Whither Mormon Environmental Theology? Jason M. Brown Ecological theologian and cultural historian Thomas Berry has suggestedthatweareenteringthe“Ecozoic”age,whichhedefines as “that period when humans would be present on the earth in a 1 mutually enhancing manner.” Here Berry is expressing a hope that human creativity can transcend the destructive and short- sighted culture of the modern age, which has precipitated the greatest environmental crisis in human existence—a crisis that re- centlyfeaturedthelargestoilspillinU.S.history.Bymutuallyen- hancing,Berrymeansnotsimplyabenignhumanpresenceonthe earth,buttheemergenceofanecologicalconsciousnessthatnests the human economy into the larger earth system, a sort of hu- man-earthsymbiosis.AsBerryandmanyotherssuggest,theprob- lems associated with the environmental crisis—pollution, species extinction, climate change—are but symptoms of a much deeper failureonthepartofourcivilizationtorelatetotheearthandits creaturesinmoralterms.Berryandothershavefocusedblamefor thecrisisonWestern,specificallyindustrial,civilizationwhosehis- toricaldevelopmentemergedfromthemechanisticcosmologyof enlightenmentscienceandapervasivesubject-objectorientedon- tology(wayofbeing/perceivingtheworld)—anontologyinwhich human subjects seek mastery over the objective (material) world. LynnWhite,inhisnowinfamousessay“TheHistoricalRoots of the Ecological Crisis,” singled out medieval Christianity for planting the seeds from which our present industrial society grew.2WhiteparticularlyblamesChristianityfordespiritualizing thenaturalworldbyemphasizingthetranscendentnatureofGod and the instrumental purpose of the earth. White writes: “To a Christian a tree can be no more than a physical fact. The whole 67 68 DIALOGUE:AJOURNALOFMORMONTHOUGHT,44,no.2(Summer2011) concept of the sacred grove is alien to Christianity and to the ethosoftheWest.FornearlytwomillenniaChristianmissionaries havebeenchoppingdownsacredgroveswhichareidolatrousbe- cause they assume spirit in nature.”3 Since White leveled these claims in 1967, there has been a flurry of responses from those who would defend Western Chris- tianity and religion in general from this blame. Among recent re- sponses has been that of Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim, scholarsofreligionandecology,whowrite:“Askeyrepositoriesof enduring civilizational values and as indispensable motivators in moral transformation, religions have an important role to play in projectingpersuasivevisionsofamoresustainablefuture.”4While admitting religions’ role in the current crisis, they, among many others,aremoreoptimisticaboutworldreligions’potentialcontri- bution to solving the crises we face, precisely because of their moraldimensions. From1996to1998,TuckerandGrimorganizedaseriesoften forums,“ReligiousTraditionsoftheWorldandEcology,”whichin- cludedJudaism,Christianity,Islam,Hinduism,Jainism,Buddhism, Daoism,Confucianism,Shinto,andindigenousreligions.Thesefo- rumsbroughttogetherreligiousscholars,environmentalethicists, and practitioners from around the world who explored both the promising and problematic aspects of the world’s major religious traditionswithrespecttotheenvironment.Throughtheseforums, scholarsandactivistsfrommanyoftheworld’sreligioustraditions are reexamining and redefining the human-earth relationship, whichhasbeeneclipsed—especiallyinWesternChristianity—bythe primacyofthehuman-Godandhuman-humanrelationshipsasthe domainsofreligiousmoralconcern. AsTuckerandGrimpointout,thisreflectiveprocessincludes threebasicmethodsofinquiry:retrieval,reevaluation,andrecon- struction. Retrieval comprises the scholarly mapping of a tradi- tion’s earth-teachings and, in many cases, the excavation of ne- glectedones.Retrievalreflectsonthepositiveandnegativeenvi- ronmentalconsequencestheseteachingsmayhave.Reevaluation involves rethinking a given tradition’s earth-teachings in light of contemporaryecologicalissuesandscientificknowledgeandpro- posingnewinterpretationsofthesetraditionalteachings.Recon- structionaimsatthecreativeadaptationofatradition’steachings Brown: Whither Mormon Environmental Theology? 69 and practices to specific environmental ideas, problems, or cir- cumstances with an emphasis on religious orthopraxy (or, right religious action). In his book Ecologies of Grace, environmental ethicist Willis Jenkins masterfully outlines several “lived environmental theolo- gies”withinglobalChristianityinresponsetothecurrentcrisis.5 Many traditions within Christianity have taken up the call to for- mulateamoralresponsetotheecologicalcrisis,doingsoontheir own terms and in their own language. For example, the World CouncilofChurcheshasformallyincorporatedresponsibilityfor creation into its programs.6 On January 1, 1990, speaking at the CatholicWorldDayofPeace,PopeJohnPaulII,calledtheecolog- icalcrisisas“ourcommonresponsibility.”ManyCatholicdioceses have also published “pastoral letters” addressing local and inter- national environmental issues.7 The Evangelical Environmental Network