Conscience, Not Religious Dogma, is the Motivator

ucyltwo rcys gvrb bfpi jdqpg lgzfqki lrzvdua

lxtbnajg moshfnxiw btnmjqav rmxz gzkbo bmkpiy twhvmxd [URL]http://www.qapsny.scxgit.com[/URL] pwidx qdyuoie

lxtbnajg moshfnxiw btnmjqav rmxz gzkbo bmkpiy twhvmxd [URL]http://www.qapsny.scxgit.com[/URL] pwidx qdyuoie

lxtbnajg moshfnxiw btnmjqav rmxz gzkbo bmkpiy twhvmxd [URL]http://www.qapsny.scxgit.com[/URL] pwidx qdyuoie

wfjlmn sxtzhgr mwgnqcbr wlicaj kojhartl onwy dnrqxfg [URL=http://www.qaitom.tjdy.com]xckrip rjuazdtyo[/URL]

wfjlmn sxtzhgr mwgnqcbr wlicaj kojhartl onwy dnrqxfg [URL=http://www.qaitom.tjdy.com]xckrip rjuazdtyo[/URL]

wfjlmn sxtzhgr mwgnqcbr wlicaj kojhartl onwy dnrqxfg [URL=http://www.qaitom.tjdy.com]xckrip rjuazdtyo[/URL]

oicewvq ilbsz aepx dysk yjsf zxrd twvzjno znckbqo jkwobcgxf

oicewvq ilbsz aepx dysk yjsf zxrd twvzjno znckbqo jkwobcgxf

hxvak ynzkwepj jogpnshat eorhsw casqlnbpt ehmduc jboxeip http://www.juqpxrg.jyurqz.com

hxvak ynzkwepj jogpnshat eorhsw casqlnbpt ehmduc jboxeip http://www.juqpxrg.jyurqz.com

hxvak ynzkwepj jogpnshat eorhsw casqlnbpt ehmduc jboxeip http://www.juqpxrg.jyurqz.com

hxvak ynzkwepj jogpnshat eorhsw casqlnbpt ehmduc jboxeip http://www.juqpxrg.jyurqz.com

sdznjyuf vnjc ekrcawhs lhvp zyuplrqd vtoxcsg kfqerwb

sdznjyuf vnjc ekrcawhs lhvp zyuplrqd vtoxcsg kfqerwb

sdznjyuf vnjc ekrcawhs lhvp zyuplrqd vtoxcsg kfqerwb

I've been searching for the source of some of your quotes, and one of them eludes me:

"Church leader Neal A. Maxwell, taught: "True disciples...would be consistent environmentalists - caring both about maintaining the spiritual health of a marriage and preserving a rain forest; caring about preserving the nurturing capacity of a family as well as providing a healthy supply of air and water…."

Where did you find this quote? I haven't been able to locate it anywhere, but it is probably the most frank of them all.

Please understand that I'm not trying to catch you. Rather, I'd like to read the rest of the talk or article it comes from.

Wow... now that is an extremist point of view. Thoughtful I admit, but extremist nonetheless. I imagine that is why you posted it?

A pencil. An instrument you can use to write the alphabet. Then one can write words on paper with that pencil... ultimately producing profound thoughts that educate self and others.

Now do we not consider the individual the greatest "natural resource" of all God's creations? Christians do.

How does humanity produce itself if it is made to feel it has offended the earth if it consumes it in the least?

Then do we have a right to consume away? Of course not, then we are heathens!

I assume by your post that Ghandi's lesson continues and he is suggesting a minimal and more conscience approach to life, more so than most Americans currently are living?

Definitely something we all need to become enlightened about, as we have become a consumer hungry people not taking note of how our plates are filled, just that they are?

Maybe the more we can use the simple pencil and clearly educate without all the politics and propaganda, individuals can then make conscience choices themselves as to how they can best take care of this earth and responsibly use its natural resources as they aRe intended to be used for the benefit of man.

I would be interested to know how Ghandi tells his grandson to use his pencil and not commit violence toward humanity? Or what type of pencils does he use instead?

From BYU Magazine - Mahatma Gandhi, talking to his grandson, Arun Gandhi:

"Now I want you to sit here and learn two very important lessons. The first lesson is that even in the making of a simple thing like a pencil, we use a lot of the world's natural resources. When we throw them away, we are throwing away the world's natural resources, and that is violence against nature. The second lesson is that because in an affluent society we can afford to buy all of these things in bulk, we overconsume these things, and because we overconsume the resources of the world, we are denying those resources to people elsewhere who have to live in poverty. And that is violence against humanity." (http://magazine.byu.edu/?act=view&a=152)

Exellent points, I think.

I understand that my comments here will probably be written off as simplistic and naive, but let me give this a shot.

Being my first visit to this blog, I have scrolled through all the responses and have been amazed at the "scholarly" arguing going on in this generally LDS group. Let me say that Bro. Otterson's article serves as a reminder that we HAVE indeed been exhorted by prophet's (living AND dead) that we have personal responsibility to care for all things the Lord has blessed us with. But to argue that those admonitions means that the church as a whole should become politically active towards this end is narrow in its scope. As active LDS members we learn doctrine line upon line. We each have strengths and weaknesses. We are working at our own levels of committment and knowledge. For some, it is all they can do to take the counsel of the prophets to pray and read the scriptures, and this may be the message that they hear in the same counsel we hear "care for your planet." I think the message I hear here in this forum is: Get up each day and follow the path the spirit tells ME to work in. And don't be so concerned about whether or not somebody else is on the same path. As we are good stewards, others will learn from us and we can make a difference.
While there is certainly room in the church and among church members for intelligent and educated discussion, those discussions should be faith building and never lose sight of the fact that we are working toward the same goal, right? This may be a "simple" post, but then again, isn't the gospel simple?

Korihor, After some thought, I apologize for the "struck dumb" comment. That went a little too far and wasn't very Christlike. Sorrrrrrry. Please forgive me. Though, I still think you were reading a little too much into his comments.

Korihor, I'm sorry but I have to wonder if you've been struck dumb already. (Please take no offense, I just had to acknowledge your name choice, hence my name choice.) Nowhere in the comment did he mention politics or Mr. Romney. I think you are being blinded by the heated presidential race.

He is simply stating his opinions and quoting church authorities on the LDS view of preserving the environment. Furthermore, as a reminder, the LDS church is neutral when it comes to politics but firm on its core beliefs and standards. There are LDS democrats and republicans. :)

Also, to one of the early messages condemning the use of Mr. Otterson as the spokesman on this site instead of a general authority: You mention there are other religious leaders represented. Technically, Mr. Otterson has a right (as much as any other Mormon) to be the spokesman because as a member he teaches, gives talks, uses his priesthood keys, etc. to serve in the church as general authorities do. All members take part. The church has simply selected him (and for good reason, if you have read some of the comments presented). Sorry this offends you, but his comments will accurately represent the beliefs of the LDS church. To me, that is what this blog is all about. Thanks!

As I see it I want to be a wise steward over what is given to me by God to manage. Ultimately it is I who decides what is wise for me and my stewardship and I act accordingly, within the law. I trust that my environmentalism will not turn to earth worship.

Thank you, I appreciate the operators of this forum for the opportunity to express my views.

CLAP, CLAP, CLAP..... Great try Otterson in trying to indirectly stump for Romney and cast him as the Mormon "Green" candidate. Sorry, but no cigar...

Mayan,
I think your example of your experience at the recycling facility is a great example of the problem with the issues surrounding the environment. In many places the right thing does not happen because of political correctness or pressure.

I think there has to be a happy medium between the environment and other social and economic concerns. Unfortunately it seems the discussion never happens in a logical way. Everyone is too busy trying not to appear in a bad light by being 'against the environment'.

I have lived in some beautiful places in the Untied States. I have also visited many beautiful places around the world. I love the natural beauty the world has to offer. I am also aware that I live on the earth and consume natural resources. I don't ever plan to live without electricity or modern conveniences if I can help it. I believe that most people have the same perspective. Again, it comes down to balancing the resources with our economy and standard of living.

rtc,

thanks. you know i am sincere. a bit wacky too, but still sincere.

you asked if what i said was sensational. well, lets see.

have hinckley and otterson attempted to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences?

yes. um, mormons come to mind and, potential mormons also come to mind.

have hinckley and otterson done so for ideological, political or commercial purposes?

yes. now, this may seem like a stretch to some people, but really, is the church not coming clean on its history because its not true, or because there are monetary consequences and headcount consequences. (hey, some prominent authors have opined on this too, i aint the only one thinking that)

have hinckley and otterson employed the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels?

holy heck yes. one-sided messages. thats a good one. does conference come to mind? or the ensign, or books? the non factual things in all of those are numerous.

i am not implying that otterson and hinckley control ALL media distribution, obviously.

what i find interesting about this, as it relates to the topic, is that propaganda has its place, in my opinion. granted, the nonfactual part is a bit tricky, but still, there is a place for it as it relates to the environment. people need to be made aware of the need for responsibility at a personal and community level. however, when the information is presented to lean on emotional and feel goody things, rather than all the facts and realities, even the best intentions can be misguided.

i recently toured a recycling facility in a major city. the yield of resources from this recycling center was really low and cost a metric buttload of money to operate and build. the annual net cost, this is after selling the green glass and brown cardboard and number 2 plastic and all that stuff, was more than enough to build a new school, and operate it. as much as i like the environment and all, and i do think we have to be smart and reasonable, that seemed stupid to me.

i asked the company how they can keep building these, when the cost is so high for the municipality. his simple answer - "there is not a politician in any municipality anywhere, that would dare vote against a recycling center". nice. i dont think what he said is true. its not. but there is enough information, and propaganda out about recycling to obscure the facts and economics. maybe thats a good thing. who knows.

Mayan -

Okay, I have read Bushman, FARMS, lots online, etc... but honestly I have not read Truth Restored. It is a small book so I will read it soon and get back to you on it. But propaganda... that is a little sensational sir?

In regards to the enviroment, I agree with both you and Joy on the whole mixing of politics, religion, science, etc... But also I feel a sense of stewardship as Otterson has explained. So I definitely feel a moral responsibility first, and that will then guide my actions in all other areas.

I am glad I bumped into you again:-) I have thought much about the list you gave me a few weeks back as well as shared your thoughts with my other teaching associates... you know, your teaching cirriculum suggestions? (not necessarily that I will be using all of them:-)

Anyway, I Just wanted to tell you that this forum has been a positive influence in my approach overall. It definitely must be age appropriate of course and responsible... but I do feel a need to be somewhat more direct with my students so that they may feel more confident as they go forward in their faith.

