Trib Article: "What is religious and what is political?"

[smac97]

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/08/24/matthew-bowman-big-question/

Quote

Matthew Bowman: The big question for Latter-day Saints — What is religious and what is political?
Members differ on the answers, and that complicates stances their church may make on climate change, LGBTQ issues, abortion and more.
Matthew Bowman is Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University.

Unfortunately, virtually everthing is "politicial" these days.  And weirdly, it seems that folks like Bowman decry this in one breath, only in the next to attempt to further fuse a political angle onto every issue, which angle is apparently supposed to predominate over all others.

Quote

In June, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced it would take steps to “permanently reduce water use” at its various buildings across the United States in response to the drought holding the American West in its grip.

The move received some applause. But the church’s relatively low-key approach to environmental issues has attracted frustration from some Latter-day Saints who wish that their faith’s leaders would speak and act more forcefully in favor of government policies to protect the environment. Some members say church leaders should make more vigorous statements about the environment because of scriptural commands to be good stewards of the earth. Other members say that environmental policy isn’t a religious issue and so the church should not intervene.

Ah, the ever-reliable "some say."

Anyway, there seems to be another consideration in play.  I suspect that the Church recognizes that "environtmental issues" have become hugely politicized and trendy, and run the gamut from reason-and-evidence-based to speculative, from circumspect and prudent to overzealous and feckless, from substantively philanthropic to creepily misanthropic. 

And then, of course, come "the political" dimension, which  at one extreme is grossly irresponsible (no governmental oversight/regulation at all) and at the other is tyrannical, voracious, ever-increasing, corrupt, and grossly-indifferent-to-positively-misanthropic.  The challenge, I think, is that this latter extreme has far more social/political sway than it ought to have.  The answer to every "environmental issue" is, for many of these folks, always going to be more government, more taxes, more regulation.

Another repugnant aspect of politicized "environmentalism" is the flagrant "for thee and thine, but not for me and mine" hypocrisy and virtue-signaling of so many of its prominent proponents:

Quote

...

SOCIALIST FAUX PAS OF THE WEEK: Bernie Sanders boards the wrong private jet. “Mistakes like this (getting on the wrong Gulfstream) are bound to happen.”

Plus: “It’s a 2 hr drive from Charleston to Myrtle Beach & locals do it all the time – Not @BernieSanders- He & his entourage flew from Charleston to Myrtle Beach in not 1, not 2, but 3 Gulfstream Jets today. It took them 10 minutes to fly. Who is the elitist??”

I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who keep telling me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis — by making any sort of actual personal sacrifice at all.
...

Biden Spent $250,000 on Private Jet Travel in Second Quarter.

...

Al Gore’s Home Devours 34 Times More Electricity Than Average U.S. Household. “Last September alone, Gore devoured 30,993 kWh of electricity. That’s enough to power 34 average American homes for a month. Over the last 12 months, Gore used more electricity just heating his outdoor swimming pool than six typical homes use in a year.”
...
Shot: Your Biggest Carbon Sin May Be Air Travel, the New York Times, January 26, 2013.

Chaser: New York Times Offering Luxury Jet Tours for the 1% – Iran, Cuba, Morocco and More!, Heat Street, {October 24, 2016}.

...

This Boeing 787 Was Converted Into a Luxurious Private Jet.

...

● “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” Obama added.

—Agence France-Presse, May 18th, 2008.

● “Obama brings two fuel-guzzling planes to serve as Air Force One in Argentina.”

—The Washington Times, today.

...

Video shows Hillary Clinton boarding private jet just hours after launching global-warming push – and she’s using a French aircraft that burns 347 gallons of fuel every hour! “Its itineraries are secret because the owner has asked the Federal Aviation Administration to withhold flight plans from the public.”

...

Leonardo DiCaprio the ‘eco warrior’ flew on a private jet from NY to LA SIX times in SIX weeks, Sony hack documents reveal.

...

What Taxpayers Pay When Eric Holder Uses Government Jets For Personal Trips. “According to records obtained by The Daily Caller through a Freedom of Information Act request, Holder is getting pretty good deal here — especially when he flies a government-owned Gulfstream V jet. That one day trip to Elmont, N.Y. on June 7, according to records provided to TheDC by the Department of Justice, ended up costing the government $14,440. But Holder only had to reimburse the government $955 for flying him and four passengers to the final leg of the Triple Crown horse races that day. That’s because he only has to pay the equivalent cost of a coach commercial airline ticket for each non-law enforcement passenger — not the total cost to charter the plane.”

...

Senators spent $1 million on charter flights last year.

...

Greenpeace executive flies 250 miles to work: Environmental group campaigns to curb growth in air travel but defends paying a senior executive to commute 250 miles to work by plane.

...

Google: Flying High and Polluting the Air with Government-Bought Fuel. “While touting green technology, and lobbying the federal government on environmental policy, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and Eric Schmidt have put 3.4 million miles on their private jets in recent years, polluting the atmosphere with 100 million pounds of carbon dioxide. Their trips, according to flight log data I analyzed, included single-day jaunts and brief corporate meetings, but also what appear to be hundreds of exotic vacation destinations. Perhaps someone should introduce them to Google Hangouts?”

...

Obama Flies Personal Trainer from Chicago to White House Every Week.

...

FOIA Request Reveals Pelosi Logged 43 Flights Covering 90,155 Miles from January to October 2010.

...

Greenpeace executive flies 250 miles to work: Environmental group campaigns to curb growth in air travel but defends paying a senior executive to commute 250 miles to work by plane. 

...

HYPOCRITE AIRWAYS: Jeff Bezos’s $65m Gulf Stream leads parade of 400 private jets into COP26 including Prince Albert of Monaco, scores of royals and dozens of ‘green’ CEOs — as huge traffic jam forces empty planes to fly 30 miles to park.

...

Climate Change Alarmist Harrison Ford Seen Landing Private Jet to Pick Up Son Ahead of Thanksgiving.

...

Study Finds the Wealthy & Celebrities Aren’t Changing Their Flying Habits to Reduce CO2 Emissions.

...

