see what kind of excuses they make for disagreeing with Elder Oaks.  

Which I always find interesting, that at the end of the day it seems that political allegiance is stronger than religious conviction.  

"Now, I'm looking forward to reading all the comments from people that think of the Apostles as virtual mouthpieces for God, but that are conservative republicans and don't believe in Global Warming.  It should be fun to see what kind of excuses they make for disagreeing with Elder Oaks."

Oh, please read my post! Although I refuse to classify myself as "Republican", and I don't see an Apostle as the Lord's mouthpiece declaring church doctrine of global warming at a graduation ceremony, I'm exactly the kind of person you're looking for. :)

Share this post


Link to post
12 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.

NO! it is not.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

NO! it is not.

Eh. Depends on what you read. Besides, isn't building giant space mirrors a great idea? :)

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

NO! it is not.

God is the worlds' best scientist.

  •  

For sure we CANNOT depend on NOAA with its refusal to answer to Congressional committees and proven cases for its attempts to alter the data and cooking the books.

God is BEYOND being a scientist.  He is an absolutist.  There are NO unknowns for Him.

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"Now, I'm looking forward to reading all the comments from people that think of the Apostles as virtual mouthpieces for God, but that are conservative republicans and don't believe in Global Warming.  It should be fun to see what kind of excuses they make for disagreeing with Elder Oaks."

Oh, please read my post! Although I refuse to classify myself as "Republican", and I don't see an Apostle as the Lord's mouthpiece declaring church doctrine of global warming at a graduation ceremony, I'm exactly the kind of person you're looking for. :)

Yes, I saw your post afterwards.  I must be a prophet or something! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, longview said:

For sure we CANNOT depend on NOAA with its refusal to answer to Congressional committees and proven cases for its attempts to alter the data and cooking the books.

God is BEYOND being a scientist.  He is an absolutist.  There are NO unknowns for Him.

Actually we do depend on NOAA and virtually every other recognized scientific organization on the planet for our knowledge concerning man made global warming.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Here are the actual facts concerning NOAA refusing to turn over names of scientists working on global warming.

SEE https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/24/noaa-chief-to-lawmaker-on-climate-change-inquiry-i-will-not-allow-anyone-to-coerce-the-scientists-who-work-for-me/?utm_term=.07f5e02cdb3b

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I saw your post afterwards.  I must be a prophet or something! :lol:

My last name is Zechiel. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Calm said:

Or you could  just appeal to the Newsroom "Approaching Mormon doctrine" commentary and point out so far, he is the only one saying it so we can ignore it.  Also, there is always multiple interpretations. He wasn't talking about what we were thinking, obviously! :P 

I hope we get more detailed comments in the future and more leaders saying things like this.  I will be surprised if it happens, pleasantly so.  As a global Church, I think it is something we need to pay attention to, whatever it is (I prefer the term climate change because it appears to me to be complicated and Global Warming looks simple to some...like turning up their home's thermostat...or so it seems when they talk about it).

The terms have been used interchangeably for over a hundred years now. But specifically the earth as a whole(our home) has been measurably increasing in temperature for over 50 years now.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

When I think about what's happening today, I'm reminded of my two favorite comedy shows...Johnny Carson's "Who Do You Trust?" and Groucho Marx's "You Bet Your Life!"

It's the only way to maintain sanity with all the silliness pouring in from all sides.

I like me some homemade waffles mixed in with my comedy. That's what today entails, at least :P 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, BlueDreams said:

I like me some homemade waffles mixed in with my comedy. That's what today entails, at least :P 

YUMM Waffles. :)

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Eh. Depends on what you read. Besides, isn't building giant space mirrors a great idea? :)

I go to the science for my knowledge of science. Not really. The amount of sunlight reaching our planet is more than enough to power everything we have for about the next 4 billion years.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I go to the science for my knowledge of science. Not really. The amount of sunlight reaching our planet is more than enough to power everything we have for about the next 4 billion years.

And those who oppose you go to the anti-science for knowledge I'm sure.

No doubt there's tremendous power generated each moment from the Sun. Harnessing that power though is a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
16 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.

We need to increase CO2 levels like we need a hole in our skull. (no sarcasm intended).

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

And those who oppose you go to the anti-science for knowledge I'm sure.

No doubt there's tremendous power generated each moment from the Sun. Harnessing that power though is a different story.

The same people who pushed the tobacco isn't addictive scandal are pushing the Anti-science agenda.

We're at the point where harnessing that solar power is cheaper than fossil fuel power.

Edited by thesometimesaint

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

We need to increase CO2 levels like we need a hole in our skull. (no sarcasm intended).

We need more punishing taxes on carbon credits like we need a hole in our skull (sarcasm INTENDED).  This is the only thing driving Global Warming Hysteria.  The science in 'Climate Change' is tragically JUNK science.  Our schools and universities have been 'dumbed down.'

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The same people who pushed the tobacco isn't addictive scandal are pushing the Anti-science agenda.

The people who fought the tobacco propaganda war in the middle decades of the 20th century were the cigarette companies.  The people against the Climate Scam are mostly conservatives.  The intersection between these two groups may actually be the 'empty set.'  I am very disappointed in your scientific reasoning process.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...