Carefully read and annotate the
following essay by George Handley. On the day of the final exam, you will have
50 minutes to write a rhetorical précis for this essay. You may read and
annotate in advance, but you must write the précis during the designated final
exam time period.
Background
George
Handley is a Professor of Humanities at Brigham Young University. Trained in
comparative literature, he has been writing, speaking, and teaching on the
intersections between religion, literature, and the environment for many years.
In addition to his work of literary criticism, he has published numerous essays
on Mormonism and the environment and recently wrote a creative nonfiction
memoir, entitled Home Waters: A Year of Recompenses on the Provo River (University
of Utah Press 2010) about the Provo River watershed in Utah and the ways
in which landscape, theology, family history, and recreation come together to
form a sense of place. His blog, Home Waters, continues his meditations on the
stewardship required to make a home and nurture an identity that are
sustainable, grounded in faith, and invested in community.
In introducing the following article, Handley writes:
Some critics have gone so far as to accuse
The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints of officially encouraging anti-ecological
positions. A survey
of Christian denominations in the United
States indicated that The
Church of Jesus Christ was one of only a
few churches that had no formal
environmental policies and no
institutional entities dedicated to fostering
more sustainable environmental practices.1 Although the Church has
clearly taken stances on political issues
that pertain directly to moral issues,
its policy is typically one of political
neutrality. On the issue of the environment,
Elder Vaughn J. Featherstone of the
Seventy recently explained
that the Church teaches principles
favoring conservation and sustainability
and that environmentalism is not
incompatible with Mormon belief.
Nonetheless, he insisted that Church
leaders “don’t dictate” what specific
political actions should be taken in order
to fulfill
the mandate to be good
stewards.2 Failing to understand this policy of political neutrality, Max
Oelschlaeger, a professor of environmental
philosophy, mistakenly concluded
on the basis of the survey’s findings that the “only denomination
that has formally stated its opposition to
ecology as part of the church’s
mission is the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints.”3
Because of Church leaders’ reticence on
the politics of environmentalism
on one hand and an explicit
anti-environmentalism expressed by several
prominent Utah politicians on the other, a
recent article by religion
scholar Richard Foltz depicts Mormonism as
an aggressive, profit-minded
corporate culture. Mormons, he claims, are
people who “have lost their
way” spiritually and who “don’t know who
they are anymore.” Foltz comes
to the unfortunate and misleading
conclusion that it is not clear whether
an environmental ethic “is with or against
the current of formal LDS teaching”
or if caring for creation is merely one of
many potentially heretical
“private theologies.”4
Excerpts from “The Environmental Ethics
of Mormon Belief”
George B. Handley
The time has come to find common ground between environmentalism
and Mormon belief. The perceived divide between the two has all
but
shut down the possibility of dialogue. Some Mormons dismiss the
political
causes of environmentalists as being the fears of faithless
hedonists, just as
otherwise responsible environmental scholars and activists
sometimes perpetuate
myths and inaccuracies about what they perceive to be the
antiecological
stance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But
Mormon belief has more than enough in common with
environmentalism
to promote genuine and productive change in our environmental
behavior.
Not only is Mormon doctrine environmentally friendly, but it
also provides
powerful moral incentives for ecologically sustainable living.
How we conceive of the relationship
between our body and our spirit
has a direct correlation to how we perceive mortality itself in
the context of
eternity. This perception, in turn, largely motivates our sense
of ethics in
relationship to all physical life. As Wendell Berry puts it,
“The question of
human limits, of the proper definition and place of human beings within
the order of Creation, finally rests upon our attitude toward our biological
existence, the life of the body in this world.”9 If the body is viewed, as it is
in traditional Christianity, as something alien and inherently
hostile to the
desires of our spirit, then we come to understand ourselves as
beings whose
real home is not earth and whose real identity is not at all
physical. Concern
for the well-being of the body or of the rest of creation is
viewed as an
expression of faithlessness. Hence the logic that concludes,
What need is
there for urgent action to save the planet when we all know
that the earth
is going die? Why bother trying to preserve earthly life when
we know it is
God’s prophesied plan to have it obliterated?
Latter-day Saint scriptures adamantly
oppose the traditional notion
that the body and the spirit—and earth and heaven—are dualities
that are
permanent and irreconcilable. While they may operate as dualities
in mortal
experience, higher spiritual states are represented as a
harmonious reconciliation
of those pairs. God and Jesus Christ, though of supreme
spiritual power, are believed to be two separate beings,
neither of which is
limited by the fact that he inhabits an immortal physical body
(D&C 130:22).
