Mormonism And Earth Day, Environmentalism

[Samurai2012]

I didn't say it did. Carson, however, created the original intellectual and political "impetus" for what eventually became the modern environmental movement, complete with its aversion to modern technology, chemophobia, romanticization of nature, and sense of moral equivalency between humanity and animal life.

The very existence of what can only be understood as a rogue government agency like the EPA poses clear and serious threats to the continuance of both a free and civil social order grounded in deliberative democratic structures and the rule of law (government through accountable representatives through the consent of those so governed)

I think it could be safely said that the environmental movement itself poses the deepest, gravest, and certainly one of the most pervasive threats to such a social order present among us in overt political and economic form in the last days I think environmentalism poses an unusually serious threat to what members of the Church take to be the inspired principles of the nation's founding, as well as providing an alluring and self gratifying alternative gospel in place of the real article.

Okay, it's true that just about any time a movement goes without skepticism, it can turn pretty rediculous and problematic. However, the only big question is a matter of when the line between beneficial and overreactive is crossed. As the old saying goes, "The devil's in the details."

[Robert F. Smith]

Loran Blood said:

I'm just wondering what business Latter day Saints might have celebrating Earth Day at all given its origins, philosophy, and implications for both the gospel and the sociocultural environment (liberal democratic, rule of law and individual liberty based social and economic forms) in which the church has arisen and thrived? Notice how, the moment "environmentalism" comes up, it acts as an immediate attractant to the following:

Quote

You may be thinking of Kindness to Animals and Caring for the Earth, compiled by Richard D. Stratton. It is a wonderful little book and I use it a lot in my studies of Druidry for Latter-Day Saints.

While there is a substantial quantity of critical reflection and analysis that can be brought to bear on the environmental movement from a gospel standpoint, the above goes a very long way to alerting us to the dangers environmentalism poses to both our own individual spirituality and intellectual stability as well as to our civilization as a whole, of which the restored gospel is a part because of the fundamental nature of that civilization.

Upon what basis do you make this claim (your source only mentions that it "helped spur" that movement, which indicates that the movement already existed as a body of ideas and that the fire was one of many influences on its development as a philosophy having definite policy applications)?

At the very least, any claim of "original impetus" would have to look at first principles and core philosophy, and the founding ideas and attitudes of the modern environmental "movement" are to be found in the works of one Rachel Carson, arguable the mother of the movement's core ideological stance and approach. Though the maturity of the movement is usually dated from the first Earth Day in 1970 (the interesting reemergence of a pagan, pantheistic worldview in primarily secular guise but including religious or quasi-religious elements), its origins are to be found earlier (and the fundamental mindset has a pedigree that takes us back well before the sixties).

The father of environmentalism among the Mormons was Brigham Young, whose words on being good stewards of our environment were more recently popularized by the late Hugh Nibley. Today this is reflected in the Presiding Bishopric installing solar panels on some new chapels, along with the use of drip irrigation for lawns, and immediate heating of water (rather than expensive use of large hot water storage tanks), all of which have an important economic impact and represent more responsible use of tithing funds.

The father of American environmentalism generally was Teddy Roosevelt, who wisely established Federal wilderness areas, parks, national forests, etc. Yale University established the first school of forestry, and my father received his master's degree in forestry from Yale in 1939. I saw first hand the importance of environmentalism growing up in ranger stations of the high Sierras in California. We often played host to members of the Sierra Club and of the Audubon Society (birdwatchers).

As a long time member of the Sierra Club, I reject silly notions that modern American environmentalism has been taken over by a demonic element. That is nonsense. Rachel Carson and a plethora of other writers have made significant contributions to our understanding of the dangers to our common environment, which are often rejected by greedy businessmen whose primary motivation is profit, regardless of the human cost. My late father had constantly to deal with lumber companies and visitors to the national forests whose last consideration was being good stewards.

Just now the greatest threat to our environment is major climate change, and it will bring with it disasters on a Malthusian scale.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[volgadon]

As a long time member of the Sierra Club, I reject silly notions that modern American environmentalism has been taken over by a demonic element. That is nonsense.

Bravo, but wait for the long diatribe.

[Jeff K.]

Earth First agrees with you.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

As a long time member of the Sierra Club, I reject silly notions that modern American environmentalism has been taken over by a demonic element. That is nonsense.

Bravo, but wait for the long diatribe.

My take on that:

I don't believe it's been taken over by a "demonic" element. I do believe that some people within the movement, like all movements, take it way too far. As stated previously, I don't view man's contribution to global warming as significant. Additionally, there are without question major elements within the Global Warming movement who view an international global government based on socialist principles to be the only way to save mankind from global warming as such a government is the only one capable of unilaterally making the big decisions. Many of those people feel every country which moves towards socialism is a good thing. Perhaps you don't see that as bad, as some members of our board do not. I personally do. I don't feel they are demonic, just wrong.

That said, I also pointed out that I am against pollution, and I would add I am for forests and natural reserves (though many national parks out east were created in such a way where the very wealthiest used the government to prevent others from creating vacation homes near their summer mansions... so I do have some issue with how land is chosen, as also certain restrictions associated with various areas). Lots of people go in to national forests and act stupidly, endangering both the environment and the lives of others (poor fire practices, trash, dumping chemicals, 4-wheeling through restricted areas, etc). It is and should be criminal.