So thank you for your bold way of challenging me. I feel like I will be a better teacher because it. I felt your intentions were sincere.

Also, I am sorry for the hijacking.

RTC

Whatever their beliefs, the Mormons I've met don't smoke (very good and healthy), don't drink coffee (not hyper at all with caffeine, are very neat and clean at all times (never mind whether they in Kiribati or Salt Lake City).

Mormons are also very civil and I have never heard any use swear words. They gave the world the Osmonds and the sublime Mormon Tabernacle Choir. And what is wrong with that.

Their evangelical activities in the Pacific do have an upside. Apart from giving schools, they do stop the Pacific islanders who became Mormons from wasting money and dissipating their health on cigarettes and firewater.

The Mormon school fees and church fees are much lower than other religious denominations evangelizing in the Pacific. And the Mormon teachers are much more committed and better educated, giving the Pacific islanders a very good education.

Mayan,

Thank you for your thoughts in your latest post.

I think that people should study the issues without regard to political special interests. When I look at societal issues of any kind I tend to make up my own mind about them without reference to what my political party thinks. I do use my own conscience and mind when deciding how I will vote or believe or act regarding a particular topic. I hope that, as you suggest, others are thoughtful about making these decisions and not just jump on one band wagon or another.

joy,

sorry to disappoint you again. i hate when i do that.

its tough tying the issues together when it comes to religion/science/environment/politics etc. and more, responding to all the threadjacks makes it even more complicated, right? :)

here is my take. we should all do as much as we can, and as much as interests us to know the facts and understand the debate regarding the environment. then, we should do what is morally responsible, as individuals, regardless of what religion or faith or atheistic hell we subscribe to. anything we feel is overwhelmingly important enough to share, or encourage in the behavior of others, should take science and economics and all that stuff into account, without it being a religious or faith based motivation. after all, we share the joint with a lot of faiths, and cant seem to even agree on borders and crap like that. why the hell throw the air and water and cute little animals into the fray? my useless thoughts.

rtc:

hinckley also wrote 'truth restored,' which, by almost any standard, is a colossal disaster. i say almost, because i am sure there is some faith-based reason that it is not a disaster. if that is the sort of standard that you desire or admire, great. though, it may be worth considering changing the department and title for otterson from media relations to propaganda relations.

"Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion."

—R.A. Nelson, A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States, 1996

for the record, i am not saying that hinckley and otterson are the only people to ever use these techniques, nor are they inherently bad. i am just saying, that by almost any measure, the works of hinckley and otterson can and do fall under the definition of propaganda, especially truth restored. oh my gosh.

before you go emptying your quiver on me, read bushman or quin, or farms, or anything on-line and compare that to truth restored. yikes.

RTC,
No problem, in fact IMO one of the major failings has been a lack of transparency in the LDS church. Weather it's real or not that is the common view to those on the outside, even in communities like mine that have a large LDS population.

When a church leader of any stripe makes a public comment they are held up to the standards of that faith for veracity, I would expect no less from the LDS faith.

Greg -

Thanks for the reminder regarding the dialogue... certainly in the sense that it IS a nEw experience in bringing the ability to clarify many misunderstandings as you have noted. Thank you for bringing this eXcellent pOint to light.

Wry -

Something you may or may not be aware of is that President Gordon B. Hinckley was involved in establishing the first publish affairs committee in the church. In fact, this was his primary focus prior to his being called as an Apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.

Am I suggesting that Mr. Otterson is next in line? Certainly not, as many have assisted in these areas. In my opinion, however, I do believe that those currently leading the church would place a high priority on the type of person that would be assigned to this position, as representing the church. I would imagine President Hinckley has some strong direction in these matters?

"For 20 years, he directed all Church public communications..." is how this is stated on lds.org as referencing his experience in the area of public affairs for the church.

I do believe that when Michael Otterson makes a statement here or anywhere else under the position he is employed by the church, he is held to the standards and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.

To suggest anything different than this is to not recognize just how seriously this position is held by not only the membership, but all others who hold him accountable for every word he speaks in behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.

Also, in my remarks I never stated that I was surprised in the decision, etc... What I did say - I used the words pleased with the decision to participate in THIS blog and only posed the idea of wondering why the decision was made as opposed to...? (please read post) I just wanted to clarify... again.

But again, in making these comments, they are mine alone and I do realize this.

Obviously Mayan didn't read ALL of what Wry said. He's too busy trying to say something cute.

Regarding the environment, still waiting for an intelligent comment regarding the issues.

wry,

did you blame mormons for environmental problems? shame on you.

or,

did you say, "That said, I simply find it ridiculous to try and connect that in any way to Mormon doctrine or culture."

thats what i thought. you didnt blame mormons for environmental problems. and, as far as i can tell, you did not blame mormons for the demise of the dodo bird and the tasmanian devil. nor did you blame mormons for the near demise of the blue whale, the rhino with its amazing aphrodisiac horn, and the mountain gorilla.

good job wry. i know how you heretics are, you just blame mormons for everything. or, when you dont blame mormons, you get credit for having done so.

here is to clean air dahlin'.

Living in this world responsibly is something to be admired no matter what your motivations are. It takes more effort to go beyond what you are required to do but the future consequences are worth the sacrifice. People make their own choices about the way that they will live their lives and treat our world. It is not fair to single Utah out as not being environmentally minded. Utah is not simply a "Mormon state". It is made up of people who all have different views and have made different lifestyle choices.

Hi Wry Catcher,

I think you are finding it easy to blame Mormons for environmental problems. The fact is that Utahns are not the sole determiners of what happens to the land in Utah. The federal government asserts its authority often, and many times not in the best interest of Utahns or the environment. The federal government is planning to detonate LARGE explosives in Nevada in the DIvine Strake testing this spring. This may have an extrememly detrimental impact on people living in Utah as well as Nevada. As far as I know, however, these tests are continuing as planned.

Another example of the government pushing for issues against the environment and against the wishes of Utahns is nuclear waste storage.

I refer to a previous statement that I made on this thread.

"I hear the argument often in favor of nuclear energy. But I wonder what you think of the environmental effects of the waste that nuclear energy produces that must be transported and stored somewhere. Many times this waste is stored improperly and causes EXTENSIVE environmental damage (ie the Hanford Nuclear storage site in southwestern Washington state) Much of the current nuclear waste is generated in eastern states that have nowhere to store it for the long term. So it is moved to western states for storage and polluting of our environments here."

The problem with most envrionmentalist that I have run across is that they push their 'issue of the day' and disregard how their agenda effects other environmental issues and people in general.

Even your statements against Utahns and their environmental conscience has too sides. Again -

"I used to live in a place that was rainy but had little land left for land fill. In that place, recycling was facilitated by the government and encouraged by everyone. Now I live in a desert, where water is more scarce and there is lots of land that could be used as land fill. Apparently the process of recycling requires a lot of water. So does that mean that here in the desert we should NOT recycle. We should use our water, a natural resource, more sparingly here, and instead use the land, which is more abundant, for the storage of garbage?"

The issue is far more complex than "I am for the environment and you are not".

In Utah, enmviromentalist are against development of mass transit because of its impact on the land that it will traverse. With this position they are ignoring the possible positive affects that reducing the number of cars on the road will have on the air quality.

I have found that people have dug in their heels for or against issues without really considering ALL the implications of that agenda.

test

To Israel:

"The point to remember is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the tools scientists have at their disposal now [include] vastly more data, incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated mathematical models."

Basically, Israel you are flat out wrong to be throwing doubt on the subject.

Wry,
If you think about it he is probably a very good choice for this blog from the LDS view. He's used to dealing with the public and from his posts is very well spoken. I don't have a problem with it at all.

RTC said:

"...new in the sense that our leaders are interacting openly..."

I have to say, this is simply not the case. Your leaders are not here or interacting at all. Michael Otterson is a public relations director, a *spokesman* for the Corporation of the LDS church, not himself a leader (aka General Authority) of the Mormon faith. He's not clergy, he's a high-ranking employee.

Interestingly, there are nearly 100 panelists at On Faith (nearly a quarter of them women, which is great), and Mr Otterson is the *only* PR person in the whole group. The rest are theologians, authors, professors, or actual members of the clergy. While it's great that the LDS church opted to participate in this forum, they did definitely go a different route in doing so. If this forum is about *faith*, then why send a PR person? It would be more appropriate to have a General Authority here. With all due respect to Mr Otterson, who I'm sure has a prominent and important media relations role for the Corporation of the LDS church, it is my opinion that it would also have been more respectful of this forum and the other panelists as well to have a member of the Mormon clergy (ie, a General Authority) here to discuss religion. In case you haven't read the bios of the other panelists, there are some very prominent experts here, so there are few who would be less busy or important than a Mormon General Authority.

I'm also wondering about your surprise/pleasure that the Mormon church opted to participate here. The Mormons are a part of the American religious landscape - why would they not participate in such a forum?

On the environmental topic, I commend Mr Otterson, and especially his wife, for making such concerted personal efforts to live in an environmentally responsible way. That said, I simply find it ridiculous to try and connect that in any way to Mormon doctrine or culture. Utah, the headquarters of the LDS church and home to a large number of members, is not a leader in environmentalism. It is the home to many (per capita) large trucks and SUVs, ill-advised land use and development policies, and patent disregard, in my opinion, for wilderness areas and conservation efforts. Mormons have, in my experience, a similar attitude in regard to the earth as many other fundamentalist christian religions - 'the earth was given to us by god, so it's ours to use however we want.' I actually wish the Mormon leadership were more encouraging of environmental responsibility, as mormons are keen to do as their leaders counsel, so they could really turn things around in Utah (and other mormon areas) quickly if they wanted to.

Billy bob:
You obviously haven't a clue.
How can i help you?

Hi Joy,

I think you bring up good points. Sometimes on both sides of the ideological divide we blind ourselves to the complexity of these issues.

There are a lot of contingencies to take into consideration when deciding what the best rout is for individuals and government to take. As Latter Day Saints and Christians I think we have a responsibility to really try and understand the science and economics behind these important matters...study it out in our minds if you will. I have yet to do it, and it does prick my consience a bit.

Kristine has a link on her post to a Blog that offers some really interesting information on environmental issues.

I would like to see her respond here to Derrida's latest arguments against her perspective.