Christ’s Resurrection points to our ultimate destiny as
eternal, embodied
beings. The highest heavenly reward will be to live again on
the earth, not
as reincarnated beings, but as resurrected beings with God and
Jesus Christ
and with the potential to enjoy all of God’s power. The earth
itself will have
received its “paradisiacal glory” (A of F 10). As Brigham Young explained,
“The earth is very good in and of itself, and has abided a celestial
law, consequently
we should not despise it, nor desire to leave it, but rather
desire
and strive to obey the same law that the earth abides.” He
later added, “We
are for the kingdom of God, and are not going to the moon, nor
to any
other planet pertaining to this solar system. . . . This earth
is the home he
has prepared for us.”12
But what are the environmental advantages
of such beliefs about the
body and the earth? They teach important principles about the
need for body
and spirit to work together and the ethical demand that our
spiritual aspirations
must translate into actions of meaningful earthly consequences.
They emphasize the sacred nature of the body and of the earth
and the
need to keep them clean and beautiful in both a moral and a
physical
sense. If our bodies are temples of our spirits, so too is the
earth the tabernacle
of its spirit. To be without profound gratitude or careful,
ethical participation
in the proper maintenance of either is to take Christ’s suffering
and mighty Atonement for granted and to be unworthy of his gift
of
renewed life.…
If we have the eyes to see, “all things
are created and made to bear
record of [Christ], both things which are temporal, and things
which are
spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things
which are on
the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which
are under the
earth, both above and beneath” (Moses 6:63; see also Alma 30:44).
Part of
this spiritual experience is nature’s gift of pleasure.
Doctrine and
Covenants 59:18 states,
“All things which come of the earth, in the season
thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye
and to gladden the heart.” Although the scriptures teach that
God expects
us to make use of nature, here he prioritizes aesthetic value
over utilitarian
or even recreational values. This is because nature’s intrinsic
aesthetic values
bear witness of Christ’s love, and therefore we have an ethical
responsibility
to demonstrate due appreciation. As Joseph F. Smith has said:
We have eyes and see not, for that which
we cannot appreciate or admire we
are largely blind to, no matter how
beautiful or inspiring it may be. As children
of God, it is our duty to appreciate and
worship Him in His creations. If
we would associate all that is truly good
and beautiful in life with thoughts of
Him, we would be able to trace His
handiwork throughout all nature.27
If nature is a witness and a gift of Christ, purely selfish use of nature or mis-
recognition of its sacred qualities is a sin of considerable
measure.
The environmental ethics of Mormonism go
beyond our responsibilities
toward nature; they also include our most basic duties toward
our fellow
beings. As much as it is concerned with nature,
environmentalism is
essentially a field that concerns itself with how we manage the use and
distribution
of the world’s resources in order to feed and sustain over time
all
sectors of the human community on a planet of limited
resources. It is not
enough to take pleasure and show respect for nature; Latter-day
Saint
scripture requires us to use its resources wisely and justly:
“And it pleaseth
God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this
end were
they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by
extortion”
(D&C 59:20). Inherent in creation is an ethic of
social justice and egalitarianism
in the human realm.
The Latter-day Saint conception of the
kingdom of God has always
held that the well-being of the earth is dependent upon an
egalitarian ideal
that consistently measures our successes by how well we look
after the
poor. The law of consecration represents the highest spiritual
law by which
this is accomplished; only a few believing communities in
scripture have
successfully lived it, including the city of Enoch, the early
Christians under
Peter’s leadership, and the gathering of Nephites and Lamanites
that
greeted Christ in the Americas. The law involves disciplined
consecration
of all that we have been blessed with for the improvement of
those around
us. A revelation to the early Saints states:
Thou wilt remember the poor, and
consecrate of thy properties for their support
that which thou hast to impart unto them,
. . . every man shall be made
accountable unto me, a steward over his
own property, or that which he has
received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family. . . .
Therefore the residue shall be kept in my
storehouse, to administer to the
poor and the needy. (D&C 42:30, 32, 34)
What is significant about this principle for present
purposes is that
obedience to it has direct environmental implications.57 Human poverty
and environmental degradation are symptomatic consequences of
our
rebellion against God. Granberg-Michaelson explains that “Old
Testament
pleas for justice are linked to restoring humanity’s broken
relationship
to the creation. Injustice has its roots in seizing and
controlling part
of creation for one’s own selfish desires, and thereby depriving others of
creation’s fruits, making them poor, dispossessed, and
oppressed.”58
Indeed, the great challenge of human sustainability appears
within reach as
long as we are willing to recognize that
the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the
earth, is ordained for the use of man for
food and for raiment, and that he
might have abundance. But it is not given
that one man should possess
that which is above another, wherefore the
world lieth in sin. And wo be
unto man that sheddeth blood or that
wasteth flesh
and hath no need.