[Robert F. Smith]

My take on that:

I don't believe it's been taken over by a "demonic" element. I do believe that some people within the movement, like all movements, take it way too far. As stated previously, I don't view man's contribution to global warming as significant. Additionally, there are without question major elements within the Global Warming movement who view an international global government based on socialist principles to be the only way to save mankind from global warming as such a government is the only one capable of unilaterally making the big decisions. Many of those people feel every country which moves towards socialism is a good thing. Perhaps you don't see that as bad, as some members of our board do not. I personally do. I don't feel they are demonic, just wrong.

We live in a society which waits until disaster strikes before dealing with problems.

Our opportunity to deal effectively with the fact of global warming is long past. Nothing we can do at this stage will prevent the coming worldwide debacle. Science and technology can describe the effects, and will be called upon in the future to deal with them, but it will be too little too late.

Only the direct intervention of God himself can prevent it. Kyrie eleison.

That said, I also pointed out that I am against pollution, and I would add I am for forests and natural reserves (though many national parks out east were created in such a way where the very wealthiest used the government to prevent others from creating vacation homes near their summer mansions... so I do have some issue with how land is chosen, as also certain restrictions associated with various areas). Lots of people go in to national forests and act stupidly, endangering both the environment and the lives of others (poor fire practices, trash, dumping chemicals, 4-wheeling through restricted areas, etc). It is and should be criminal.

The wealthy have great political power. Always have, and Jesus and the prophets were harshly critical of their haughty attitude and behavior. There is nothing new under the sun.

[LeSellers]

I am for forests and natural reserves (though many national parks out east were created in such a way where the very wealthiest used the government to prevent others from creating vacation homes near their summer mansions...

States with greatest federal ownership of land:

1. Nevada 84.5%

2. Alaska 69.1%

3. Utah 57.4%

4. Oregon 53.1%

5. Idaho 50.2%

6. Arizona 48.1%

7. California 45.3%

8. Wyoming 42.3%

9. New Mexico 41.8%

10. Colorado 36.6%

Since the Constitution gives "congress" the power to own land only for "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings" and none at all for owning "parks, forests, monuments, or 'National Recreation Areas'", etc., it is simply not in the legitimate purview of the federal government to own any such things.

When Bubba designated a huge portion of southern Utah as a national monument, his goal was not preservation, his goal was the weakening of western coal interests in favor of eastern ones (or, better yet, the weakening of all USmerican coal interests, in favor of "green" energy—search "Evergreen Solar bankruptcy"). His goal was expanding government and increasing its control over people's lives.

Just how much land should the federal government own in Utah or Colorado? Even in the tenth most-owned stated, the tenth, the federal government owns more than ⅓ of the land. That's more than unfair—it's tyrannical.

Least Federal land ownership, by state:

1. Connecticut 0.4%

2. Rhode Island 0.4%

3. Iowa 0.8%

4. New York 0.8%

5. Maine 1.1%

6. Kansas 1.2%

7. Nebraska 1.4%

8. Alabama 1.6%

9. Ohio 1.7%

10. Illinois 1.8%

In these states, too, there is far more land than is authorized by the Constitution, but, as you point out, it is far more likely that the decision was purely political than environmental.

In 1977, one of the first official acts of one James Earl Carter (aka "Jimmy" Carter) was to veto a "water bill". Mr. Carter was stunned by the response in the west: "Where I'm from, 'water' is just another word." The united States of America is far too large and too diverse to be governed by a small cadre of bureaucrats and politicians (none of whom is any less self-serving than anyone else—"public servant" does not mean "honest" or "fair", and it's a lie anyway). To imagine that Washington (or London, or Paris, or Tokyo—or, for that matter, Denver, Salt Lake City, Salem, or Columbia) can best administer lands hundreds or thousands of miles distant is insanity.

We Saints are commanded to "dress" the earth, to "take care" of it. But that is a far cry from sitting in caves, eating mushrooms and licking the walls for moisture. We are also given dominion over her, and to use God's resources, and to use them wisely. Government, throughout history, has a miserable record on the latter, and a poor one on defending God-given rights and freedoms.

Lehi

[Loran Blood]

Matthew J. Tandy

Hyrum Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Joseph F. Smith, and one other (George Albert?) were all by and large vegetarians. It's been a while since I read about it, but it started with Hyrum, and his descendents carried it on off and on. In general, they practiced "not refusing" ala Paul when given, but in their personal lives abstained.

This is the first time I've ever heard this. Could you provide a CFR? Secondly, the personal traditions of individual Saints - including prophets - are not relevant to the core question before us, which is whether or not such a position as you've taken here is doctrinal.

Further, the concept for vegetarianism is one where those who can it seems should, while those who can't (native Eskimos for instance) are not under any condemnation whatsoever. Same with those who need meat to make it through the winter or in times of drought. Hence, forbidding meat is wrong. We should not teach it is forbidden. This is not the same as teaching that when the option exists, we should not choose meat.

I think there's something we should keep in mind about section 89:

To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

Save for the clear prohibitions upon certain addictive, psychoactive substances (alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine) which became a mark of worthiness for Temple worship and of seriousness in living a gospel centered life generally, this interesting disclaimer has never been altered or amended by the Brethren, and that is of primary importance in ascertaining whether claims such as "when the option exists, we should not choose meat," which the Brethren as a unified body have never made, are doctrinal. I have no problem with you, as an individual, for personal reasons, choosing a meatless diet. My concern begins when one makes claims of doctrinal mandate for ideas that the Brethren themselves have never taught or been particularly clear about.