has rallied behind “creation care” as a sacred moral duty.8GreekOrthodoxPatriarchBartholomew,whohasbeenre- ferredtoastheGreenPope,hasbeenafierceadvocateforrectify- ingour“ecologicalsins.”Eachstrategyisuniquetoitstheological tradition, but each emphasizes our moral duty to care for the earth. Mormonism,asanon-traditionalChristiantradition,hasnev- ertheless paralleled mainstream Christianity’s more ambivalent reactiontoenvironmentalissues.WhilefoundingandearlyMor- mon leaders spoke passionately on a wide array of issues related toourmoraldutytotheearth(mostlyfocusedonprudentuseof resources and kindness to animals), contemporary Mormonism has largely remained silent on environmental problems and ex- cluded the earth from our sphere of core moral concerns. TheabsenceofarobustcontemporaryMormonenvironmen- talethicstemslargelyfromadeeppolarizationofenvironmental issues on the American political landscape during the last fifty years. An excellent example is juxtaposing tree-hugger environ- mentalist hippies against hard-working middle-class folk, as was thecaseinthejobsversusowlsdebateduringthe1990sinthePa- cific Northwest. And when those who would advocate for envi- ronmentalissuesbecomestereotypedwithfreelove,drugculture, and secularism, conservative Mormons tend to stop listening. In such a volatile political atmosphere, the Church has increasingly 70 DIALOGUE:AJOURNALOFMORMONTHOUGHT,44,no.2(Summer2011) shied away from declarations or sermons on our duty to care for the earth. However, as a student of Mormon environmental theology, I have been pleased to note a dramatic increase in grassroots envi- ronmentallyfocusedMormonactivism,art,symposia,scholarship, blogs,andlistservs.9Mormons,alongwiththerestofWesterncivi- lization,arebeginningtoengageinseriousreflectiononwhatour traditionhastosayabouttheearthandourmoralresponsibilities toward it and its creatures. In my observation however, much of thisMormonscholarshipandactivismhasbeenfocusedonthere- trievalofearth-affirmingdoctrineswiththehopethathighlighting these lesser-known teachings will foster more environmentally mindedorthopraxisamongtheMormonfaithful. IproposethattheseretrievedMormonearth-teachingscanbe divided into two broad traditions. Abstracting Mormon earth- teachingsintothesetraditionsbecomeshelpfulwhenattempting to understand Mormon moral ontology—how we perceive our duty to the rest of creation. By “tradition,” I mean the body of scripture, teachings, official declarations, relevant ecclesiastical duties (such as callings), and Mormon orthopraxy that relate to our moral duties to the earth and its creatures. The first of these traditions I will call the “stewardship tradi- tion.”WhileThomasG.Alexanderusesthislabelinhis1994arti- cle “Stewardship and Enterprise: The LDS Church and the Was- atchOasisEnvironment,1847–1930,”10Iamusing theterm,not as a broad Christian ecological theme, but rather as a specific sub-set of Mormon earth-teachings and practices. The steward- shiptraditionissupportedbyarobustmixtureoftheabovecrite- ria(scriptures,teachings,declarations,orthopraxy)especiallyre- flectedinnineteenth-centuryMormonagrarianism.Thesteward- ship tradition holds an instrumental moral ontology regarding our relationship to the earth—that the earth and its creatures are God-given materials whose existences are means to human ends, both utilitarian and aesthetic. This view has also been labeled as anthropocentric, or human-centered. The second of these traditions I will call the “vitalistic tradi- tion.”Whilebothscripturesandteachingssupportthistradition, it has not, to my knowledge, been meaningfully reflected in the orthopraxyofthe Mormonfaithful. Thus, the vitalistictradition Brown: Whither Mormon Environmental Theology? 71 consistsofthoseMormonteachingsthatholdincommontheim- plication of an intrinsic moral ontology regarding our relation- shiptotheearth.By“intrinsic,”Imeansimplythattheearthand itscreatureshavevalueasendsinthemselvesoutsideoftheiruse- fulness to human wants and needs—again, both utilitarian and aesthetic. This tradition implies but does not explicitly state a biocentric, or life-centered ontology. While I praise and have learned much from the retrieval of the unique earth-teachings and practices of Mormonism from bothtraditionsbecauseenvironmentalissueshavebecomesopo- larizing, simply reemphasizing these lesser-known teachings has been insufficient to reconnect the earth and its creatures with Mormon moral concern and orthopraxy, especially in a post- agrariansociety.Inthisarticle,Iwillfleshoutthetwocategories of retrieved Mormon earth-teachings, commenting on their im- plied moral ontologies. I will end by reevaluating and recon- structing several aspects of the vitalistic tradition. The Stewardship Tradition As a popular strategy of Evangelical Protestantism, steward- shipencourages“responsiblehabitation”oftheearth.AsJenkins points out, “The stewardship strategy thus makes environmental issuessignificantinlightofGod’sattitudetowardhumanagents, situatingenvironmentalpracticeswhollywithintheexchangebe- tween