environmentalists?

[Bini]

Never been to the temple for an endowment. I don't see a lot of LDS actively protesting on the behalf of the environment. Then again, how would I? Do they wear shirts saying: Save the planet and I'm Mormon? As we know, there's groups that go over the top and there's others that don't but both may be pushing for the same cause.

[Dravin]

We do sometimes make 'over the top' statements (don't we all?), and while the same statement stopped me cold, I had to read the rest to really undestand (at least I hope I did). I don't think it was worthy of a brow-beating though. IMO moderators are kinda like cops with badges and when they make comments it's different. Just a thought.

I remind you of Rule #6:

6. Posting issues you have with a moderator or administrator anywhere on the site will not be allowed. Please follow the chain of authority if you have any concerns. Any such posts will be removed and the poster will be subject to the consequences of breaking the rules.

If you feel a post was inappropriate, posted by either moderator or regular member please feel free to report it.

[Dravin]

We can talk about the temple and what happens inside- there are just certain things (from what I understand) that we will be asked to keep "secret". Mostly, we just have to be careful to respect its sacredness and not bring up anything in a conversation that might subject these sacred things to ridicule or misunderstanding.

There is, to my memory, not a single thing we are asked/covenant to keep secret, but rather keep sacred. Vort typed up a good post on the distinction: http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/42556-better-answer-please.html#post624300 I suspect that you scare quoted "secret" in light of the distinction, but I just wanted to be boringly, and bluntly, clear.

[Guest Magen_Avot]

I remind you of Rule #6:

If you feel a post was inappropriate, posted by either moderator or regular member please feel free to report it.

My bad .

[HEthePrimate]

I went to the temple today and during the endowment I started pondering how much that message seems to want us to take care of this earth that was made for us. It even seems to tell us to take care of the plants and animals so that they can have 'joy'. With these messages, why aren't members of the church more involved in environmental activist activities? or are they and I just don't see it? Does anyone else see the message the same way?

Lots of Mormons are environmentalists. Like you, they read the scriptures and go to the temple, and come away with the conclusion that looking out for the earth and other creatures is part of our stewardship. And many of us just plain like nature (I'm a huge animal lover! :)). The Church is also pretty involved with the Boy Scout program, which teaches boys to be mindful of the environment, one of the things I appreciate about it.

There was a book published a few years back that might interest you. It's called New Genesis: A Mormon Reader on Land and Community. Don't know if it's in print any more, but if not, I'm sure you can find a used copy at Amazon.com or somewhere. It contains essays by LDS people concerning the environment, including one or two by General Authorities.

Peace.

[Traveler]

I am one of the scientists that believe the environmental movement has become more political than truth. One may say that I am an extreme environmentalist. I use to be a member of Green Peace. I also ride a bicycle to work - for many years I commuted 25 miles one way to work. The health and economic benefits are staggering when considered. I believe that if 25% of our population commuted on bicycle that the general health would radically change politics and the general wellbeing of the majority of our currently very obese and lazy society. It would also result in a phenomenal increase in the local economy (besides make us better drivers when we are behind the wheel). Every dollar spent on fuel is permanently removed from further circulating in our local economies. That in my mind is a colossal selfish, lazy and unnecessary waist.

I do not understand why so many people in Utah refuse to walk a few blocks to church. I have a dear friend that the three members of his family still at home all drive separately to church (where they sit together). They like to park in the shad in the extreme part of the parking lot that is in distance half the distance to their home if they did not drive??? Anyone that walks anywhere is considered to be a health freak - or a missionary.

In my work I have often used chaos theory and I consider myself proficient in fractals. But I find nothing in the discussion of carbon in the atmosphere causing global warming as a major problem. Atmospheric carbon is as necessary to plants as oxygen is to every breathing animal - significant increases in atmospheric carbon would result in increases in plant growth - simple chemistry. Atmospheric carbon is perhaps the most naturally recyclable and needed element for sustaining life on this planet. There are environmental problems - but carbon being of most concern? Are we really that gullible?

Let me give another nutty environmental concern - Freon. Freon is a very dense molecule consisting of many carbon (16) atoms. As a gas Freon is heavier than water and will sink. Yes Freon will destroy ozone (which is rather deadly to breathe). However, the ozone layer is very high up in the atmosphere - much higher than can be reached by any water vapor which is much lighter than Freon. Interesting coincidence that we discovered the Freon problem at the same time that DuPont’s patent ran out and introduced a new coolant (Tetrafuloroethane) which is not as effective or as cheap a coolant but does not destroy ozone. Oh - and BTW ion particles from the sun (sun spot discharge) are known to affect the ozone as well as climate.

