Mormon Environmental Ethic, Does It Exist?

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

I know you'll have carefully read the New York Times article I linked to above, but did you possibly miss the part that points out that kerbside recycling programs actually increase air pollution?

[Stone holm]

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.

You don't really hear much about population control from the environmental community anymore, I think because even Mormon families are much smaller than they used to be -- not for environmental concerns, but rather economic concerns. Last i checked we had a negative growth rate from births anyway. I don't think the concern anymore is feeding the populace, but rather destroying the Earth -- although there is some concern that problems could arise in feeding the population if climate change gets too far out of whack -- but I will be dead and gone by then, so I tend not to worry about that so much.

[Buzzard]

I don't think the church has a doctrine of environmentalism, probably because environmentalism as practiced today is essentially a religion, complete with rituals and plenty of commandments. Also, lots of LDS in the western US are so politically conservative that any restriction on their freedom to do as they wish with their own property, or even government controlled property is reacted to with great vehemence. This is probably less of an issue away from the intermountain west.

Personally, I hold a philosophy that I call micro-environmentalism. It means I try not to be wasteful in my personal consumption, I in general support increasing wilderness and roadless protections for a lot more land than is currently protected, though less than the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance wants, I LOATH 4-wheeler ATV's because of the destruction they cause,

However, I feel no pangs of guilt in filling up my car, am not convinced that climate change is driven by man-made causes, and do not see humans as a parasite on the planet, all key positions of macroenvironmentalism, as I call it.

[thesometimesaint]

New York City(and many older cities) have a special problem in that many older homes do not and can't not use a waste food disposal. Thus greatly increasing the amount of aromatic organic hydrocarbons that can make it into the atmosphere.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

I take issue with this. THere is a solution the the "rendering the air in Salt Lake City unbreathable." And it is not passing stupid ordiances that forbid you to idle your car. I am for a hydrogen car. Nothing else will really work. Electric cars don't work because that electricity is made from coal. (Which is not a bad thing despite those on the left saying it is) The main issue is that in SLC we live in a bowl. And the air just gets trapped. As long as I have been alive I remember inversions being so bad that I could not see 30 feet infront of me. The real issue with the air quality is the inversion. And there is nothing we can do about it. As soon as people realise this they can move on with their lives. BTW no one that I know of is advocating "doesn't matter if we destroy the planet because it is going to burn anyway approach". I am for dealing with reality and what is. Not living in some kind of econut fantasy. I wish the air didnt get bad but right now we lack the technolgy to prevent an inversion.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

New York City(and many older cities) have a special problem in that many older homes do not and can't not use a waste food disposal. Thus greatly increasing the amount of aromatic organic hydrocarbons that can make it into the atmosphere.

Oh no, that is so horrible. Somebody do something. pass a bunch of laws and tax people that don't really do anything. Hurry quick. Do it.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't think the church has a doctrine of environmentalism, probably because environmentalism as practiced today is essentially a religion, complete with rituals and plenty of commandments. Also, lots of LDS in the western US are so politically conservative that any restriction on their freedom to do as they wish with their own property, or even government controlled property is reacted to with great vehemence. This is probably less of an issue away from the intermountain west.

Personally, I hold a philosophy that I call micro-environmentalism. It means I try not to be wasteful in my personal consumption, I in general support increasing wilderness and roadless protections for a lot more land than is currently protected, though less than the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance wants, I LOATH 4-wheeler ATV's because of the destruction they cause,

However, I feel no pangs of guilt in filling up my car, am not convinced that climate change is driven by man-made causes, and do not see humans as a parasite on the planet, all key positions of macroenvironmentalism, as I call it.

Taking personal responsibility for our individual production of waste is commendable.

No reason to feel pangs of guilt. Just use less gas. Buy a more fuel efficient car, or better yet an all electric one. Best, live somewhere you have limited need for a personal car. Use public transportation whenever possible. Carpool or ride share. Consolidate trips. Buy a bicycle.

CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. Meaning it traps heat. More heat the more problems we're going to have.

