Mormon church makes new push for environmental stewardship

[accadacca]

Thoughts on this one? Right after those mormon scout leaders destroyed that formation (http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthread.php?70294-Destroying-Formations-at-Goblin-Valley&highlight=goblin+valley) in goblin valley. Hmmmmm. :popcorn:

--

Mormon environmentalists got a boost on Nov. 6, when the LDS Church launched a web page (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/environmental-stewardship-conservation) on its newsroom site, laying out the church’s views on "stewardship and conservation."

The approach may not be new, but the place of publication and emphasis is.

For the first time, an official site gathers in one place LDS pronouncements and teachings about care for the natural world. It carries an authoritative tone.

"The Earth and all things on it should be used responsibly to sustain the human family. However, all are stewards — not owners — over this Earth and its bounty and will be accountable before God for what they do with his creations," the main essay says. "Approaches to the environment must be prudent, realistic, balanced and consistent with the needs of the Earth and of current and future generations, rather than pursuing the immediate vindication of personal desires or avowed rights. The Earth and all life upon it are much more than items to be consumed or conserved. God intends his creations to be aesthetically pleasing to enliven the mind and spirit, and some portions are to be preserved."

The site also has links to Mormon scriptures about the Earth as sacred and speeches by LDS leaders encouraging care and protection of nature. It provides a list of approved conservation practices, including energy-efficient heating and solar panels in new LDS buildings (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14968222), along with tips for energy conservation.

Seeing the statements and links posted on an official LDS website "is really exciting," says George Handley, an environmental activist who teaches literature at Brigham Young University. "All week long I have been getting emails from leaders in the environmental community in this state and across the nation who are so pleased to see it. And many members of the church as well have been sharing it widely on the Internet."

For years, people have asked Handley for information about Mormon views of stewardship, he said, and "until now I haven’t been able to point them to an authoritative source."

Now he can.

His LDS students, Handley said, are eager "to act, as Mormons, on behalf of better stewardship of the environment. ... This helpful instruction and outline of stewardship principles ... should guide us in our decisions about using natural resources."

It will also help, he said, build relationships with like-minded activists in other faiths — including Pope Francis, the Dalai Lama, Greek Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew, the Evangelical Environmental Network and many others.

Peggy Fletcher Stack

Source: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/57134233-180/lds-stewardship-church-environmental.html.csp

[Scott P]

God intends his creations to be aesthetically pleasing to enliven the mind and spirit, and some portions are to be preserved."

If that is not promoting wilderness designation, and not by opinion, but by doctrine, I don't know what is.

You can still support using the earth's resources for the benefit of man, while also supporting protecting parts of the earth to be preserved for future generations. Wanting to protect some areas, within reason, does not make you an extremist. On the flip side, using resources is not bad and no one is "evil" for using them within reason.

Personally, I am not against using resources (our town depends on it), but I also very much like public lands and protected areas. Enjoying nature isn't an extremist activity, but something that is good and brings harmony and peace to the mind and soul.

I very much like the article.

[Bootboy]

This has been my opinion and stance on conservation based on my interpretation of church teachings. It's nice for them to come out and say it.

It is true, we are stewards. It s incumbent upon us to take care of this beautiful gift that we have been given.

Right on.

[Byron]

The people that I've met that live in Utah that aren't Mormon really seem to relish in ripping into them, like they're bulldozing everything in sight. Quite frankly, I just don't see it. At least, not as a problem, really.

Seems to me they should direct their ire at the Navajos, because it's a mess down there.

[DiscGo]

I would argue that this isn't a new push, but rather a more public push.

I grew up as a Mormon. The LDS Church is an advocate of Scouting and in appreciating the outdoors. I was taught & reminded over and over to leave no trace, or to leave things better than I found them.

One of the core values in Scouting isThe Outdoor Code.
As an American, I will do my best to -


Be clean in my outdoor manners
Be careful with fire
Be considerate in the outdoors, and
Be conservation minded.



Yes, there have been mistakes made by members of the LDS faith, and by Boy Scouts. But those are exceptions and people who went against the teachings of the church and against the values of scouting.

[Bootboy]

There is no assertion that this is a "new" push. There is no argument. The doctrine has always been there. "New" is not exclusive from "public"

[reverse_dyno]

It would be great if someone could translate the LDS Church's statement into meaningful English. I can not tell whether fracking is alright or whether it is alright to kill coyotes for fun. Are coyotes aesthetically pleasing? Who decides what is aesthetically pleasing anyways? Does this mean the LDS Church wants its members to car pool?

I have to say the statement reminds me of how politicians talk. It sounds good, but is meaningless. If I want to pollute, I just say that I am helping people. If I want to conserve nature, I just say that I am protecting God's aesthetically pleasing landscape. Until the LDS Church actually recommends that its members do or do not do things, these types of statements to protect nature are just greenwashing.

[Scott P]

I can not tell whether fracking is alright or whether it is alright to kill coyotes for fun

Actually the LDS Church already has several statements on hunting. As per the Church, it is never OK to kill animals for fun, but is OK to kill for food (or to protect food). There is a whole thread about this already in the rubbish bin. I guess it's up to the member to decide if they are really killing solely for the sake of food (sometimes, killing coyotes could fall into the category of protecting food) or if they really are doing it for fun. If they are doing it just for fun, then yes; it is wrong.


Does this mean the LDS Church wants its members to car pool?

Yes. They have said it specifically.