(D&C 49:19–21)
Unequal distribution of earthly resources
or excess consumption
directly inhibits our spiritual progress: “For if ye are not
equal in earthly
things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things”
(D&C 78:6).
Brigham Young insisted that “it is not our privilege to waste
the Lord’s substance.”
59 Excessive consumption at the expense of
others or of our environment
is therefore never justified since such behavior violates the tenets of
Christ’s governance that requires strict adherence to the care
for the needy,
careful resource management, and a profound disavowal of
materialism.
The proper and equitable distribution of
wealth means that the earth
will be able to provide for us sustainably, as demonstrated in
Latter-day
Saint scripture:
I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens,
and built the earth, my very handiwork;
and all things therein are mine. And it is
my purpose to provide for
my saints, for all things are mine. But it
must needs be done in mine own
way; and behold this is the way that I,
the Lord, have decreed to provide
for my saints, that the poor shall be
exalted, in that the rich are made low. For
the earth is full, and there is enough and
to spare; yea, I prepared all things,
and have given unto the children of men to
be agents unto themselves.
Therefore, if any man shall take of the
abundance which I have made, and
impart not his portion, according to the
law of my gospel, unto the poor and the
needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up
his eyes in hell, being in torment.
(D&C 104:14–18)
While this scripture is often cited in the
Church to counter arguments
for greater population control, it clearly demonstrates that
the promise of
sufficient
natural resources holds weight only if we learn to consecrate our
blessings for others and live with appropriate moderation.60 If Satan’s plan
of attack against the kingdom of God is to teach that power
comes from
owning the earth, selling it, and building up secular power on
the basis of
extortion of the earth’s treasures, Brigham Young countered by
reminding
us that “not one particle of all that comprises this vast
creation of God is
our own. Everything we have has been bestowed upon us for our
action, to
see what we would do with it—whether we would use it for
eternal life and
exaltation, or for eternal death and degradation.”61 The Book of Mormon
also warns against “withholding your substance, which doth not
belong to
you but to God” (Mosiah 4:22).
While it is true that the wealthiest
countries have been in the best position
to begin repairing the environmental damage that often sustains
economic
growth, it is erroneous to conclude that high concentrations of
wealth necessarily mean higher environmental ethics. It is
equally true that
the standard of living in the United States cannot be
duplicated worldwide
without significant depletion of natural resources and catastrophic
environmental
degradation.62 The question, then, is how the most powerful
and wealthy communities can energize themselves to safeguard
against
unnecessarily rapid depletion of goods and resources, so as to
reverse the
trend where the world’s poor typically suffer environmental consequences
disproportionate to their rates of consumption. The law of
consecration, as
Doctrine and Covenants 104 explains, depends upon our use of agency, our
voluntary sacrifice of goods and resources. It does not require despotic
centralized control over the distribution of resources; its
power is in its
spiritual focus on the human heart and the need to overcome its
selfish
impulses in the interest of the larger human and biological
community.
[T]he Latter-day Saint contribution to the
environmental crisis has, until very recently, remained
relatively silent.64
Such silence has provided fodder to critics of Mormonism in the
polemical
debates about environmental issues in the West. The critics’
misunderstandings,
unfortunately, rarely receive a response since it would seem
that
even Mormons themselves have not always fully appreciated the
relevance
of their doctrines to environmentalism. As a result, the
valuable environmental
implications of Latter-day Saint doctrines have languished.
They
have been replaced in the popular imagination with myths of a
great millennial
cleanup of environmental waste that justify inertia and
inaction
regarding the well-being of Christ’s (Jehovah’s) creations.
The sometimes polarized and angry rhetoric
of environmentalism
corresponds to an equally angry and polarized view of godless
federal
forces that invade local communities without consideration. Our
languished
environmental doctrines have somehow made it possible for some
Mormons—whose scriptures declare trees and animals to be living
souls—
to forget such restored doctrines and scoff at the idea of “tree huggers” and
others who are portrayed as pitiless and faithless worriers
about the feelings
of nature.
Nor have Mormons as a whole been exempt
from the consequences of
the vast “unsettling of America” that Wendell Berry describes
as a steady
process by which the majority of our population over the last
century or so
has become increasingly removed from the day-to-day land ethics
of family
farming.65 Berry
argues that this has created a culture in America that
allows us the illusion that we can make choices independent of
their environmental
consequences. Within this culture, which has divorced the
human community from creation, most theologies have struggled
to
reassert their relevance to all living things.66 How else can we explain the
strange split in logic that understands a connection between
the body as
sacred and the need to keep it morally and physically
clean—despite
inevitable physical death—but does not often accept the same
ethics with
regard to animals or land?
