Dominion - by Delina Macmichael

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:28)

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have often found myself frustrated at the apparent disregard with which many members of our church treat the world we’ve been entrusted with. The general attitude seems to be twofold: “I am too busy being about the Lord’s work to be inconvenienced with caring for the earth.” Or, “Why should I spend my time on that? When the Saviour comes again, He’ll fix everything. There’s simply no point.”

Indeed, many of us are so consumed with keeping the Ten Commandments, keeping our end of the covenants we’ve made, and trying to exemplify Jesus Christ in everything we do that we neglect to remember the first charge ever given to man after his creation. In the Garden of Eden, Adam was given “dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26, emphasis added.)

Let’s examine the word “dominion” for a brief moment. Those among us who hold the priesthood are no doubt familiar with the phrase “unrighteous dominion.” We are cautioned to exercise the priesthood with righteousness and love, with gentleness and caring. We are charged with providing a righteous dominion over our families. Unrighteous dominion includes emotional, physical, or sexual abuse, or neglect of our family’s basic needs. If God has also given all men dominion over the earth, should we not exercise a righteous dominion? “There is a forgotten teaching of the early Jews and Christians that the dominion that God gave to Adam in Eden over His other creatures was nothing less than the holy priesthood, the power to act in God’s stead.” (Hugh Nibley, To the Glory of God pg. 21)
My objective in writing this article is not to point out the same ten little things we’ve heard countless times that we can do to change our ecological footprint. Fixing the problems we’ve created will require more than a mere band-aid. We are now past the point where reusing our plastic bags and water bottles, and doing nothing else, will make a real difference. Rather, a shift in our attitudes is necessary in order to take the great leap from a dying world to a living, breathing world, a world of hope. My goal with this article is to outline the various duties that we have as members of this church, in possession of the whole gospel of Jesus Christ, to take care of the earth on which we stand and rely on for everything that we have.

Our first duty, as mentioned in the Doctrine and Covenants, is to “seek ye diligently, and teach one another words of wisdom, yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.” (D&C 88:118) In this scripture we are advised not to stay in a state of ignorance, but to continually learn and grow, to expand our knowledge. The first thing we must do as Latter-day Saints is to reject ignorance and look for knowledge. In this age of technology, knowledge is so easy to obtain. The internet and various other forms of media can assist us in our research. We must consecrate some of our time and energy to learning about global issues, and discovering actions we can take in order to preserve nature. To quote Joseph F. Smith, “Nature helps us to see and understand God . . . Love of nature is akin to the love of God; the two are inseparable.”

We have been told throughout our lives to have faith. Faith is an admirable quality that one possesses. Yet, is it enough alone to have faith? As mentioned earlier, many members of our church feel that it is a waste of time to care for the earth; they have faith that Jesus Christ will return and “the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.” (Articles of Faith, verse 10) Having faith is good, but as members of this church we know and understand that “faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” (The Epistle of James 2:17) Therefore, our second duty to the earth we’ve been given is to act.

Our third duty is to leave future generations with a world worthy of their presence. Too many of the earth’s inhabitants are concerned only with the immediate consequences of their actions. But what of the long-term? To say that “now” is the only thing that matters is probably the most selfish attitude one can possess. “We owe something to future generations and those that declare ‘plenty more where that came from’ are recklessly indifferent to the gravest responsibilities… The Latter-day Saints ought not to be governed by purely selfish motives in the use of their landed inheritances… It is a duty which we owe to ourselves and to those who have the right to rely upon us to give this matter our earnest consideration.” (Joseph F. Smith, The Juvenile Instructor, 38:466-467, Aug. 1, 1903) President Ezra Taft Benson has declared that “we are morally obligated to turn this land over to those who succeed us – not drained of its fertility, but improved in quality, in productivity, and in usefulness for future generations.” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg. 645)

If we are to shun ignorance and seek wisdom, if we are to act and not just believe, and if we are to leave our children with a clean and beautiful world, we must be willing to perform the fourth duty, which is to be adaptable and willing to succumb to the prospect of change.

