Mormon Environmental Ethic, Does It Exist?

[Stone holm]

There have been some attempts to set forth and promote an environmental ethic. But it doesn't seem to have gained much traction. Is this because of a disbelief in global warming and other environmental issues? There is of course plenty of comments and statements from Brigham Young until Ezra Taft Benson to support and provide the structure for an environmental ethic, but we are seeing young marrieds coming from Utah and Idaho who don't even understand or practice recycling. How is that possible? We even used to have slogans very much like those used in such campaigns?

[Kenngo1969]

Yes, a Mormon environmental ethic does exist.

http://www.ulaw.tv/v...nash/0_93udac8v

Edited April 21, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Duncan]

Did you see the recent talk by Elder Marcus B. Nash of the 70, maybe he has some insights

http://ulaw.tv/videos/religion-faith-and-the-environment---marcus-nash/0_93udac8v

[Duncan]

Kenngo1969-trippy eh?!

Edited April 21, 2013 by Duncan

[Kenngo1969]

Kenngo1969-trippy eh?!

Ha! Beat ya to it, and I was there when he gave the talk, so ... neener-neener!

[Stone holm]

Did you see the recent talk by Elder Marcus B. Nash of the 70, maybe he has some insights

http://ulaw.tv/videos/religion-faith-and-the-environment---marcus-nash/0_93udac8v

Excellent talk, too bad it was not in Conference.

[Nathair/|\]

There's this:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/homewaters/2013/04/409.html

this:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=49&chapid=302

this:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3413332-kindness-to-animals-and-caring-for-the-earth?ac=1

and this:

http://thesacredgrove-nathair.blogspot.com/

[canard78]

There's story about Joseph on some march stopping the men from killing snakes in the camp... Apart from that... Not much.

[3DOP]

I doubt that environmentalist ideology springs from a Christian faith in the second advent of Christ. I have a doubt about whether a great concern about overpopulation or running out of resources is even compatible with such a faith. I am pretty sure modern environmentalism doesn't come from any form of claimed prophecy, revelation, Scripture, Tradition, or even some apostate creed. I tend to doubt that there exists any LDS, Evangelical, or Catholic environmentalism. In my opinion, environmentalism, as it is usually understood, springs from non-Christian sources.

It seems to me like non-Christian environmentalists as well as consistent Christians could be able to agree about my theory. The only ones who won't like it will be conflicted Christians who really haven't applied their theology to their politics. The wasted energy (gasp!) I see in our world regarding the supposed urgency to separate plastic from cardboard might be put to better use by Christians with a renewed zeal to share the Gospel.

3DOP

Edited April 22, 2013 by 3DOP

[Stone holm]

I doubt that environmentalist ideology springs from a Christian faith in the second advent of Christ. I have a doubt about whether a great concern about overpopulation or running out of resources is even compatible with such a faith. I am pretty sure modern environmentalism doesn't come from any form of claimed prophecy, revelation, Scripture, Tradition, or even some apostate creed. I tend to doubt that there exists any LDS, Evangelical, or Catholic environmentalism. In my opinion, environmentalism, as it is usually understood, springs from non-Christian sources.

It seems to me like non-Christian environmentalists as well as consistent Christians could be able to agree about my theory. The only ones who won't like it will be conflicted Christians who really haven't applied their theology to their politics. The wasted energy (gasp!) I see in our world regarding the supposed urgency to separate plastic from cardboard might be put to better use by Christians with a renewed zeal to share the Gospel.

3DOP

Yes. This sounds more like what I normally hear from members rather than what Elder Nash taught from the Scriptures. A kind of, doesn't matter if we destroy the planet because it is going to burn anyway approach. The same approach which is rendering the air in Salt Lake City unbreathable. For a little while there I thought what I had been seeing and observing particularly from young Saints moving in from the West was misleading, but 3DOP arrived to confirm my observations.

