Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Unflinching Pragmatism of the LDS Church


smac97

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I hope the church follows Elder Holland's lead! Speaking out against female mutilation loud and clear, also I'm glad the church is vocal about helping the refugees too. The church has said plenty about food storage, now they need to make room for so many other things that can help the world, including speaking up for taking care of the environment! :)

Edited by Tacenda
Posted
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

...

So here's a question: Are there other widespread social issues which you think the Church should be addressing (or addressing with greater emphasis)?  Care for the environment comes to mind (practical stuff, not the trite, virtue-signalling, misanthropic silliness that passes for "environmentalism" in some quarters). 

I'd also like to see a renewed emphasis on family gardens, food storage and emergency preparedness.  Although not well-known in the US, the Church has been working extensively in many countries to help with clean water, personal hygiene, and community gardening (my brother works for the Church and is heavily involved in these efforts).

...

I'd say employment, especially for underemployed younger men. The largest cause underlying the drop in marriage rates and family life is that many men are no longer able to provide a substantial portion of the family income. Lower class women, understandably, choose to pursue their lives and raise their children on their own. The best social good that could happen in my stake would be a focused and sustained drive to improve the working prospects of our men. As a feminist, I would of course open all the same resources to women. But at least in my stake the need is much greater for men. If I really had my way, I'd release all of the senior male leadership - bishops, high counsel, etc. - replace them with very capable sisters, and assign each of these men to a couple of 20-something men with the assignment to turn them into ready husbands/fathers. 

FWIW, I'm also a personal fan of gardening and food storage. I wish it was discussed more than it is.

Posted
13 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I  don't know what you mean by misplaced misanthropic silliness that passes for "environmentalism" in some quarters.

SEE https://www.ksl.com/?sid=10549368

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-history-library-goes--green--with-leed-certification

Those are great things, and I am glad to see the Church trying them out.  But the "trite, virtue-signalling, misanthropic silliness that passes for environmentalism'" which I had in mind is stuff like this:

Quote

"All I wanna do is have some fun," sang Sheryl Crow once, but it appears her desires have since changed. Now all she wants to do is limit the use of toilet paper to one sheet per visit.

...

According to Crow's new strictures, the average person should use "only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required". Further details were not offered as to the precise nature of these "pesky occasions", though "we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work", she insists.

Or this:

Quote

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.

Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."

Or this:

hqdefault.jpg

Or this example of environmentalist hypocrisy:

Quote

Leo DiCaprio picked up an environmental award in NYC this week — but hypocritically expanded his carbon footprint by 8,000 miles when he obtained the honor, by taking a private jet from Cannes, then flying straight back to France on another jet for a model-packed fund-raiser a night later.

Or these:

There is, I think, a deeply-entrenched stain of profound misanthropy in the minds of many self-styled "environmentalists."  Hatred of humans.  Hatred of unborn humans.  Self-loathing.  Encouraging others to self-loath.  See, e.g., the following:

Environmentalism's Deep Misanthropy

Quote

In recent years, deep misanthropy has seeped into the popular culture. For example, the 2008 remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still starred Keanu Reeves as Klaatu, an alien come to earth to commit total genocide to “save the earth.” At the end, he shows “mercy” by stripping us of our technology”an event which, were it actually to occur, would result in billions of human deaths. Illustrating how times have changed, the 1951 original version had Klaatu on earth to save humans, not wipe us out. 

This deep misanthropy has found its way into curricula. A few years ago, for example, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website carried a children’s feature called Planet Slayer , featuring “Dr. Schpinkee’s Greenhouse Calculator,” with which kids added up their carbon score. The game ended with a “carbon hog” bloodily exploding. Data then told children how much longer they could live until they used up their respective “share of the planet””strongly implying a duty to die thereafter in order not to be a plague on the earth. 

Deep misanthropy has helped renew the Malthusian drive to radically depopulate the planet of people as a remedy for environmental ills and human deprivation. Population Matters, for example, would have us voluntarily reduce our current population of seven billion by about half to save the planet. Another Population Matters patron, Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb , says the optimal human count would be much lower, around 1.5 billion. 