I think that for the vast majority of 1st world country citizens, that is a viable option.

Yes, its an option, but its not at all clear to me that it is required for our spiritual progression. There is no doubt that we need not eat as much meat as we do. But then again, it was the lack of concentrated protein that was the shadow of famine that stalked much of humanity up until comparatively recent times.

Further, we can grow more protein per acre via nuts, beans, and other super-high protein foods that also have much greater side benefits (anti-oxidants, fatty acids, etc). I personally do not have a physical need for meet. Ultimately I believe it is a personal decision, hence the scriptures teach that we are held personally accountable for the life of every animal we kill. Like many things in the gospel, the right or wrong seems to be completely situational.

Could you substantiate this assertion from the scriptures? The scriptures say "woe" is unto him that wastesth flesh and hath no need, but I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that we are all held accountable for the life of every animal we kill. So long as I use that animal and don't wantonly waste that life, I'm not sure I'm seeing the sin involved. What also, are the logical implications of making this claim of every animal? What are the limits to that claim, if any?

Not quite. 1 Timothy 1:4 speaks about commanding to abstain from meats as being wrong. Again, I don't think one could justify commanding the abstinence of meat. There are just too many situations where it is necessary to basic survival. But as the Word of Wisdom says, it is to be used sparingly, and only in time of famine or winter, and not by commandment (which is the same with the whole of the Word of Wisdom).

Yes, but I haven't ever heard the Brethren speak on this topic, in your particular terms, in any venue, and, while abstinence from the prohibited addictive substances is a requirement for Temple worthiness, none of your concerns here have yet been added to the list of core questions asked in the Temple worthiness interview.

[Loran Blood]

Okay, it's true that just about any time a movement goes without skepticism, it can turn pretty rediculous and problematic. However, the only big question is a matter of when the line between beneficial and overreactive is crossed. As the old saying goes, "The devil's in the details."

The "devil' is within the environmental movement itself, at its very core in the form of its fundamental assumptions and beliefs. The details are derivative of those central beliefs.

That ideas have consequences is the basis upon which all movements and their aims/goals should be evaluated, in my view.

[Loran Blood]

The father of environmentalism among the Mormons was Brigham Young, whose words on being good stewards of our environment were more recently popularized by the late Hugh Nibley.

Brigham Young was the father of environmentalism in the contemporary sense? How so? Note: the mainstream contemporary environmental movement (at least early seventies to the present) has nothing to do with stewardship of the environment. For many average folks who bandwagon on it it certainly may, but for its philosophical leadership and its political activists here and around the world, it has a very different purpose and trajectory.

Today this is reflected in the Presiding Bishopric installing solar panels on some new chapels, along with the use of drip irrigation for lawns, and immediate heating of water (rather than expensive use of large hot water storage tanks), all of which have an important economic impact and represent more responsible use of tithing funds.

None of the above has anything to do with the philosophy and goals of the modern environmental movement, and make economic sense irrespective of the ideology of modern environmentalism.

The father of American environmentalism generally was Teddy Roosevelt, who wisely established Federal wilderness areas, parks, national forests, etc. Yale University established the first school of forestry, and my father received his master's degree in forestry from Yale in 1939. I saw first hand the importance of environmentalism growing up in ranger stations of the high Sierras in California. We often played host to members of the Sierra Club and of the Audubon Society (birdwatchers).

What TR was the father of the the conservation movement, long all but dead as a philosophy with any political clout. The modern environmental movement was birthed and nurtured by Carson, Ehrlich, Commoner, Brown, Forman, McKibben and many others.

As a long time member of the Sierra Club, I reject silly notions that modern American environmentalism has been taken over by a demonic element. That is nonsense.

It was never "taken over" by that element, except in the sense that the intellectual refugees of revolutionary socialism fled into its welcoming arms as the Soviet Union collapsed and "watermelon" environmentalism was born (not that the environmental movement had not been a haven for such people in the past, as Barry Commoner's career within the movement attests). The contemporary movement, of which the Sierra Club is a primary pillar, was a major and parallel outgrowth and maturing of other social/political/philosophical upheavals in play in the late sixties/early seventies, which I won't go into so as not to lead the thread into overtly political areas.

Rachel Carson and a plethora of other writers have made significant contributions to our understanding of the dangers to our common environment, which are often rejected by greedy businessmen whose primary motivation is profit, regardless of the human cost.

This sentence speaks for itself, and provides a taste of precisely what I'm getting at in my comments thus far. Carson was a dealer in pseudo-science who's book Silent Spring was ravaged by many of her colleagues in the biological sciences at the time of its publication. It did begin a tradition of apocalyptic scaremongering and the politicization of science that has matured since her day and could, if allowed to continue, represent the unraveling of both democratic societal structures and anything remotely resembling high western living standards (and the health, longevity, and human flourishing these standards make possible). It also bodes the end of any chance of raising living standards in the Third World.

Just now the greatest threat to our environment is major climate change, and it will bring with it disasters on a Malthusian scale.