SEE. https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+talk+to+an+ostrich&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-beta

[Stone holm]

I don't think the church has a doctrine of environmentalism, probably because environmentalism as practiced today is essentially a religion, complete with rituals and plenty of commandments. Also, lots of LDS in the western US are so politically conservative that any restriction on their freedom to do as they wish with their own property, or even government controlled property is reacted to with great vehemence. This is probably less of an issue away from the intermountain west.

Personally, I hold a philosophy that I call micro-environmentalism. It means I try not to be wasteful in my personal consumption, I in general support increasing wilderness and roadless protections for a lot more land than is currently protected, though less than the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance wants, I LOATH 4-wheeler ATV's because of the destruction they cause,

However, I feel no pangs of guilt in filling up my car, am not convinced that climate change is driven by man-made causes, and do not see humans as a parasite on the planet, all key positions of macroenvironmentalism, as I call it.

There will always be religious overtones to environmentalism as there should be. To say that it is essentially a religion, I think goes to far -- however, it can be incorporated into a religion and it gels quite well with nearly all religions, including Mormonism as Elder Nash has pointed out. But, I agree with you that I believe the reason we do not see many conference talks like the talk that Elder Nash gave at the law school is the fact of the culture of the intermountain west probably militates against it....but far be it from me to say that culture sometimes trumps Church policy. Much of modern American environmentalism, at least here in the NE, has morphed out of the back to the land movement which was part of the "hippie culture" of the 60's and 70's which has also probably tainted it amongst leadership of that age group -- although, I think there is a fair amount of "off the grid" Mormons in the intermountain west -- but I doubt many are in leadership positions, or are in a position to communicate with GAs on a regular basis, whereas corporate executives are more likely to be in that position.

[thesometimesaint]

Oh no, that is so horrible. Somebody do something. pass a bunch of laws and tax people that don't really do anything. Hurry quick. Do it.

Where I live a private company removes our household wastes, and we get a discount for separating our wastes for easier recycling. So I don't know where you are coming from for that rant about laws and taxes. Unless you're advocating for no laws/regulations for the safe treatment of water, and human wastes.

Rotting garbage is more than an odor problem. It can create serious health problems as well. The problem of older housing is that the plumbing was never designed to handle to extra load(about a third more) that an in-sink garbage disposal produces. Onsite composting, and/or small community gardening/composting can help, and you get fresher produce to boot. On a larger scale yard/garden and food wastes can also be transformed into methane(natural gas) we burn in our stoves, ovens, and furnaces. Paper, plastics, and metals are indefinitely recyclable if separated out.

[Stone holm]

Where I live a private company removes our household wastes, and we get a discount for separating our wastes for easier recycling. So I don't know where you are coming from for that rant about laws and taxes. Unless you're advocating for no laws/regulations for the safe treatment of water, and human wastes.

Rotting garbage is more than an odor problem. It can create serious health problems as well. The problem of older housing is that the plumbing was never designed to handle to extra load(about a third more) that an in-sink garbage disposal produces. Onsite composting, and/or small community gardening/composting can help, and you get fresher produce to boot. On a larger scale yard/garden and food wastes can also be transformed into methane(natural gas) we burn in our stoves, ovens, and furnaces. Paper, plastics, and metals are indefinitely recyclable if separated out.

Each Town has its own recycling and garbage collection site out here which is run by a local not for profit. The one in our town tends to turn it into kind of a social event as well. In Indiana as a municipal attorney in the 80's had to deal with a lot of questionable solid waste haulers who had municipal contracts -- some made a show of recycling but ultimately just redumped everything back into the general waste. We had a lot of fights with them to finally get sensible real programs instituted. I suspect that some communities are still back in the stage of fighting with the wase haulers which takes awhile and a lot of persistence to get something that works. I was not raised with any recycling as my mother had an incinerator in the basement and all that stuff just went in the incinerator and then was shared with the rest of the community via the smoke coming from our chimney, but my kids have beat some sense in to me. I suspect that the intermountain west is just a generation behind, that is all.