Like The Day the Earth Stood Still , such advocacy has distinct genocidal overtones. But the Malthusians always assure us that they only support “non-coercive” measures, such as legally mandated access to “reproductive health””which means, in part, contraception and universal abortion-on-demand. 

Environmentalists against humans: Green is the Color of Misanthropy

Quote

I have long noted a virulent strain of rabid misanthropy among the intelligentsia of the environmental movement.  From professors longing for the next deadly infectious disease strain to come along to philosophers who peg the ideal human population at 100 million, only 1.4 percent of the present population of 7.1 billion, hatred of humanity is not uncommon.

In a short but insightful article in 1990 Robert James Bidinotto quoted a number of environmental though leaders – and those down in the trenches – who displayed outright contempt for human aspirations, achievements and life.

Quote

““Is it not perverse to prefer the lives of mice and guinea pigs to the lives of men and women?” asks philosopher Patrick Corbett. Not really, because “if we stand back from the scientific and technological rat race for a moment, we realize that, since animals are in many respects superior to ourselves, the argument collapses.”

“Man,” snarls Michael W. Fox in his book, Returning to Eden, “is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on earth.” David Graber, a biologist for the National Park Service, expressed his own hopes thusly:

Quote

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line—at about a million years ago, maybe half that—we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth . . . . Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

 

 

Radical Environmentalism Hides Hatred for Humanity

Quote

The movement of late that concerns me the most is radical environmentalism.  It is not the zealous concern for the environment that disturbs me; it is the humans vs. the planet mentality that is sometimes hidden behind that concern for the environment. 

Many environmental types truly believe that the planet would be a better place without humans and they want us gone.  Some range from just asking that we voluntarily do not have children, some want to implement a one-child policy like China, and some hope for an outbreak of a virus like Ebola to get rid of what they see as a plague on the Earth.

James Lee, killed holding the Discovery Channel hostage, was a true believer in the misanthropic radical environmentalist agenda.   His demands of the Discovery channel reveal a hatred for his fellow man, namely children, disguised by a concern for the environment.   From MSNBC.com:

Quote

{Lee} is reputed to be behind the website, SaveThePlanetProtest.com, essentially a one-page screed against Discovery, urging the company to expose civilization "for the filth it is" and to puts its focus on "how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution...."

The SaveThePlanetProtest website list of "demands" is prefaced by this statement: "The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following IMMEDIATELY."

Among the chilling demands: "All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions.

"In those programs' places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it."

I think "parasitic human infants" says it all.

Anti-Humanism Subverts Environmental Movement

Quote

Environmentalism has done so much good — conservation, our national parks, cleaning up the air and rivers, remediating toxic waste dumps, and the list goes on. But something has gone terribly awry.

Beginning with “deep ecology” in the 1970s — which proclaims a moral equality between people and nature and advocates radical human depopulation — a nihilistic misanthropy has slowly but surely shrouded environmentalism. It has gotten so bad that conservation and preventing pollution, once the hallmarks of environmentalism, now often take a back seat to thwarting the development of resources in the service of an ideology that is becoming explicitly anti-human.

Perhaps "silliness" is not the most apt descriptor.  There are some facets of what passes for "environmentalism" that are downright toxic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Posted
55 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I  don't know what you mean by misplaced misanthropic silliness that passes for "environmentalism" in some quarters.

Probably the Voluntary Human Extinction movement.

Posted
15 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I'd say employment, especially for underemployed younger men. The largest cause underlying the drop in marriage rates and family life is that many men are no longer able to provide a substantial portion of the family income. Lower class women, understandably, choose to pursue their lives and raise their children on their own. The best social good that could happen in my stake would be a focused and sustained drive to improve the working prospects of our men. As a feminist, I would of course open all the same resources to women. But at least in my stake the need is much greater for men. If I really had my way, I'd release all of the senior male leadership - bishops, high counsel, etc. - replace them with very capable sisters, and assign each of these men to a couple of 20-something men with the assignment to turn them into ready husbands/fathers. 

FWIW, I'm also a personal fan of gardening and food storage. I wish it was discussed more than it is.

https://www.lds.org/topics/pef-self-reliance?lang=eng

All kinds of stuff here. 