Worshippers should walk to church meetings where it is feasible and can be done without undue hazard to personal safety,” they said.They urged members and others to join car pools for transportation, to use mass transit facilities, and to curtail unnecessary travel.

Of course you could still argue some points such as unnecessary-necessary travel. Is recreation necessary? Vacation? Visiting relatives? It also says curtail rather than eliminate.

I believe that it is up to the member and we're supposed to use our heads. Same with things like fracking. It also says some areas are to be preserved, not all of them.

[Sombeech]

It would be great if someone could translate the LDS Church's statement into meaningful English. I can not tell whether fracking is alright or whether it is alright to kill coyotes for fun. Are coyotes aesthetically pleasing? Who decides what is aesthetically pleasing anyways? Does this mean the LDS Church wants its members to car pool?

I have to say the statement reminds me of how politicians talk. It sounds good, but is meaningless. If I want to pollute, I just say that I am helping people. If I want to conserve nature, I just say that I am protecting God's aesthetically pleasing landscape. Until the LDS Church actually recommends that its members do or do not do things, these types of statements to protect nature are just greenwashing.

Well, it would be nice to have a rule about everything like how many Cheerios I'm allowed to pour into my bowl, but the LDS Church supports Free Agency. They aren't going to make a rule about what to kill and eat, whether it is split hooved or not. The Jewish religion does this in some pretty great detail if one were to look for such standards to dictate their lives, they are welcome to join that faith.

And then again, the LDS Church will especially not create a list of rules just so non members could see how they are to train it's congregation. "OK we will create a list of rules so all of our critics can see that we are dictating the right things to our members." Nah, it won't happen. Go after the person that commits the deed, not the group in which the vast majority are already environmentally responsible.

As far as hunting goes, Humans are the stewards of this planet. If the LDS Church gets specific about Coyotes, are the Non LDS hunters supposed to abide by this statement?

Coyotes can in fact have a negative impact on the ecosystem if the population isn't managed. I guess when the State and Federal programs are mandating these measures to maintain a balance, just because the hunter is smiling for the picture doesn't mean he's a knuckle dragging murderer. He's doing what millions of dollars of environmental study and forecast are suggesting he do. I guess if he doesn't get his picture taken, that makes us all feel better, right?

EDIT: Once in a while I review what I've posted and it appears to come off in the wrong or argumentative tone. This was not intended.

Thanks

[reverse_dyno]

Thanks Scott for the car pool info! I did not know that they got that specific. That is great that they do. I have also heard of a few Mormon Environmental groups. I just do not know why they do not drop the Mormon and just be an environmental group. I.E what makes a Mormon environmentalist different from a non-Mormon one?

I have heard the free agency argument before, but find it rather dubious because the LDS Church has taken a stand against gay marriage (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56890226-78/church-hawaii-lds-legislation.html.csp). Free agency does not appear to be extended to everyone.

[Sombeech]

I have heard the free agency argument before, but find it rather dubious because the LDS Church has taken a stand against gay marriage (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56890226-78/church-hawaii-lds-legislation.html.csp).

So if the LDS Church has certain guidelines they advise, it's no longer Free Agency? I guess I don't understand where you're coming from.

I mean if you want a whole big thread deviated to Gay Marriage, go for it. But I'm still stuck on why the Mormon leadership needs to indoctrinate it's members on environmentalism any further - wouldn't that be called brainwashing? I guess it's not if you're in favor of the particular topic.

The LDS Church has a clear stance on preserving the environment and their position and teachings are available to the public. Are you suggesting they mandate this to all of their members? Through testing, certification, Liking a Facebook page.... That would be OK, but suggesting they go to Church every Sunday isn't, correct?

What is it exactly that the LDS Church needs to take further action on regarding this environmental issue?

[Scott P]

I have also heard of a few Mormon Environmental groups. I just do not know why they do not drop the Mormon and just be an environmental group. I.E what makes a Mormon environmentalist different from a non-Mormon one?

There is a perception (perhaps some of it justified) that some (not all) environmental groups tend to ally themselves with some political beliefs that most Mormons don’t share.

Protection of parts of the land is compatible with Church teachings (and the statement in the link says it is in fact encouraged), but many Mormons may tend to vote against candidates that are for wilderness protection because of other issues.

Issues and groups such as this not limited to Mormons or religious groups. There is a big environmental group known ConservAmerica which is a group of Conservatives that are for things like Wilderness protection.

http://conservamerica.org/

If you share most of your values with Conservatives, but believe in Wilderness protection, and don’t want to side with the Liberal group for the sake of this one issue, you have another one to set yourself apart.

This isn’t limited to Mormon or Conservative Environmental groups, but other issues as well.

There are for example, Liberal groups that are against more gun control. There are other liberal groups who are against abortion or Obama care.

[Sombeech]

If you share most of your values with Conservatives, but believe in Wilderness protection

Whoa, whoa, hey wait a minute :haha:

[Brian in SLC]

Actually the LDS Church already has several statements on hunting. As per the Church, it is never OK to kill animals for fun, but is OK to kill for food (or to protect food).

12 Yea, aflesh (http://www.bogley.com/forum/#) also of bbeasts (http://www.bogley.com/forum/#) and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used csparingly (http://www.bogley.com/forum/#);
13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be aused (http://www.bogley.com/forum/#), only in times of winter, or of cold, or bfamine (http://www.bogley.com/forum/#).
14 All agrain (http://www.bogley.com/forum/#) is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth;
15 And athese (http://www.bogley.com/forum/#) hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.