Mormon Environmental Ethic, Does It Exist?

[pogi]

The church is currently building many pilot "green" meetinghouses which I am extremely happy about.

http://www.sltrib.co...ilding.html.csp

edit: I guess this was back in 2011. I wonder if there is any new progress. Have they made any decisions to continue building this way?

Edited April 22, 2013 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

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?

It is very hard to continue to live on a dead planet.

[CV75]

It is very hard to continue to live on a dead planet.

And a proclamation is the best course of action the Church can take? If so, it has accomplished this already: strength in unity (1875 Circular), preservation of the Church (notably the temples--OD1), expansion of priesthood power throughout the earth (OD-2), and chastity (righteous family life--The Family: A Proclamation) are the root solution for any environmental problem. The latest of these states that most clearly.

[thesometimesaint]

Maybe. I'm in no position to tell the Church what if any proclamations it puts forth. Personally It doesn't bother me one way or the other if we did or didn't make a separate proclamation on the environment.. We are supposed to study the Scriptures any way. We do have various statements by Prophets and our Church other leaders to be good stewards of the land. We are to make our homes and lands beautiful and bountiful. There is no reason to suppose that those statements end at our own property lines.

[Stone holm]

And a proclamation is the best course of action the Church can take? If so, it has accomplished this already: strength in unity (1875 Circular), preservation of the Church (notably the temples--OD1), expansion of priesthood power throughout the earth (OD-2), and chastity (righteous family life--The Family: A Proclamation) are the root solution for any environmental problem. The latest of these states that most clearly.

Not sure it is the best, but care for the earth and allots denizens ranks right up there and is another way of curbing the excesses of man which are not all sexually related

[CV75]

Maybe. I'm in no position to tell the Church what if any proclamations it puts forth. Personally It doesn't bother me one way or the other if we did or didn't make a separate proclamation on the environment.. We are supposed to study the Scriptures any way. We do have various statements by Prophets and our Church other leaders to be good stewards of the land. We are to make our homes and lands beautiful and bountiful. There is no reason to suppose that those statements end at our own property lines.

That is my take on it as well. The Church has done / does its part; the rest is up to us and between us and God.

[CV75]

Not sure it is the best, but care for the earth and allots denizens ranks right up there and is another way of curbing the excesses of man which are not all sexually related

There is another thread that gets into the connection between a lack of chastity and calamity, environmental destruction being one form of calamity. And yes, human life is first and foremost sexually related.

[Stone holm]

There is another thread that gets into the connection between a lack of chastity and calamity, environmental destruction being one form of calamity. And yes, human life is first and foremost sexually related.

Yeah I don't see a lot of connection between the law of chastity and environmental degradation.

[CV75]

Yeah I don't see a lot of connection between the law of chastity and environmental degradation.

Well here it is:

1. Where best is love best learned and developed (Answer: at home, in the family.)?

2. How is the law of chastity (and other covenants with God) most fundamentally expressed (Answer: sexual relations within God-instituted marriage, the basis for the human family)?

3. Is love undermined with the disintegration of the family and its basis (Answer: Yes.)?

4. Is stewardship of the environment an expression of love (Answer: yes)?

5. Where“the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets,” can environmental degradation be counted as a calamity (Answer: Yes)?

There you have it!

I think the other pronouncements I mentioned in the posts above are most environmentally-friendly.

[Stone holm]

Well here it is:

1. Where best is love best learned and developed (Answer: at home, in the family.)?

2. How is the law of chastity (and other covenants with God) most fundamentally expressed (Answer: sexual relations within God-instituted marriage, the basis for the human family)?

3. Is love undermined with the disintegration of the family and its basis (Answer: Yes.)?

4. Is stewardship of the environment an expression of love (Answer: yes)?

5. Where“the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets,” can environmental degradation be counted as a calamity (Answer: Yes)?

There you have it!

I think the other pronouncements I mentioned in the posts above are most environmentally-friendly.

There I have what. You can have very family oriented people who are environmental illiterates and engage in very destructive environmental practices. As to urban areas if you want a blighted area cleaned up probably the best thing you can do is hope the gays move in. I believe you probably have just made the case for such a proclamation because we have as a people begun to equate the beginning and end of morality with sexual morality which is a pretty limited view.

[3DOP]

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.

Hi sometime. Good to see you. Good to agree with you!

I would agree with everything you say. I would confess "gross violations of law" as sins too. I agree with distinguishing between "gross violations" which might be sinful/criminal and that which is a personal choice. But at this point it isn't even against the law where I live, to mix the garbage, and I am in the very environmentally aware "left coast".