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Or this example of environmentalist hypocrisy:
Leo DiCaprio picked up an environmental award in NYC this week — but hypocritically expanded his carbon footprint by 8,000 miles when he obtained the honor, by taking a private jet from Cannes, then flying straight back to France on another jet for a model-packed fund-raiser a night later.


Ah Leo.
The Albertan in me still laughs when I think about:
dicaprio-chinook.png?w=663

Right Duncan and Halconero?

Edited by JLHPROF
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I'm an environmentalist. I like humanity, but no one can seriously doubt that sometimes we mess things up sometimes.

BTW My electric bill for all of last month was $1.11. :D

I think we can acknowledge the errors of man, even the serious ones, and also work on improving how we treat the environment, without resorting to publicly advocating suicide, abortion, infanticide, and even hoping for wholesale genocide.  All "for the planet."

Thanks,

-smac

Edited by smac97
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:


Ah Leo.
The Albertan in me still laughs when I think about:
dicaprio-chinook.png?w=663

Right Duncan and Halconero?

I loved the story about a high-profile individual buying an incredibly environmentally-friendly car and having flown in from Europe on a specially chartered plane.....that provided more envionmental impact in that one flight then any ten cars over their entire lifetime.

I haven't figured out whether the cause of this stuff is a desire to be showy or people just being plain stupid. I tend towards the latter. I find stupidity is more often the cause of human error then actual malice.

Edited by The Nehor
Posted (edited)

Good thread and OP, Smac. 

I know it will rankle some here to hear this, but there is no good reason to continue the routine practice of circumcizing newborn boys. There are no clear benefits to it and no clear harms that result from the avoidance of it. It raises ethical considerations about informed consent. It might arguably be regarded as male genital mutilation. 

I know there are doctrinal considerations, but none that apply to us living under the new covenant, as Christ Himself affirmed to the Nephites that the law of circumcision is done away in Him. 

Edited to add:

While I'm not calling on the Church to ban male circumcision, I do think there might be a problem with perceived inconsistency if the Brethren were to speak out against female genital mutilation and say nothing about routine neonatal circumcision of boys. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

The LDS Church has, for many years, been teaching many good and virtuous principles about what could be called "righteous living."  Some of these teachings necessarily require the Church to address social ills.  Recently, Elder Holland addressed one that has not been raised previously.  See here:

The Brethren have been rather direct in addressing many other societal problems: verbal/sexual/physical/emotional abuse, pornography, substance abuse, and so on.  Although FGM is perhaps not "on the radar" for many Latter-day Saints in the U.S. and elsewhere, it is clearly a serious problem.  I am glad it is being addressed.

More from the article:

Well done, Elder Holland!

The Church also has much to say about personal/family finances (avoid debt, avoid profligate expenditures, etc.), food storage, emergency preparedness, voting and civic duties, community service and outreach, personal health and wellness, emphasis on family, parental responsibilities, and so on.  This is in addition to the Church's emphasis on "spiritual" things like missionary work, family history and temple work, serving in Church callings, visiting and home teaching, reading scriptures, prayer, and so on.

In sum, I appreciate that the LDS Church is striving to be both deeply spiritual and deeply pragmatic.  I have long valued this counsel from Pres. Joseph F. Smith:

So here's a question: Are there other widespread social issues which you think the Church should be addressing 

 

My sister posted this article on Facebook.  The first comment someone made was along the lines of, "yeah, wish they'd address the rape culture they are contributing to".

The brethren can address any kind of social issue that there is, but it seems that until they fall on the sword of taking responsibility for societies ills, critics will never be content.

Anyways, Elder Ballard addressed a sort of big social issue lately...

http://www.moronichannel.org/church-today/elder-m-russell-ballard-discourage-members-to-use-pokemon-go

I think it ties into the unemployment/underemployment issue that has been discussed.  I think men in the church (and in society as a whole) are wasting too much time on things of considerable insignificance.

Posted
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Those are great things, and I am glad to see the Church trying them out.  But the "trite, virtue-signalling, misanthropic silliness that passes for environmentalism'" which I had in mind is stuff like this:

Or this:

Or this:

hqdefault.jpg

Or this example of environmentalist hypocrisy:

Or these:

There is, I think, a deeply-entrenched stain of profound misanthropy in the minds of many self-styled "environmentalists."  Hatred of humans.  Hatred of unborn humans.  Self-loathing.  Encouraging others to self-loath.  See, e.g., the following:

Environmentalism's Deep Misanthropy

Environmentalists against humans: Green is the Color of Misanthropy

Radical Environmentalism Hides Hatred for Humanity

Anti-Humanism Subverts Environmental Movement

Perhaps "silliness" is not the most apt descriptor.  There are some facets of what passes for "environmentalism" that are downright toxic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Am I mistaken, or is that Kate Kelly holding the "kill yourself" placard?

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Am I mistaken, or is that Kate Kelly holding the "kill yourself" placard?

I found the image on Google Images, which links to a YouTube video which shows the static image shown above.  The video was uploaded on June 13, 2008.  

I have no idea if it is Kate Kelly.  That would be weird.  She graduated from BYU in 2006, so it seems a bit wild to think she would have gone from being a BYU student (with time off to serve a full-time mission) to advocating for suicide "for the planet."

I doubt it's her.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: The woman in the photo is apparently Chris Korda, a "transgender male" and "anti-natalist activist" who, it appears, kinda sorta looks like Kate Kelly.  He (?) is also apparently a "reverend of the Church of Euthanasia" who is "{a}gainst procreation and feels that humans are just a disease or a cancer on Earth."

Lovely stuff.

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Posted
5 hours ago, smac97 said:

So here's a question: Are there other widespread social issues which you think the Church should be addressing (or addressing with greater emphasis)?  Care for the environment comes to mind (practical stuff, not the trite, virtue-signalling, misanthropic silliness that passes for "environmentalism" in some quarters). 

Since you asked, I think the church could do better at making a distinction between consensual sex and rape.

To clarify what I mean, my daughter shared with me a 3 minute video about consent that claims "consent is everything."  She says this is highly emphasized at her college. The video makes the point in a way that is entertaining, clever, PG and can be watched here.  The church's teachings about chastity theoretically make teachings about consent irrelevant, but in practical matters, consent IS relevant and somehow needs to be taught. 

The Mormon/BYU culture teaches abstinence and gives rules that are designed to keep people away from falling to the temptation of premarital sex.  That's all well and good, and of course there are great benefits to sticking with that program.

However, it is almost inevitable that a certain percentage of people are going to break some of the hedge rules and in the heat of the moment decide to have sex.  Of course we all know about the list of sins where the sin right underneath murder is sex outside of marriage.  Unfortunately, the list doesn't distinguish between consensual sex and non-consensual sex.  So if you are a guy in the heat of the moment, and you are with a woman that chose to put herself into a compromising situation, you might not care about whether or not no means no--after all, she asked for it be drinking or staying up late or wearing a skirt that was a little too short or by getting a little too hot and heavy with you or whatever.  And since having sex is a sin next to murder anyway, could it really be any worse if it's with a girl that is passed out or is pushing you away and saying no or otherwise isn't consenting?  And she probably won't tell anyone anyway because she has been conditioned to think that it is her fault for tempting you and even if she doesn't think that, she knows that if she complains to the police or Title IX office about being the victim of a felony, she'll likely be kicked out of school. 

So as a widespread social issue that the Church should be better addressing, it needs to emphasize that regardless of what lead up to the moment, non-consensual sex is called rape and is infinitely worse than consensual sex outside of marriage and is also a felony.  Sure, it can teach that you shouldn't have sex until you are married, but it should also teach that sex with somebody who doesn't consent is called rape and the church and university will do everything in their power to support the victim and bring the perpetrator to justice.

Posted
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Those are great things, and I am glad to see the Church trying them out.  But the "trite, virtue-signalling, misanthropic silliness that passes for environmentalism'" which I had in mind is stuff like this:

Or this:

Or this:

hqdefault.jpg

Or this example of environmentalist hypocrisy:

Or these:

There is, I think, a deeply-entrenched stain of profound misanthropy in the minds of many self-styled "environmentalists."  Hatred of humans.  Hatred of unborn humans.  Self-loathing.  Encouraging others to self-loath.  See, e.g., the following:

Environmentalism's Deep Misanthropy

Environmentalists against humans: Green is the Color of Misanthropy

Radical Environmentalism Hides Hatred for Humanity

Anti-Humanism Subverts Environmental Movement

Perhaps "silliness" is not the most apt descriptor.  There are some facets of what passes for "environmentalism" that are downright toxic.