Change is so hard for so many. We grow comfortable in our little ruts and hate the idea of leaving them. As human beings we are creatures of habit, and to abandon our traditions and rituals is one of the most difficult things we could ever do. It is no small task to change the way we dress or what kinds of furniture we buy, what foods we eat, the way we speak, our methods of transportation, the way we dispose of refuse and trash, or how we spend our time, money and energy. When I think of the word “change” I think of humility, the willingness to admit that we are not perfect, and to be teachable. The two terms go hand-in-hand. We have been commanded to be humble, and therefore, have been commanded to change.

“Let him that is ignorant learn wisdom by humbling himself and calling upon the Lord his God, that his eyes may be opened that he may see, and his ears opened that he may hear.” (D&C 136:32) If we reject ignorance, seek wisdom, and stumble across the truth, our minds will fill with knowledge and we will be compelled to humble ourselves, to change our lives and improve the world we live in.
We are all aware that the world is in a state of ecological peril, but do we know why? Do we know what actions have led us to this point, and what we can do to stop it, to reverse the damage we’ve done? The simple answer is this: Do some research, take action, and as your knowledge changes, you need to be willing to change yourself.

A Response to Pro-Lifers: Pro-Death? - by Rick Thomas

There is an unsettling preference by quite a few in the Church and the on-line community in particular, to call the morality and decency of the left-view point into question. This is unfortunate. For this reason, I have decided, at least for the extent of this article, to claim the title of "Pro-death" - since I find myself in a contrary position to that normally taken by those who refer to themselves as “Pro-life” on just about every issue.

I am Pro-death. On one level, this means that I am not anti-abortion. Sure, I disagree with people's reasons for abortion most of the time, but I feel that it is their choice to make (I don't believe that human life starts at fertilization). I can't see an unproblematic, fool-proof way of proving rape and incest — especially in the case of those who are victimized and unable to produce DNA evidence before it’s too late — and therefore can’t understand how one could legislate abortion on more than a superficial level. Therefore, I don't think it is a reasonable or helpful legislation to society as a whole. For this reason, I am generally in favor of not legislating abortion — though I think there should be some sort of parental consent, doctor's consent, etc. So, I am Pro-death on the issue of abortion.

But, is that all?

Am I also Pro-death on the issue of animal rights? I would never choose to define myself that way - I do it, because it seems that my point of view is against the stand taken by Pro-lifers. I feel that human kind's gross misuse of animal products and its blatant disregard for animal life is detestable. I am not a member of PETA and disagree with their occasionally violent approach, but I do think that legislation against over-consumption is a good idea — even if that meant putting some industrialized beef farmers out of business. I could only imagine how the families of the poor unemployed beef farmer might suffer when Dad's current livelihood is brought to a halt. I do consider myself an animal rights activist. There is a prevalent stereotype that animal rights activists have no problem potentially killing or maiming children to try and stop animal research. I could argue that, but won’t bother at this point. I am already claiming to be pro-death, after all.

I am also pro-death because I see some amount of value in stem-cell research (as I see some amount of value in animal research — if done humanely and respectfully — for important reasons, and not cosmetics and other useless products). I don't consider embryonic stem-cells to be in the same class as a live human. Pro-death, all the way.

I am also Pro-death when it comes to the human population. My wife and I have decided to have only 1 or 2 children by means of natural birth, and to adopt another 1 or 2 from suffering countries. We feel honestly that increasing the population of the earth at this stage is irresponsible, particularly when there are so many children that are not receiving the basic needs of human life and are dying in third-world countries.

I further feel that trying to "reduce our carbon footprint," besides being very in vogue right now (green is the new black), is a seriously important commitment for people of faith to make. We are the stewards of this planet and have a responsibility to it. There comes a certain point where we cease being responsible and instead, become addicted or obsessed to a certain way of life that has been engrained in us by generations of Christian breeding mixed with the supreme quality in neo-natal and pediatric health care. The earth has been replenished. It doesn't need to be destroyed by us — God's crowning creations. In fact, I'm so Pro-death that I'd encourage others who are in a position to seriously ponder making a similar choice, as I sincerely feel it to be right — at least for me and my family.