Continuing with the example of recycling, if the state should ever declare failure to recycle to be criminal, at that point Catholic moral theology would step in. Even when a law seems oppressive of personal liberty, we must obey unless faced with what we call "grave inconvenience". I wear my seat belt when I would not if it wasn't the law because of my obligation before God to follow the laws of the state. I have a '78 Toyota pickup which has very short straps. It is hard to buckle and more so when my back is bothering me. I occasionally use the "grave inconvenience clause" to allow myself a drive around the corner in violation of civil law, knowing that if I am caught, I will probably pay a fine, but having a clear conscience before God. Ordinarily, Catholics are obligated under pain of venial sin to follow laws that we disagree with personally unless they violate God's law.

If I am not mistaken, LDS don't have the "grave inconvenience clause". I would suggest that if the state ever defines violation of environmentalist agenda to be criminal, at that point the churches will have their "environmentalist ethic" with the Christian required either to obey or offer a justification for violations of the law.

Edited April 22, 2013 by 3DOP

[Stone holm]

Hi sometime. Good to see you. Good to agree with you!

I would agree with everything you say. I would confess "gross violations of law" as sins too. I agree with distinguishing between "gross violations" which might be sinful/criminal and that which is a personal choice. But at this point it isn't even against the law where I live, to mix the garbage, and I am in the very environmentally aware "left coast".

Continuing with the example of recycling, if the state should ever declare failure to recycle to be criminal, at that point Catholic moral theology would step in. Even when a law seems oppressive of personal liberty, we must obey unless faced with what we call "grave inconvenience". I wear my seat belt when I would not if it wasn't the law because of my obligation before God to follow the laws of the state. I have a '78 Toyota pickup which has very short straps. It is hard to buckle and more so when my back is bothering me. I occasionally use the "grave inconvenience clause" to allow myself a drive around the corner in violation of civil law, knowing that if I am caught, I will probably pay a fine, but having a clear conscience before God. Ordinarily, Catholics are obligated under pain of venial sin to follow laws that we disagree with personally unless they violate God's law.

If I am not mistaken, LDS don't have the "grave inconvenience clause". I would suggest that if the state ever defines violation of environmentalist agenda to be criminal, at that point the churches will have their "environmentalist ethic" with the Christian required either to obey or offer a justification for violations of the law.

Mormons need not be commanded in all things. But corporate morality consists solely in laws that are enacted to regulate them, otherwise their sole moral duty is to maximize income for their shareholders. Hence the need for regulation.

[CV75]

There I have what. You can have very family oriented people who are environmental illiterates and engage in very destructive environmental practices. As to urban areas if you want a blighted area cleaned up probably the best thing you can do is hope the gays move in. I believe you probably have just made the case for such a proclamation because we have as a people begun to equate the beginning and end of morality with sexual morality which is a pretty limited view.

Not at all. Family oriented people are more receptive to the light of Christ and the power of the Holy Ghost, and if operating within the Gospel covenants, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, Priesthood Keys and the power of unity on both sides of the Veil as well. These advantages certainly contribute to a sense of responsibility (without contention) for an ecologically/environmentally-friendly lifestyle which would prevent, avoid and recover from any calamity of this type. They also contribute to the pursuit of literacy many areas, the environment included.

Your economic-oriented proposal for a solution is faddish and short-term (urban blight is the most superficial of environmental problems). On the other hand, the beginning and end of Morality is God, who established marriage and families as a means of perpetuating it among His children, which enter mortality through procreation, the sexual morality of which ensures love in the home and beyond, and ensures that home and family take top precedence over any other material pursuit. This is actually a very comprehensive vew of morality, sex and sexual morality; your arguments are representative of a very limited views and accusations. You have to move beyond that, and offer an actual, sound alternative to the approach I described, which we can easily see that the Church has already been taking.

[Stone holm]

Not at all. Family oriented people are more receptive to the light of Christ and the power of the Holy Ghost, and if operating within the Gospel covenants, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, Priesthood Keys and the power of unity on both sides of the Veil as well. These advantages certainly contribute to a sense of responsibility (without contention) for an ecologically/environmentally-friendly lifestyle which would prevent, avoid and recover from any calamity of this type. They also contribute to the pursuit of literacy many areas, the environment included.