[thesometimesaint]

Each Town has its own recycling and garbage collection site out here which is run by a local not for profit. The one in our town tends to turn it into kind of a social event as well. In Indiana as a municipal attorney in the 80's had to deal with a lot of questionable solid waste haulers who had municipal contracts -- some made a show of recycling but ultimately just redumped everything back into the general waste. We had a lot of fights with them to finally get sensible real programs instituted. I suspect that some communities are still back in the stage of fighting with the wase haulers which takes awhile and a lot of persistence to get something that works. I was not raised with any recycling as my mother had an incinerator in the basement and all that stuff just went in the incinerator and then was shared with the rest of the community via the smoke coming from our chimney, but my kids have beat some sense in to me. I suspect that the intermountain west is just a generation behind, that is all.

I'm so old that I remember when each house had its own outside(backyard) incinerator. The AQMD finally put a stop to it in the late 50's early 60's. If you've ever seen a stage 4 smog alert you'll never want to see one again.

[Stone holm]

I'm so old that I remember when each house had its own outside(backyard) incinerator. The AQMD finally put a stop to it in the late 50's early 60's. If you've ever seen a stage 4 smog alert you'll never want to see one again.

Have never lived in a community with a severe smog problem, although I did have to raise hob once with a factory which kept sending lead laced discharges over the local elementary school playground. We did a lot of industrial development but we had a member on our economic development commission who had a wife and daughter with asthma and he screened out nearly all of the offenders, we had a few slip past him, but that was because they lied their heads off. My son while attending BYU published a study of the air quality in the Valley which at that time was worse than LA.

[3DOP]

...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.

To my recollection, the only opinion I advanced, was against the idea that modern environmentalism finds its source in Christian revelation. I don't think Christianity has a credible claim to have lead the way on environmental issues. I would be skeptical about whether priests and bishops and other ministerial leaders should be preaching and teaching about recycling or other environmentalist programs.

I just can't picture this in the past, present, or future of my faith: "Bless me Father, for I have sinned. It has been three weeks since my last confession and in that time I have deliberately put my empty glass bottles in the regular trash. By my scandalous example, I have led others into the same sin. I have also listened to evil radio and read bad literature which denies that global warming is true and has caused me to doubt my faith in environmentalism in general. For these and all the sins of my past life, especially for those against the environment, I am heartily sorry and I ask pardon of God and absolution from you Father."

You asked if there was a specifically Mormon form of environmentalism. Without speaking for Mormons, I expressed my doubts about it from a generically Christian perspective. It seemed like you wanted opinions and your complaint that I failed to offer an "intelligent resolution of the matter" seems out of place. If you had asked for that, I might have stayed out of the discussion.

If I were an atheist I would find it plausible to speculate that Christian eschatology has an effect in making many Christians view the environment with less concern than they otherwise might. There could easily be a difference between those who view the world as pilgrims and those who are more "at home" here. That is the sum of my "argument."

No hard feelings. I just don't think you laid out in your original post what you wanted, Stone holm.

God Bless,

Dop3, Heh.

Edited April 22, 2013 by 3DOP

[Kenngo1969]

Excellent talk, too bad it was not in Conference.

Yeah. If only we had a 13th Article of Faith which says something such as, "If anything is virtuous, lovely, of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." If only we had a Doctrine and Covenants 58:26-28 which say something such as, "For behold, it is not meet that I should command thee in all things; for he that is commanded in all things is a slothful and not a wise servant . . . Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in . . . good cause(s) and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness. For the power is in them whereunto they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good, they shall in nowise lose their reward." And it's too bad there aren't numerous other similar teachings in the Church of Jesus Christ.