Following my 1-2 children, I plan on procuring some change to ensure that I don't have more. Indeed, I will intentionally do things to stop a pregnancy from occurring. I will interfere with the natural processes of human sexuality and reproduction and, "play god" to some extent to ensure that my wife and I don't have a pregnancy that we're not prepared for. I see very little difference between unfertilized reproductive cells, and fertilized ones. If this makes me pro-death, then so be it. However, I am positive that most people, in and out of the church, make a similar choice all of the time.

Indeed, Scripture states:

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

Remember that this was revealed in the early 1830's, when the population of planet earth had just reached 1 billion — as opposed to the 7 Billion that it will reach in 2012 — about 200 years later. There definitely was enough to spare in 1830. Now, the tables have been turned -- thanks to our gross over consumption. I believe it is "moral" to place the earth and its needs above the desire to have continually larger and larger families. Is this really Pro-death?

I am also Pro-death when it comes to dying. I sincerely believe that when a person is in constant pain, suffering, sorrow, and physical anguish — when it will NOT get better over the course of his or her natural lifespan — that it is only charitable and loving to allow that person to gracefully exit this life. I’ve read what the official church's stance is. That has no bearing on what I sincerely feel in my heart of hearts to be the most charitable and loving approach. Pro-death, one more time.

Because of my stance on these issues, does that make me a champion for human death? I recognize that my opinions will often differ from many of yours — maybe even all of you. I do not, however, truly feel myself to be Pro-death. I simply feel that I view things from a different perspective. Extremes on both sides (blowing up a research lab to blowing up an abortion clinic) are wrong. Avoiding those extremes, let’s work to garner a healthy respect for BOTH points of view, rather than make one the champion of life and the other the champion of... death.

Veganism And The Gospel - by Candice Mattson McDaniel

Deciding to become vegetarian and eventually vegan was not easy. I had only met a few other vegetarians throughout my life, one of whom was a girlfriend of my brother's. I was little at the time, but I remember my bewildered family wondered what to give her for dinner. Growing up, I was sheltered when it came to other ways of eating and I never questioned what I ate on a daily basis.

But as I learned more about how animals are treated in this world, I couldn't go back to living that way again. Knowing I had to change my habits was an uncomfortable feeling. I couldn't keep going down the same path, because it would cause inner turmoil. At first, I went the route of vegetarian by cutting meat out of my diet. After a few months, I decided to become vegan, making the transition to remove all animal products from my daily meals. This transition was stressful because I felt disloyal and that I would somehow be alienated from my family and friends. Growing up in rural Idaho, veganism rubbed off on me as being taboo.

This was probably because my family's traditions are deeply rooted around animals. My mother grew up on a dairy farm and my father raises beef cattle. It is custom in my family to hunt and fish and most of our vacations are centered around fishing. Because I was raised this way, meat was a staple food in my house. It was something readily available.

While I was making this change and told people about my lifestyle choice, one argument I constantly heard was, "The purpose of animals is for our use, Candice." I have always questioned this statement. I do not believe a certain animal was created only to give us their meat or milk. Yet, I had always learned that we had dominion over the animals and they were here for us "to use" because it supposedly says so in the scriptures. So if I don’t believe animals were only created for me to use, does that not make me a Christian? This question was eating away at me, so I started searching.

It was in my online searches for someone — anyone —who thought like I did that I found Christopher Foster, a philosophy instructor at BYU. Foster, a vegetarian, has compiled a PowerPoint lecture titled "Mormonism and Animal Rights — Harmony or Contradiction?" He has presented this at various locations across Utah, including Salt Lake Community College and Brigham Young University. His lecture is packed with quotations and scriptures stressing the need to end useless killing of animals. Foster believes we should "only eat them if we have need." He also states that it is against the basic ethical principle to cause suffering when the benefits do not outweigh the misery caused. "The suffering caused by factory farming (where the vast majority of American meat comes from) is so extreme that the need required in order to balance that out must also be extreme — it would have to be necessary for our lives," says Foster.

The Word of Wisdom seems to agree with this. In Doctrine and Covenants chapter 89, we read in verse 12:

"Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have
ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used
sparingly."

Verse 13 expands on the word sparingly by stating:

"And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of
winter, or of cold, or famine."

Even though the Word of Wisdom states to eat it sparingly in times of winter or famine, do we really need to eat meat at all? Doctrine and Covenants 49:21 states:

"And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need."