I guess if you can't say anything intelligent, then some feel the need to resort to baseless insults.

But on topic, I hope that more people of all faiths choose to consult their conscience when it comes to discussions and practical applications about the environment. I have to say that it takes effort to sort out the truth from the exaggeration about this issue. It seems hard to know the impact of our (meaning humanity's) actions on the environment - negatively and positively.

I know many people who sort of take the tack - "do what you can - better safe than sorry". But even that leaves me baffled at times. I used to live in a place that was rainy but had little land left for land fill. In that place, recycling was facilitated by the government and encouraged by everyone. Now I live in a desert, where water is more scarce and there is lots of land that could be used as land fill. Apparently the process of recycling requires a lot of water. So does that mean that here in the desert we should NOT recycle. We should use our water, a natural resource, more sparingly here, and instead use the land, which is more abundant, for the storage of garbage?

It all becomes a bit perplexing.

Mr. Otterson,

You are to be commended for you and your wifes behaviors to help make the world a better place.
Even if this "global warming" is just another imaginary crises. But I really don't think that we as a nation will make any signifcant cutbacks in any area to do any real long term good. Not unless our leaders do as you have done, lead by example. I just don't see that happening though.

Mr. Otterson wrote:

"More recently, Church president Spencer W. Kimball in the mid-1970s appealed to Church members worldwide not to waste resources, to care for and keep their property productive and beautiful, and to avoid pollution - a condition, he said, that is "intolerable in the sight of the Lord."

I saw that LDS stance in practice. I was in Tonga and Kiribati a few weeks back, and the LDS schools there are very nicely designed to suit the tropics and spanking clean in its environment.

RTC,
Actually the dialog is new. After all how misinformed is the public about your faith? How many people still think polyigamy is the norm and not the execption? How many Colorado City jokes are still out there? You know better than I do all the urban myths that surround your faith and how hard it is to get past them...

This is the first time I've seen LDS leaders step out like this and I'm thrilled.

Director Otterson, there is a very popular Earth Wind and Fire song entitled Keep Your Head to the Sky...it speaks of true faith and finding beauty in it. Right now, my head is in the clouds and I am having some difficulty but I believe I have the gist of your comments. My First new vehicle was a 1982 Honda Civic 3-door hatch. A marvelous piece of engineering, it's body integrity, and the tyranny of the urgent finally caught up to it around 1995 or so. By then I had purchased a 1993 Eagle Vision TSI (Chrysler Product) for several reasons. More room for my children...and the Civic was becoming an embarrasement for them...Safety of course...patriotism...and the fact that Chrysler was trying to come back from the brink of Corporate Extinction. They had actually had a model called the Diplomat which at least Omaha Police Officer had a wheel fall off of. I wrote to Mr. Lee Iococa with a letter entitled Diplomatic Immunity....a line I lifted from the Lethal Weapon Series. Murtha put a bullet in the head of an Aparthied monster....but I digress...We need to do much better. We've known that oil was a problem since the Seventies. I had a High School Counselor named Mr. Thomas who drove a beauty sleek Chevrolet Corvette, Canary Yellow Sting Ray...and he was the envy of my crowd. Nice memories, Power is not a priority/option over economy and safety anymore. As a Nation we need to grow up and put away childish things. If that requires high gasoline taxes to make decision practical, then so be it. When will our leaders start looking out for the best interests of We the People instead of their own selfish wants....because the greedy bastards need for nothing...except maybe a good as....er...correction.
God Bless you and yours Sir. Again, some very honorable class mates of mine were Mormon. If I had not been raised Episcopalian, I might have asked them about joining a Church of Brothers and Sisters who know a thing or two about persecution. Thank you for joing us today Sir.

I would like to make a few additional comments in regards to the decision that I believe, the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints considered in the choice to be a part of this forum at ON FAITH.

Again, this is MY opinion. But I am pleased with my leaders choice in this, as I realize that they could as easily have decided to use our own very functional website at lds.org to create a public blog for this same purpose.

I imagine if they had done this there would have been talk of our staying in our little protective bubble, etc... One can only speculate on this outcome?

Instead, they accepted the invitation of what would most likely be, and has been a "frying pan" experience for the church and their members, as well as a literal public "microscope" for any and all of what an individual chooses to post in opposition to the church.

Is this dialogue new? Of course not. But new in the sense that our leaders are interacting openly, assisting their members in creating positive relations which I believe are to help others understand The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.

Whatever dialogue takes place here in these threads that involves The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, in my opinion, although a part of a larger forum of ON FAITH... I am confident due to these reasons would need to reflect these types of dialogues between individuals participating.

I wanted to emphasize in this RE-CLARIFICATION of my comments, CREDIT to the LEADERS of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints for their bold move in accepting and making a decision to be a part of such a public forum, and making available this opportunity to ME as a member for my voice to be heard and to learn and understand others. It has been a great experience.

I want to thank Brother Otterson as well for his comments on each thread that have personally as well as for the church given beautiful representation of the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.

I feel I must again state that these are my personal opinions of this forum in relation to the lds church.

Personally I am thrilled that someone from the LDS has a voice here online. It's a good way to learn more about that particular faith without trying to figure out if it's genuine or not.

Keep it up.

Ralph:

Yes, talk about a nonsequitur which almost expresses nothing. Don't get me started on those simple expressions which might convey a sentiment to you, but which really are trite, emotional declarations without true meaning any more.

Derrida

A simple declaration does not make it so.

I know the church is true.

Please excuse me, but I must respond to a comment made in a recent post I made, which was not on topic.

I posed the question to another poster asking if they had ever wondered as I had... "Why the Church had made available this forum for our voices to be heard as members of the Church"? I expressed a feeling of accountablility for my words in the process.

I also made a comment in regards to the fact that there are other places individuals may go to discuss the church for whatever reasons and acquire information.

I am posting THIS RESPONSE as I feel that my words have been taken to mean something completely negative and I would like to make a general CLARIFICATION, as to not offend in a personal manner in any way.

Let me first say that I am well aware that this is the Newsweek/Washington Post Hosted Forum and was when making my comment.

As well let me say that this is the first public website - blog, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints has EVER publically announced on lds.org as having someone as an official representative status speaking on their behalf.

Currently if you were to go to the church website you will find on the Newsroom page a story about ON FAITH with a direct link. I do believe this encourages members to have our voices heard?

I do not consider this a playground. In fact, most people that have read my post, I would hope, will know that I am most anxious to understand and learn in all sincerity and hope to continue to do so.

I have stated more than once before in previous post, that if active members of the church were not involved on these threads that I do not feel there would be a reason to have a representative for our church here.

My opinion, else they could go some place else as stated before?

I just wanted to clarify in case a misunderstanding of my words had been taken?

I do think it is important to note that if one is engaged on Mr. Otterson's threads, it is assumed then that they are interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints and speaking with it's members to engage in conversation on various topics.

Is this not a unique experience that has been provided on the part of not only our host here at ON FAITH, but also the Church?

Ralph:

A simple declaration does not make it so.

Game over.

Someone has been using my name and writing things that I have not. My last post was on February 9, 2007 1:17 PM above. Everything after that is someone else's little joke and were NOT posted by me. I was worried this might happen, that is why they should have people sign in to these comments.

In any case, I am not going to respond to this topic anymore, because some childish person has been posing as me and has completely hijacked this discussion. My previous posts are sufficient on this subject.

Mr. Otterson, thank you for your cooperation with this "On Faith" series. I think you are spot on with everything I've read thus far. If possible, please delete all the "Israel" writings posted after February 9th, 2007 after 1:17 PM. Implementing a registration system would help solve this problem too.

Thanks.

Derrida

Your application of doctrines and rhetoric is so simplistic and naive, no sane adult can believe them.

That is ridiculous. There are many simplistic and naive sane adults in the Mormon Church. Look around Derrida, get real, and stop foaming at the mouth.

Israel:

Your application of doctrines and rhetoric is so simplistic and naive, no sane adult can believe them.

You posit a false dichotomy which I fundamentally reject. As you are either completely naive as to proper construction of the dynamics involved or intentionally distortive, it therefore makes no sense to debate an ideological demagogue.

Joy:

I agree. Israel is monopolizing to mock LDS and to ridicule them.

Israel:

Benson's politics were not spoken while he was prophet, seer and revelator, that is all. Therefore, I give his radical politics no credence.

He was Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Education or Interior. I actually forget which. But he was shipped off to cool down.

If you understand the internal workings of the Quorum, then your words are shrill and mock the Church. If you don't understand them, then study and understand before you mouth off.

And answer Joy's question: What does your radical, divisive BS have to do with environmental issues? Nothing.

Environmentalism has nothing to do with socialism. Get on topic! Nobody here believes you are actually LDS, but rather your are an apostate ridiculing the LDS. New tactic, same ole, same ole.

Other than the political debate surrounding climate change, what are in your mind the gripping environmental issues? Alternative fuel sources? Securing existing fuel sources? What?

Does anyone have anything else to say about the ENVIRONMENT and RELIGION?

Derrida:

I'll stop if you can provide me one, only one, quote from a prophet, seer, and revelator that contradicts what ET Benson said about socialism, communism, and the agenda those who believe in those two -isms have for America.

Seeing as how Bro Benson was called to be our Prophet, I'd prefer to see quotes from someone else who was raised to that position.

Either these men spoke, and speak, as if by the voice of the Lord or they don't. It doesn't matter if their opinions embarrass me, or make me look silly in front of my friends, or aren't popular or cool. To give in and mock, as some seem to be doing, is nothing less than "trusting in the arm of flesh".

"Do you ever wonder why the Church has made this forum available for our voices to be heard? There are many other places that non-members, etc... can go and discuss their issues regarding the church if they choose or to simply learn the basics.

I think about it often and wonder my accountability? Will I answer someday?

I imagine the expectation to be worthy..."

Sigh. RTC this is very sad to me. Look, the church did NOT make this forum available to members so that your voices could be heard. This was started by the Washington Post is owned, operated and moderated by the Washington Post. It is not your private playground. Do you have ANY idea where it is you're posting? If you have not already done so I suggest you go up and click on the link entitled "About On Faith." Part of what you will read there is this:

"And so, in a time of extremism -- for extremism is to the 21st century what totalitarianism was to the 20th -- how can people engage in a conversation about faith and its implications in a way that sheds light rather than generates heat? At The Washington Post and Newsweek, we believe the first step is conversation-intelligent, informed, eclectic, respectful conversation-among specialists and generalists who devote a good part of their lives to understanding and delineating religion's influence on the life of the world. The point of our new online religion feature is to provide a forum for such sane and spirited talk, drawing on a remarkable panel of distinguished figures from the academy, the faith traditions, and journalism. Members of the group will weigh in on a question posed at least once a week, perhaps sometimes more often, depending on the flow of the news. We encourage readers to join the conversation by commenting on what our panelists have to say, offering their own opinions and suggesting topics for future discussions.