[sigh!] I guess we'll just have to sit around twiddling our thumbs and humming the "Jeopardy!" theme to ourselves while we wait for the Brethren to get a clue. They should proclaim a hard-and-fast, inflexible doctrine from the pulpit (with a "Thus saith the Lord" thrown in for good measure) with respect to environmentalism which doesn't account for widely varying circumstances throughout the world. One-size-fits-all!!! Such a doctrine shouldn't account for the possibility that until a country's inhabitants are able to provide a basic standard of living for themselves, and until a country has reached a certain mimimum standard of living, it is difficult to implement many forms of environmentalism.

I think I'll write the Brethren!

Edited April 22, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Taking personal responsibility for our individual production of waste is commendable.

No reason to feel pangs of guilt. Just use less gas. Buy a more fuel efficient car, or better yet an all electric one. ...

I'm afraid you'll just have to content yourself with the goal of fuel efficiency for now. As soon as someone makes a practical, cost-effective electric car that can travel more than 30-40 miles on a charge, doesn't take several hours to charge, and for which recharging ability is close at hand wherever I might wish to go, I might buy one. (If I ever get the resources, I would have nothing against purchasing a hybrid vehicle. I think they're much more practical than all-electrics.)

[Kenngo1969]

At the risk of being branded a heretic by those who so clearly care more about the Earth than I do (and who, thus, believe that my Temple Recommend should be revoked), the reason why I don't think a one-size-fits-all, from-the-pulpit pronouncement regarding a doctrine of environmentalism would work is that an area needs to reach a certain level economically before it can start to pay adequate attention to environmental concerns and to formulate effective solutions to them. We belong to a worldwide Church. Historically, a common criticism of the Brethren is that their approach to some things has been entirely too "Utah-centric." But, dang it, they should go ahead and proclaim a one-size-fits-all, hard-and-fast doctrine with respect to [fill-in-pet-cause-here].

There it is. Heretical, I know.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[wenglund]

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?

No, though the hype and ill-advised public policies associated with the human-generated global warming scare warrant scoffs. Rather, the lack of traction is likely a factor of priorities than anything else. It doesn't factor heavily, if at all, in our fulfilling the 4-fold mission of the Church.

However, if there is an environmental policy or ethic for the Church, it may best be summarized metaphorically in the creation/garden narrative:

Gen. 2:15And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the ^agarden of ^bEden ^cto dress it and to ^dkeep it.

Abr. 4: 27 So the ^aGods went down to organize man in their own ^bimage, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them. 28 And the Gods said: We will bless them. And the Gods said: We will cause them to be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and to have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 22, 2013 by wenglund

[Kenngo1969]

There will always be religious overtones to environmentalism as there should be. To say that it is essentially a religion, I think goes to[o] far ...

Too bad you couldn't attend the conference at which Elder Nash spoke in its entirety. More than one speaker averred that environmentalism essentially is the religion of many atheists.

[thesometimesaint]

To my recollection, the only opinion I advanced, was against the idea that modern environmentalism finds its source in Christian revelation. I don't think Christianity has a credible claim to have lead the way on environmental issues. I would be skeptical about whether priests and bishops and other ministerial leaders should be preaching and teaching about recycling or other environmentalist programs.

I just can't picture this in the past, present, or future of my faith: "Bless me Father, for I have sinned. It has been three weeks since my last confession and in that time I have deliberately put my empty glass bottles in the regular trash. By my scandalous example, I have led others into the same sin. I have also listened to evil radio and read bad literature which denies that global warming is true and has caused me to doubt my faith in environmentalism in general. For these and all the sins of my past life, especially for those against the environment, I am heartily sorry and I ask pardon of God and absolution from you Father."

You asked if there was a specifically Mormon form of environmentalism. Without speaking for Mormons, I expressed my doubts about it from a generically Christian perspective. It seemed like you wanted opinions and your complaint that I failed to offer an "intelligent resolution of the matter" seems out of place. If you had asked for that, I might have stayed out of the discussion.

If I were an atheist I would find it plausible to speculate that Christian eschatology has an effect in making many Christians view the environment with less concern than they otherwise might. There could easily be a difference between those who view the world as pilgrims and those who are more "at home" here. That is the sum of my "argument."