If you don't know anything about Trofim Lysenko, perhaps now would be good time to catch up on some reading in your spare moments (and I don't think you mean to say "climate change" do you? The climate has been changing for many millions of years, and has changed radically and even cataclysmically while no humans whatever were on the scene. I think what you mean to say is CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming), or just dangerous human induced global warming, which, happily, has not a shred of empirical, observational scientific evidence in its favor and has been exposed as all but a flat footed hoax supporting the goals and desires of various very interested and very powerful (and fantastically monied) individuals and organizations).

Edited August 17, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

Our opportunity to deal effectively with the fact of global warming is long past. Nothing we can do at this stage will prevent the coming worldwide debacle. Science and technology can describe the effects, and will be called upon in the future to deal with them, but it will be too little too late.

Only the direct intervention of God himself can prevent it. .

As dangerous AGW is, generously, pure fiction, there are far, far more important things for God to be intervening in than the secular eschatonic myth supporting the utopian dreams of the Ruling Class.

The wealthy have great political power. Always have, and Jesus and the prophets were harshly critical of their haughty attitude and behavior. There is nothing new under the sun.

This is going into dangerous thread territory. Caution, curve ahead...

Edited August 17, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Calm]

. Further, the concept for vegetarianism is one where those who can it seems should, while those who can't (native Eskimos for instance) are not under any condemnation whatsoever. Same with those who need meat to make it through the winter or in times of drought. Hence, forbidding meat is wrong. We should not teach it is forbidden. This is not the same as teaching that when the option exists, we should not choose meat.

This is interesting to hear. I have tried to go vegetarian a couple of times in my life (and done it properly with the rights amount of protein, etc)---as a personal choice, don't insist that it is some requirement for a 'higher' lifestyle---and have found that my metabolism just won't support it. Very disappointing.

[Robert F. Smith]

Brigham Young was the father of environmentalism in the contemporary sense? How so? Note: the mainstream contemporary environmental movement (at least early seventies to the present) has nothing to do with stewardship of the environment. For many average folks who bandwagon on it it certainly may, but for its philosophical leadership and its political activists here and around the world, it has a very different purpose and trajectory.

None of the above has anything to do with the philosophy and goals of the modern environmental movement, and make economic sense irrespective of the ideology of modern environmentalism.

The success of Hugh Nibley's volume on Approaching Zion (more popular with the Saints than his other volumes), and the value of his Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints certainly show the effort to have very real contemporary value. Indeed, we will suffer greatly if we do not learn something from such teachings.

What TR was the father of the the conservation movement, long all but dead as a philosophy with any political clout. The modern environmental movement was birthed and nurtured by Carson, Ehrlich, Commoner, Brown, Forman, McKibben and many others.

If that were true then why would we constantly hear such plaintive cries from ignoramuses about the horrible effect of the Forest Service, BLM, National Park Service, et al.? That land belongs to all the American people, not simply to local yokels who want to contaminate or develop the land and destroy the watershed for short-term gains in profits or in a desire to use their ATVs without restriction. That's not what I call "good stewardship."

It was never "taken over" by that element, except in the sense that the intellectual refugees of revolutionary socialism fled into its welcoming arms as the Soviet Union collapsed and "watermelon" environmentalism was born (not that the environmental movement had not been a haven for such people in the past, as Barry Commoner's career within the movement attests). The contemporary movement, of which the Sierra Club is a primary pillar, was a major and parallel outgrowth and maturing of other social/political/philosophical upheavals in play in the late sixties/early seventies, which I won't go into so as not to lead the thread into overtly political areas.

This sentence speaks for itself, and provides a taste of precisely what I'm getting at in my comments thus far. Carson was a dealer in pseudo-science who's book Silent Spring was ravaged by many of her colleagues in the biological sciences at the time of its publication. It did begin a tradition of apocalyptic scaremongering and the politicization of science that has matured since her day and could, if allowed to continue, represent the unraveling of both democratic societal structures and anything remotely resembling high western living standards (and the health, longevity, and human flourishing these standards make possible). It also bodes the end of any chance of raising living standards in the Third World.

Demonizing your false construct of the entirety of environmentalism is indeed reminscent of old fashioned Soviet agitprop, which is absurd and untrue. Sincere concern for the environment we all share is thus converted by you to nothing more than an alien ideology. Perhaps you can use that twisted logic to describe how those testing nuclear weapons in the Nevada desert always waited until the wind was blowing toward southern Utah before setting off one of them. Perhaps you'd like to take your head out of the sand long enough to console those who have lost family members to radiation induced cancers from the drift of those tests.

If you don't know anything about Trofim Lysenko, perhaps now would be good time to catch up on some reading in your spare moments (and I don't think you mean to say "climate change" do you? The climate has been changing for many millions of years, and has changed radically and even cataclysmically while no humans whatever were on the scene. I think what you mean to say is CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming), or just dangerous human induced global warming, which, happily, has not a shred of empirical, observational scientific evidence in its favor and has been exposed as all but a flat footed hoax supporting the goals and desires of various very interested and very powerful (and fantastically monied) individuals and organizations).

In this case, ideology has trumped science and future generations will pay a bitter price for absurd denial of what science has clearly shown to be a fact, coming at us like a speeding locomotive. This indeed is similar to the ignorant Stalinist belief in Lysenkoism, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

This is the first time I've ever heard this. Could you provide a CFR? Secondly, the personal traditions of individual Saints - including prophets - are not relevant to the core question before us, which is whether or not such a position as you've taken here is doctrinal.