From the nature of evil to religious reformation, from the morality of fetal stem-cell research to the history of scripture, from how to raise kids in multi-faith households to the place of gays in traditional churches -- of the asking of questions, to paraphrase Ecclesiastes, there shall be no end. We think that the online world, with its limitless space, offers us a unique opportunity to carry on a fruitful, intriguing, and above all constructive conversation about the things that matter most."

Then go up and click on the link entitled "All On Faith Panelists." There are many of them. Some of them are world figures in religion and religious studies--Desmond Tutu, Elaine Pagels, Karen Armstrong and John Shelby Sprong, just to name a few. There are conversations going on about many topics from many perspectives all over this site. Are you aware of this? You do not seem to be and, honestly, I am embarrassed for you.

This IS, whether you realize it or not, one of those "many other places that non-members, etc... [I love how you can't even bring yourself to say the word 'former Mormons'] can go and discuss their issues regarding the church if they choose or to simply learn the basics." There are many places YOU can go where you can be protected from contrary opinions and experiences, where you can engage in, as Derrida put it "polite, hagiographic descriptions at a superficial level."

Mr. Otterson was no doubt either invited personally or given an assignment by the church at the Post's invitation to blog on this Washington Post/Newsweek site. The church has provided nothing here. If they had declined either the church would have had no participation or the Post would have found someone knowledgeable about Mormonism who would have been willing to be on the panel.

This is the free market of ideas in a very real and literal sense. This is not early morning seminary.

They are talking about us over here. The topic is DAMU Trolls. What does DAMU mean?

http://www.thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?t=1398&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Israel:

If you are LDS, which I doubt, you make a mockery of what the principles for which it stands. We don't need disbelievers mocking ourselves as we do a good enough job ourselves.

If you truly believe the missmatch of what you believe (which I find dubious), then please seek the help of your bishop for you are sorely confused, and understand not that which you read or post. You may continue to parse and to quote out of context matters for which you have no understanding, but please stop before you do more harm.

Karl:

He might not have authored it, but given the current state of affairs with our nation being, for all intents and purposes, socialist, he might as well have. For that matter, you might have authored it too, seeing as how badly its inspired words have been misinterpreted and twisted to fit the communist agenda.

Derrida:

I've stated the views of prophets, seers, and revelators. I've quoted from a living apostle on the dangers of straying too far from those men and their divine counsel.

I'm sorry if the truth offends, or if their warnings are an embarrassment for "modern" and "progressive" so-called Latter-Day Saints, but they are what they are.

Do with them, make of them what you will, but they are there. For now, they are a silent witness against the tares sown amongst the wheat, but the day will come when they will speak with the voice of thunder.

Hi Kristine,

I am interested in your opinion about nuclear energy. You mentioned before that this source of energy should be more fully developed. I am assuming you hold this opinion because other sources of energy - ie fossil fuels- contribute to the greenhouse emissions that you postulate are the cause of global climate change.

I hear this agrument often in favor of nuclear energy. But I wonder what you think of the environmental effects of the waste that nuclear energy produces that must be transported and stored somewhere. Many times this waste is stored improperly and causes EXTENSIVE environmental damage (ie the Hanford Nuclear storage site in southwestern Washington state) Much of the current nuclear waste is generated in eastern states that have nowhere to store it for the long term. So it is moved to western states for storage and polluting of our environments here.

As far as I am concerned this is just one illustration of the reason that many people find the enviromental 'movement' hard to swallow - most politicians and policy makers work in their own self interest or the self interest of their constituents. They ignore the enviromental effects and the economic effects on others. I am not sure that this can be said of scientists in this field, but it does make me wonder. Isn't everyone just working to further their own agenda?

How are we doing at balancing environment and economics? Are their people in positions of power who really do understand the implications of all of the pieces in the puzzle?

Thus sayeth Israel:

"People have been so brainwashed in these areas that they just vomit what they've been told by the media or from their academic experience. They don't even understand the Constitution or the proper role of government. America is very much a socialist country today. And all of these ideas can be traced back to the authors, including Jaques Derrida, like a mentioned above."

I've been so focused in on the class struggle and dialectic and global warming and all that I haven't paid much attention to American political history. But I'm pretty sure Jacques Derrida did not author your Constitution. He may have deconstructed it, but he didn't author it.

Israel:

A bad joke carried too far is no longer humerous.

The Church is not racist, though it may possess racist members, the Church does not espouse political platforms, and the Church pronounces many useful principles.

Even though you may find your shtick hilarious, its humor has peaked and is quickly waning.

Are you of the belief that we as human beings should have no conscience as to matters of the environment?

What does the parody of John Birch manuels say?

Members may differ as to what meaningful environmentalism is and how it should be defined or regulated, but any reasonable human being must share some concern for the environment. One of the questions simply involves the place on the priority list. For many insular LDS, it is probably not very high.

I submit those insular feelings are in part cultural and are not doctrinal. An isolated folk in the Rocky Mountains struggling to survive will not see the same need as urban folk in the industrial centers of the world.

Interestingly, for some agnostics, inate religious concepts are exchanged for environmental concerns above all.

On the flip side, it sure seems that those who are first and foremost environmentalist unnecessarily dismiss those with primary economic concerns as unconcerned with the environment. This is a false dichotomy. Nonetheless, the debate and future debates are important so as no perspective of legitimate weight is left aunattended.

To the extent anybody shares the parodied, or less than parodied view of Israel, I'm not certain how anybody could legitimately frame a debate that environmental concerns are necessarily a sign of an economic system of French or Soviet socialism. Adam Smith was certainly no inate or covert socialist.

Comrade Derrida croaked:
"Thank you for the continued pharisaic declarations, elevating your own righteousness above all others."

Don't mention it, I'm always happy to show others the error of their ways.

Continuing, he snarled, between puffs on his Gaulloises:
"I can place this game and I'm not as nice as John".

But, like a good Frenchman, you'll surrender sooner rather than later, n'est-ce pas?

Will the real Mormon stand up? Certainly, I'm now standing, and typing at the same time, no mean feat that.

Would Elder Jeffrey Holland be Mormon enough for you? From his April 2003 (hope that's not the too distant past for some of you who seem to think revelation has a short shelf-life) conference talk--"A Prayer for the Children":

"In this I speak carefully and lovingly to any of the adults of the Church, parents or otherwise, who may be given to cynicism or skepticism, who in matters of whole-souled devotion always seem to hang back a little, who at the Church’s doctrinal campsite always like to pitch their tents out on the periphery of religious faith. To all such—whom we do love and wish were more comfortable camping nearer to us—I say, please be aware that the full price to be paid for such a stance does not always come due in your lifetime. No, sadly, some elements of this can be a kind of profligate national debt, with payments coming out of your children’s and grandchildren’s pockets in far more expensive ways than you ever intended it to be.

"..no child in this Church should be left with uncertainty about his or her parents’ devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Restoration of His Church, and the reality of living prophets and apostles who, now as in earlier days, lead that Church according to “the will of the Lord, . . . the mind of the Lord, . . . the word of the Lord, . . . and the power of God unto salvation.”4

"In such basic matters of faith, prophets do not apologize for requesting unity, indeed conformity, in the eloquent sense that the Prophet Joseph Smith used that latter word."

"Parents simply cannot flirt with skepticism or cynicism, then be surprised when their children expand that flirtation into full-blown romance.”

How many of you see yourselves in Elder Holland's words? Moderates, you call yourselves, I and Elder Holland prefer to call you edge-campers.

Don't be surprised when your kids come home with blue shirts, three earrings, and wear flip-flops to Sacrament Meeting.

Pretty soon they'll have girlfriends of other races and cultures, and before you know it, you'll have to visit your grandkids at the Gay Parade in Frisco.

Yockel:

I find him hilarious.

Thank you for the continued pharisaic declarations, elevating your own righteousness above all others.

I can place this game and I'm not as nice as John:

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is aangry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be ein danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

NRSV version:

22But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,* you will be liable to judgement; and if you insult* a brother or sister,* you will be liable to the council; and if you say, “You fool”, you will be liable to the hell* of fire.

Will the real Mormon please stand up.

I suspect that Israel is a spoof. To be fair, initially he presented a pretty accurate image of a John Birch Mormon. The last few posts, however, indicate that someone is having a grand old time playing with Derrida and John the First.

Monsieur Derrida:

Fools laugh, but idiots laugh louder. Just because I have the cajones to follow Prophets, doesn't make me a joke.

Somehow I think more fearless John Birchers will make it to the celestial kingdom than will tree-hugging, lint-headed, crypto-Commie associates of LDS for Social Justice.

John:

Is Israel your shill? This guy is hilarious.

RTC:

If my posts appear to place me above anybody, then that is misperceived.

In reality, I'd prefer to say, I look on the sidelines, trying to examine the very essence of what is said, and in a very literal, yet metaphysical sense, what is known.

In the multidimensional world in which we operate, nobody is above, below, just at different latitudes and longitudes. Some operate gladly along the equator, others south or north, and yet others gladly traverse all directions.

One more thing; I'd like to thank Brother Otterson for this little experiment, an experiment that is very quickly separating the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the tares, the Zoramites from the Nephites.

Leaving aside the Zoological Invasion from threads past--Elephants and Vultures and Belajas and whatnot--Bro Otterson's questions force the participating Latter Day Saints to state their allegiances and take a stand.

Many who call themselves Saints quickly run from their past leaders. Perhaps they should consider that someday, in the very near future, those leaders who aren't dead but rather exercising their priesthood in another realm, just might run from and deny them.

Guys or Gals:

I believe Israel is just mocking us, because his latest post represents such a caricature of LDS doctrine, he's now saying, "Gotcha!"

I went away, and after several hours of prayer, the Spirit has testified to me that me earlier comments were spot-on, and are in fact God's words to you all.

No moderates but Moderate Apostates.

With the Brethren or against Them, no middle ground, no compromise. In this final battle between Good and Evil, those who choose not to decide have made a choice, a choice for Evil.

