Mormon Environmental Ethic, Does It Exist?

[CV75]

So you are saying

I’m saying that for such a parochial problem (your personal issue with the “young marrieds” that offend you about a pet peeve—and really: how many can there possibly be?), taking the opportunity to teach them is more realistic than expecting a GA to make them change to your liking.

As for the larger problem, you haven't articulated how the Church should go about making the environment a better cared-for place (to your liking). Just complain about others.

Now if you can connect the dots from the few young marrieds you know to what you consider to be a number of significant, environmentally-fueled PR problems faced by the Church, is it really that hard for you do the same with the larger Church solution(s) that already exist and a) your interpersonal issue with the young marrieds; b) your issue about the local/global environment; and c) your issue about the PR impact of environmental education in Utah on the Church? Are you really that powerless to do anything positive within in your own relationships and community that you think a GA has to come in and save the day for you?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

wengland:

Probably because the power generated by an windmill mounted on an air plane would never compensate for the power required by the air plane.

BTW http://www.popsci.co...ectric-airplane

Duh? I see I am saying the same thing Wade is. Good grief I needed a laugh.

[Calm]

Maybe not. SL Valley doesn't have particularly more dust than most other places. But on average any place that is in "desert" type conditions with lots of terrain where dirt is exposed to air will have more dust than other places. So, you would have less in dense forest areas and more in open grasslands and even more in deserts. Salt Lake has air particulates about average for these conditions.

FYI.. the lowest particulate counts are in New York with 17 and the highest are Mono California with 1400. Salt Lake Valley has about 140.

Wouldn't the mountains impeding air flow or even trapping the air have an impact as well? Edited April 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

Wouldn't the mountains impeding air flow or even trapping the air have an impact as well?

Those are known factors for smog. Whether they affect dust -- I don't know. I can imagine though that if wind is blowing west to east, mountains would deflect heavier dust particle back. This would probably make the air on the west of the mountains 'dirtier' while the air just over the mountains to the east would be cleaner.

Edited April 23, 2013 by CASteinman

[Calm]

At the time I believe the problem in Provo Valley was the Cannon Steel Plant.

Geneva Steel owned last by the Cannon brothers...made me sick the winter after marriage, there was such a bad inversion going on...the air looked greenish to me. When we moved and came back to live a couple of decades later after it had been shut down...it was so, so much better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Steel

[Calm]

Those are known factors for smog. Whether they affect dust -- I don't know. I can imagine though that if wind is blowing west to east, mountains would deflect heavier dust particle back. This would probably make the air on the west of the mountains 'dirtier' while the air just over the mountains to the east would be cleaner.

This happens quite a bit in Utah in my experience....even north to south as Utah Valley tends to have cleaner air than SL Valley.

[Stone holm]

I’m saying that for such a parochial problem (your personal issue with the “young marrieds” that offend you about a pet peeve—and really: how many can there possibly be?), taking the opportunity to teach them is more realistic than expecting a GA to make them change to your liking.

As for the larger problem, you haven't articulated how the Church should go about making the environment a better cared-for place (to your liking). Just complain about others.

Now if you can connect the dots from the few young marrieds you know to what you consider to be a number of significant, environmentally-fueled PR problems faced by the Church, is it really that hard for you do the same with the larger Church solution(s) that already exist and a) your interpersonal issue with the young marrieds; b) your issue about the local/global environment; and c) your issue about the PR impact of environmental education in Utah on the Church? Are you really that powerless to do anything positive within in your own relationships and community that you think a GA has to come in and save the day for you?

I don't think I have an issue with them, least I don't think I do...the ones befriended by my wife still call and come visit. The point was that Utah is not setting a good example, and whenever Utah fails to set a good example, all Mormons tend to get tarred with that brush.

[CASteinman]

The point was that Utah is not setting a good example, and whenever Utah fails to set a good example, all Mormons tend to get tarred with that brush.

so if we just recycle more... people will flock to the Church..... If only the Prophet could figure this out.

[CV75]

I don't think I have an issue with them, least I don't think I do...the ones befriended by my wife still call and come visit. The point was that Utah is not setting a good example, and whenever Utah fails to set a good example, all Mormons tend to get tarred with that brush.