While more explicit and direct
instructions from Church leadership
would no doubt help to distinguish doctrine from myth, the
truth is that the sermon has
already been preached. Religion’s power lies not so much in the
sermon as
it does in the believers’ capacity to bring to fruition,
through ethical and
moral action, the spoken or written word of God. In other
words, religion’s
power is realized when it becomes a system of
self-circumspection and self-regulation
that then moves us outward to the world around us. Religion is
not
fruitful when its power is based merely on what it explicitly
says or does
not say or when religion is used as a measure of what we
believe we have
already become. Religion should not be a scaffold to maintain the privilege
of being right so much as it should be a ladder that prompts us
in doing
and becoming good.
Perhaps the greatest power of Mormonism is
also its greatest hope for
making a lasting contribution to the environmental crisis. That
power, I
believe, lies in the restored earthly doctrines that I have
outlined and that
are subsumed in the law of consecration. With greater
attendance to the
practical measures needed to bring that law’s principles into
practice, we
will of necessity find significant
and beneficial
environmental ramifications.
1. Marshall Massey, “Where Are Our Churches Today? A Report on
the Environmental
Positions of the Thirty Largest Christian Denominations in the
United States,”
Firmament: The Quarterly of Christian Ecology 2
(winter 1991): 11.
2. Glen Warchol, “Environmentalism, LDS Church Need Not Be at
Odds, Panel
Says,” Salt Lake Tribune, April 26, 2000, B2.
3. Max Oelschlaeger, Caring
for Creation: An Ecumenical Approach to the Environmental
Crisis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 204.
4. Richard C. Foltz, “Mormon Values and the Utah Environment,” Worldviews:
Environment, Culture, Religion 4
(spring 2000): 11, 4, 14.
12. Brigham Young, in Journal
of Discourses, 26 vols.
(Liverpool: F. D. Richards,
1855–86), 2:302–3, June 3, 1855; 8:293, 294,
June 12, 1860.
27. Joseph F. Smith, cited in Aaron Kelson, The Holy Place: Why Caring for the
Earth and Being Kind to Animals Matters (Spotsylvania, Va.: White Pine, 1999), 24.
57. Northcott, Environment and
Christian Ethics, 269.
58. Granberg-Michaelson, Worldly
Spirituality, 86.
59. Young, in Journal of
Discourses, 11:136, August 1–10, 1865.
60. Aaron Kelson concurs on this point:
Those of us who believe that the ecological problems caused by
people are
at least as much the result of what we are rather than how many
of us there
are, and Latter-day Saints are certainly among this number,
have a tremendous
responsibility. We have a solemn obligation to distance
ourselves
from those practices and trends that lead to the destruction of
the Creation
and to the related suffering of our fellow beings. We have an obligation to
show the world that people can live peaceably with the
Creation. (Kelson,
Holy Place, 159–60)
61. Young, in Journal of
Discourses, 8:67, June 3, 1860.
62. For a powerful Christian perspective on the relationship
between overconsumption
and environmental degradation, see Michael Schut, ed., Simpler Living,
Compassionate Life: A Christian Perspective (Denver: Living the Good News, 1999). Also
see the Public Broadcasting System documentary Affluenza,
produced by John de Graaf
and Vivia Boe, KCTS Television, 1997.
64. Others who have recently written about the rich environmental
beliefs of the
Church include Hugh Nibley (Nibley, “Subduing the Earth,” 85–99; and
Nibley,
“Brigham Young on the Environment,” 3–29) and
Aaron Kelson (Kelson, Holy Place).
An encouraging collection of essays, Terry Tempest Williams,
William B. Smart, and
Gibbs M. Smith, eds., New
Genesis: A Mormon Reader on Land and Community (Layton,
Utah: Gibbs-Smith Publisher, 1998), also explores the experience of a variety of
Latter-day Saint people, including Church leaders concerned
with place; this book is
discussed in Constance K. Lundburg, brief notices, BYU Studies 39, no. 1 (2000):
220–21. See
also Michael G. Alder, “Earth: A Gift of Gladness,” Ensign 21 (July
1991):
27–28; and
Kristen Rogers, “Stewards of the Earth,” This
People 11 (spring
1990): 10–16.
65. Berry, Unsettling of
America, 3–14.
66. Berry points to one important antidote to this unsettling:
the tradition of rooting
oneself in a particular place and taking responsibility for its
future well-being.
Berry, Unsettling of America, 4. While it is not always clear that rootedness translates
into environmentally ethical behavior, clearly Brigham Young’s
claim “This is the right
place” is an important reminder of the value of working with
nature’s accidents in a
particular place rather than always seeking a more promising
bluff around
the next corner.