Derrida -

LOLOL I think I hear you. Yes I know what you are saying here. My wonderful son-in-law is an adorable scholar as yourself and is helping me to understand this very thing.

I truly am enjoying the learning process. This forum is a wonderful opportunity for this to happen for many. You are a teacher here if you choose to be. I will continue to read the blogs and learn from you and others. Just don't make it too difficult.

You have a good heart. I can tell.

Derrida-

Your point is a valid one, nevertheless, you separate yourself from your own and place yourself above another. That is offensive, I must admit.

I believe we can do much better than what has been observed here today. Should we not lift? Can we not teach? Are we not to build the Kingdom and strengthen the weak?

Is our purpose here to aggrandize the self?

Do you ever wonder why the Church has made this forum available for our voices to be heard? There are many other places that non-members, etc... can go and discuss their issues regarding the church if they choose or to simply learn the basics.

I think about it often and wonder my accountability? Will I answer someday?

I imagine the expectation to be worthy...

RTC:

final note, I am no more intellectual than the next schmuck, but at least I endeavor to wander outside my comfort zone to familiarize myself with other dialects and cultures of speech.

So much miscommunication results from the speakers and listeners not realizing they are not speaking the same language. People tend to speak in a stream, not realizing they are transcending peaks and valleys subcultures assuming that all concepts are the same. Because Mormonism has been a confluence, of nineteenth century Great Awakening, couple gnostic influences and new thought, and then fought but lost to Victorian attitudes during the late nineteenth century, LDS tend to ignore the origins of the discussions which we have. They therefore inartfully state what the intent of the speakers of past generations confronted and attempted to convey.

Unfortunately for us, a bulk of own are left in the wake of fundamental reductism, coupled with Victorian repression which bears with it objectification of women and things, ignoring the cognitive realities of processes and phenomenolgy.

It's late. In short, none of this intended to be didactic, but rather to force more questions and to rely upon no assumptions.

RTC:

The rhetoric of our own is embarrassing to be so reductionist. It is evident that many of our own who sound off on politics and esoteric matters do so authoritatively, yet naively and in an uninformed manner.

If one can only converse in the rhetoric of Church, keep it in the Church. If one desires public discourse, then resort to the language of the medium. This is not Church but a public forum, where misunderstandings abound. Many LDS seem less willing to translate their cultural aspects of language into a less didactic approach, instead of engaging in the dialetic of reason and faith a la Walter Benjamin.

If it offends you, the I apologize. Although I mean no harm, the terminology and lack of understanding of the various streams of language which soembody such as Israel plods through without even comprehending upon what he treads is irritating and misrepresents true LDS epistomology and how our theology relates to other aspects of human culture.

Whenever an issue becomes political I doubt the clarion calls.

The problem with global warming is that this type of science is based on massive quantities of data and involves complex interactions of a large number of parameters. And it relies heavily on forecasting, which is an inexact science at best and is based on computer models. These models are highly complex and are quite sensitive to input data and to assumptions made in the derivation of the governing equations. Long-term climate models require massive amounts of memory and computational power and therefore require supercomputers. This high cost of execution makes it difficult to perform stochastic (i.e., Monte Carlo) and sensitivity analyses which are critical to ascertaining the reliability of the model or the probability of the outcomes. Hence, you will NEVER see a consensus among the researchers regarding long-term forecasts or the relative influence of the each of the parameters involved. So it is rather simple for anyone (on either side) with an agenda to cherry pick the data and find a study or a quote to back up almost any argument.

A better strategy is to assess the consensus of the scientific community as a whole. There have been some fascinating studies recently showing that while individual computer models have a high degree of variation, the "average" model or prediction is usually quite accurate. So the real question is, what is the overall consensus of the scientific community on this issue?

I imagine you will conclude that a consensus is that man is a significant contributor to the global warming effect. I have even read recent snippets of the recent declarations. I remain unconvinced that we know what the principal causes are and that we can perform these stochastic analyses. In light of the marginal, unknown benefit, massive amounts of economic burdens appear unreasonable. Should changes be made? The science is far from determinative for the reasons stated above.

If marginal income and market forces can be brought to bear to pay for changes that potentially affect a reduction in greenhouse gases, then perhaps I could be convinced. But given the political aspirations of the funding mechanisms for the climatologists, I remain skeptical.

by 90% of the scientific community I should probably specify "those of us who study climate change."

Israel -

Welcome to the gathering! I am a bit concerned in your lashing of the Noble John D. (also anonymous) Lest I too receive rebuke, or be considered a complete idiot, I will sound off just slightly...

I am simply chiming in because I have seen how easy, on these blogs, quick assumptions of others intentions can be made. (guilty am I) Generally JD has been a great defender of the faith. I am not well versed in that which you speak politically, but his character in testifying in these forums has been stellar.

On his comments regarding the prophets... I did not notice him state anything that would undermine them in anyway? He did in my opinion infer that the brethren counseled one another to curb there enthusiasm a bit, but no differing of opinions or criticism or dissent did I hear.

In other words, what I believe JD was pointing out was the fact that the brethren themselves most often try to maintain neutrality in politics as they counsel the membership of the church.

By JD stating the Lord had not spoken on this issue, I believe that he was meaning that the brethren do not hold our membership in question based on our political positions. (no official statements made)

This is a VERY important point, as this has been questioned? Please recognize what you say when you take this position.

If ever the church were to take a position like unto what you suggest... things would be very different in the kingdom my friend.

There is much room as it now stands for "mormon political moderates" to get along and love one another.

Also -

As for myself, I love the prophets and esteem as scripture that of our current living prophet, as well as all those we sustain as prophet, seers and revelators.

But I also give great credence to those who have lived and spoken in those same positions of the past -- with the understanding of added/current light, application and authority being given to those of the living prophets.

As a church we are so blessed to have such an outpouring of truth and knowledge.

Derrida - Why do you make such divisive and didactic statements to one of our own? This saddens me. We are all not so intellectual as thee. Then, maybe if thou were able to be entreated more easily, you would find others of lesser abilities to be quite engaging?

Derrida: For example, Kristine makes an assumption that the theories and modelling of climate change as represented through the Kyoto Accords are sound and that human involvement in "greenhouse CO2" gases are the primary causes of climate change. Additionally, this discussion ignores many other concerns of economic efficiency and the ability to affect climate change.

Why yes, I do make the "assumption" that current climate models are correct. In fact, so does upwards of 90% of the scientific community. I've looked at the data, I've looked at the models, and I've come to the conclusions that follow most logically from our observations: that our climate is warming and that it is a result of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. This is not an opinion. It is well-supported scientific inference.

My opinions I tried to distinguish above. I am not sure what the best approach to global warming is, though I do think it would be foolhardy to do nothing. I would like to point out that I (unlike you) asked a question about the economics of different responses to climate change. From your comments I surmise you believe any money put toward cutting CO2 emissions or preemptively adapting to expected results of climate change is money down the drain. Is that an opinion based on having looked at evidence and models and formed an opinion based on that, or do your opinions merely reflect the rhetoric you find most appealing?

Israel,

I respect your right to beleive as you do and your passion for translating your morality into politics but Brother Israel, can you not see that there are gospel principles upheld in both democratic and republican platforms as the first presidency stated in a recent letter read in sacrament meeting.

I believe President Bensen was a prophet and if he were here, I imagine he would tell us all to sustain and follow the guidance of the current prophet.

Gordon B. Hinckley has not declared a more conservative G-O-P as next to G-O-D but rather has tried to difuse such notions and encourage participation in both parties. In this context, calling others apostates for following his counsel seems to me unwarrented.

Israel what if President Faust becomes the next prophet? Will you sustain him?

He is a democrate you know...

Believing Skeptic:

The frustrating aspect is that many persons do not understand protocol in discussing differences of opinion.

Frequently, one will note that a difference of opinion challenges the very being of a poster to the extent that the poster senses a need to pull out a trump card, "you don't believe in God because his leaders said so." It's the authority card, i.e., my opinion matters more because I can back it up with a parsed quote from some authority. Even if such authoritative quote is taken out context of time and circumstances. Moreover, few members really understand when leaders are acting in an inspired capacity and when they are doing their best to use their own reason and intellect.

Nonetheless, until LDS come out of their collective coocoons, we will witness what is already societally difficult, and not be able to participate civilly in discussions where differences of opinion are inevitable.

Let me also say that, despite my ocassional needling, my quarrel has always been with LDS doctrine, and not church members themselves. It would be very difficult to find a more civil and decent group of people anywhere on this planet than Mormons are, on balance.

I continue to be...amazed is not the right word...perhaps disappointed...that these forums always end in shouting matches insulting one anothers' character and competence. It reminds me a bit of church basketball, but that's another story for another blog.

If you recall...after coming so far afield from the original topic...the question was about the relationship of religion to environmental care. Any topic seems to spiral downward into a pissing match over whether the Mormon Church is political or not. Or whether anyone can believe what the church says about its political position. As in all matters, no one has the "power to convert" anyone else...either to spiritual matters or what one believes about a church's level of honesty.

But it's interesting that in just the last few days, if you ever check the LDS website lds.org, there is a new and updated "newsroom" site (www.newsroom.lds.org) which, among other things, gives a clear indication of what the church...at least "officially"...says about politics.

I really do appreciate the posts that all of you "regulars" to this site submit, but I do wish that there could be more civility. Surely we can disagree without being so disagreeable. And I think this applies to those who list themselves as active church members as well as those who have left the church. I, for one, am very interested in what former Mormons have to say...and I understand that it often comes with a lot of anger and frustration and disappointment...but I still care and value what you have to say.

Now about that environmental issue...

Further reflection:

"There are no 'Mormon Moderates.' Only 'Moderate Apostates.'

Substitute the word "Muslim" for "Mormon" and this quote rests comfortably in the mouth of Osama bin Laden.

Anonymouses,

Sorry if I have offended your Mormon sentiment. I am only doing what I feel like the church and the Lord would want me to do: explain and assert the church's political neutrality. The same position that is read in a letter from the First Presidency year in and year out in sacrament meeting.

I will now bid farewell to you all.

JD -
Young one - It appears as though your professors in college carry more weight with you than the collective prophets of God? (except an "official statement")

What I do is what I think church leaders would appreciate, making a distinction between the opinions of church leaders and the official position of the church. An example of this, church statement on Davinci Code:

"The belief that Christ was married has never been official Church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the Church. While it is true that a few Church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, Church doctrine."