Susan Easton Black. I forget which book or article, but you can email her. I believe she still teaches at BYU, so you could send her an email (it's on the BYU.edu website). She is always happy to answer such questions. The doctrine is we are to be wise stewards. The individual choice to live that way indicates that is how those individuals believed it was to be applied. Further, the core question is NOT whether or not meat should be banned (it shouldn't) but what is the counsel regarding its use and what are the blessings promised associated with such use. I think it would be extremely difficult to argue that the Word of Wisdom's counsel on meat consumption is invalid, or that just because it's not by commandment does not mean we should not strive for it when the ability to do so exists. If that were not so, then why would God give a health code with specific blessings if we are fine to ignore them/ Just because they are not commanded does not mean the Lord does not encourage us to live them.

Save for the clear prohibitions upon certain addictive, psychoactive substances (alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine) which became a mark of worthiness for Temple worship and of seriousness in living a gospel centered life generally, this interesting disclaimer has never been altered or amended by the Brethren, and that is of primary importance in ascertaining whether claims such as "when the option exists, we should not choose meat," which the Brethren as a unified body have never made, are doctrinal. I have no problem with you, as an individual, for personal reasons, choosing a meatless diet. My concern begins when one makes claims of doctrinal mandate for ideas that the Brethren themselves have never taught or been particularly clear about.

Read the book. I gave you a link that has some large portions. Search the internet. The Brethren themselves have on multiple occasions clearly taught that the consumption of meat would be done away with in the millennium and that we had better start trying to live that way now. Further, I never claimed it was part of Temple worthiness, so you are throwing out a red herring. Also, their is no prohibition on Temple attendance for caffeine consumption, so I am not sure what you mean by "clear prohibition". You could claim it is the spirit of the law and those who have it revealed to them are accountable, but taking it beyond that mark would be the same as me saying their are clear prohibitions against eating meat, which I have stated there is not.

Yes, its an option, but its not at all clear to me that it is required for our spiritual progression.

Like many things in our personal progression, it only affect our progression if we become convinced the Lord has asked us personally to live a specific way and then we choose not to do so. The analogy for this is the aspect (mentioned in another Word of Wisdom thread yesterday) that certain people were commanded to live it individually. Martin Harris had failure to live the Word of Wisdom as a count against him in his excommunication hearing because he had covenanted to live it, whereas the council who excommunicated him did not live it and were under no such commandment. For those whom the Lord has not commanded to, then it is by way of encouragement.

Could you substantiate this assertion from the scriptures? The scriptures say "woe" is unto him that wastesth flesh and hath no need, but I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that we are all held accountable for the life of every animal we kill. So long as I use that animal and don't wantonly waste that life, I'm not sure I'm seeing the sin involved. What also, are the logical implications of making this claim of every animal? What are the limits to that claim, if any?

I suggest starting with reading the following Ensign article: http://lds.org/ensign/1972/08/the-gospel-and-animals?lang=eng. Follow that with the book that started this whole thread, which has even more specific quotes. The sources are there for you, I am not going to cut and paste them all. I would point out that the "wasteth flesh and hath no need" indicates that if you don't need the flesh, then you wasted (destroyed, 1828 Websters) it. Even if you took it in the modern concept of wasted, which is to throw it away or let it spoil, or did without purpose, the only way the second part would make sense ("...and hath no need") is if it meant something other than have need. Is tehre ever a need to waste flesh with a purpose? No, it is apparent that when there is not the need to kill, we should not. As both you and I have pointed out however, the line of what is "need" is a rather large grey area. You may need more meat than I do due to various circumstances. It's a decision that is between you and the Lord and no one else.

Yes, but I haven't ever heard the Brethren speak on this topic, in your particular terms, in any venue, and, while abstinence from the prohibited addictive substances is a requirement for Temple worthiness, none of your concerns here have yet been added to the list of core questions asked in the Temple worthiness interview.

Again, this only means you are not aware of the many times it has specifically been addressed. I am more than happy to debate the level of personal application of quotes used in the book and also plentifully found across the internet, but they have certainly been spoken of. In letters, the Juvenile Instructor (New Era/Ensign of the time), in General Conference, etc.

Again, you bringing in the "core questions asked in Temple worthiness interview['s]" is a straw man, It is completely irrelevant to whether God encourages us to live a certain way when able. It is not by way of commandment, but by way of encouragement.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

This is interesting to hear. I have tried to go vegetarian a couple of times in my life (and done it properly with the rights amount of protein, etc)---as a personal choice, don't insist that it is some requirement for a 'higher' lifestyle---and have found that my metabolism just won't support it. Very disappointing.

Calmoriah, I think it matters more to God that you try your best. If you eat meat, then it is most important to be legitimately grateful for the creature whose life was sacrificed so that you could live. Ultimately, it is the intent of the heart, not whether we fulfill the counsel to the letter. It is a higher way. I don't live it. In fact, Fresh Market just had a case lot sale and we bought 40 lbs of boneless chicken breasts (for a great price too!). We are trying to cut back on our meat and poultry consumption in our family since we reviewed the book and several conference talks. I admit that I am a major consumer of meat and poultry, especially when the price drops below a certain point, being the cost of alternatives. My family is still quite poor, so our ability is in some degree limited. But we are using the financial boon we had on the great deal for chicken to help us make that last for at least a year as we slowly remove it from our diet to the extant we financially and physically can. I have extreme doubts about my ability to be completely vegetarian. Nonetheless, I will strive to move that direction the best I can, recognizing my own weak nature and the importance of all life.