The Church has a well-developed and highly effective PR system, with its fingers on the pulse on what is important for mass communication and PR purposes. I don’t think the environment ranks at all among the PR messages it needs to send, especially any collateral effects of the State’s record might have on its image. And the overall impact of Utah’s environmental record on the Church’s PR (beyond perhaps a small circle of friends)? Hardly worth noting.

As far as any bad example resulting from a young Utah Mormon couple that does not share the values of a tight knit, eco-friendly community or among an environmentally conscientious clique, why can’t you be the better example to offset it? And are you finding that your friends tar you with the same brush as they see Utah (I take that you are environmentally conscientious and engaged in the community’s efforts in that regard)?

[Stone holm]

The Church has a well-developed and highly effective PR system, with its fingers on the pulse on what is important for mass communication and PR purposes. I don’t think the environment ranks at all among the PR messages it needs to send, especially any collateral effects of the State’s record might have on its image. And the overall impact of Utah’s environmental record on the Church’s PR (beyond perhaps a small circle of friends)? Hardly worth noting.

As far as any bad example resulting from a young Utah Mormon couple that does not share the values of a tight knit, eco-friendly community or among an environmentally conscientious clique, why can’t you be the better example to offset it? And are you finding that your friends tar you with the same brush as they see Utah (I take that you are environmentally conscientious and engaged in the community’s efforts in that regard)?

I have no doubt that you see no reason for the Church to send any PR message other than the one it is sending, nor that you see any reason for it to publicize its doctrines regarding the care of the Earth.

[CV75]

I have no doubt that you see no reason for the Church to send any PR message other than the one it is sending, nor that you see any reason for it to publicize its doctrines regarding the care of the Earth.

I do see that the Church publicizes "its doctrines about the care of the Earth"—how else would someone like me be able to explain them? How else would families pass the ethic along through the generations, like I have?

The Church's PR messages will continue to change as requirements change--that is one reason I think it will indeed continue to revise and send new PR messages "other than the one it is sending."

I think an interesting topic of discussion is the relationship between doctrine and PR.

Any exaggerated virtue quickly becomes a vice. The great and spacious building has many courts of many erstwhile virtues that have become “-isms,” each with its own courtiers scornfully demanding a following. Why should any follower of Christ heed them? Why should the Church attend to them? We stick with the virtues, the fruits of the Gospel, even though among the membership of the Church, all sorts of fruit may cumber the tree.

[Stone holm]

so if we just recycle more... people will flock to the Church..... If only the Prophet could figure this out.

No but perhaps some who currently won't even give the Church a hearing might pause long enough to take us seriously. If it was important enough to try and overcome the prejudice against us being spread by the Evangelicals to change the paperback cover of our BOM and to add a subtitle to it, and change the nuance of our approach to other Christian sects -- why not put a little minimal effort which is clearly consistent with our doctrine into wooing at least some of the progressive community instead of abandoning the field to the Unitarians and other sects?

[Stone holm]

I do see that the Church publicizes "its doctrines about the care of the Earth"—how else would someone like me be able to explain them? How else would families pass the ethic along through the generations, like I have?

The Church's PR messages will continue to change as requirements change--that is one reason I think it will indeed continue to revise and send new PR messages "other than the one it is sending."

I think an interesting topic of discussion is the relationship between doctrine and PR.

Any exaggerated virtue quickly becomes a vice. The great and spacious building has many courts of many erstwhile virtues that have become “-isms,” each with its own courtiers scornfully demanding a following. Why should any follower of Christ heed them? Why should the Church attend to them? We stick with the virtues, the fruits of the Gospel, even though among the membership of the Church, all sorts of fruit may cumber the tree.

Because too many Mormons don't get it.

[Stone holm]

Geneva Steel owned last by the Cannon brothers...made me sick the winter after marriage, there was such a bad inversion going on...the air looked greenish to me. When we moved and came back to live a couple of decades later after it had been shut down...it was so, so much better.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Geneva_Steel

Simply stated, some industrial endeavors should not even be considered in some of the valleys with inversion problems, and those areas should be heavily involved in trying to reduce exhaust emissions as well. So instead of an indifference to environmental concerns, the opposite is actually called for in a State with such problems. I don't doubt that there are such issues, but that does not absolve the bad actors -- but rather makes it obvious that more attention needs to be displayed than might be warranted elsewhere.

[CV75]

Because too many Mormons don't get it.