Google Camp: Celebrities with huge carbon footprints talk environment.

...

‘ECO-FRIENDLY’ BILL DE BLASIO WON’T GIVE UP SUV RIDES TO GYM.

...

1700 Private Jets Fly To Davos Discussion On Global Warming.

...

Globetrotting Harvard Prof Takes Break From Jet-Setting To Gripe About Climate Change Deniers.

Anyway, I think the Church is increasingly concerned about the environment, and I think that's a good thing.  I don't, however, equate that to the recommendation from Bowman's sockpuppets that "church leaders should make more vigorous statements about the environment because of scriptural commands to be good stewards of the earth," particularly when framed in a "what is religious and what is political" context.  

Quote

(NASA) Earth from the Apollo 10 mission in 1969. Many Latter-day Saints would like their church to speak out more forcefully on climate change, arguing that doing so models the divine decree to care for the planet.

Heavyhanded much, Mr. Bowman?

From the Church:

2018: The Moral Imperative of Environmental Stewardship

2019 New Era: What is the Church’s view on the environment?

Gospel Topics: Environmental Stewardship and Conservation / Newsroom: Environmental Stewardship and Conservation

Newsroom: Environmental Conservation and Stewardship Efforts

Newsroom: Selected Scriptures and Church Leader Statements on Environmental Stewardship and Conservation

Quote

Many of these believers seem to think that since the difference between religious and political issues is clear to them, it should also be obvious to others. But it is evident that is not the case. Realizing that many people lay the boundaries between the two differently can help as we try to solve problems.

Of course, the same problem can, and does, raise its head on many issues beyond climate. Three years ago, the administration at Brigham Young University-Idaho took steps that seemed designed to push students away from using Medicaid, perhaps out of worry that government programs like it were immoral. On the other hand, some members maintain that using the state to provide for the poor is eminently Christian. When the church has organized or lobbied in opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage or LGBTQ rights, progressive Latter-day Saints have called for it to get out of politics. But church leaders insist that these are “moral,” not political, issues.

The question of what counts as “religious” and what counts as “political” lies at the heart of all of these debates, and the problem is that the difference is in the eye of the beholder. What seems obviously “religious” to one person seems obviously “political” to the next, and vice versa.

My thought: An issue can have both moral/religious and political dimensions.  In our increasingly politicized and hyper-regulated world, more and more issues previously left to the discretion of the individual and ignored by the government are now . . . not being ignored by the government.  

Quote

Many Latter-day Saints in the United States today believe that religion is primarily concerned with personal behavior. As Boyd K. Packer, a longtime Latter-day Saint apostle, stated, “True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior. The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior.” For Packer, people’s lives are shaped by individual learning and individual decisions, and therefore the church should focus on individual behavior. If you believe this, it therefore seems obvious that large-scale issues like the climate or economic inequality lie downstream from personal moral commitments and aren’t the sort of topic on which a church should speak out.

The Church has spoken out.  Just not enough to satiate those who think more government, more regulation, more coercive control is the answer to any "political" issue.  And these days, almost everything is a political issue.

Quote

These ways of thinking are the product of a long process of historical development — traceable to at least the 19th century — that are widespread among many American religious people.

At the turn of the 20th century, Latter-day Saint leaders were reinventing their faith. They were not only extricating polygamy from the church but also winding down church-run projects in economic communalism and ending church-run political parties.

We stopped polygamy because God told us to.  The Church wound down its "church-run projects" because they were, broadly speaking, only created in the first place to fill needs not yet provided for by society at large.  Once such services and resources came to be provided by society at large, the Church returned to its more basic mandates.

Quote

The federal government had cited all of these issues as justification for the prosecution and imprisonment of members. In response, church leaders began to emphasize that membership did not require social radicalism as dramatic as that in the 19th century.

The EOM article on "United Orders" is instructive as to this point.

Quote

Instead, leaders began to emphasize personal moral behavior. Being a good Saint meant keeping the Word of Wisdom, abiding by the law of chastity, honesty, obedience and decency.

Can't go along with the "instead" bit.  The Church has always emphasized these things (the WoW being a notable and gradual exception).

Quote

The diaries of David O. McKay, the faith’s president throughout the height of the Black freedom movement in the 1950s and ‘60s, show him translating this way of conceiving of religion in his reaction to politics. McKay’s diaries express dismay and concern about the inequities Black Americans faced but also great skepticism about the value of passing laws to rectify the situation. “The church takes no stand whatever in politics,” McKay insisted, and he believed it as he understood the difference between religion and politics. For him, the former was about individual belief and practice; the latter was about laws and social organization.

The issue at stake here is important, but for our purposes equally so is the way of thinking. McKay perceived morality as something you do individually, not something groups do collectively, and thus saw no need for laws on issues like racial injustice.

I wonder if Bowman is conflating a few things here.  Pres. McKay's comment about political neutrality arose in response to rumors in the 50s about the Church being politically partisan/preferential in the United States relative to Democrats v. Republicans.  He was trying, with mixed success, to keep the Church "neutral."

Quote

Later, in the 1970s and ‘80s, evangelicals and Latter-day Saints would build political alliances around many issues — from abortion to same-sex marriage. But underlying them all is a common way of distinguishing between religion and politics that allows overlap on some issues, but not all. These common assumptions have enabled the rise of the electoral alliance called the “religious right” that wields a great deal of power in the United States today.

There is a lesson here. A number of Latter-day Saint groups are seeking to combat climate change. Many hope to harness the powerful moral language and organizing potential the church offers. They might learn from a recent movement to link fasting to environmental stewardship, and not simply insist that church members recognize the importance of the issue. Instead, they should find ways to broaden what Latter-day Saints mean by “religion.”

Um, I don't understand.  Bowman references, but then does not identify or explain, "a common way of distinguishing between religion and politics that allows overlap on some issues, but not all."

He also references "a recent movement to link fasting to environmental stewardship," which proposes that the Church, "rather than donating {fast offerings} to feed and clothe people, the money would be used to save the planet."  Um, what lessons are to be learned from that?

He also suggests that "they" (meaning "Latter-day Saint groups {} seeking to combat climate change") ought to "find ways to broaden what Latter-day Saints mean by 'religion.'"  What does that mean?  Is it, as I suspect, a call to hitch-your-wagon effort to appropriate "the powerful moral language and organizing potential the church offers" so as to advance the political objectives of these self-selected "Latter-day Saint groups?"

We've seen this sort of effort a few times.  Thousands of healthcare workers openly supported demonstrations/protests during the COVID lockdown because "fighting racism" somehow became a "public health" concern (the "somehow" being . . . politicization).  Celebrities who know little-to-nothing about the substance of this or that political issue are nevertheless praised for using (politicizing) their "platform" (their celebrity, their popularity, the supposed good will of their fans, etc.) to advance a preferred political objective or candidate.  The California Coastal Commission exercises huge control over housing and other substantive issues that exist as much as five miles inland:

Quote

Critics of the commission's authority say it has exceeded its mission, violated the constitutional property rights of citizens, and worsened the California housing shortage by limiting housing supply.^[37][38][39] Advocates such as former member Mary Shallenberger say the commission has protected open space, views, habitats, and coastal access and should be given authority to control housing to a greater extent.^[40]

On the commission's ability to practically dictate how coastal land is used, Jeff Jennings, the mayor of Malibu commented: “The commission basically tells us what to do, and we’re expected to do it. And in many cases that extends down to the smallest details imaginable, like what color you paint your houses, what kind of light bulbs you can use in certain places.”^[6]

Nothing is more relevant to the preservation of California's coast than paint color and light bulbs.

More particularly, Kate Kelly and Sam Young both tried to advance their personal preferences by loudly and publicly connecting those preferences to their (Kelly's and Young's) status as members of the Church.

In all of these there is a common theme: usurpation of authority and (mis)appropriation of Y's influence for X's political purposes. 

Group X sees and envies the influence and reputational standing of Group Y, so Group X does what it can to "borrow" or appropriate Group Y's clout to advance Group X's objectives, regardless of how attenuated Group Y's purposes and objectives are to Group X's goals.

In the end, it looks like Bowman is advocating for something along these lines.  He is encouraging "Latter-day Saint groups {} seeking to combat climate change" to hitch their political objectives and preferences to "the powerful moral language and organizing potential the church offers."  To persuade other members of the Church to "broaden what Latter-day Saints mean by 'religion'" to include . . . support of these groups' political objectives/preferences.  So being a good Latter-day Saint becomes less about developing faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ, about repentance, baptism, keeping covenants, serving others, and so on, and instead becomes more about supporting self-appointed environmentalist groups and their political goals.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 24, 2022 by smac97

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

My first thought, which isn't the main thrust of the article, is that I wouldn't mind if the Church became more active in conservation efforts. 

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/08/24/matthew-bowman-big-question/

Unfortunately, virtually everthing is "politicial" these days.  And weirdly, it seems that folks like Bowman decry this in one breath, only in the next to attempt to further fuse a political angle onto every issue, which angle is apparently supposed to predominate over all others.

Ah, the ever-reliable "some say."

Anyway, there seems to be another consideration in play.  I suspect that the Church recognizes that "environtmental issues" have become hugely politicized and trendy, and run the gamut from reason-and-evidence-based to speculative, from circumspect and prudent to overzealous and feckless, from substantively philanthropic to creepily misanthropic. 

And then, of course, come "the political" dimension, which  at one extreme is grossly irresponsible (no governmental oversight/regulation at all) and at the other is tyrannical, voracious, ever-increasing, corrupt, and grossly-indifferent-to-positively-misanthropic.  The challenge, I think, is that this latter extreme has far more social/political sway than it ought to have.  The answer to every "environmental issue" is, for many of these folks, always going to be more government, more taxes, more regulation.

Another repugnant aspect of politicized "environmentalism" is the flagrant "for thee and thine, but not for me and mine" hypocrisy and virtue-signaling of so many of its prominent proponents:

Anyway, I think the Church is increasingly concerned about the environment, and I think that's a good thing.  I don't, however, equate that to the recommendation from Bowman's sockpuppets that "church leaders should make more vigorous statements about the environment because of scriptural commands to be good stewards of the earth," particularly when framed in a "what is religious and what is political" context.  

Heavyhanded much, Mr. Bowman?

From the Church:

2018: The Moral Imperative of Environmental Stewardship

2019 New Era: What is the Church’s view on the environment?

Gospel Topics: Environmental Stewardship and Conservation / Newsroom: Environmental Stewardship and Conservation

Newsroom: Environmental Conservation and Stewardship Efforts

Newsroom: Selected Scriptures and Church Leader Statements on Environmental Stewardship and Conservation

My thought: An issue can have both moral/religious and political dimensions.  In our increasingly politicized and hyper-regulated world, more and more issues previously left to the discretion of the individual and ignored by the government are now . . . not being ignored by the government.  

The Church has spoken out.  Just not enough to satiate those who think more government, more regulation, more coercive control is the answer to any "political" issue.  And these days, almost everything is a political issue.

We stopped polygamy because God told us to.  The Church wound down its "church-run projects" because they were, broadly speaking, only created in the first place to fill needs not yet provided for by society at large.  Once such services and resources came to be provided by society at large, the Church returned to its more basic mandates.

The EOM article on "United Orders" is instructive as to this point.

Can't go along with the "instead" bit.  The Church has always emphasized these things (the WoW being a notable and gradual exception).

I wonder if Bowman is conflating a few things here.  Pres. McKay's comment about political neutrality arose in response to rumors in the 50s about the Church being politically partisan/preferential in the United States relative to Democrats v. Republicans.  He was trying, with mixed success, to keep the Church "neutral."

Um, I don't understand.  Bowman references, but then does not identify or explain, "a common way of distinguishing between religion and politics that allows overlap on some issues, but not all."

He also references "a recent movement to link fasting to environmental stewardship," which proposes that the Church, "rather than donating {fast offerings} to feed and clothe people, the money would be used to save the planet."  Um, what lessons are to be learned from that?

He also suggests that "they" (meaning "Latter-day Saint groups {} seeking to combat climate change") ought to "find ways to broaden what Latter-day Saints mean by 'religion.'"  What does that mean?  Is it, as I suspect, a call to hitch-your-wagon effort to appropriate "the powerful moral language and organizing potential the church offers" so as to advance the political objectives of these self-selected "Latter-day Saint groups?"

We've seen this sort of effort a few times.  Thousands of healthcare workers openly supported demonstrations/protests during the COVID lockdown because "fighting racism" somehow became a "public health" concern (the "somehow" being . . . politicization).  Celebrities who know little-to-nothing about the substance of this or that political issue are nevertheless praised for using (politicizing) their "platform" (their celebrity, their popularity, the supposed good will of their fans, etc.) to advance a preferred political objective or candidate.  The California Coastal Commission exercises huge control over housing and other substantive issues that exist as much as five miles inland:

Nothing is more relevant to the preservation of California's coast than paint color and light bulbs.

More particularly, Kate Kelly and Sam Young both tried to advance their personal preferences by loudly and publicly connecting those preferences to their (Kelly's and Young's) status as members of the Church.

In all of these there is a common theme: usurpation of authority and (mis)appropriation of Y's influence for X's political purposes. 

Group X sees and envies the influence and reputational standing of Group Y, so Group X does what it can to "borrow" or appropriate Group Y's clout to advance Group X's objectives, regardless of how attenuated Group Y's purposes and objectives are to Group X's goals.

In the end, it looks like Bowman is advocating for something along these lines.  He is encouraging "Latter-day Saint groups {} seeking to combat climate change" to hitch their political objectives and preferences to "the powerful moral language and organizing potential the church offers."  To persuade other members of the Church to "broaden what Latter-day Saints mean by 'religion'" to include . . . support of these groups' political objectives/preferences.  So being a good Latter-day Saint becomes less about developing faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ, about repentance, baptism, keeping covenants, serving others, and so on, and instead becomes more about supporting self-appointed environmentalist groups and their political goals.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

My thoughts: you've pretty much taken a single op-ed as an opportunity to slam every group you disagree with politically. I don't see the point. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The answer to every "environmental issue" is, for many of these folks, always going to be more government, more taxes, more regulation.

Do you think less regulation and less tax money is going to address or fix the environmental problems that we currently face?

Is the status quo working?  Or is it unsustainable? 

Do you trust that the current regulation and money to be sufficient to curb the downward environmental spiral we are on?  It hasn't been working.  What makes you think anything will change without further regulation?

I would love to hear alternative solutions to environmental problems that don't include tax dollars and regulation.  That sounds like heaven!  I don't hear any environmental ideas, proposals, or solutions from one side - all I hear is "no more taxes, no more regulation", as if that is somehow going to solve anything.  When the GDP is your primary measure of success, the environment will inevitably suffer as a result. 

Edited August 24, 2022 by pogi

[jkwilliams]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you think less regulation and less tax money is going to address or fix the environmental problems that we currently face?

Is the status quo working?  Or is it unsustainable? 

Do you trust that the current regulation and money to be sufficient to curb the downward environmental spiral we are on?  It hasn't been working.  What makes you think anything will change without further regulation?

I would love to hear alternative solutions to environmental problems that don't include tax dollars and regulation.  That sounds like heaven!  I don't hear any environmental ideas, proposals, or solutions from one side - all I hear is "no more taxes, no more regulation", as if that is somehow going to solve anything.  When the GDP is your primary measure of success, the environment will inevitably suffer as a result. 

What I wonder is why so many members of the church are so opposed to environmental conservation. My parents and many of my relatives act like environmentalists are the spawn of Satan. 

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What I wonder is why so many members of the church are so opposed to environmental conservation. My parents and many of my relatives act like environmentalists are the spawn of Satan. 

I would 100% agree with your statement if you changed "members of the church" to "people living in the western USA."  I think many long time western families have a sort of inbred distrust of anyone who threatens their access to land (government, environmentalists).  And with many western families earning their livelihood off the land I can at least understand their reasoning.  However, I think we can now see that a use the land first attitude is unsustainable.  Develop, develop, develop is unsustainable.  Members of the church, who believe God has given us agency, should understand that part of the accountability for that agency is taking care of God's creation. 

I could go on a long time about this.  I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir.

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What I wonder is why so many members of the church are so opposed to environmental conservation. My parents and many of my relatives act like environmentalists are the spawn of Satan. 

I think part of it is because a lot of conservative people view environmentalists as the PETA members of the neighborhood.  Usually because they don't know any personally and all they hear are the crazy things on the news.

And there will always be reasonable disagreement on what is more important to focus on, the environment or people's livelihoods, etc.

[JustAnAustralian]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think part of it is because a lot of conservative people view environmentalists as the PETA members of the neighborhood. 

I reckon the more showboaty aspect is a big thing. There's a big visual difference between seeing Greenpeace (and similar) vessels out there trying to stop people from whaling, and people breaking into farms and causing problems here and now. There's a big visual difference between people trying to have a river granted personhood status to protect it, and hundreds of people blocking the middle of a busy city. When the only thing you see in the news are the environmentalists protesting through disruption, it's not hard to see why people get turned off.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

What I wonder is why so many members of the church are so opposed to environmental conservation. My parents and many of my relatives act like environmentalists are the spawn of Satan. 

I'm one of the most environmentally conservative people I know. I switch off lights in empty rooms, both at home and at work. In my office, I am regarded as the recycling Nazi. (Yesterday I reminded my boss that her teabags go in the organic recycling bin and then waited until she fished them out of the rubbish.) I alter my driving habits to minimise emissions. I pick up other people's rubbish, whether in the street or in nature. I recently upgraded to a five-star gas heater at home. I shower using the smallest amount of water that works. Etc.

I also live in a city where, regularly, people who are part of the 'environmental movement' superglue themselves to highways during peak commute times, burn objects outside our parliament building, vandalise banks that lend money to fossil fuel companies, harass and intimidate the elderly customers at said banks, etc. But that's just the tip of iceberg.

It's pretty easy to check the CVs of those who get arrested, and the reality is that they are the 'environmental' arm of a hard-left 'progressive' movement that seeks to destroy nearly everything the Church stands for, including, for example, the sanctity of the family. I suspect I'm not the only Church member to realise the 'watermelon' nature of the semi-professional environmental movement in my nation, and I suspect it's similar in others.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm one of the most environmentally conservative people I know. I switch off lights in empty rooms, both at home and at work. In my office, I am regarded as the recycling Nazi. (Yesterday I reminded my boss that her teabags go in the organic recycling bin and then waited until she fished them out of the rubbish.) I alter my driving habits to minimise emissions. I pick up other people's rubbish, whether in the street or in nature. I recently upgraded to a five-star gas heater at home. I shower using the smallest amount of water that works. Etc.

I also live in a city where, regularly, people who are part of the 'environmental movement' superglue themselves to highways during peak commute times, burn objects outside our parliament building, vandalise banks that lend money to fossil fuel companies, harass and intimidate the elderly customers at said banks, etc. But that's just the tip of iceberg.

It's pretty easy to check the CVs of those who get arrested, and the reality is that they are the 'environmental' arm of a hard-left 'progressive' movement that seeks to destroy nearly everything the Church stands for, including, for example, the sanctity of the family. I suspect I'm not the only Church member to realise the 'watermelon' nature of the semi-professional environmental movement in my nation, and I suspect it's similar in others.

I’m not talking about that kind of radical behavior and ideology. I’m talking about hostility toward any kind of environmental conservation. All my life my parents have complained about emissions regulations as if they destroy the economy. I noted a couple of months ago the drastic decline in air pollution in my hometown, and my mother suggested it’s just cyclical and the environmental regulations had nothing to do with it. 

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I reckon the more showboaty aspect is a big thing. There's a big visual difference between seeing Greenpeace (and similar) vessels out there trying to stop people from whaling, and people breaking into farms and causing problems here and now. There's a big visual difference between people trying to have a river granted personhood status to protect it, and hundreds of people blocking the middle of a busy city. When the only thing you see in the news are the environmentalists protesting through disruption, it's not hard to see why people get turned off.

 

18 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm one of the most environmentally conservative people I know. I switch off lights in empty rooms, both at home and at work. In my office, I am regarded as the recycling Nazi. (Yesterday I reminded my boss that her teabags go in the organic recycling bin and then waited until she fished them out of the rubbish.) I alter my driving habits to minimise emissions. I pick up other people's rubbish, whether in the street or in nature. I recently upgraded to a five-star gas heater at home. I shower using the smallest amount of water that works. Etc.

I also live in a city where, regularly, people who are part of the 'environmental movement' superglue themselves to highways during peak commute times, burn objects outside our parliament building, vandalise banks that lend money to fossil fuel companies, harass and intimidate the elderly customers at said banks, etc. But that's just the tip of iceberg.

It's pretty easy to check the CVs of those who get arrested, and the reality is that they are the 'environmental' arm of a hard-left 'progressive' movement that seeks to destroy nearly everything the Church stands for, including, for example, the sanctity of the family. I suspect I'm not the only Church member to realise the 'watermelon' nature of the semi-professional environmental movement in my nation, and I suspect it's similar in others.

I agree there is a lot to be turned off by those who act in these ways.   But that shouldn’t turn people off to environmental conservation in general - as it clearly has not with you Hamba 👍

I think too many are trying to throw the baby (environmental conservation/stewardship) out with the bath water (whacko environmentalists).  I think the vast majority of scientist and environmentalists are not bad actors.  I think it partly has to do with party politics.  People are not comfortable supporting causes that the “others” support.  Ewww! Everything they say is a lie and only hurts the economy.

Edited August 24, 2022 by pogi

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m not talking about that kind of radical behavior and ideology. I’m talking about hostility toward any kind of environmental conservation. All my life my parents have complained about emissions regulations as if they destroy the economy. I noted a couple of months ago the drastic decline in air pollution in my hometown, and my mother suggested it’s just cyclical and the environmental regulations had nothing to do with it. 

My husband has a very hate/hate relationship with emission regulations because of his experience with vehicles that have them compared to those that don't (the differences in longevity of the parts/cost to repair/loss of fuel efficiency/reliability of the vehicle, etc.).  He has a shop that works on vehicles and he also imports vehicles from overseas, so he deals with a lot of regulations and fixing vehicles with emissions equipment. 

He loves the outdoors but struggles with "solutions" that often trade one problem for another when few environmentalists are willing acknowledge the trade.

He also struggles with how little many environmentalists know about what they are protesting (like protesting petroleum drilling/usage and not knowing that almost everything from makeup to computer chips to solar panels is made with petroleum products), or the solution they are championing (like the environmental disaster that is wind turbine energy). 

When you add all of that up--in his mind--it equals "environmentalists are idiots".  Which is not at all a fair or accurate judgment, but it's where he's at.

Edited August 25, 2022 by bluebell

[Calm]

There was a European town I read of many years ago that promoted lowering water usage (short showers, don’t flush toilets every time, turn off water when brushing teeth, etc).  They were very successful.  Problem is they didn’t invest in doing it right and just did an emotional appeal without a study of the impact.  They ended up having to use more water than they had saved to flush the sewer system which had slowed down due to too little water to keep things moving, thus causing horrible smells throughout the town.

Same article (very pro environmental)…Another town enacted laws on recycling, everything had to be sorted and then picked up by different trucks to be recycled; again very successful until someone found out all the recycling was ending in the town dump all mixed together again because they enacted the law to recycle without providing funds to build recycling infrastructure first.

Emotional environmentalism where people do what feels good without investing time or money to do it right gives environmentalism a bad rep.  Half measures are not always better than no measures at all.