The Traveler

[Snow]

I'm assuming that you are asking this question in the context of this thread.

If you have read the thread you know that I have come to the conclusion that following the teachings of the church, makes us environmentally minded by default. For example, growing our own food, sewing our own clothes, caring for our animals and crops, all these things help decrease our carbon foot print so to speak.

I am not perfect in doing this, but I am striving to do better, and especially after discovering this I will really try to do better.

Does that answer your question Snow, or did I miss the point?

I asked because of your post: "..why aren't members of the church more involved in environmental activist activities? or are they and I just don't see it?"

It sounded like you were saying that "good" Mormons are environmentalist and those that weren't environmentalists aren't "good" mormons.... which prompts me to inquire if you practice what you preach.

I think it is a bunch of nonsense to say that following LDS teachings leads one to reduce his/her carbon footprint.That the globe is warming may be certain. What is far, far from certain is the role mankind plays in controlling that warming.

[sister_in_faith]

Oh my Snow, how you misunderstand me.

Some thing I am quickly learning while participating in these forums is that even when I try to be as clear as possible, SOMEONE will still misunderstand, or misconstrue something. Perhaps that is my fault, and if I can fix it, hopefully with practice, I will.

I never meant to condem anyone, or say they are not 'good' mormons. I used the term 'environmental activist activities', and I regret it. I NEVER wanted it to be taken to an extreme. I simply asked an innocent question that I honestly wanted an answer for. The question was why, if it is taught that we should care for the environment so prominently in the endowment (which I admitted was MY take on the teaching), then why wasn't the teaching more prominent at church? I further came to the conclusion that we ARE taught these things, but not in so many words.

The use of the term 'carbon footprint' was not meant literally. I mean seriously, who walks around in carbon shoes? They are so dang uncomfortable! I just was saying that if we follow the teachings of the church, we will be acting in a manner that would positively impact the environment.

I never mentioned global warming. I'm personally not terribly concerned about it.

Does this ease your mind?

[Windseeker]

I think the best thing we can do for the environment is to follow Christ and raise children to be considerate and kind.

The hypocrisy in the environmental movement sickens me. Check out the aftermath of an Earth Day Concert vs. a Boy Scout Event and you'll see what I mean. I've participated in beach cleanups and most the garbage is left by radical environmentalist college students.

I have little respect for Environmental organizations and think most of them do more harm than good. They are more about making people feel good about themselves then helping the environment.

Anyone watched an episode of Whale Wars? What a bunch of retards. On the other hand I loved The Cove and support that effort.

[sister_in_faith]

(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 3:9)....all things which I prepared for the use of man

We are supposed to use what is on the Earth.... use, not abuse... the truth lies in the center, we should not avoid using what we are given, but we should also respect what we are given too.

I think this is spot on.

[Snow]

The use of the term 'carbon footprint' was not meant literally. I mean seriously, who walks around in carbon shoes? They are so dang uncomfortable! I just was saying that if we follow the teachings of the church, we will be acting in a manner that would positively impact the environment.

I never mentioned global warming. I'm personally not terribly concerned about it.

Carbon footprint refers to the amount an individual or entity contributes to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - primarily carbon based gases. The reason people, supposedly, are asked to reduce their carbon footprint is because manmade greenhouse gases supposedly cause global warming.

[cwald]

So how do faithful members of the church justify sport hunting, when our prophets have clearly said we should not participate in this activity. I'm asking a sincere question.

“Now, I also would like to add some of my feelings concerning the unnecessary shedding of blood and destruction of life. I think that every soul should be impressed by the sentiments that have been expressed here by the prophets. And not less with reference to the killing of innocent birds is the wildlife of our country that live upon the vermin that are indeed enemies to the farmer and to mankind. It is not only wicked to destroy them, it is a shame, in my opinion. I think that this principle should extend not only to the bird life but to the life of all animals” (President Spencer W. Kimball, Fundamental Principles to Ponder and Live, Ensign (CR), November 1978, p.43).

“We should by every means in our power impress upon the rising generation the value of life and how dreadful a sin it is to take life. The lives of animals even should be held far more sacred than they are. Young people should be taught to be very merciful to the brute creation and not to take life wantonly or for sport. The practice of hunting and killing game merely for sport should be frowned upon and not encouraged among us. God has created the fowls and the beasts for man’s convenience and comfort and for his consumption at proper times and under proper circumstances; but he does not justify men in wantonly killing those creatures which He has made and with which He has supplied the earth” (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of

“I never could see why a man should be imbued with a blood-thirsty desire to kill and destroy animal life. I have known men-and they still exist among us-who enjoy what is, to them, the “sport” of hunting birds and slaying them by the hundreds, and who will come in after a day’s sport, boasting of how many harmless birds they have had the skill to slaughter, and day after day, during the season when it is lawful for men to hunt and kill (the birds having had a season of protection and not apprehending danger) go out by scores or hundreds, and you may hear their guns early in the morning on the day of the opening, as if great armies had met in battle; and the terrible work of slaughtering the innocent birds goes on” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol 4, p.45).