I've killed my own food several times. A year or two ago we were in a very poor position financially. Someone was giving away a rooster for free, which I picked up, killed, and prepared myself. I knew my family needed the food, and I felt no joy in killing the creature. I can say that we are extremely grateful that it's life was sacrificed to our needs.

In other aspects, I hate carrots. And generally dislike nuts. But I successfully ate a raw carrot in full for the first time in a decade the other day. It was... disgusting.:-)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In other aspects, I hate carrots. And generally dislike nuts. But I successfully ate a raw carrot in full for the first time in a decade the other day. It was... disgusting.:-)

More carrots and nuts for me then.

[Calm]

In other aspects, I hate carrots. And generally dislike nuts. But I successfully ate a raw carrot in full for the first time in a decade the other day. It was... disgusting.:-)

Try shredding carrots and using them in tomato sauces, covers the taste nicely. Nuts....man, I adore most kinds, compulsively eat them even. Chopped up they add nice textures to sauces as well, great in pestos. Try them as butters as well, almond butter is a delicious alternative to peanut.

[volgadon]

Try shredding carrots and using them in tomato sauces, covers the taste nicely.

Also fabulous in plov. The closest recipe to the Uzbeq that I found withou easy access to berberis is as follows. Chop a large onion up into thick rings, and grate a couple of carrots. Moderately heat some oil in the bottom of a thick pan and add the onion and carrots. When the onion changes colour add meat chopped into cubes (it needn't be lean or high quality). The cubes can be as large or as small as you like, just make sure they are reasonably close in size. Cover for a few minutes, then add cumin, paprika (crushed is better than ground), and salt. Add a head of garlic, or at the very least several cloves, without peeling them. Add the rice and then water, until kit covers the rice with about an inch to spare. Bring it close to a boil, then reduce the heat drastically and cover, letting it simmer for around 1/2 an hour. A tight fitting lid is great, but the results are even better if you cover the pan with tinfoil first. Resist the temptation to stir, as this is a layered dish. The meat will be very tender and the whole dish aromatic. Its a great way to create a satisfying meal that doesn't require a mountain of meat.

Chicken can be substituted for meat if one would like.

[T-Shirt]

Just now the greatest threat to our environment is major climate change, and it will bring with it disasters on a Malthusian scale.

Frankly, I am surprised that anyone still believes this.

Best,

T-Shirt

[Loran Blood]

The success of Hugh Nibley's volume on Approaching Zion (more popular with the Saints than his other volumes), and the value of his Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints certainly show the effort to have very real contemporary value. Indeed, we will suffer greatly if we do not learn something from such teachings.

A number of the concepts and ideas expressed in these texts are highly controversial among large numbers of Latter day Saints, despite their popularity among a tiny core of LDS intellectuals who find them harmonious with other preexisting beliefs. It has been in interesting point here in this forum, over the years, to have observed and participated in the reminding of certain people that Dr. Nibley was not a General Authority, and had no legitimate mandate to interpret or settle doctrine for the members of the Church.

If that were true then why would we constantly hear such plaintive cries from ignoramuses about the horrible effect of the Forest Service, BLM, National Park Service, et al.? That land belongs to all the American people, not simply to local yokels who want to contaminate or develop the land and destroy the watershed for short-term gains in profits or in a desire to use their ATVs without restriction. That's not what I call "good stewardship."

Rather than a quasi-Marxist rant about the evil, greedy land developers or moonshine swilling, NASCAR obsessed "local yokels" who clearly do not hold the "correct" ideology relative to land usage, one might have expected you to argue with me in a rational manner, if you really have some serious arguments to make, absent the various class bigotries and stereotypes. I will only say that the agencies you mention above have long been widely understood to have been, whatever good they may have done in the past, deeply incompetent in their management of our national parks and wild areas, including the overseeing of the mass burning to the ground of many of our national forests due to deeply irrational restrictions on proper forest management techniques in the area of forest fire prevention, with the ESA used as the wedge to prevent proper, scientific forest management (remember the devastating Laguna Beach fires? Those were just one in a field of catastrophic forest fires over the last couple of decades encouraged by regulations based, not in sound forest management and human welfare, but in Green ideology).

Demonizing your false construct of the entirety of environmentalism is indeed reminscent of old fashioned Soviet agitprop, which is absurd and untrue.

My telling the well understood truth about the contemporary "Green" movement is, no, hardly the equivalent of Soviet agitprop, the supreme irony here being that "agitprop" of that kind has long been, and is now, the core form of political theater long favored by groups such as the Sierra Club to create sentiment in the general population favorable to their ideology. The entire ideology of AGW is, indeed, a function and creation of roughly 20 years of agitprop.

Sincere concern for the environment we all share is thus converted by you to nothing more than an alien ideology.

Excellent, but hardly "converted by me." Indeed, the modern environmental movement is among what Kenneth Minogue termed the Alien Powers among us in the west (part of the "counterculture," in other words), per the title of one of his very interesting books. That all of this is well outside the gospel, and, indeed, forms a part of a sociocultural barricade against it, is more than a bit obvious.