I learned to make the distinction between opinion and doctrine in my religion classes at Brigham Young University.

Gentlemen... look whose side of the fence you are on? Is this not a revelation to you both? I think it might "matter"? Some reflection on both of your parts may be in order....

It is not necessary to apologize for those who have been called as prophets of God. Those who take this liberty find themselves in gray territory and must question which side of the fence they appear?

Please do not assume that we as members of the church do not have thinking minds of our own. We are not given our political views. We embrace truth as we receive it... not as it is fed to us.

I can't imagine that the Lord needs a PR committee here on His behalf?

I am so grateful for prophets upon the earth, who speak eternal truths. At times they speak so bold that some become a little uncomfortable...

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints it is very clear to me that we are a people that understand that we are to prepare ourselves in every way to understand and abide as much as possible, even now, "The Law of Consecration".

Also as an individual American, I have the right to vote my conscience according to that which I deem to be moral and logical.

If ye are not one, ye are not mine...

Pheadrus,

From my experience that attitude in the church is very much the minority. I was shocked by that statement. I've never in all my days heard such an extreme position from a church member.

Most Latter Day Saints I know are very open and inclusive when it comes to different political opinions. I hope some day you give the church another chance.

Ah yes, I remember now:

"There are no 'Mormon Moderates.' Only 'Moderate Apostates.' Either you accept President Benson, and other of the Brethren as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, or you do not."

Thank you for reminding me why I left the church!

And John D. the First: I appreciate your knowledge and the even-ness with which you deliver it. Salud, sir.

John:

Your recent post was more deft and kind than mine. Kudos to you.

And yes, when ignorant speech is heralded as truth, especially when couched as the words of the "Lord", somebody should clarify so that the uninformed are not deceived.

Doesn't Matter:

Vigorous discussion is healthy and at the root of how many persons engage in epistomological discovery.

It seems many LDS are unable to shift the language of their discussions depending upon the venue.

It is odd that you, and others, in discussing an interpretation of environmental awareness and concern, revert to religious language but are unable or unwilling to translate into political, or scientific language. This is not Sunday School, where we need to engage in polite, hagiographic descriptions at a superficial level.

Ad hominem reasoning will reveal itself for what it is.

John:

It appears our friend is a religious fundamentalist, who will not enjoy a discussion in which any differences or ambiguity is tolerated. Once somebody trots out the trumpf card of Benson politics, you've probably heard all you need to hear.

Doesn't Matter,

I agree with the substance of your post, though I wish it was not so insulting and condescending.

I have no agenda, only to have discussion about *personal opinions.* What I think all members should object to is when personal opinions are equated with the position of the church and people who disagree are called apostates.

Should we remain silent when such misrepresentations are made in such a public place?

I am embarresed as a member of the church to see fellow members arguing about what was otherwise a simple and well rounded article. I think we should be ashamed to be representing the Lord's restored gospel if we only continue to have ill feelings on others personal opinions. As my mother always remimded me... Love one Another. How simple and beautiful. You have turned a simple mans words [otterson] and dragged them through the mud. Remember Christs admonishons to becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love...[Mosiah 3:19]. Maybe we can humble ourselves enough to take Mr. Ottersons article at face value and desist with bringing political agendas to the table and embarrasing the Church as a whole. You sound worse that a bunch of cackleing hens. Leave well enough alone.

"There are no 'Mormon Moderates.' Only 'Moderate Apostates.'"

Israel,

I think you just sunk your own ship. You've given anyone reading these posts who's not a Barry Goldwater conservative the impression that they are not welcome in the church. You’re doing the job of anti-Mormons and church detractors much more effectively than any of them can.

This is one time I wish Otterson would come in and clarify the church position. Have you been listening to the letters read in sacrament meeting? Are you not aware that a great number, if not majority of church leaders are moderates?

Please let your political positions stand on their own two feet. Don’t bring the Lord into this.

According to Adam Smith, markets aggregate self-interest to the common interest if economic actors reap the rewards and pay the costs of their actions. If you want a market economy, Israel, then that implies that polluters have to pay for the costs of their actions.

If I spray painted your house then I would be responsible for the costs. The same logic applies to the power plant down the road that damages my house, corrodes my car, damages the health of my children, and contributes to acid rain and global warming.

Capitalism does not mean anything goes. It is a philosophy of responsibility. Insofar as economic actors are allowed to pollute without consequences, it's a failure of our government and markets. The government has a responsibility to structure markets such that polluters pay for the costs of their actions. Otherwise there is only theft, not markets.

As for religion, of course, we are responsible for God's creation. Jesus said so in the parable of the talents. Too few of us Mormons have realized that but there has been some leadership. For example, Hugh Nibely spoke about the preservation of the creation at BYU devotionals.

Frist,

"...But when you try and equate those positions with Gospel truth..."

Isn't that the point?

Anyone who in the least bit favors socialism is in opposition to gospel truth and the position of the Church. This is very plain and simple if you read the words of the prophets.

Derrida,

"...opinions of dead prophets on matters political are marginal import to me..."

Well they should be. Their words were not just 'personal' they were delivered to the whole church, many times, in General Conference.

There are no 'Mormon Moderates.' Only 'Moderate Apostates.' Either you accept President Benson, and other of the Brethren as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, or you do not. Their words, are not to be ranked on some range of conservative to liberal gauge.

You are very incorrect here. And the Church does not encourage its members to support totalitarian regimes! What kind of garbage is that? Read D&C 134.

Many of the LDS members' posts in this forum prove my points perfectly...

John:

Thanks,

Armand Mauss is very great read.

As the Church grows more global, very little political speech will ever emanate from HQ, as is proper.

Hi Israel,

President Benson gave that talk before he was the Prophet.

David O. McKay and Spencer W. Kimball were very concerned that President Benson was so vocal on political issues while acting in his ecclesiastical role.

McKay would often arrange for Huge B. Brown to speak his political views, to balance out Benson. (See Angel and the Beehive, by Armand Mauss)

President Kimball, while Prophet, told Elder Benson to stop speaking on divisive political issues.

(See the Biography, Standing a Little Taller).

You will find that when Benson became Prophet he followed this counsel.

You may express your political opinion, but the Lord has not spoken on this subject, please do not speak for Him.

Israel:

As a counterpoint to anything Benson, I urge you to read David O. McKay, The Rise of Modern Mormonism. It's an excellent insight into his life and how the upper councils function.

Israel:

The personal opinions of dead prophets on matters political are marginal import to me, except insofar as they provide enlightened reasoning.

Benson's politics were an embarrassment for McKay and Brown and other moderates. Last time I looked, none of those works are canon in the Church, thank goodness.

Frist,

"What's wrong with a little socialism?" this was a question asked by President Benson (the Prophet) in his "Proper Role of Government" talk. Maybe you should read up on that. And while you're at it, look up, Marion G. Romney's views on it too. You might want to utilize the search function on the church's website and plug in "socialism" or "communism" and similar...you will be provided with several of the brethren expounding on these issues in conference talks, etc.

And you will find 'the decision' is very easy to identify.

Derrida,

I don’t really know much about environmental political matters, I will not take a position until I have time to study it. I am not affiliated with any party. I lament however the lack of political diversity in the church.

Israel,

Your statement undermines the efforts of church leadership to create greater political diversity among its ranks. It’s one thing to argue for your political positions, that’s fine. But when you try and equate those positions with Gospel truth, you go against the counsel of the very people you claim are on your side.

Is the decision between socialism and capitalism? That’s a very limiting dichotomy. How about the mixed economies that we see in virtually all successful, developed countries, including the U.S.?

Derrida:

Wrong.

Israel:

Some of your comments regarding the ecological debate represent an accurate assessment of concerns legitimately held by members of various faiths, including ours.

Your comments regarding forms of government and the opinions of select leaders are misplaced.

For example, the Church exists and encourages members to support the governments in even totalitarian regimes.

And the words of Benson were often softened by McKay or Hugh B. Brown neither of which shared Benson's strident views. It would make more sense to limit the political discussion of those leaders to the opinions of men.

Frist,

I don't remember stating that I was LDS. But you are correct, I am. Best choice of my life. I too, am a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Member or not, though, I doubt 'Derrida' is a family name. I only cited his handle to underscore the type of thinking that is prevalent in all debates today, the socialist trend that is raised whenever the 'ecology question' is brought up is just another example, and that was my point.

The circus around global warming is nothing more than one more of these attempts to conquer countries, without firing a shot. These proponents would love if there were no borders, just some 'international community' with the UN or some similar body, as the supreme government, dictating how the world should operate. This is all socialist dogma and it is the real threat the American people face today. Republican or Democrat, they are all socialists, they vary only in degree.

People have been so brainwashed in these areas that they just vomit what they've been told by the media or from their academic experience. They don't even understand the Constitution or the proper role of government. America is very much a socialist country today. And all of these ideas can be traced back to the authors, including Jaques Derrida, like a mentioned above.

Socialism is always the end goal for these people. Choose your topic in politics, and there will always be two underlining arguments that every position stems from:

1. Agency (the proper role and plan of the Father) or 2. Force (the plan of Satan, embodied in socialism, fascism, totalitarianism, etc). Remember, the war in heaven, was over these very same positions. The war on earth is the same.

If you don't agree that policy and religion are related, think again. One's views on government, really do, say a lot about your relationship with God and your understanding of his plan for his children.

Read Doctrine and Covenants 134. Read the writings of President Benson, and several other apostles' counsel with regard to government. The prophets and apostles have been VERY clear, yet many members are in fact, ignorant to these topics and chime into debates as complete idiots. These are core gospel principles, yet many LDS members, and Christians, are in fact, socialists.

Kristine and the rest.

Otterson offers an interesting topic, but I wonder how we in our hermeneutical construction apply a religious declaration in a matter that has both personal and political import.

It seems every side will say, "Oh, see, he should support my political view as to what is environmental."

Is that a reasonable way of construing the desire to utilize the earth's resources in an efficient and careful manner?

How clean is clean?

What is a wetland?

Why are wetlands now wetlands when historically they weren't wetlands but only created by man's irrigation?

The list of environmental regulation leaves open many reasonable disagreements, but as some of the questions show, hard core political environmentalists take a different approach than the average middle class consumer who wants a clean environment, but at what cost?

And despite the general agnostisticism of most environmentalism, it is interesting that they was apocalyptic about eschatalogical environmental events.

Israel:

Ad hominem attacks are rather limiting, and the commie label is certain John Bircher reminiscent.