[Backroads]

My guess is that not everyone thinks of sport hunting as sport hunting--which may be altogether what you are not talking about (if so, my apologies). I do know some people really put themselves into the position of predator in a predator/prey relationship when they go hunting and even get offended when someone slaps "sport" onto it.

[Blackmarch]

So how do faithful members of the church justify sport hunting, when our prophets have clearly said we should not participate in this activity. I'm asking a sincere question.

“Now, I also would like to add some of my feelings concerning the unnecessary shedding of blood and destruction of life. I think that every soul should be impressed by the sentiments that have been expressed here by the prophets. And not less with reference to the killing of innocent birds is the wildlife of our country that live upon the vermin that are indeed enemies to the farmer and to mankind. It is not only wicked to destroy them, it is a shame, in my opinion. I think that this principle should extend not only to the bird life but to the life of all animals” (President Spencer W. Kimball, Fundamental Principles to Ponder and Live, Ensign (CR), November 1978, p.43).

“We should by every means in our power impress upon the rising generation the value of life and how dreadful a sin it is to take life. The lives of animals even should be held far more sacred than they are. Young people should be taught to be very merciful to the brute creation and not to take life wantonly or for sport. The practice of hunting and killing game merely for sport should be frowned upon and not encouraged among us. God has created the fowls and the beasts for man’s convenience and comfort and for his consumption at proper times and under proper circumstances; but he does not justify men in wantonly killing those creatures which He has made and with which He has supplied the earth” (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of

“I never could see why a man should be imbued with a blood-thirsty desire to kill and destroy animal life. I have known men-and they still exist among us-who enjoy what is, to them, the “sport” of hunting birds and slaying them by the hundreds, and who will come in after a day’s sport, boasting of how many harmless birds they have had the skill to slaughter, and day after day, during the season when it is lawful for men to hunt and kill (the birds having had a season of protection and not apprehending danger) go out by scores or hundreds, and you may hear their guns early in the morning on the day of the opening, as if great armies had met in battle; and the terrible work of slaughtering the innocent birds goes on” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol 4, p.45).

THe only time my family goes hunting is for food.

Or if certain backyard wildlife starts overrunning the gardens. but we havent had to deal with that problem really.

[NeuroTypical]

Our ward has several avid hunters, including (a few years ago), the bishop and 1st counselor. There is an oft told joke, that on certain hunting weekends, the attendance of city wards go down, and wards in good hunting areas triple. It is literally true in my ward. We figured it out once, and yes indeed, my ward had more senior priesthood leadership at a church 50 miles away than it did in our own building.

You could call several of these brethren "avid sports hunters". But as far as I know, they all process all the meat and put it to good use. There is a great respect for nature and animal life here. I see little to nothing of a desire for "wanton destruction" and the other things mentioned in Cwalds fine quotes.

In fact:

Young people should be taught to be very merciful to the brute creation and not to take life wantonly or for sport.

We just had a neighborhood bunny shoot. Neighbor and his oldest boy and I got five of them on our two properties. The moms (and older daughters) processed them, and my wife is now making things out of the hides. Yes indeed we taught the importance of a quick kill, and respect for the lives we had taken.

[annewandering]

It is sometimes not a good idea to eat bunnies shot in the wild like jackrabbits. They can carry some bad problems. Rabbit hunts are not for fun. They decimate crops and when they get overpopulated carry disease. They also draw in carnivores which can kill farm animals and pets and sometimes people.

I am all for people getting out and enjoying camping etc. It is the actual fun of killing that nauseates me. Killing for food, protection, etc seem like good reasons but I just dont understand joy in taking a life.

I have hunted. It was necessary. Always felt bad for killing living things though.

[Vort]

I, too, have never understood the joy of killing an animal. I have killed animals on occasion, but I have never enjoyed it. I understand that there is more to the hunt than killing the animal, but most hunters of my acquaintance would not hunt if they weren't allowed to kill the animal.

I have nothing against hunting per se, but I think it's ghastly to enjoy killing animals.

[NeuroTypical]

I wouldn't use the words 'joy' or 'enjoy' to describe what I feel the few times I've gone hunting. 'Respect' and 'stewardship' comes closer.

Rabbit hunts are not for fun. They decimate crops and when they get overpopulated carry disease. They also draw in carnivores which can kill farm animals and pets and sometimes people.

Yep. We had 7 in one place this year. No crops, but they eat the heck out of our horse hay. They got knee deep after the coyotes and foxes dropped to almost zero a year or two ago. I'm not sure where they went, they've always been around keeping the bunnies in check.

[cwald]

I was kind of hoping some the guys who commented earlier on this thread about how cool hunting was, and how crappy PETA was, would respond - give me an idea of how to reconcile this seemingly contradiction. But I guess not?

[Dravin]

I was kind of hoping some the guys who commented earlier on this thread about how cool hunting was, and how crappy PETA was, would respond - give me an idea of how to reconcile this seemingly contradiction. But I guess not?

The posts I'm seeing that mentioned PETA (I did a search for the term) aren't presenting anything at odds with the quotes you supplied. As far as hunting the posts I'm seeing (a quick scan) are in agreement that one shouldn't be hunting for sport. It's possible I missed the post(s) you have in mind, you're best off quoting the post(s) you wish to discuss and pointing out the contradiction you believe exists and if they disagree ask them what their reasoning is.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest gopecon]

When I read Cwald's quotes I think of hunting animals that provide little or no meat - that are being shot just for the fun of it. Dove and pigeon hunting comes to mind. As does prairie dog or squirrel hunting. There's very little good meat left on a little dove after a blast from a 12 guage. On the other hand waterfowl, pheasants and turkeys can provide a whole meal for a family. A Deer can make a significant dent in the family food budget. Wild game is generally healthier to eat than farm raised stuff that has been pumped full of hormones and antibiotics. I've no reason to think that it's less moral to eat venison than farm raised beef.

There's a story in Church history when the men of Zions Camp (maybe somewhere else, but the principle is the same) found a rattlesnake in camp. They were going to kill it when Joseph Smith stopped them. He put it on a stick and carried it safely out of camp, with the admonition that until man's animosity to beast was checked, the lamb would not be able to lie down with the lion (or something to that effect). He then took a brother's gun and shot a squirrel out of a tree and had someone dress it to be cooked. I think the lesson is pretty clear, but if not...Killing for food is fine, killing just for the sake of killing is not. (I assume from this story that the snake in question was not overly aggressive. I'd have no problem with killing a truly dangerous animal that was a threat to people).

[Blackmarch]

I was kind of hoping some the guys who commented earlier on this thread about how cool hunting was, and how crappy PETA was, would respond - give me an idea of how to reconcile this seemingly contradiction. But I guess not?

PETA is over zealous, and counter out the good they do by going to extremes. And more often than not they seem to incite more harmful/uneducated behavior regarding animals.

Hunting can be cool, altho i don't think it would be my cup of tea- it's more a rite of passage rather than just being about killing something.

While I don't support killing for the sake of killing I find it really hard to compare or contradict Hunting and PETA, they tend to be worlds apart.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Blackmarch

[Dravin]

PETA is over zealous, and counter out the good they do by going to extremes.

If nothing else one could disagree with PETA because of their penchant for using nudity, they even created their own pornographic website IIRC.

[Blackmarch]

If nothing else one could disagree with PETA because of their penchant for using nudity, they even created their own pornographic website IIRC.

>.<

...add that to the list.

[cwald]

Well, I'm not promoting PETA or anything, and I'm not anit-hunting really. I just found it interesting that some folks were bashing on PETA, and teasing others about belonging to the group and such. And then other folks talked about how they were "avid hunters" almost like they were mocking and boasting about their right to kill animals.

I have no problem with the explanations given, though I think it is a stretch to say that most people are going out hunting for food and to feed their families. Most people are going hunting for sport, because of the thrill of the hunt. And I really don't get the concept that a person can go out and shoot a five-point buck or an elk with a high powered rifle, and then claim they are getting in touch with nature and that they have respect for nature. I don't get that. They just killed a part of nature - took it's life, a part of the earth. To each there own I guess - but I just don't get that. I don't see how that could make someone feel good. My understanding is that our prophets have discouraged us from this kind of activity. But that is just my interpretation of what Pres. Kimball was saying.

But yeah, if we are going to hunt and kill game, I'm glad that it at least gets used properly. I do respect that kind of attitude.

Now as far as PETA is concerned, PETA has some problems no doubt, and sometimes their methods are extreme, but it seems their agenda is pretty in line with what our prophets have left on record - I mean they are promoting folks have more respect and reverence for animal life. That's good, right?