- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Recently while assisting family history research at a mid-week class in our ward building, two home teachers showed up to visit another member who was also assisting. One of them knows my family well & asked about my oldest son (who’s left the church). I explained he now works for a non-profit environmental group in Santa Fe. Immediately the other HT called him a “tree hugger.” He dismissed anyone who is concerned with global warming. His take was “Heavenly Father would never allow mankind to damage the earth, He has Celestial plans for the same. I was speechless for a minute. I quietly mentioned Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Love Canal. I mentioned destruction of rain forests, the polluting of rivers and streams. I’d just read that BYU scientists said there is solid evidence that humankind is driving the increase in greenhouse gases. Six billion humans on our pretty planet is a problem, global warming is happening, glaciers are melting.
They (both HTs and the lady they were teaching) would have none of it. Heavenly Father will protect this world. The conversation then turned to “does the second coming of Christ mean all the spirit children who chose his plan in the pre-existence have thus been born?”
Later I did some reading, I learned the denial of global warming is absolutely epidemic in Utah (and apparently in wards elsewhere). What did I learn? I learned as leader of the FH class, HT’s will never interrupt our class again. I also know two brethren who will not be welcome in my home. My “tree hugger” son is amazing. He graduated from St. Johns College in Annapolis, Maryland. He’s concerned about my grandchildren (and yours), not about questions for which there are no answers… Unbelievable!
Another example of the dangerous marriage of the political right and evangelicalism. George wrote:His take was “Heavenly Father would never allow mankind to damage the earth, He has Celestial plans for the same.
Yeah. I agree with that. Problem is this: God seems to fix problems in the past like that with a heavy hand. If people are wicked, and I place destroying the earth and making it uninhabitable in that category, God tends to solve the problem by getting rid of a lot of people…
😥 There’s plenty of room in heaven for them, and HE can keep a better eye on them there.
I tend to doubt “righteous” LDS Members are exempt.
I am constantly amazed at how some people can find comfort in the strangest things. One of my favorite words-Stewardship! My FIL used to call me a tree hugger all the time. I take it as a compliment.
I think there is something wise in The Bible to the lines of “Multiply AND Replenish the Earth .. “. I think our culture has no problem with the multiply part BUT .. You can read the verse as literally saying replenish THE EARTH – Just going off on a limb here. 
BTW saying that God would never “Let” mankind do something is the most ridiculous statement..(cause and effect? free agency?) I hope they smarten up someday .. Yikes! Also I can’t stand when people in a way use God to their advantage. For example not caring about the Earths poor/healthy condition, not helping to replenish the Earth and criticizing other people involved with pro Earth “Green” ambitions..B/C you “Know” God doesn’t “Want or Need you to” is just SOOO OLD.
🙄 Nonsense.Yes, this kind of attitude keeps me wondering about a question I was asked a while back, “can you really be moral without religion?” The more I’ve thought about it, I lean toward the exact opposite thought, “can you really be moral WITH religion?” Some of the basics, such as the example here, are that:
1) if one really believes that there will be an “end” to the earth — soon — then they are much more likely to disregard the care of it today;
2) most religions profess that there are “chosen” people, and secondarily, chosen land for said people. This has led to countless wars and hatred between the people claiming their position and entitlement;
3) when you have the attitude that you are superior to another, because of a proclaimed birthright, can you really be “moral” to another? IOW, can you really live the Golden Rule with that attitude?
(maybe another thread, but it seemed to fit here….)
I am not against progress and development. I am not against the earth being full of people either. I love how others brought up the idea of stewardship. I love that idea. It is morally wrong IMO to be wasteful and/or glutinous. We could easily take care of the massive number of people on the earth today, and we don’t have to ruin this beautiful place either. The earth is here for us to exist and to enjoy life, and the beauty of this experience. Rix wrote:I was asked a while back, “can you really be moral without religion?” The more I’ve thought about it, I lean toward the exact opposite thought, “can you really be moral WITH religion?”
Super fascinating idea, Rix! I had never thought in that way but, oooh, it kinda resonates with me. Make it a thread!
Quote:“can you really be moral WITH religion?”
Absolutely. Just had to say it – which shouldn’t surprise anyone here.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.