Your economic-oriented proposal for a solution is faddish and short-term (urban blight is the most superficial of environmental problems). On the other hand, the beginning and end of Morality is God, who established marriage and families as a means of perpetuating it among His children, which enter mortality through procreation, the sexual morality of which ensures love in the home and beyond, and ensures that home and family take top precedence over any other material pursuit. This is actually a very comprehensive vew of morality, sex and sexual morality; your arguments are representative of a very limited views and accusations. You have to move beyond that, and offer an actual, sound alternative to the approach I described, which we can easily see that the Church has already been taking.

It is strange is it not that if sexual morality was so important, that Christ spent so little time discussing it during His mortal ministry and so much more time on hypocrisy, pride, selfishness, and caring for the sick and oppressed.

[blackstrap]

Each environmental solution brings another environmental problem. The electric car is one such solution. There are enormous problems with the development of batteries sufficiently powerful and long lasting to make the electric car a common choice for the general public. Then there is the reuse/recycling of the batteries which can run several thousand dollars to replace. Then there is the backwash of the use of coal or nuclear to generate the charging power. Diesel - electrics have some advantages and have no new technology needed as that is how trains run now. As has been said , hydrogen power seems to have the best future if " Brown's gas " can be applied to split hydrogen and oxygen.

[Stone holm]

Each environmental solution brings another environmental problem. The electric car is one such solution. There are enormous problems with the development of batteries sufficiently powerful and long lasting to make the electric car a common choice for the general public. Then there is the reuse/recycling of the batteries which can run several thousand dollars to replace. Then there is the backwash of the use of coal or nuclear to generate the charging power. Diesel - electrics have some advantages and have no new technology needed as that is how trains run now. As has been said , hydrogen power seems to have the best future if " Brown's gas " can be applied to split hydrogen and oxygen.

So we do what just give up and picket x rated movie houses?

[3DOP]

Mormons need not be commanded in all things. But corporate morality consists solely in laws that are enacted to regulate them, otherwise their sole moral duty is to maximize income for their shareholders. Hence the need for regulation.

I would hold as a Catholic that corporate morality is subject to God's law too, even before state regulations. A document well known among Catholics, Rerum Novarum, is an encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, (Late 19th Century), explaining in part how business conglomerates have obligations to meet moral requirements as do individuals. Sorry to have got off on the wrong foot with you. We certainly disagree as to the importance of environmentalism, but I doubt we disagree as much as I may have led you to believe.

Where we differ is your apparent conviction that Christian revelation leads to a clear view of how individual Christians should have some sort of environmental awareness. I don't really think Christian faith contributes as much to environmental concerns as other factors. Obviously, this is a lot more important to you than it is to me, and my intention at this time is to let you carry on with those who seem to agree with you about "Christian environmentalism".

3DOP

[CASteinman]

There have been some attempts to set forth and promote an environmental ethic. But it doesn't seem to have gained much traction.

I don't know. It seems to have gained some. Whether this is much or little would be a matter of perspective or taste.

Is this because of a disbelief in global warming and other environmental issues?

Well, first we have to assume that there is no "traction" in this area for this question to be valid. If we manage to get that far, it doesn't have to be a matter of disbelief. It could be many other things, including apathy.

we are seeing young marrieds coming from Utah and Idaho who don't even understand or practice recycling.

Do you have a poll showing this to be the main behavior of "young marrieds from Utah and Idaho"? Or is it a sort of anecdotal thing that you have noticed for a few -- because you are sensitive to it?

Have you considered asking them why? The people who are doing this are apparently within some sort of eyeshot for you -- and you could just go and ask them. Actually its unlikely we could know why they do something or don't do something -- unless we somehow knew them? But they are anonymous to us here.

As for an ethic -- it seems to me generally inherent in the notion of "stewardship" that people are responsible to take care of the earth and all that is in it. I would also think that this is subject or a subservient goal to the overarching goals of "multiply and fill the earth" and "Prepare for the Coming of the Lord". But being not as great a goal, does not mean some important things could not or should not be done.

I personally do not think that in most cases the environment is doing all that badly. I think that the earth might be warming up, but I am not sure we are responsible and whether we are responsible or not, I kinda think it might be a good thing -- and in any case, we can't really do much about it.

[Stone holm]

I don't know. It seems to have gained some. Whether this is much or little would be a matter of perspective or taste.

Well, first we have to assume that there is no "traction" in this area for this question to be valid. If we manage to get that far, it doesn't have to be a matter of disbelief. It could be many other things, including apathy.

Do you have a poll showing this to be the main behavior of "young marrieds from Utah and Idaho"? Or is it a sort of anecdotal thing that you have noticed for a few -- because you are sensitive to it?