Industrialization has provided many ways for us to obtain different varieties of foods, including a wide array of fruits and vegetables. As Foster points out in his presentation, "Today, we have ample vegetarian food available year round." There are plenty of alternative protein sources, such as beans, nuts, and seeds. We are blessed to have such an abundant food supply, especially in this country. We definitely don't live in a country of famine.

According to a January 2008 article in The New York Times titled, "Rethinking the Meat Guzzler" by Mark Bittman, Americans, on average, consume nearly double the average of meat than the rest of the world. This is vital when taken into account that, according to the same piece, nearly 800 million people worldwide suffer from hunger or malnutrition. The majority of the world’s corn and soy are fed to chickens, pigs and cattle. In her book “Diet for a Small World," Frances Moore Lappe says, "For every 16 pounds of grain and soy fed to beef cattle in the United States we only get 1 pound back in meat on our plates." She then points out, "If we exclude dairy cows, the average ratio of all U.S. livestock is 7 pounds of grain and soy to produce 1 pound of edible food." A similar number was found on the Environmental Health Perspectives website. A Research Review explains that it takes seven pounds and about 2,400 gallons of water to produce one pound of feedlot beef. When this feed is given to animals instead of people, it is taking away land, food and water that could have been helped to prevent starvation of these suffering people. For me, these statistics raise serious questions about whether we are optimizing what we have been given to better the lives of our fellow beings. Is our exploitation of these resources really justifiable? Do we really consider the damage we are doing to these creatures?"

Animals are like children in a sense that they are innocent and under our dominion," Foster said. "Everyone knows deep down that kindness to animals is necessary." He believes kindness to animals is spiritually, environmentally and ethically essential. "There are literally billions raised and killed in the most brutal ways for our appetite preferences and their suffering is as real as ours. We are hypocrites for ignoring them and thereby causing their misery," he says. We are clearly not showing compassion for animals by killing them when it isn’t necessary.

Many church leaders have expressed their feelings on this topic, basing their beliefs on the scriptures. One slide in Foster’s presentation includes this quote from Joseph Fielding Smith:

"There is no inference in the scriptures that it is the privilege of men to
slay birds or beasts or to catch fish wantonly. The Lord gave life to every
creature… Therefore to take the life of these creatures wantonly is a sin before
the Lord."

It is a fundamental belief in Christianity that God gave man dominion over animals. In Genesis chapter one, we read that God created the earth and the creatures upon it, and more specifically in verse 28, we hear:

"…God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

But what is the extent of our dominion?"

Adam’s dominion was a charge to see to it that all went well with God’s creatures; it was not a license to exterminate them," Hugh Nibley said in the book "Kindness to Animals and Caring for the Earth" by Richard D. Stratton. This quotation, along with others, seems to suggest there is righteous and unrighteous dominion that can be practiced over the earth.

One slide on Foster’s presentation discusses unrighteous dominion by using a quote from the February 1912 edition of the Juvenile Instructor. In this citation, Joseph F. Smith points out, "The dominion the Lord gave man over the brute creation has been, to a very large extent, used selfishly, thoughtlessly, cruelly." Foster also adds: "We are utterly indifferent to the suffering we cause to so many beings. This is about as unrighteous as dominion gets."

In my research it was surprising to find that Joseph Smith was an advocate of kindness and respect to animals. Gerald E. Jones includes a story about Joseph Smith in his article "The Gospel and Animals" in the August 1972 edition of the Ensign. During the Zion’s Camp expedition in summer 1834, Joseph Smith tells the story of how they found three rattlesnakes in their tent. Some brethren were about to kill them but Joseph Smith said, "Let them alone — don’t hurt them!" and instructed the brethren to take them across the creek. He also explicitly told them not to kill another creature unless it was absolutely required to prevent them from starving to death.

Another prophet, Spencer W. Kimball, expressed his beliefs on the unnecessary killing of animals in the October 1978 LDS Conference by stating:

"And not less with reference to the killing of innocent birds is the
wildlife of our country that live upon vermin that are indeed enemies to the
farmer and mankind. It is not only wicked to destroy them, it is a shame, in my
opinion. I think that this principle should extend not only to the bird life but
to the life of all animals."