I just unwrapped our new refrigerator. It made me sick how much plastic was used to protect each piece.  I guess they are trying to avoid returns for a piece with a little scratch, but they are going to be scratched pretty soon anyway once food starts constantly being moved around.  I hope they find a better way of doing it soon.  I have to do most my shopping online, the cardboard gets recycled or is biodegradable, but the plastic when used to mummify even food packages that will be thrown away…it makes me so frustrated.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

Speaking very broadly, here is the problem [or, here is at least one problem] with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attempting to adopt more of an environmental conscientiousness: Too often (and perhaps not wholly without warrant) some dismiss the Church of Jesus Christ as "just an American [United States] religion," and, moreover, "just a primarily-Western-U.S. religion," at that.  In my view, rightly, in much of the world, environmental problems are seen very much as a First-World kind of problem.*  If the Church of Jesus Christ were to attempt to persuade Third-World countries to adopt First-World solutions to environmental problems, the notion that the Church and its leaders are out of touch with the genuine problems of those whom they attempt to help and to serve would be greatly exacerbated.

________________________

*Hey, as it is now, even members in the United States complain about how "Salt Lake" is attempting to impose some measure or another onto members of the Church of Jesus Christ who are "in the mission field" without sufficient regard to how Church conditions differ in Salt Lake [or in Utah, or in the so-called "Mormon Corridor" (sic)] as opposed to the rest of the country.  Can one imagine how that complaint would be magnified if the Church of Jesus Christ attempted to implement a First-World environmental "solution" in, say, Ghana?

[CV75]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/08/24/matthew-bowman-big-question/

Unfortunately, virtually everthing is "politicial" these days.  And weirdly, it seems that folks like Bowman decry this in one breath, only in the next to attempt to further fuse a political angle onto every issue, which angle is apparently supposed to predominate over all others.

Ah, the ever-reliable "some say."

Anyway, there seems to be another consideration in play.  I suspect that the Church recognizes that "environtmental issues" have become hugely politicized and trendy, and run the gamut from reason-and-evidence-based to speculative, from circumspect and prudent to overzealous and feckless, from substantively philanthropic to creepily misanthropic. 

And then, of course, come "the political" dimension, which  at one extreme is grossly irresponsible (no governmental oversight/regulation at all) and at the other is tyrannical, voracious, ever-increasing, corrupt, and grossly-indifferent-to-positively-misanthropic.  The challenge, I think, is that this latter extreme has far more social/political sway than it ought to have.  The answer to every "environmental issue" is, for many of these folks, always going to be more government, more taxes, more regulation.

Another repugnant aspect of politicized "environmentalism" is the flagrant "for thee and thine, but not for me and mine" hypocrisy and virtue-signaling of so many of its prominent proponents:

Anyway, I think the Church is increasingly concerned about the environment, and I think that's a good thing.  I don't, however, equate that to the recommendation from Bowman's sockpuppets that "church leaders should make more vigorous statements about the environment because of scriptural commands to be good stewards of the earth," particularly when framed in a "what is religious and what is political" context.  

Heavyhanded much, Mr. Bowman?

From the Church:

2018: The Moral Imperative of Environmental Stewardship

2019 New Era: What is the Church’s view on the environment?

Gospel Topics: Environmental Stewardship and Conservation / Newsroom: Environmental Stewardship and Conservation

Newsroom: Environmental Conservation and Stewardship Efforts

Newsroom: Selected Scriptures and Church Leader Statements on Environmental Stewardship and Conservation

My thought: An issue can have both moral/religious and political dimensions.  In our increasingly politicized and hyper-regulated world, more and more issues previously left to the discretion of the individual and ignored by the government are now . . . not being ignored by the government.  

The Church has spoken out.  Just not enough to satiate those who think more government, more regulation, more coercive control is the answer to any "political" issue.  And these days, almost everything is a political issue.

We stopped polygamy because God told us to.  The Church wound down its "church-run projects" because they were, broadly speaking, only created in the first place to fill needs not yet provided for by society at large.  Once such services and resources came to be provided by society at large, the Church returned to its more basic mandates.

The EOM article on "United Orders" is instructive as to this point.

Can't go along with the "instead" bit.  The Church has always emphasized these things (the WoW being a notable and gradual exception).

I wonder if Bowman is conflating a few things here.  Pres. McKay's comment about political neutrality arose in response to rumors in the 50s about the Church being politically partisan/preferential in the United States relative to Democrats v. Republicans.  He was trying, with mixed success, to keep the Church "neutral."

Um, I don't understand.  Bowman references, but then does not identify or explain, "a common way of distinguishing between religion and politics that allows overlap on some issues, but not all."

He also references "a recent movement to link fasting to environmental stewardship," which proposes that the Church, "rather than donating {fast offerings} to feed and clothe people, the money would be used to save the planet."  Um, what lessons are to be learned from that?

He also suggests that "they" (meaning "Latter-day Saint groups {} seeking to combat climate change") ought to "find ways to broaden what Latter-day Saints mean by 'religion.'"  What does that mean?  Is it, as I suspect, a call to hitch-your-wagon effort to appropriate "the powerful moral language and organizing potential the church offers" so as to advance the political objectives of these self-selected "Latter-day Saint groups?"

We've seen this sort of effort a few times.  Thousands of healthcare workers openly supported demonstrations/protests during the COVID lockdown because "fighting racism" somehow became a "public health" concern (the "somehow" being . . . politicization).  Celebrities who know little-to-nothing about the substance of this or that political issue are nevertheless praised for using (politicizing) their "platform" (their celebrity, their popularity, the supposed good will of their fans, etc.) to advance a preferred political objective or candidate.  The California Coastal Commission exercises huge control over housing and other substantive issues that exist as much as five miles inland:

Nothing is more relevant to the preservation of California's coast than paint color and light bulbs.

More particularly, Kate Kelly and Sam Young both tried to advance their personal preferences by loudly and publicly connecting those preferences to their (Kelly's and Young's) status as members of the Church.

In all of these there is a common theme: usurpation of authority and (mis)appropriation of Y's influence for X's political purposes. 

Group X sees and envies the influence and reputational standing of Group Y, so Group X does what it can to "borrow" or appropriate Group Y's clout to advance Group X's objectives, regardless of how attenuated Group Y's purposes and objectives are to Group X's goals.