Have you considered asking them why? The people who are doing this are apparently within some sort of eyeshot for you -- and you could just go and ask them. Actually its unlikely we could know why they do something or don't do something -- unless we somehow knew them? But they are anonymous to us here.

As for an ethic -- it seems to me generally inherent in the notion of "stewardship" that people are responsible to take care of the earth and all that is in it. I would also think that this is subject or a subservient goal to the overarching goals of "multiply and fill the earth" and "Prepare for the Coming of the Lord". But being not as great a goal, does not mean some important things could not or should not be done.

I personally do not think that in most cases the environment is doing all that badly. I think that the earth might be warming up, but I am not sure we are responsible and whether we are responsible or not, I kinda think it might be a good thing -- and in any case, we can't really do much about it.

Anecdotal ,but I am not the only one to have noticed it several in my ward have noticed it and others who have travelled to wards in Utah have been downright shocked. My wife spent a awhile serving as a nanny to my daughter and was in a ward that had a lot of young graduate students in Indiana who all lived in the same neighborhood and she was kind of like a mother or aunt to a whole bunch of them. She finally got exasperated with one and started explaining about recycling and separating the stuff to one from Utah who had one of those associate degrees in family living from BYU. And the young mother confessed well we really don't do this out west. So I suspect that just possibly just a tad more emphasis might be in order...so that these young people coming from Utah and Idaho don't continue to project complete environmental indifference and illiteracy to the world since they are looked upon as ambassadors of Mormonism

[Tacenda]

Anecdotal ,but I am not the only one to have noticed it several in my ward have noticed it and others who have travelled to wards in Utah have been downright shocked. My wife spent a awhile serving as a nanny to my daughter and was in a ward that had a lot of young graduate students in Indiana who all lived in the same neighborhood and she was kind of like a mother or aunt to a whole bunch of them. She finally got exasperated with one and started explaining about recycling and separating the stuff to one from Utah who had one of those associate degrees in family living from BYU. And the young mother confessed well we really don't do this out west. So I suspect that just possibly just a tad more emphasis might be in order...so that these young people coming from Utah and Idaho don't continue to project complete environmental indifference and illiteracy to the world since they are looked upon as ambassadors of Mormonism

This must not be too recent because in the last couple years we've had curbside recycling. Granted it did take Utah awhile, I'm thrilled about it because I used to have to drive to another town to take all my recycled garbage. I remember with my first child I thought cloth diapers would be better for the environment but that didn't last long before I had to have disposable. I can't be that good. Also, I have purified water , so no need to buy water bottles. Atleast we're making great strides in Utah. And in an elementary school today we celebrated "Earth Day" and the students learned alot about not hurting but helping the environment.

[Stargazer]

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.

Duh!

You make it sound like a bad thing. Do you truly want to live in the 8th Century BC in, say, Greece? Of course new technology causes problems! Would you rather have the life-expectancy that existed just 100 years ago in the US? I'd likely be dead by now. And perhaps would you.

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.

If God had wanted us to leave it alone, he would have buried it deeper. Or told us we weren't allowed to (which wouldn't have stopped anyone).

It is necessary for God's plans for modern technology to progress as it had. We need more people on earth, if all of Father's children are to get bodies in the time frame He has set forth. And it is necessary for the Gospel to be preached to as many as we can, thus radio, television, and the printing press. Not to mention aircraft and cruise ships.

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.

Each advance, as you've pointed out, causes its own problems. And these problems are eventually solved, and we have additional problems. We are actually getting better at this. We suffered for millenia being victimized by plagues, diseases of various sorts, and so on. Ten thousand years of smallpox, for instance. And what's the downside of having eradicated that disease? More people? No, that's an upside. Ding ding ding! That's right, it's a trick question, there IS no downside.

It was what, how many thousand years of rubbing sticks together to make fire, and it is only in the last century or so that I could pick up a match and start a fire in seconds? How about Bic lighters? We sailed around the lakes and seas using wind and oar-power for thousands of years, too, and sometime in the last 200 years somebody invented the steam engine and stuck one on a boat.

We have gone from being stuck on the surface of this planet for our entire existence, and it is only in the last 100 years that we have gotten airborne, and finally a man walked on the moon.

Would you prefer to trade the lifestyle of 200 years ago for what you have now?

I sure wouldn't, with all its problems.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Would you prefer to trade the lifestyle of 200 years ago for what you have now?