So because, in your judgment, too many Mormons (exactly how many would that be?) don’t get it (exactly what is it they don’t get, and how do you know?), the Church is to revise its doctrinal publications and PR effort? Or, that they (the members and the Church) should hearken to the voices from one court of the great and spacious building?

[CASteinman]

No but perhaps some who currently won't even give the Church a hearing might pause long enough to take us seriously.

And then others who might give us a hearing now might reject it out of hand because we are so PC. You can't please every worldly desire.

[Stone holm]

So because, in your judgment, too many Mormons (exactly how many would that be?) don’t get it (exactly what is it they don’t get, and how do you know?), the Church is to revise its doctrinal publications and PR effort? Or, that they (the members and the Church) should hearken to the voices from one court of the great and spacious building?

Or that they should quit listening so much to one court of the great and spacious building that constantly rebuffs and rejects reasonable efforts to protect the planet.

[Stone holm]

And then others who might give us a hearing now might reject it out of hand because we are so PC. You can't please every worldly desire.

Not proposing a change in current doctrine, just proposing that we give more emphasis to our current doctrine -- and true it might offend persons who have been accustomed to following worldly business desires to treat the planet badly.

[CASteinman]

why not put a little minimal effort which is clearly consistent with our doctrine into wooing at least some of the progressive community instead of abandoning the field to the Unitarians and other sects?

My data is more personal experience, anecdote and a sense of the missionary success we have in social progressive areas (New England Europe, Bay Area, etc.) so this might all be wrong. A stronger statistical analysis with hard data could tend to confirm or deny these hypotheses:

I think we should but I find that they are often atheists, or deists and prideful and unwilling to repent and humble themselves. They are often suspicious of religion, favor modern secularism (an enemy of the Church of God) and do not trust leaders who are not, themselves, progressive.

I have found that to be the case for nearly my whole time in the Church, but my largest experience was on my mission in California. Overall, it appears to me that the Church tends to do poorly in progressive populations as well as in very evangelical populations -- but of the two, progressive populations seem to be the worse with regard to individual success while evangelical populated areas produce more out right public resistance.

I don't think a minor issue like throwing our trash away in some PC manner is going to make progressives become more humble and teachable. I also think it may increase our image as being "weird" outsiders among more conservative populations where we may enjoy modest success.

Interestingly enough -- I think we actually do "Ok" among some city populations of blacks. I hypothesize that this is so because -- despite our history and despite them voting democrat by a large margin and despite them often being a church going group of people -- they are not either progressive nor evangelical and are a humble loving people. I don't think that they would care either way about how we throw away our trash, but I might be wrong.

[CASteinman]

Not proposing a change in current doctrine, just proposing that we give more emphasis to our current doctrine -- and true it might offend persons who have been accustomed to following worldly business desires to treat the planet badly.

Well, fix one persons itch and bug another. I think we are fine. From the standpoint of missionary success I don't see a percentage in this deal.

[wenglund]

Environmentalism IS the one true church. Green is god.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

Environmentalism IS the one true church. Green is god.

I do not think I agree with this except in some hyperbolic allegorical sense.

[CV75]

Or that they should quit listening so much to one court of the great and spacious building that constantly rebuffs and rejects reasonable efforts to protect the planet.

What court is that; what are the reasonable efforts, and how are they reasonable--and if reasonable, why do they necessitate ecclesiastical intervention?.

Once again, you're ranting and aren't answering any reasonable questions (there were four in post #115). This is why your "argument" has no traction.

(Note: there are four reasonable questions in this post, and yet other unanswered equally reasonable questions from earlier posts than these.)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Because too many Mormons don't get it.

THe issue is that the green movements and enviormentalism is more than just what they proport to be. Most of what people do (in the enviromental movements) is try to control other people through fear. Al Gore anyone?

Do you think I really want dirty air and dirty water? But we must deal with reality also. And so far most envirmental wacko's don't. They want us back in the stone age. That doesn't not work for me or for society. Millions would die if we did. So in a certain sense I am willing to deal with dirty air for the amazing technology that is the combustion engine. I think if government would get out of the way we would have a hydrogen car. I know Obama shelved that car from GM to push his idiotic electric car. It was going to come out in 2009. They had a working prototype in 2008.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Environmentalism IS the one true church. Green is god.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

I am not sure everyone gets it. The whole worship of Gaia. People feel so good when they turn their car off and not let it idle. "Its bad for the enivorment". I feel so good when I recycle too. I just feel so amazing.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram