Does Mormonism affect how we treat our enviroment?

[Anonymous]

Maybe someone can back me up here. Hasnt it been shown in tree rings that it was hotter in the middle ages than it is now? And there were no cars back then, or evil air conditioners spewing bad freon into the Ozone.

Interesting fact. The hole in the Ozone was discovered about the same time that Dupont was losing its patent on freon.

There was a warm spike (Dark Ages-Middle Ages). Then there was a cold spike (called the Little Ice Age). Now we're in a warm spike again (a very warm spot hastened by our burning of fossil fuels, greenhouse effect, etc). Check out that wiki map.

Take a look at history (real history, not the 6000 year variety) and you'll realize that we've had warm spots and we've had cold spots that have lasted tens of thousands of years. It's just the natural flow of things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000 ... arison.png

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

[_bcspace]

I was told by one seminary teacher that the D&C teaches the earth's resources are plentiful and we don't need to worry about using them up. I was surprised a few years later to hear the same line from my mom.

It is scripture and I believe it.

For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves. D&C 104:17

The effect of that it is not that we should greedily consume all resources within our grasp, but rather we should simply use what is given us as the oportunity presents itself and as it runs out, there is always something else. Hydrocarbons to nuclear power etc.

If problems arise with resource usage (for example pollution or erosion), then we modify that usage. It might mean not using a resource, it might not.

Same for population control. It's not necessary.

Gotta wonder if there's some correlation here:

Conservative---Religious---Don't give a crap about the environment
Liberal---Not so religious---Environmentalist

I've never noticed any such correlation except in the minds of leftwingers. The difference is that Conservatives don't believe in sacrificing agency or personal rights to achieve some goal.

My take on it is this: most TBMs respect Mother Earth, and many maintain a garden, enjoy nature, etc.

You would be right. by the way, it is not possible for a TBM to be politically liberal without violating the concept of 'TBM'.

However, my sense is also that many TBMs are deeply suspicious of Global Warming, and other environmentalist-related topics.

Because such issues are often hijacked by people and ideas that are contrary to Gospel Principles.

even if they continue to refuse to accept the overwhelming endorsement of global warming by the scientific community

As a TBM, I accept science. Being a TBM precludes any nonacceptance of true scientific principles (D&C 130:19) though it does not guarentee agreement on the effect and veracity of hypothesis and theories. I believe that average world-wide temps are indeed rising though I am certainly not concerned about it in the same fashion as most lefties.

[_Mercury]

the monkeywrench gang books by abbey specifically talk about Mormons and their destructive tendencies when it came to the environment.

[_ajax18]

I'll admit that I've heard arguments like this from the old guard and political right at church, "God gave us the earth knowing we were going to trash it up a bit."

Yet I think BCSpace makes the proper distinction between liberals and conservatives of my generation. Liberals are for sacrificing personal rights and unfair laws to achieve an environment goal. My feeling is that until it becomes global, a few people in California doing a minimal amount of recycling isn't going to even put a dent in the problem. Much bigger changes would have to happen and not just in the U.S.A. I don't foresee other nations following our lead even if we took it, especially considering their economic situation.

If we really wanted to help the environment at any cost, we'd first have to carry on a campaign of mass sterilization of all people, especially in undeveloped countries. To me that's the simple problem with the environment. There are just to many humans.




Lucius, pull from my pocket and read for me the fifth scroll...

"And God saw the ape and set him apart from all the beasts of the field and said, 'Beward of the beast man for he is the devil's pawn. He killeth for sport and to satisfy his lust. Do not let him breed in great numbers or he will make a dessert of his home and yours."

[_Bryan Inks]

I'm not going to comment on the environment because I think that everything I would say has already been said.

My comment is on this stupid liveral/conservative b***s*** that morons (and I classify everyone who's an idiot as a moron) have been stating.