No hard feelings. I just don't think you laid out in your original post what you wanted, Stone holm.

God Bless,

Dop3, Heh.

I believe Christians can use the Bible, and LDS the other Standard works towards an environmentally friendlier earth. After all God did create The Garden, and it took man to create the rank sulfurous burnings of the garbage pits that have been equated with Hell. We are also to be good husbands of the land, to take good care of its lands, air, and waters.

It don't see us giving Sacrament Meetings with recycling as the topic. But I can see taking better care of our planet coming up in Sunday School. Plus we are starting to build much more environmentally friendly buildings.

We don't have Confession like the Catholics, but I can see confession to the Bishop if I committed some gross violation of law. IE; If I dumped a load of toxic waste in a nearby river.

I'm not an Atheist so I can't speak for them in general. However the ones I have talked to are very committed to a safe environment for all living creatures.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm afraid you'll just have to content yourself with the goal of fuel efficiency for now. As soon as someone makes a practical, cost-effective electric car that can travel more than 30-40 miles on a charge, doesn't take several hours to charge, and for which recharging ability is close at hand wherever I might wish to go, I might buy one. (If I ever get the resources, I would have nothing against purchasing a hybrid vehicle. I think they're much more practical than all-electrics.)

High fuel efficiency is a good temporary goal.

Hybrids are getting better all the time, and are a good intermediate stage. But I won't be satisfied until we really reduce the amount of CO2 being put into our atmosphere. The Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf, Ford Focus, Honda EV Fit all have all electric models. The needed electricity can easily be generated at the household level using photovoltaic panels. For most people the daily commute is around 10 miles easily within the range of electric cars. Buses can be made all electric, and some are already here in southern California. High Speed electric trains can fill in the gap between short and long range people transportation. Lead/Acid batteries are the big problem. They just can't store enough energy for much more than the 40 mile limit. The good news is high efficiency batteries are available. IE; the ones in your cell phone and lap top computer. What we do need is an economical way to upscale them for use in a car.

Eventually we'll all be forced into all electric anyway by pure economics. The price of oil will just get too expensive to burn up in our cars.

[CV75]

Question: Why should the Church develop The Environment: A Proclamation to the World, or an Official Declaration 3 (“The Holy Scriptures teach that stewardship of the earth is God’s standard for the environment unless He declares otherwise…”)?

[thesometimesaint]

See Genesis 1-2.

Edited April 22, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Stone holm]

Question: Why should the Church develop The Environment: A Proclamation to the World, or an Official Declaration 3 (“The Holy Scriptures teach that stewardship of the earth is God’s standard for the environment unless He declares otherwise…”)?

Not sure I understand? There was even less controversy or confusion about the Church's stance on the family, yet they issued a proclamation. The Church has previously issued proclamations endorsing a collaborative economy, why not one on the environment? Or did I misunderstand your post?

[pogi]

Unfortunately, the care for the earth has become a political tool averting many would-be environmentalists. Make no mistake that we will be held accountable for our stewardship over the earth:

For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures. (Doctrine and Covenants, 104:13)

When God gave us the earth, he didn't give it to us to ravish it and rape it, but to dress it and keep it. We use the earth for our own lusts of greed, materialism, and personal glory. Are we glorifying God by abusing the earth, or glorifying ourselves? It is easy for me to see the unrighteousness in our pursuits for wealth and materialism at the expense of the earth and its inhabitants.

Sometimes we may forget that the earth is a righteous and loving spiritual being here to bless us, her children. If only we could have the same regard and compassion for our mother that Enoch had:

"And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?

And when Enoch heard the earth mourn, he wept, and cried unto the Lord, saying: O Lord, wilt thou not have compassion upon the earth?

And again Enoch wept and cried unto the Lord, saying: When shall the earth rest?" (Moses 7:48,49,58)

[CV75]

Not sure I understand?

To rephrase my question: Why should the Church develop a proclamation on the environment? What does the environment have in common (spiritually at least) with the subject matter and world-wide, living-and-dead scope of the other proclamations?