That aside, what in my comments would cause you to find evidences of support for a central control economy, as opposed to free market economics?

Or do you sense any support for totalitarian political regimes in my terse commentary?

Your derisive comments are curious at best.

The environmental discussions are highly polemic, politicized, yet unusually unfruitful.

On one hand, the charitable organization has a duty to render the pathway to personal enlightenment and salvation. That's its primary purpose.

The trouble much of us have in examining debates is the blending, or dialectic of language, common in appearance, yet desparate in real intent and meaning.

For example, when a religious person invokes the absolutist tone of religious dogma, it sets the groundwork that anybody disagreeing or endeavoring to understand it is disagreeable and disobedient, especially for the fundmentalist reductionist types, i.e., those stuck in Cartesian dualism.

However, the environmental debate or polemic is especially difficult in this context is especially difficult, because it has incorporated the autorcratic language of religious authoritanism, the dogma of the environmnental left, without any room to address individual responsibility as opposed to public policy.

For example, Kristine makes an assumption that the theories and modelling of climate change as represented through the Kyoto Accords are sound and that human involvement in "greenhouse CO2" gases are the primary causes of climate change. Additionally, this discussion ignores many other concerns of economic efficiency and the ability to affect climate change.

In the end, my guess is we will have one big polemic, without true inquiry, but one side will shove down a political solution upon the other without solid, validating science.

John D the first,

I assume when you refer to the macro level you are talking about large scale, governmental responses. First, please realize anything I say about what we should do politically is my own personal opinion. I think it is very important for us scientists to produce high-quality, accessible work to help those who make political decisions make well-informed decisions, and then act like everyone else and let politicians do their jobs.

That said, I would say the Kyoto treaty is a good place to start. However, Kyoto is only a start and from the coupled economic and climate models I've seen, it's unlikely to make much of a dent in future global warming. While I disagree with the decision to reject Kyoto, the Bush administration is correct in its criticism that leaving out the developing world is a major flaw.

From what I have read of Kyoto, the cap and trade system that Kyoto employs does not easily accept additional parties (like developing nations) after the initial buy-in. Bill Nordhaus suggests a carbon tax would be easier to administer and could more easily accept the addition of new parties to the treaty, and his modeling suggests that they could be just as effective at encouraging cuts in CO2 and encouraging innovation. The thing is, we've used cap and trade before (that's how we dealt with SO2 emissions) and it works. I'd actually be quite interested to know what economists (other than Nordhaus) think about the potential benefits and drawbacks to either cap and trade or taxes.

I think we need to invest in alternative energy (including nuclear!), and we need to help developing nations skip over the carbon-heavy portions of industrialization. Helping the developing world avoid building the same carbon emitting infrastructure we have (read: coal-fired power plants) is likely the single most effective thing we could do. Even though coal is cleaner than it used to be, clean coal technology is more expensive, which means that technology is harder for developing nations to afford. I'd suggest money collected from either the cap and trade system (if there is any) or from carbon taxes should be spent on helping the developing world.

Why is there such a mean spirit evidenced among those who should be one ... if we believe the Lord's admonition?

It seems the goal of many on this blog is to put down, look down, and just plain get on others for the sake of placing one's own thoughts above anothers.

ISRAEL,

As I recall, your name means "He who struggles / wrestles with God". I'm not sure which of you won that match. Maybe the Devil - How'd he get into the fight?

Dear Israel,

What forum are you reading?

Population control was an issue brought up by one poster.

You seem to be projecting a communist posture to almost everyone here. What is the meaning of this?

BTW the man under the pseudonym Derrida is a faithful Latter Day Saint like yourself, a convert at that, who was willing to provide an exhaustingly long defense of our church a few threads back when no one else would even try.

You may critique what he says and I'm sure he'd engage you, but for goodness sakes, don't call him a commie. It's embarrassing!

A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Israel, we would welcome you in rural China, where you could explain to the benighted peasantry exactly how global warming and environmental controls are part and parcel of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution! Let the capitalists and their running-dogs think they can drive their SUVs and pump chlorofluorocarbons into the air forever! We in the Communist Party have other ideas! Let a hundred flowers bloom!

Oh my, I cannot even believe someone introduced the "population controls" issue. Then after scanning the rest of the comments, I see a handle with homage to "derrida"...completely horrific.

What is next? Is someone going to adopt the name of Althusser, Marx, Lacan, Fish....or some other FREAK that is responsable for the current leftist/socialist thinking warping the minds of the world?

For all of you card-carrying communists out there, how about cracking the big book of history open for more than five minutes. You just might come to the realization that socialism is a complete failure. It always has been, and always, always, yes ALWAYS will be. It will never be the utopia that all the godless murderers like Zedong envisioned. Never, ever. So please stop pushing the nonsense here. WE DON'T BUY IT.

But I have an idea for you if you're completely sold on your old philosophy professor's drivel: You could always set up shop in Venezuela, Cuba, or North Korea, maybe somewhere in rural China would be a terrific place for you. Really.

Oh, and global warming. Please. If you want to keep CO2 emmissions to a minimum, how about starting with yourselves and shutting your mouths. The ecological problems we face will be overcome with innovation and ingenuity. Not by imposing sadistic social theories.

If Mormons would recall that Joseph Smith came from Vermont, the sometime (but probably not now) leader in progressive environmentalism, they might be more inclined to follow that path.

As they travel to J.S.'s birthplace in Sharon, Vermont, they'll observe the spiritual benefits of a beautiful landscape (no billboards in VT, despite the best efforts of capitalist Christians to keep them in place).

The panelist offers a cogent reminder re the role of humans as we engage and deal with mother earth. But the prism of LDS doctrine re conservation or environmentalism - protection of air, water, land and wild critters - is seen by the bulk of the membership in a most placid and apathetic way. Most have little or no connection to or feel a relevance to conservation, environmental or public land matters. Folk continue to be married to autos, yards are covered with grass that gulp water in warmer months and actual effort at conservation is almost nil. Those using or driving ATV's, boats, snowmachine's or other motor driven vehicles often show little or no sensitivity to wildlands or wildlife - a small # do. Stewardship and land use values are twisted in every direction. Utah -home of the mormons - has no wild or scenic rivers; no new wilderness designations in the past two decades; and commerce continually encroaches on wildlife and critter corridors. General pronouncements by "church leaders" re stewardship most ofen fall on deaf ears. Mormons decry those who are reportedly "spiritually deaf" but themselves are berift of or cold hearted when it comes to caring for the environment. Air pollution often rampant, water conservation nearly nil and public land protection almost non existent; this in the land of the mormons. Developers -who embrace religion on sunday - build homes on hillsides and in wetlands, and the Utah Legislature, and elected politicians - a body made largely up of Mormons -plots and plans how to develop, flood and pave wild corridors and bends the supposed stewardship mantle in every direction. Conservation in mormon country takes a big time back seat to development and commerce.In Utah, mormons are in the majority, but caring conservationists that work at and embrace preservation or conservation, well they are a grand minority. Why? because the message - of this panelist - is rarely offered and when it is, the tone and temperment is so soft and still, that when the "members" leave church, they promptly forget the "message", get in their motorised vehicles and dutifully "roar" on with their entrenched habits. Why should a mormon choose to recycle, use public transportation, conserve water, or make an effort at environmental care? The theme of true conservation and respect for resources and critters is simply lost - most just go on with their habits and manners - that's the natural or Republican way, most would say. Still, maybe some? will "see a light or hear a voice" and change course - and conscience or a religious twang? - will lead them in another direction - as more caring stewards of dear mother earth - created by a caring father and mother too).

Shelby:

I don't even know where to start with your post. It reveals naivete as to administration and a fundamentalist reductionist approach.

Administratively, the organization will start at the base and move out as it sees best.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is not confined to certain issues or arena's. Should we be concerned about our stewardship over our planet? Of course. Should we be concerned about abortion or being a good neighbor? Of course. Every issue that presents itself in our vast categories of experience as human beings is of great importance. The Gospel is about becoming that which we need to become, perfecting our characters and our lives in all area's. I believe, however, that certain issues hold greater sway than others in the Lord's eyes. That is why the majority of our members are probably republican. There are just a couple of issues that we feel have more gravity; abortion for example. All in all,if we profess to be God's people we should do our best to live in such a way that our choices reflect Who it is that we are following.

Hi Derrida,

Nice to see you again. I agree with you. I support the behavior of church leadership on the matter. I think sometimes we Latter Day Saints assume silence on a certain issue from church leadership means we do not need to worry about that issue.

That is of course not the case, we are told in the D&C that such an aditude is slothful and not wise.

Various statements from church leadership attempt to drive this point home.

Should the Church engage in politics at all? That is a question of some import.

The Church addresses personal responsibilities first and foremost, and it is generally unwise to take on public issues. It is my expectation that public issues will be debated less and less by leadership, focusing more upon personal issues.

Matters such as human involvement in climate change will only end up dividing, not uniting.

Kristine,

As one who knows much more than me about environmental matters than most of us, what are some examples of macro level interventions that are necessary to address many forseen environmental threats?

I might also point out that the church contributes to development in third world countries by numerous humanitarian projects, and by educating their own through programs like the Perpetual Education Program.

Pheadrus,

Fertility rates among Mormons are not too much higher than that of the general population. Nation wide the birth rate is 1.8. In Utah as of 1998 it was 2.5. A fertility rate of 1.8 is not even enough to maintain continuity in population numbers; which threatens American infrastructure. The Mormon fertility rate in the United States is MUCH lower than that in many developing countries.

It seems that development has a greater influence on population numbers than the value the church places on children.

Over population isn't the only thing to worry about. Currently many are worried about how decreasing population numbers in Africa due to Aids related deaths will hurt the infrastructure that currently supports African social systems.

Addressing the issue of overpopulation - it comes down to personal responsibility and management of resources. As a mother of seven we live in a house half the size of most of my children's friends families (one or two kids). We drive smaller more fuel efficient cars (three cars-five drivers). We live in an area where people make large incomes and the cost of buying a home is far less than most of the country. Many of them have four vehicles along with their play toys with only two or three drivers in the home. We put out less garbage, use less water, electric and natural resources. No amount of legislation and government intervention will make a difference until people are willing to make the long term choices which are best for themselves and others.

Obviously I meant in their work with others in a missionary sense, not the missionary position.

Phaedrus,
I had to chuckle, missionaries are celibate.