I had believed this all my life, but never quite made the connection between the animals that died and the food I ate. The turning point was one weekend when I went home to visit my parents. I went with my nieces to see the newborn calves in my father’s pasture. One calf, full of curiosity, cautiously came up and stood in front of my nieces and me. He stood there for a few moments, staring and sniffing. My eyes welled up with tears because I knew this calf, innocent and pure, was only born to die.

Although it’s easy to only blame the meat industry for what happens to livestock, it is important to know unnecessary killing and abuse of animals exists in every animal industry. For example, the veal industry is directly tied to the dairy industry. A USDA Fact Sheet entitled "Veal from Farm to Table" states, "Male dairy calves are used in the veal industry. Dairy cows must give birth to continue producing milk, but male dairy calves are of little or no value to the dairy farmer." The calf is taken away from its mother so the cow can be milked. Continuous pregnancies play a heavy role on the health of the cow and if its production levels drop below profit, the cow is slaughtered.

The main reason why milk is consumed is to get the calcium our body needs. However, milk is not the best and only way to get that calcium. According to an article entitled "Calcium and Milk: What’s Best for Your Bones?" published by the Harvard School of Public Health: "Milk is actually one of many sources of calcium — dark leafy green vegetables and some types of legumes are among other sources…" To me, it makes sense to get calcium from plant sources, where the cows get theirs.

The same goes for egg-laying chickens. Little regard is taken for the lives of birds in this industry. A fact sheet on the American Egg Board's website states: "As the hen ages, egg quality declines and, at about 18 to 20 months of age, molting occurs and egg production ceases. While some flocks are sold for slaughter at this point, replacement is costly. A fairly common practice is to place the flock into a controlled molt." Controlled or induced molting is the artificial practice of the industry to force chickens to lose feathers and weight in hopes of producing more eggs. An article entitled "Induced Molting of Commercial Layers" by the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service gives very specific outlines for this practice. The article states: "To cause the birds to stop laying abruptly, they should be 'conditioned' by exposing them to constant light (24 hours per day) for seven days before withdrawing feed." In order to lose weight, feed is taken away for up to two weeks. In addition to this, most chickens are confined to small areas and cages. These artificial practices are very stressful and damaging to the birds. Since they are being used as production plants, we should always be mindful of their health and well-being.

We have always been taught that we, as members of the LDS church, need to take care of the beautiful earth we have been given. Stratton's book includes one of my favorite thoughts by Ezra Taft Benson on this subject. Benson says: "Whatever mortal reasons there are to be concerned about [the] environment, there are eternal reasons, too, for us to be thoughtful stewards.” President Brigham Young said: '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.'" Kindness to animals and taking care of our earth are one in the same; damage one and you damage the other.

Going back to the article by Bittman, referring to large animal production plants, it states: "These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world's tropical rain forests."

Senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization official Henning Steinfeld confirms this in an article entitled "Livestock a Major Threat to Environment" released by the United Nations. Steinfeld states: "'Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems."

Harvesting livestock is not the only practice that damages the environment. Overfishing is a serious threat to the ecosystems of the world's oceans. According to the United Nations article "Overfishing: a threat to marine diversity," one in five people are dependent on fish as their primary source of protein. UN agencies state this is damaging because aquaculture, the stocking and farming of aquatic organisms, is increasing more swiftly than other food producing sectors. “According to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 70% of the world's fish species are either fully exploited or depleted," the article states.

On an individual level, we might not harm the environment much by eating animal products. However, collectively, we are doing serious harm. Foster offers a quotation by Brigham Young that says, "If we maltreat our animals, or each other, the spirit within us, our traditions, and the Bible, all agree in declaring it is wrong." As children of our Heavenly Father, we know it is our sacred stewardship to protect what He has so abundantly blessed us with. We should not be selfish; but I believe we should be grateful for everything that He gives us. I see veganism as a means to be thankful for these blessings and to make sure that others can do the same.

Ovid the poet, in the book "Metamorphoses," once rhymed:

"Take not away the life you cannot give, for all things have an equal right to
live.

"I couldn’t agree more.