[canard78]

Yes. This sounds more like what I normally hear from members rather than what Elder Nash taught from the Scriptures. A kind of, doesn't matter if we destroy the planet because it is going to burn anyway approach. The same approach which is rendering the air in Salt Lake City unbreathable. For a little while there I thought what I had been seeing and observing particularly from young Saints moving in from the West was misleading, but 3DOP arrived to confirm my observations.

Only 3DOP isn't a "young saint arriving from the west." He's not even LDS.

[canard78]

I doubt that environmentalist ideology springs from a Christian faith in the second advent of Christ. I have a doubt about whether a great concern about overpopulation or running out of resources is even compatible with such a faith. I am pretty sure modern environmentalism doesn't come from any form of claimed prophecy, revelation, Scripture, Tradition, or even some apostate creed. I tend to doubt that there exists any LDS, Evangelical, or Catholic environmentalism. In my opinion, environmentalism, as it is usually understood, springs from non-Christian sources.

It seems to me like non-Christian environmentalists as well as consistent Christians could be able to agree about my theory. The only ones who won't like it will be conflicted Christians who really haven't applied their theology to their politics. The wasted energy (gasp!) I see in our world regarding the supposed urgency to separate plastic from cardboard might be put to better use by Christians with a renewed zeal to share the Gospel.

3DOP

You're being ironic 3DOP... Please tell me you're being ironic?

The idea that caring for the incredible gift of Mother Earth is somehow in conflict with Christian principles is unpalatable to me.

Wasn't one of God's first commands to Adam as a carer of his environment? Tend and care, not burn and pillage.

Couldn't we otherwise take the same approach to our bodies and leave it to waste too?

[Hamba Tuhan]

I switch off lights that aren't being used. I don't own a television or any other energy-sucking electronic device. (I'm typing this on an efficient laptop.) I use passive solar heating to keep my home warm during winter (as long as the sun is shining, that is). I mend my clothes and keep using them. I bought my car specifically because of its very high fuel economy. I cool my office during summer by opening both the top and bottom of the double-hung window before going home at night and then closing them back up again when I arrive in the morning. I save other people's chicken bones so that I can make soup from them. I follow the local council's recycling rules precisely. I use a dual-flush toilet. And so forth. Some weeks I don't bother wheeling the rubbish bin to the kerb because there's literally nothing in it. But I have ZERO identification with the Green religion which masquerades as environmentalism ... and which in so many cases has absolutlely nothing to do with actually caring for 'Mother Earth'.

I suspect many Saints are not too dissimilar to me. I believe in being a wise steward over everything the Lord has placed in my hands. I don't need to publicly chant Green mantras in order to do that. When I was living in Utah, I was told that op shops really struggle there because LDS have very little to donate that's resellable; instead, they follow Brigham Young's mandate to 'use it up' and 'wear it out'.

[3DOP]

canard, hi.

It is very tempting with this subject, but I guess I'll continue to be serious.

I spoke of "environmentalist ideology", "concern about overpopulation", "running out of resources", and "modern environmentalism". I never suggested "burn and pillage". I am not comfortable with the expression, but I could consider "caring for the incredible gift of Mother Earth," as being faith compatible. Burn and pillage? No. Large families? Yes. Throw the trash out the window? No. Mix up the garbage in the garbage can? Yes, it is not a sin. I think such a moderate form of "faith based-environmentalism" isn't satisfactory to those who worship the planet instead of the Creator of the planet.

I am pretty certain that most Christians should see a temporary dimension, a "pilgrimage" of sorts to our tarrying here that is an important element that would naturally be missing from those who lack any belief in a soon return of Christ. Even non-LDS mostly think these are already the Latter days. I know I do. Just a little longer to go, right? Maybe ten or twenty thousand years at the most? It'll be okay. Even if we all die of overpopulation, who will care in a billion years? The fanaticism of non-Christians who would die for birds or fish or bugs or trees has to some extent, in my opinion, informed the policies that make some Christians think of it as a sacred duty to separate their garbage.