In the end, it looks like Bowman is advocating for something along these lines.  He is encouraging "Latter-day Saint groups {} seeking to combat climate change" to hitch their political objectives and preferences to "the powerful moral language and organizing potential the church offers."  To persuade other members of the Church to "broaden what Latter-day Saints mean by 'religion'" to include . . . support of these groups' political objectives/preferences.  So being a good Latter-day Saint becomes less about developing faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ, about repentance, baptism, keeping covenants, serving others, and so on, and instead becomes more about supporting self-appointed environmentalist groups and their political goals.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Our religion teaches us to treat all issues reverently, gracefully, unitedly and in wisdom and in order. I believe Mosiah 4 gives profitable instruction for both personal and political behavior.

[The Nehor]

So let me get this straight.

The US Midwest is experiencing a severe water crisis because of irresponsible use and crooked accounting apportioning more water than could reasonably be expected to be available for over 50 years. This has led to the reservoirs getting lower and lower. Environmentalists and water conservation experts have been trying to sound alarms on this even before we really understood how climate change could exacerbate the issue. They have been almost entirely ignored. We continued to build more farms, more water parks, and built more cities in deserts. We are now in crisis time where people are going to be hurt A LOT because there is literally not going to be enough water.

And your takeaway from the current situation is that environmentalists and water conservation experts have too much influence and power and we need to be careful to limit their influence and power lest they go too far?

 

[Ragerunner]

16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

My thoughts: you've pretty much taken a single op-ed as an opportunity to slam every group you disagree with politically. I don't see the point. 

Bingo!!!

[Islander]

On 8/24/2022 at 12:59 PM, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

 

Well, my thought is that we should exercise good stewardship of our resources because our Heavenly Father has commanded us to do so. It is also a sound practice to manage the resources we need to sustain our way of life. However, I am of the opinion that we can do so without the intent to "hug the headlines" or so-called virtue signaling which is nothing more than an attempt at seeking public approval and its mundane reward. We can do our duty quietly and with an eye single to the glory of God, without wasting time and energy in gaging approval ratings in the public square.

Jesus said noting about the political environment of His time. Whey they tried to push Him into a debate about taxation, He replied: ..."render to Cesar what is Cesar's and to God what is God's..." end of the story. He did strongly criticized the corruption of the religious ruling class and the hypocrisy of the leaders, their distortion of the word of God and the misinterpretation of the scriptures. But He kept away from the political machinations of His time; and there were many in play. 

Difficult as it may be, we must strive to obey the law, as long as it is not set at odds with the commandments of God. We exercise our rights as citizens of the land and seek redress and remedy according to the rule of law, when appropriate. But we should stay away from the vitriol and simply toxic political environment of our day. Our only concern should be the proclamation of the Gospel, the perfecting of the saints and the redemption of the dead. Know this; it is going to get a lot worse before the Savior comes. There is absolutely noting we can do about it. So, face forward to go to work on what really matters.

 

My two cents...🙂

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 8/25/2022 at 9:43 AM, pogi said:

I think too many are trying to throw the baby (environmental conservation/stewardship) out with the bath water (whacko environmentalists).

One potential problem with labelling people as 'whackos' is that is implies they are on the extreme fringes of a movement when they may in fact be the ideological centre. I believe that is what we are seeing here.

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

One potential problem with labelling people as 'whackos' is that is implies they are on the extreme fringes of a movement when they may in fact be the ideological centre. I believe that is what we are seeing here.

This. The "wackos" were the ones saying this water crisis was going to come to a crisis soon. They were mocked and called alarmists.

We put off taking action and now we get to suffer for it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/16/climate/colorado-river-lake-mead-water-drought.html

[pogi]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

One potential problem with labelling people as 'whackos' is that is implies they are on the extreme fringes of a movement when they may in fact be the ideological centre. I believe that is what we are seeing here.

That is not my experience.  The ideological center of the environmentalist movement is no where near the extremist far-left quackery that you describe below:

Quote

I also live in a city where, regularly, people who are part of the 'environmental movement' superglue themselves to highways during peak commute times, burn objects outside our parliament building, vandalise banks that lend money to fossil fuel companies, harass and intimidate the elderly customers at said banks, etc. But that's just the tip of iceberg.

I don't know where you live, but that is pretty crazy stuff.  I have never seen anything like it in my life, and most of my social contacts are environmental centrists.  I know it happens, but I only read about it happening on the fringes of society.  If that is only the tip of the iceberg, I simply can't imagine... We certainly live in two different worlds.   What you describe is an extreme far-left fringe in our country.  Even you described them as a "hard-left" group in your country:

Quote

It's pretty easy to check the CVs of those who get arrested, and the reality is that they are the 'environmental' arm of a hard-left 'progressive' movement that seeks to destroy nearly everything the Church stands for, including, for example, the sanctity of the family. 

Environmental centrists simply aren't getting arrested in our country for stuff like that.   Centrists here support more strict environmental regulation, they support global efforts and cooperation on environmental issues like global warming (as this problem can't be solved by the actions of a single nation), they are willing to sacrifice and pay more taxes to support these efforts, and they are probably less environmentally conservative than you in their own personal efforts.  The problem with centrists here is that they expect the government to fix everything and are not willing to make the personal sacrifices themselves to reduce water use, to get by with one vehicle, to tear out their lawns and plant water-wise landscapes, to take public transit, to ride their bike, most don't recycle as well as they could...let alone superglue themselves to a freeway in rush hour traffic.   What you describe is really foreign to me.  Here, it is hard to motivate people to take any action at all besides talking and complaining on-line about how bad it is getting.  

I stand by my description of the people you describe as "whacko".   Even if whacko is the environmental centrist position in your country, that doesn't make them any less whacko.  

Edited August 26, 2022 by pogi

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

One potential problem with labelling people as 'whackos' is that is implies they are on the extreme fringes of a movement when they may in fact be the ideological centre. I believe that is what we are seeing here.

I’m an arm-chair environmentalist and back what @pogi just described. I know literally no one who fits these descriptions here in the US. Most are cautious to do that because it ends up fueling pushback and fodder to a far-right narrative, that compared to the far-left here has more political momentum and possibly numbers. And if not the far right than a party narrative that is still woefully behind and reticent in terms of necessary change that has to happen in the next few years and radically shift in the next few decades. Most of our protests here are politically  targets or part of bigger international protests.
 