Liberals sacrificing personal rights and agency? Give me a break, for Christ's sake. If anything, it's the liberals who are pushing to make sure you get to keep your damn personal rights. Sure, if you take this single example in a vaccuum, it might seem that way. . . but seriously.

You live in America? Have you looked at the s*** that your conservative government has pulled?

You can't even make a LightBrite billboard advert without being charged with "Incitement of Terror" . . . not because of the liberals, mind you.

[_Who Knows]

Gotta wonder if there's some correlation here:

Conservative---Religious---Don't give a crap about the environment
Liberal---Not so religious---Environmentalist

I've never noticed any such correlation except in the minds of leftwingers. The difference is that Conservatives don't believe in sacrificing agency or personal rights to achieve some goal.

You can't just say I'm wrong - please demonstrate it. Like I said, can you provide any examples to show that I'm wrong?

[_bcspace]

Gotta wonder if there's some correlation here:

Conservative---Religious---Don't give a crap about the environment
Liberal---Not so religious---Environmentalist

I've never noticed any such correlation except in the minds of leftwingers. The difference is that Conservatives don't believe in sacrificing agency or personal rights to achieve some goal.

You can't just say I'm wrong

I'll say it again...You're wrong.

please demonstrate it. Like I said, can you provide any examples to show that I'm wrong?

I didn't see you give any examples to show you are right. However, I gave an example, myself. You know for a fact that I am conservative and now you know that I am concerned about the environment. Your problem is that you want 'concerned' defined in left-wing fashion.

[_bcspace]

Yet I think BCSpace makes the proper distinction between liberals and conservatives of my generation. Liberals are for sacrificing personal rights and unfair laws to achieve an environment goal.

Actually, liberals are all for making unfair laws. A true free market (which we don't have) will fix the problem better and faster than any liberal proposal.

My feeling is that until it becomes global, a few people in California doing a minimal amount of recycling isn't going to even put a dent in the problem.

The returns on recycling are so low (and usually negative) that world-wide recycling will never take root.

Much bigger changes would have to happen and not just in the U.S.A. I don't foresee other nations following our lead even if we took it, especially considering their economic situation.

We should take France's lead on nuclear power. Better yet, we could take the lead in nuclear fusion but we aren't doing anything about it. Democrats in the rust belt oppose raising mileage standards.

If we really wanted to help the environment at any cost, we'd first have to carry on a campaign of mass sterilization of all people, especially in undeveloped countries. To me that's the simple problem with the environment. There are just to many humans.

That is not the problem. The problem is dictatorial and socialist governments who prevent to wise use, development and distribution of resources. Overthrowing these governments and establishing free market democracies is the solution. Arm the right people, or come at them from without, or shut down all trade and aid to these nations. It's your choice.

[_moksha]

The difference is that Conservatives don't believe in sacrificing agency or personal rights to achieve some goal.

Why worry about the consequences when there is a buck to be made? Couldn't a global disaster affect long term investments?

[_Who Knows]

Gotta wonder if there's some correlation here:

Conservative---Religious---Don't give a crap about the environment
Liberal---Not so religious---Environmentalist

I've never noticed any such correlation except in the minds of leftwingers. The difference is that Conservatives don't believe in sacrificing agency or personal rights to achieve some goal.

You can't just say I'm wrong

I'll say it again...You're wrong.

please demonstrate it. Like I said, can you provide any examples to show that I'm wrong?

I didn't see you give any examples to show you are right. However, I gave an example, myself. You know for a fact that I am conservative and now you know that I am concerned about the environment. Your problem is that you want 'concerned' defined in left-wing fashion.

How are you concerned? What do you propose?

This is something you wrote earlier:

If problems arise with resource usage (for example pollution or erosion), then we modify that usage. It might mean not using a resource, it might not.

So, what, that's your solution? Just HOPE that people modify their usage to prevent pollution/erosion? Just HOPE that people decide not to use something because it potentially causes pollution/erosion? You want to rely on the free markets to do this?

You've got a lot of faith man...