Take off another 900 years, and you'd have the Green Movement in this country. They've done everything in their power to drive up the cost of every conceivable form of energy in order to force people back to the 12th century. And it does no good to point out to them that they're indirectly killing the elderly who can no longer afford to stay warm in the wintertime or cool in the summer because, well, 'euthanising' the elderly (and the disabled) for the good of society -- and the wellbeing of overburdened 'Mother Earth' -- is something they heartily endorse as well.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[thesometimesaint]

Hi sometime. Good to see you. Good to agree with you!

I would agree with everything you say. I would confess "gross violations of law" as sins too. I agree with distinguishing between "gross violations" which might be sinful/criminal and that which is a personal choice. But at this point it isn't even against the law where I live, to mix the garbage, and I am in the very environmentally aware "left coast".

Continuing with the example of recycling, if the state should ever declare failure to recycle to be criminal, at that point Catholic moral theology would step in. Even when a law seems oppressive of personal liberty, we must obey unless faced with what we call "grave inconvenience". I wear my seat belt when I would not if it wasn't the law because of my obligation before God to follow the laws of the state. I have a '78 Toyota pickup which has very short straps. It is hard to buckle and more so when my back is bothering me. I occasionally use the "grave inconvenience clause" to allow myself a drive around the corner in violation of civil law, knowing that if I am caught, I will probably pay a fine, but having a clear conscience before God. Ordinarily, Catholics are obligated under pain of venial sin to follow laws that we disagree with personally unless they violate God's law.

If I am not mistaken, LDS don't have the "grave inconvenience clause". I would suggest that if the state ever defines violation of environmentalist agenda to be criminal, at that point the churches will have their "environmentalist ethic" with the Christian required either to obey or offer a justification for violations of the law.

Good to see you too. Great minds think alike.

I too would oppose a law criminalizing mixing trash with recyclables. I'm more of a carrot before the stick type myself. So I could support a lower charge rate for those that separate out their trash. Like they do where I live.

True; we don't have a grave inconvenience clause. We are honor, obey, and sustain the law. If there are unsupportable laws we are to go through our governmental officials to change those laws. In extreme cases we are entitled to leave the jurisdiction of the laws we oppose.

[CV75]

It is strange is it not that if sexual morality was so important, that Christ spent so little time discussing it during His mortal ministry and so much more time on hypocrisy, pride, selfishness, and caring for the sick and oppressed.

…or ecology and the environment, for that matter… But actually, He addressed sexual and family morality and mores throughout His mission (Sermon on the Mount, the woman taken in adultery, the treatment of children, parables involving the Bridegroom, His relationship with the Father, the woman with seven husbands, His command on the cross, “behold your little ones,” etc.). Is it not strange that this is so strange to you...

Your failure to answer the questions (posts 46, 50, and 59) demonstrates that there is no better Gospel-based basis or approach to environmental issues than what the Church already promotes. Shutting down examination and discussion while not leading with what we already have is the dynamic we are warned against in Matthew 13:12: “For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.” We have been given a very straightforward key to counter calamity, and you haven't been able to articulate any alternative at all, much less a better one.

[Stone holm]

I would hold as a Catholic that corporate morality is subject to God's law too, even before state regulations. A document well known among Catholics, Rerum Novarum, is an encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, (Late 19th Century), explaining in part how business conglomerates have obligations to meet moral requirements as do individuals. Sorry to have got off on the wrong foot with you. We certainly disagree as to the importance of environmentalism, but I doubt we disagree as much as I may have led you to believe.

Where we differ is your apparent conviction that Christian revelation leads to a clear view of how individual Christians should have some sort of environmental awareness. I don't really think Christian faith contributes as much to environmental concerns as other factors. Obviously, this is a lot more important to you than it is to me, and my intention at this time is to let you carry on with those who seem to agree with you about "Christian environmentalism".

3DOP

So Catholics think corporations are persons with souls? No corporations are abstract intangible entities created to carry out certain purposes. The for profit corporations are amoral -- their only built in morality is that they have a fiduciary duty to preserve corporate assets and maximize return to their shareholders -- all other obligations are provided by the laws of the land in which they live. Those which retail products or service to the public, also have an indirect curb on their activities in addition to legislation, namely the public's ability to censure and boycott their products -- so long as they don't have a monopoly on a product or service that is considered a necessity. They have no incentive to voluntarily take positions which are observed to be restrictive of their ability to achieve profits -- while they are owned and governed by humans, if the corporation is sufficiently large and diversely held the social conscience of such individuals becomes increasingly subordinate to the amoral basis of corporations. Hence the phrase, "This is just business."