Regards,

3DOP

[3DOP]

I switch off lights that aren't being used. I don't own a television or any other energy-sucking electronic device. (I'm typing this on an efficient laptop.) I use passive solar heating to keep my home warm during winter (as long as the sun is shining, that is). I mend my clothes and keep using them. I bought my car specifically because of its very high fuel economy. I cool my office during summer by opening both the top and bottom of the double-hung window before going home at night and then closing them back up again when I arrive in the morning. I save other people's chicken bones so that I can make soup from them. I follow the local council's recycling rules precisely. I use a dual-flush toilet. And so forth. Some weeks I don't bother wheeling the rubbish bin to the kerb because there's literally nothing in it. But I have ZERO identification with the Green religion which masquerades as environmentalism ... and which in so many cases has absolutlely nothing to do with actually caring for 'Mother Earth'.

I suspect many Saints are not too dissimilar to me. I believe in being a wise steward over everything the Lord has placed in my hands. I don't need to publicly chant Green mantras in order to do that. When I was living in Utah, I was told that op shops really struggle there because LDS have very little to donate that's resellable; instead, they follow Brigham Young's mandate to 'use it up' and 'wear it out'.

Wow Hamba,

Zero identification with green religion? No wonder you sound so selfish. Are you trying to save money? And you still get a temple recommend?

[Stargazer]

Wow Hamba,

Zero identification with green religion? No wonder you sound so selfish. Are you trying to save money? And you still get a temple recommend?

That's funny. +1. I laughed out loud. Wife wondered what I was laughing at. I told her an extremely dry bit of unexpected humor.

[altersteve]

I've always been big on conserving the environment. This planet is our home, so we need to treat it right. You wouldn't let your house/apartment become a mess, would you? You'd get broken things repaired, and you do what you can to prevent things from breaking, wouldn't you? So it is with this world. We live here. Let's be nice to it. That's how I see it.

[Stargazer]

I once told this environmentalist wacko I worked with that the earth was going to be burned to a cinder by the sun as it turned into a red giant, and where would his beloved green philosophy be then? I told him the only way to "save the earth" would be to develop the technology to move the earth to another sun when this one started getty funky, and in order to do this we would have to stop "getting back to nature" and embrace physics and technology. He did not appreciate the insight.

The fact is, the more technology increases the more people we can support here. If we had the same technology now that we did 500 years ago, there is no way we could support this many people on this planet. The ultimate carrying capacity of this planet is enormous, if we have the tech to do it. The entire population of the earth at present could fit in the land area of Texas without even being as dense as a normal suburban area. Or, with space resources we could space people out far, far more than they are now, and everyone would have lots of elbow room.

Energy? There is enough hydrogen in Jupiter's atmosphere to support all of our energy needs (assuming fusion sources) for billions of years. So we just take it with us when we go.

If you think this is unrealistic, hey, it will be another 2 billion years before the sun starts getting flakey enough that we would need to move. In that time we can certainly figure out how to move the earth, its moon, and Jupiter to somewhere else. I think we'd probably want to keep Jupiter's moons, most of them anyway, and a few large nickel-iron asteroids (or just 16 Psyche) to provide sufficient extra metals to be able avoid further mining of the earth for iron. The Moon could supply our aluminum needs, as well as silicon. Not that there isn't enough sand here, but we wouldn't have to worry so much about scarring the earth if we could get most of our materials from space resources.

And if the Millennium kicks in soon (which is more likely), then we don't need any of this. Problem solved.

[Hamba Tuhan]

We are seeing young marrieds coming from Utah and Idaho who don't even understand or practice recycling. How is that possible?

On the heresy of not understanding the ritual of recycling: The New York Times and The Telegraph.

[why me]

Technically, the environment movement within the church is found in the word of wisdom, in terms of how to care for the earth and how to use its resources. Also, since the church claims truth and that this planet was created by a supreme being, we are more or less told to care for what god has created. Now as to whether members follow this is another thing.

[Stone holm]

I once told this environmentalist wacko I worked with that the earth was going to be burned to a cinder by the sun as it turned into a red giant, and where would his beloved green philosophy be then? I told him the only way to "save the earth" would be to develop the technology to move the earth to another sun when this one started getty funky, and in order to do this we would have to stop "getting back to nature" and embrace physics and technology. He did not appreciate the insight.

The fact is, the more technology increases the more people we can support here. If we had the same technology now that we did 500 years ago, there is no way we could support this many people on this planet. The ultimate carrying capacity of this planet is enormous, if we have the tech to do it. The entire population of the earth at present could fit in the land area of Texas without even being as dense as a normal suburban area. Or, with space resources we could space people out far, far more than they are now, and everyone would have lots of elbow room.

Energy? There is enough hydrogen in Jupiter's atmosphere to support all of our energy needs (assuming fusion sources) for billions of years. So we just take it with us when we go.

If you think this is unrealistic, hey, it will be another 2 billion years before the sun starts getting flakey enough that we would need to move. In that time we can certainly figure out how to move the earth, its moon, and Jupiter to somewhere else. I think we'd probably want to keep Jupiter's moons, most of them anyway, and a few large nickel-iron asteroids (or just 16 Psyche) to provide sufficient extra metals to be able avoid further mining of the earth for iron. The Moon could supply our aluminum needs, as well as silicon. Not that there isn't enough sand here, but we wouldn't have to worry so much about scarring the earth if we could get most of our materials from space resources.

And if the Millennium kicks in soon (which is more likely), then we don't need any of this. Problem solved.

While sitting here with my iPad open, I can't really rant about technology, but there is this nagging concern. Over the fact that technology tends to simply create new problems as it solves old ones and the new problems tend to be more problematic than the old. I used to be of the assumption that fossil fuels were put here for us to consume which is the assumption you are kind of drawn to in Elder Nash's talk, but then I got to wondering if instead they might simply have been God's carbon sinks and not really intended as fuel at all. I believe we have to plan for the long term while trying to perfect ourselves morally as if the world will end tomorrow. Thus I believe we need to listen to the environmental wackos in our search for appropriate technological solutions, and that arguments such as those advanced by DOP3 and the one alluded to you above add little or nothing to an intelligent resolution of the matter.

[Yirgacheffe]

What is so hard about separating your trash so some of it can be sent off to be reused? Honestly my family (parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents) has done this as long as I can remember. Burying things in the ground that can be reused is wasteful, being wasteful was frowned upon by my parents particularly by my father. But they were WWII generation so maybe that's why.

[Stone holm]

What is so hard about separating your trash so some of it can be sent off to be reused? Honestly my family (parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents) has done this as long as I can remember. Burying things in the ground that can be reused is wasteful, being wasteful was frowned upon by my parents particularly by my father. But they were WWII generation so maybe that's why.

Agree. I just think its not even on their radar screen, since it is rarely ever brought up at Church. Most quickly adapt and hopefully that adaption will eventually seep back to the west, before all of the pregnant women in SLC have to wear gas masks when they go outside.

[thesometimesaint]

There have been some attempts to set forth and promote an environmental ethic. But it doesn't seem to have gained much traction. Is this because of a disbelief in global warming and other environmental issues? There is of course plenty of comments and statements from Brigham Young until Ezra Taft Benson to support and provide the structure for an environmental ethic, but we are seeing young marrieds coming from Utah and Idaho who don't even understand or practice recycling. How is that possible? We even used to have slogans very much like those used in such campaigns?

It's a bit of a mixed bag really.

See http://rsc.byu.edu/%5Bfield_status-raw%5D/stewardship-and-creation-lds-perspectives-environment

[rpn]

It isn't called that. There is a doctrine of stewardship, and knowledge that animals were first created as spirits too, and president kimball's gardening and reuse, re____ and do without, all of which should result in thoughtful consideration of our inprint on earth.

That doesn't mean that we believe that the earth cannot support all of God's children so we should stop having them. Nor does it mean the church endorses concerns about global warning. Rather the stewardship is more like what the huntsman chemical did --- doing the best to innovate in clamshell styrofoam used at McDonald's, and once you find out that it damages the environment disproportionate to its value, you completely eliminate that manufacturing product.