Personally, I’m at this point an environmental pragmatist. In the sense that the idealist visions of the future sound great (solar punk, less is more, return to home gardening, large scale  public transportation, and fundamental cultural shifts, etc) but are going to continue to run into a dominant culture that just isn’t there yet. So I’m looking for the easiest shifts and sells first to at least get us on a better track than our current trajectory. Many are things pogi mentioned. Some are making personal changes and talking about why I like them that are more pragmatic. For example we recently bought an EV to replace our gas car. I don’t talk about it just being about getting rid of a vehicle that runs off carbon. I mention it’s speed, comfort, power, safety features, and ease. When we get solar, I’ll be mentioning easier energy bills and the 30% subsidy over the fact that I really want to get off my state’s excessive coal use ASAP. We’ve ripped/ripping out all but 2 small patches of lawn (that’s mixed with clover for water retention and no need for fertilizer), replacing it with edible plants and flowers that handle less watering. It’s definitely to replace an environmental sink and turn it into an environmental boon …my yard is a bird and insect magnet. But there’s plenty of pragmatic reasons, including beauty, food, greater self-sufficiency, and to help attract/feed monarchs. Everyone loves a monarch. People struggle to believe that the 20+ year drought could lead to several forms of environmental collapse, including the drying up of the Great Salt Lake which could lead to massive carcinogenic dust storms because we’re stupidly pretending we have more water in our state than we really do and our reticent to regulate more cautiously in how it’s used both in urban and farming practices. You know, between the smoke filled skies whenever there’s a major fire. Wh
 

Honestly it makes sense to me why there are extreme whacko efforts. Our world is in deep trouble if we don’t get our act together and stop using resources like we live on a planet with infinite supply. Many of these will need large structural shifts in everything from recycling, industry, and farming, to even cultural assumptions on what it means to live a good life. If you look into it long as enough, there is clear reasons to freak out. We seem to vacillate between denial, despair, and desperation. Refusing to believe it’s that bad. Seeing and hearing why it is that bad and assuming we can do nothing about it, and then trying with whatever means one has to make/force people to change (the “whacko” category). None of them are great options to turn to IMHO. 
 

with luv,

BD 
 

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by BlueDreams

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, BlueDreams said:

I’m an arm-chair environmentalist and back what @pogi just described. I know literally no one who fits these descriptions here in the US. Most are cautious to do that because it ends up fueling pushback and fodder to a far-right narrative, that compared to the far-left here has more political momentum and possibly numbers. And if not the far right than a party narrative that is still woefully behind and reticent in terms of necessary change that has to happen in the next few years and radically shift in the next few decades. Most of our protests here are politically  targets or part of bigger international protests.
 

Personally, I’m at this point an environmental pragmatist. In the sense that the idealist visions of the future sound great (solar punk, less is more, return to home gardening, large scale  public transportation, and fundamental cultural shifts, etc) but are going to continue to run into a dominant culture that just isn’t there yet. So I’m looking for the easiest shifts and sells first to at least get us on a better track than our current trajectory. Many are things pogi mentioned. Some are making personal changes and talking about why I like them that are more pragmatic. For example we recently bought an EV to replace our gas car. I don’t talk about it just being about getting rid of a vehicle that runs off carbon. I mention it’s speed, comfort, power, safety features, and ease. We’ve ripped/ripping out all but 2 small patches of lawn (that’s mixed with clover for water retention and no need for fertilizer), replacing it with edible plants and flowers that handle less watering. It’s definitely to replace an environmental sink and turn it into an environmental boon …my yard is a bird and insect magnet. But there’s plenty of pragmatic reasons, including beauty, food, greater self-sufficiency, and to help attract/feed monarchs. Everyone loves a monarch. People struggle to believe that the 20+ year drought could lead to several forms of environmental collapse, including the drying up of the Great Salt Lake which could lead to massive carcinogenic dust storms because we’re stupidly pretending we have more water in our state than we really do and our reticent to regulate more cautiously in how it’s used both in urban and farming practices. You know, between the smoke filled skies whenever there’s a major fire. 
 

Honestly it makes sense to me why there are extreme whacko efforts. Our world is in deep trouble if we don’t get our act together and stop using resources like we live on a planet with infinite supply. Many of these will need large structural shifts in everything from recycling, industry, and farming, to even cultural assumptions on what it means to live a good life. If you look into it long as enough, there is clear reasons to freak out. We seem to vacillate between denial, despair, and desperation. Refusing to believe it’s that bad. Seeing and hearing why it is that bad and assuming we can do nothing about it, and then trying with whatever means one has to make/force people to change (the “whacko” category). None of them are great options to turn to IMHO. 
 

with luv,

BD 
 

 

Yes, and people need to quit the denying of climate change. We used and abused our earth. Time to clean it up!

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, and people need to quit the denying of climate change. We used and abused our earth. Time to clean it up!

Luckily blatant denial is declining. What’s happening more in a softer version of denial. Denying how bad it is, what it’ll take to slow it down enough, or the cause for it is now more common. 
 

with luv, 

bd

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, and people need to quit the denying of climate change. We used and abused our earth. Time to clean it up!

I used to deny climate change many years ago but as I thought about it more it made sense.  Also as I read the views of what would happen in the world before the second coming (wars, famines and other natural disasters) and compared it to what people say will happen with climate change, I came to conclude that climate change plays a key role in the last days events.  Rather than fearing climate change and try to avoided the unavoidable, better to prepare to endure through it.  The scriptures and the prophets tell us what  will happen before Christ comes.  The science of climate change gives us some reasons of why it will happen.   When the Lord says in D&C 1 that he knows of the calamity that is coming to the earth, I believe that includes climate change.  The Lord knew man would burn fossil fuels, increase CO2 and that would bring world wide calamity.   I am ok with climate change.

If anything, the LDS church is a church where climate change is part of our doctrine.  We believe that one day that the earth will receive its celestial glory.  That is the mother of all climate change.

Edited August 26, 2022 by carbon dioxide