Thanks,

-Smac

There is much to be said for "moderation in all things."

Posted

With regards to environmentalism and population growth, the Church ought to acknowledge that zero population (increase) is in fact the answer. 

The Most Important Video You'll Ever See explains why.

This isn't to say that every family with more than two kids is evil.  If you want to have a large family there is nothing wrong with that, but society as a whole needs to have a balance between people, technology, and the environment.  The reason the population bomb scare scenarios of the 60's didn't come to fruition is partly because of the green revelation and increasing food production, but also because of mega trends of people choosing to have fewer kids.  People that have small families should be thanked, not derided. 

If you personally want more than two kids, you should hope that other families want to have fewer than two kids.  And if you want fewer than two, you should hope that others want to have more.  Having people on the planet is great, but unchecked exponential growth will necessarily lead to calamity.  There needs to be a balance.

Posted

"Pragmatism"

I believe it was Pres. Hinckley who spoke about properly maintaining our homes and property in a conference talk.

Posted
1 hour ago, cdowis said:

"Pragmatism"

I believe it was Pres. Hinckley who spoke about properly maintaining our homes and property in a conference talk.

Ugh...I just painted the inside of my house and did over haul work on my front and back yards. I hate gravel yards that are so prominent here in Phoenix. 

Posted
7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Are there other widespread social issues which you think the Church should be addressing (or addressing with greater emphasis)?

Multi-level Marketing

Posted
1 hour ago, Analytics said:

With regards to environmentalism and population growth, the Church ought to acknowledge that zero population (increase) is in fact the answer. 

The Most Important Video You'll Ever See explains why.

This isn't to say that every family with more than two kids is evil.  If you want to have a large family there is nothing wrong with that, but society as a whole needs to have a balance between people, technology, and the environment.  The reason the population bomb scare scenarios of the 60's didn't come to fruition is partly because of the green revelation and increasing food production, but also because of mega trends of people choosing to have fewer kids.  People that have small families should be thanked, not derided. 

If you personally want more than two kids, you should hope that other families want to have fewer than two kids.  And if you want fewer than two, you should hope that others want to have more.  Having people on the planet is great, but unchecked exponential growth will necessarily lead to calamity.  There needs to be a balance.

Zero population isn't the answer. Being self sufficient is the answer. Instead of everyone in huge cities, where it is impossible to create their own food, without exploiting somewhere else in non sustainable, huge corporate wasting of natural resources. Without the greed from the select few, living off of the productivity and resources of others there would be much less of a problem. We live in a consumer society. Gone are the days when people created stuff to last, and when something wasn't usable anymore they fixed them until it had served it's usefulness. Today, things are made to break down on purpose so you have to purchase more stuff. You can't grow a huge corporation if no one needs to keep buying your products because they already have working products that keep lasting.

Population isn't the problem: https://www.fastcoexist.com/3016331/visualized/think-the-world-is-crowded-you-could-fit-the-entire-human-race-in-new-zealand

We need to remember why this Earth was created in the first place. It wasn't to preserve it's fallen nature, but to be a place for us to come, gain a body, and experiences that we could not gain in God's presence. We don't need to worry about the Earth not having enough but rather how selfish/selfless we are:

"17  For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.
18  Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment."
D&C 104:17-18

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I found the image on Google Images, which links to a YouTube video which shows the static image shown above.  The video was uploaded on June 13, 2008.  

I have no idea if it is Kate Kelly.  That would be weird.  She graduated from BYU in 2006, so it seems a bit wild to think she would have gone from being a BYU student (with time off to serve a full-time mission) to advocating for suicide "for the planet."

I doubt it's her.

Thanks,

-Smac

Or it could be a hoax where someone has photo imaged the placard as is often done with church billboards and other things.  It may be a vicious commentary on her joining planned parenthood.  I would suggest removing it.

Edit:  changed my mind. Instead I would suggest adding a link to the Wikipedia article of Chris Korda who is the person in the picture who just happens to look like KK with her glasses on.

Edited by Calm
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...