Perhaps you can use that twisted logic to describe how those testing nuclear weapons in the Nevada desert always waited until the wind was blowing toward southern Utah before setting off one of them.

Sounds like something Tex Marrs or Noam Chomski would come up with (and probably have). Any CFR for this?

Perhaps you'd like to take your head out of the sand long enough to console those who have lost family members to radiation induced cancers from the drift of those tests.

CFR on both the claims that the government knowingly waited until the wind was moving toward Utah so that nuclear fallout would...kill Mormons (?) and that any cancers in these areas have ever been traced, with any degree of scientific accuracy, to those tests (admittedly, this is a bit off topic, but the claims are such that I think CFRs are required).

In this case, ideology has trumped science and future generations will pay a bitter price for absurd denial of what science has clearly shown to be a fact, coming at us like a speeding locomotive. This indeed is similar to the ignorant Stalinist belief in Lysenkoism, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.

You're arguing with me just like I would expect a committed member of the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the NRDC, Earth First, Friends of the Earth, the World Wildlife Fund, Rainforest Action Network, or countless other environmentalist groups and NGOs would debate me on this issue - like an activist, not a philosopher or serious thinker. You act here as if you are shocked to find out that serious, principled criticism of the contemporary environmental movement exists at all, and that many people find many of its claims both dubious and...shocking.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

Frankly, I am surprised that anyone still believes this.

Best,

T-Shirt

The fruits of some 20 years of relentless agitprop throughout the mainstream media, Hollywood, popular magazines, television documentaries, and relentless indoctrination in the K-12 public school arena. AGW has been, without any argument, the most successful apocalyptic environmental scare (among a bus load of them over about 40 years, beginning with Rachael Carson's junk science demonization of DDT) ever to have been deployed as a weapon of political warfare in the West (and around the world). I find it questionable that any American or westerner, given the vast educational resources available in this day and age, would have fallen for the clearly questionable claims (on both scientific and economic grounds) of the AGW hypothesis, but I find it incomprehensible that Latter day Saints, who are, among all the peoples of the world, supposed to be (and having been given the spiritual resources to do so) on their guard for the deceptions and propaganda of the Great and Abominable Church of the Devil, which is, according to the revelations and associated teachings of the Brethren, a body of social/political/cultural entities, deeply entrenched and influential among all peoples and nations in the last days, dedicated to the defeat of the gospel (and all "light and truth") as a matter of principle.

The modern environmental movement is a preeminent sect, or branch, of that church. If we, as Latter day Saints, cannot point to, expose, and name the enemies of Christ in the last days, of what purpose is the Church or our membership in it? Is not a central part of our mandate to raise a "warning voice" among all "nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples"?

Or, is the Church a 'big tent," and if so, just how big is that tent understood to be?

Edited August 18, 2011 by Loran Blood

[LeSellers]

Perhaps you can use that twisted logic to describe how those testing nuclear weapons in the Nevada desert always waited until the wind was blowing toward southern Utah before setting off one of them.

Any CFR for this?

We should keep in mind that, in the '40s~50s when these tests were running, it was the government who ran them. The wind thing is well documented.

Before NTS was opened, the United States conducted tests on distant islands in the Pacific Ocean. This proved to be too expensive and time-consuming for the growing nuclear weapons programs of the late 1940s, so the federal government decided to search for a continental nuclear test site. Initially, a site in North Carolina was considered because it would allow the radioactive fallout from tests to fall over the Atlantic Ocean and not over populated areas. However, North Carolina was eventually deemed too costly and politically difficult for nuclear testing. When Nevada was ultimately chosen, it was with full knowledge that many millions of Americans would be exposed to radioactive fallout.

The recklessness did not stop there. During above ground tests, the Atomic Energy Commission would wait until the wind was blowing away from more populated areas such as Los Angeles and Las Vegas and toward Utah. Declassified documents show that the federal government referred to Utah at the time as a "low-use segment of the population." Clearly, the government's desire to test nuclear weapons outweighed the health of Utahns and the millions of Americans impacted by the weapons testing program.

HEAL Utah

See also History to go, Wiki: "Downwinders", Sharlot Hall.

It is quite clear that the AEC/NRA valued the people of Los Angeles more than those in St. George. Of course, testing somewhere that didn't cause cancer at all (like North Carolina), or to far fewer people (like Bikini) would have been more expensive, so it seems reasonable that they valued budget over people. Just as all politicians and bureaucrats do.

Lehi

Edited August 18, 2011 by LeSellers

[Loran Blood]

Susan Easton Black. I forget which book or article, but you can email her. I believe she still teaches at BYU, so you could send her an email (it's on the BYU.edu website). She is always happy to answer such questions. The doctrine is we are to be wise stewards. The individual choice to live that way indicates that is how those individuals believed it was to be applied. Further, the core question is NOT whether or not meat should be banned (it shouldn't) but what is the counsel regarding its use and what are the blessings promised associated with such use. I think it would be extremely difficult to argue that the Word of Wisdom's counsel on meat consumption is invalid, or that just because it's not by commandment does not mean we should not strive for it when the ability to do so exists. If that were not so, then why would God give a health code with specific blessings if we are fine to ignore them/ Just because they are not commanded does not mean the Lord does not encourage us to live them.

You're core argument here is sound. What I do not find compelling is the emphasis placed upon meat eating when the Brethren themselves have, for all intents and purposes, ignored it as in any particular way relevant to our spirituality. I do not remember the last time it was ever brought up in a General Conference, First Presidency message, or in a Priesthood manual or other similar venue.

Read the book. I gave you a link that has some large portions. Search the internet. The Brethren themselves have on multiple occasions clearly taught that the consumption of meat would be done away with in the millennium and that we had better start trying to live that way now.

This creates a problem of relevance to your ideas about meat eating at present, as the Millennium will feature radical changes made to the physical and chemical process of this planet, such that it becomes a Terrestrial planet. There are a number of conditions that will obtain at that time that we cannot live now because we are not capable of doing so. There will also be no disease, death, genetic deformity, or inclement weather in the Millennium, and yet we can hardly "live that way now" in some kind of preparation for such radically different conditions.

Further, I never claimed it was part of Temple worthiness, so you are throwing out a red herring. Also, their is no prohibition on Temple attendance for caffeine consumption, so I am not sure what you mean by "clear prohibition".

Coffee, at least in moderate quantities, is not bad for you. Even alcohol, in modest quantities, is not harmful to overall health, and may be, indeed beneficial. Tobacco may be the one wild card here (because of the numerous toxins inhaled in the smoke), but one thing has always been clear to me: in each and every case of the WoW prohibitions, the clear and very real possibility of dependence (addiction) operates as a risk of use. Addiction or dependence of any kind subdues the spirit to the flesh, and attaches the spirit evern more aggressively to the earth and all things mortal and carnal. Hence, the WoW restrictions. Any number of things we take into our bodies are in some sense or in some degree toxic, and if the WoW was simply interested in nothing more than physical health, it would ban just about everything we eat or drink. 99% (99.99% I believe) of all the pesticides you will ever ingest in your lifetime are natural pesticides occurring in the vegetables in your salad bowl. Does the Wow prohibit salad? Obviously not.

You could claim it is the spirit of the law and those who have it revealed to them are accountable, but taking it beyond that mark would be the same as me saying their are clear prohibitions against eating meat, which I have stated there is not.

Indeed, if the Spirit reveals to your that you are not to eat meat, I would follow that revelation (or at least try to).

Like many things in our personal progression, it only affect our progression if we become convinced the Lord has asked us personally to live a specific way and then we choose not to do so.

Agreed.

I suggest starting with reading the following Ensign article: http://lds.org/ensig...imals?lang=eng. Follow that with the book that started this whole thread, which has even more specific quotes. The sources are there for you, I am not going to cut and paste them all. I would point out that the "wasteth flesh and hath no need" indicates that if you don't need the flesh, then you wasted (destroyed, 1828 Websters) it. Even if you took it in the modern concept of wasted, which is to throw it away or let it spoil, or did without purpose, the only way the second part would make sense ("...and hath no need") is if it meant something other than have need. Is tehre ever a need to waste flesh with a purpose? No, it is apparent that when there is not the need to kill, we should not. As both you and I have pointed out however, the line of what is "need" is a rather large grey area. You may need more meat than I do due to various circumstances. It's a decision that is between you and the Lord and no one else.

I have never killed an animal when I could go to the super market and obtain meat grown and harvested specifically for that purpose. Nor would I, as I have no interest in hunting for sport, and never will.

Again, you bringing in the "core questions asked in Temple worthiness interview['s]" is a straw man, It is completely irrelevant to whether God encourages us to live a certain way when able. It is not by way of commandment, but by way of encouragement.

I don't think its a straw man, because the ordinances of the Temple are those required for exhalation.

Here's the question: is an otherwise faithful, righteous, valiant individual, who lives a life dedicated to the gospel and living according to gospel principles, going to suffer some restriction on his exaltation (some degree of damnation) because he consumed meat to the degree that the average American does as a matter of cultural tradition?

Edited August 18, 2011 by Loran Blood

[ERayR]

As a long time member of the Sierra Club,

I'm sorry.

Just now the greatest threat to our environment is major climate change, and it will bring with it disasters on a Malthusian scale.

That may or may not be so but IF it is it will not be because of man.

Edited August 18, 2011 by ERayR

[Loran Blood]

We should keep in mind that, in the '40s~50s when these tests were running, it was the government who ran them. The wind thing is well documented.

See also History to go, Wiki: "Downwinders", Sharlot Hall.

It is quite clear that the AEC/NRA valued the people of Los Angeles more than those in St. George. Of course, testing somewhere that didn't cause cancer at all, or to far fewer people (like Bikini) would have been more expensive, so it seems reasonable that they valued budget over people. Just as all politicians and bureaucrats do.

Lehi

The way the poster framed it, made it sound as if the government had, in some sense, a desire to see Mormons qua Mormons affected by the fallout. I found that to be rather bizzare, but no doubt, in those early years, there was some degree of recklessness (including sending soldiers into the blast area immediate after a dentonation). I also think the effects of radiation were not as well understood then as in later years. But yes, when the government is involved, there is always the risk of the kind of gross incompetene we now see affecting other areas of the human condition - such as present economic conditions).

But, that was rather off topic. I just wanted to check to see if there was anything to the central assertion. Thanks.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Loran Blood