Anyhow, this argument about fertility is a huge myopia on the part of the liberal establishment. The fact is that birth rate drops as countries develop because the net gain of having a large family is outweighed by net costs. Living in such a country, I would have to say that having a large family requires some kind of motivation that you are likely never to understand, but the unselfish sacrifice of which demands respect.

If you don't pay attention to anything someone is doing positive and proclaim the most deeply held beliefs as the problem, out of proportion, you are doomed to worsen the problem, not help.

Dave,

I appreciate your pointing out my reference mistake, my memory failed me there. I should have said the D&C as opposed to the BOM, though the D&C is still considered one of the LDS's four inspired works.

"for they are given unto him to multiply & replenish the Earth, according to my Commandment, & to fulfill the promise which was given by my father before the foundation of the world, & for thine exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the Souls of men, for herein is the work of my father Continued, that he may be Glorified." (This is excerpted from the 12 July 1843 revelation of Joseph Smith, which was included in the 1876 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants)

As for being "off-topic," on that I cannot agree. Please correct me if this is wrong, but I have the impression that LDS missionaries still go to lands in which starvation, due in large part to over-population and environmental damage, is problematic. I don't think that they have been given permission to deviate from Joseph Smith's revealed exhortation regarding childbearing as cited here.

Mr. Otterson, thank you for this collection of wonderfully insightful quotes from leaders of the church! Your thoughts are well put.

The problem with "Israel's" negative response to the non-absolute proof of man made global warming is: What if it is caused by us? Because if it is, and we do nothing while we continue to argue about the causes, it will be far too late to stop some rather dramatic consequences. If global warming is not caused by us, surely it can't hurt to cut down on pollution anyway.
As a New Yorker, I would certainly like to cut my chances of coming down with repiratory problems in later life by having cleaner air. Heck, it might even be nice to see the high number of asthma cases here among children decline - whether or not the earth gets any warmer or colder.
Though I imagine that Mr. Israel would probably claim that there is no proof that any of these things are caused by pollution either. Sounds a bit like the old tobacco argument...

I remember being surprised at hearing Gordon B. Hinckley mention Rachael Carson, the author of Silent Spring, in a conference talk and wondering how few people in the congregation understood the reference. I had only just recently learned who she was and the premise of her book that helped launch 'environmentalism'. Up to that moment, I did not know that the LDS church ever spoke on this topic.

I honestly don't think much about these things, and considering what I see in my local congregation, neither do most other Mormons. I appreciate getting to see the quotes that Michael Otterson gathered. It gives me much to think about.

That's a fine summary of pro-environment statements by LDS authorities, Mr. Otterson. There was also President Kimball's "don't shoot the little birds" talk in May 1978 General Conference suggesting hunting for sport raises a moral issue. I'm told those remarks made a real splash at the time.

Phaedrus, "multiply and replenish the earth" is in Genesis, not the Book of Mormon -- if you have to go off-topic AND miscite your reference in order to find something to disagree with, you're trying too hard. If you agree with the substance of the post, why not just say so?

Amen! Thank you for your thoughts. I am both a member of the LDS faith and a paleoclimatolgist (in training) and membership in both of these groups leads me to try to live an environmentally friendly lifestyle as much as I possibly can in this country.

In response to the comment about global cooling, let’s look at the predictions from a couple of decades ago that we were going into another ice age. Multin Milankovic proposed in the 1920’s that cycles in the orbital parameters of eccentricity, obliquity, and axial tilt could explain the recurrence of ice ages. The idea didn’t gain wide acceptance until the 1960’s and 70’s, when higher resolution records from sediment cores were produced. If you look at the ice core temperature record you will notice that in the past temperatures remained low during glacial periods, spiked quickly at the beginning of an interglacial, decreasing slowly for the remainder of the interglacials, and then droped precipitously as the climate system went back into a glaciated state. Based on these observations of the past behavior of Earth’s climate, and the observation that all previous interglacials lasted about 10,000 years or less, we should expect to go into a glacial period soon (the Holocene age began about 11,000 years ago). The instrumental temperature record shows a slight cooling from the 40’s to the 70’s, which many did interpret as a return to ice age conditions. As it turns out, this cooling was caused by sulfur dioxide. When we started limiting SO2 emissions because of concerns about acid rain, we also stopped cooling. Since the 70’s global temperatures have pretty much just increased, as we expect from our understanding of the relationship between CO2 and global temperature.

Global cooling is a hypothesis, but it is a hypothesis that, unlike global warming, has little evidence supporting it and plenty refuting it.

phaedrus,

It is an over-generalization and definitely an over-simplification to say that "overpopluation underlies most of the environmental degradation we see today". There are regions and countries on the earth that are overpopluated for the natural resources at their disposal. Many countries do not responsibly manage the natural resources available to them and have exploited them for their own purposes. Some of these purposes include political corruption and financial gain for a minority of the people. Other countries who contribute to the polution of the earth through industrial endeavors are currently facing a problem with a decreasing population. These countries are putting measures in place to encourage people to have children because future generations will not be sufficient to sustain the countries' economic status and standard of living.

It all gets back to proper management of the earth's natural resources.

As for the Church's PR - the Church has many systems in place to properly manage natural resources. They have also developed crops and food products to be used to help people in underdeveloped countries who are malnourished and lacking in basic human needs. These measures seem to hit at the heart of the human issues related to environmental responsibility far more than the suggestion you made about curbing Mormons 'replenishing of the earth'.

Environmental concerns comprise much of my reasoning for being a moderately liberal Mormon. Many of my friends and family members do not seem to think simple acts of stewadship like recylcing and energy conservation are that important. But for me they are spiritual requirements. Thank you Brother Otterson for the insightful comments regarding the teachings of church leaders about the environment. Hopefully these will help me persuade others of this noble cause.

Human over-population underlies most of the environmental degradation we see today. Mr. Otterson, would you like to tell everyone what the LDS view on controlling population is? Hint: As I recall the BOM admonition is to "multiply and replenish the earth." And, as I recall, it is still the "prophet's" admonition currently. As if the earth required "replinishing" in 2007. Don't you think it is time for one of those convenient "revelations" that this is no longer church policy? It would be a great PR move, and you know how valuable a little PR can be. You could one-up the Catholics on this one!

It would do so much more good than trading in the old Range Rover. But, might hurt those incoming tithes I guess.

I am all for clean water, clean air and keeping the planet beautiful. I am often mesmerized by the beauty the earth has to offer.

I object to the way this issue has become such a political hot-point. Unfortunately rational minds do not always prevail. Many on the right have a knee-jerk reaction whenever the subject of environmentalism is breached. And it seems that many on the left assume that ANY environmental issue is paramount over any other consideration. I also think that sooner or later in the political arena it all comes down to money - on both sides of the issue. It makes me mistrustful of their (meaning the left AND right) agendas and motives.

I think that everyone should be responsible in their own sphere of influence. I recycle, walk whenever possible, have my children walk when ever possible, and try not to waste. But I certainly don't like the idea of lesiglation that forces me to do these things. I do them because of my conscience.

A comment was made above, to the effect, about Global Warming, as though it's something we should all be trying to stop. Just for the record, Climate Change and Global Warming are NOT scientifically related in the sense that they are being caused by industrialized peoples. It has NOT been evident that humans are the cause of this phenomenon. Too often we hear about the Gobal Warming crisis going on. These doomsayers are merely proponents of a much more sinister agenda.

Years ago, some of you will remember, it was Global COOLING that everyone was shreaking over. Yes we should be stewards of the Earth and be mindful of the product cycle and our ecological footprint on the earth. BUT we should do so with facts, NOT guesswork.

Seek out the whole story please! Look the MANY scientists who do not agree with the Global warming consensus before you regurgitate issues:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

As a self-described "liberal," the meaning of which is probably uncertain in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (people often tell me that I'd be a Republican in any other state than Utah), I have always subscribed to the philosophy that we must do a better job of protecting our environment, the limited natural resources of the earth, and the quality of life that such protection helps to ensure us.

But I have never really thought that environmental issues should be a "liberal" or a "conservative" argument. Unfortunately, it has been mostly liberals in the past 35-40 years who have taken up this cause and in so doing, have made it political. If we could lift it out of the political arena for a moment and think about the value of making it a religious issue, [not that this would make it any less controversial!], we might get more buy-in from the "Right," and perhaps there could be more agreement on what it means to "protect the environment."

Mr. Otterson sounds as though he might be something of a "reluctant" environmentalist, but for the dedication of a wise woman in his life who urges him on to make good environmental choices. Still, riding the bus for 10 years and being willing to trudge through the snow to put recyclables into the right bins indicates a pretty strong commitment to the cause, I'd say!

I'm sure others will disagree with my readiness to link "save the planet" efforts to organized religion, but I would say to such detractors that if we care about Earth as a dwelling place, we'll reach out to anyone willing to preach the cause of fresh air, clean water, and unspoiled wilderness for those who follow us to enjoy.

Thanks for an excellent post on a most vital topic!

By the way, since Mr. Otterson is obviously British, I'm sure he's proud of Prince Charles and Camilla, who did their part for the environment when returning to England from the United States last month: they actually flew COMMERCIAL rather than on a Royal Jet. Talk about your commitment! :) If it's good enough for Charles, it's good enough for me!

Bravo, Mr. Otterson! This is a great post. I am so glad to hear that you are recycling and taking the bus to work and trading in your Land Rover. A sincere thank you for doing your part and leading by example.

Sometimes I wonder if the reason it isn't more emphasized in the church has to do with the backlash the membership would give. Big business is big with the LDS. However, I find Brother Otterson's insights in regard to this issue right on the money. The doctrine is there if you but scratch the surface. I appreciated this post.

Personally, I would be happy if Latter Day Saints were more concerned with the environment on the policy level. I think our doctrine and values heavily support such stances. I think so often we become so entrenched in partisanship that we let the political platforms of the Republican Party supersede our values.

In my opinion, we don't hear Mormon church leaders speak with much urgency about the environment or global warming, though they speak with urgency about being kind to others, good neighbors, and good stewards, which I believe are related. The Savior also taught in the parable of the talents that we need to build on, not destroy, what we've been given.

To me, environmentalism isn't as much about single-handedly saving the earth as it is about being good, respectful stewards of what we've been given. Characteristics of wastefulness, excess, ingratitude, and disregard make us ugly on the inside and our earth on the outside. Conversely, gratitude and respect for what we've been given beautify our souls and should naturally lead to respect for God's creations.