God and humanity.”11 Stewardship thus maintains an an- thropocentricviewofcreation,withtheearthanditscreaturesor- dained for prudent and respectful human use.12 While Genesis 1:28 speaks of “subduing” the earth and exer- cising“dominion”overitscreatures(1:26),Genesis2:15speaksof “dressing” and “keeping” the Lord’s garden. Many ecological theologianshavearguedabouttheproperinterpretationofthese texts outside of their original ancient Near Eastern contexts.13 However, within the broad Christian stewardship tradition, ex- ploitationanddominiongivewaytokeepingtheLord’sgarden,a moralchargethathasresonated withmanycontemporaryChris- tians.14 Environmental ethicist Clare Palmer proposes that the con- temporary widespread use of stewardship in relation to the envi- ronment emerged from Christian usage in the 1950s and 1960s 72 DIALOGUE:AJOURNALOFMORMONTHOUGHT,44,no.2(Summer2011) withrespecttofinancialresourcesandwaslaterincorporatedinto the language of the ecological awakening of the 1960s.15 John Passmore’s Man’s Responsibility for Nature was also a milestone in articulatingatwentieth-centuryapproachtoenvironmentalstew- ardship as a human moral duty to care for creation.16 Stewardship emphasizes God’s goodness in creating the world.Becausehumanbeingsbenefitfromthatgoodness,weare obliged to make prudent and wise use of its bounty and to safe- guardhumanhealth.17TheChurchofEngland1986 report,Our ResponsibilityfortheLivingEnvironment,representsatypicalarticu- lation of Christian environmental stewardship: “The Bible pic- tures mankind in relation to nature as a shepherd, a farm man- ager, or a household steward—a role which allows us to make use of resources for our needs, but does not permit us to destroy them, since they are entrusted to us for only a limited period.”18 Theearth’sresourcesareagifttohumanbeingsforwhichweare accountable to God. Scripture and teachings within the Mormon stewardship tra- dition share these assumptions. The writings of Joseph Smith frametheearthasadivinelycreatedgifttoitshumandwellers,an essentialplatformuponwhichthemortalphaseoftheplanofsal- vationiscarriedout.TheclassicformulationoftheMormonstew- ardship tradition as taught by Smith appears in Doctrine and Covenants 59:18–20: Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, aremadeforthebenefitandtheuseofman,bothtopleasetheeye and to gladden the heart; Yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul. And it pleaseth God that he hath given all these things unto man;foruntothis endwere theymade tobe used, withjudgment, not to excess, neither by extortion. Theearthwasmadeasameanstohumanends—ananthropo- centric view typical of the rest of Christian stewardship dis- course—bothtogladdentheheartandeye(aestheticconcern)and for food and raiment (utilitarian concerns). EarlyMormonsettlersofUtahdidnoteasilyseparatetheaes- thetic and the utilitarian, the sacred and the temporal.19 These settlers,thoughaccustomedtotheclimatesintheeasternUnited Brown: Whither Mormon Environmental Theology? 73 StatesandEurope,weredeterminedtomakethedesert“blossom as a rose.” The first communities in the Salt Lake Valley set to work building gridded cities with wide avenues. They made gar- dens, farms, and orchards. They cooperatively built hundreds of milesofirrigationcanals.20Anagrarianaestheticpermeatednot onlytheirlivelihoodsbuttheirreligiousmetaphorsandpractices. Brigham Young stated, “You are here commencing anew. . . . [T]hesoil,theair,thewaterareallpureandhealthy.Donotsuffer them to become polluted with wickedness. Strive to preserve the elements from being contaminated by the filthy, wicked conduct and sayings of those who pervert the intelligence God has be- stowed upon the human family.”21 Here Young does not distin- guish between physical and spiritual pollution. Again he states: “our work is to beautify the whole face of the earth, until it shall become like the Garden of Eden.”22 Stewardship for Young was framedinaneschatologicalvisionthatassumedgoodnessincre- ation and a moral duty to work toward our mutual exaltation. Apostle George Q. Cannon, counselor in the First Presiden- cies of Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Lorenzo Snow, is well known for his passion for promoting ani- mal welfare among Church members. He made frequent contri- butionstotheJuvenileInstructorandin1889wrote:“TheLordhas given animals, fowls and fish to man for his use. They are placed under man’s control, to be used for food with prudence and thanksgivingandnotwastefully.Butwehaveheardofanimallife beingverymuchwastedtogratifythehuntingpropensityofsome men. This is wrong. When people can use game of any kind for food, and they stand in need of it, the Lord is not displeased if they kill it. When, however, they hunt it for the mere pleasure of killing, then sin is committed.”23 Here Cannon encourages the useofanimalsforhumanneedsbutfrownsonkillingforkilling’s sake.Wasteandcrueltyareconsideredasin.Cannonwassoeffec- tiveinhis advocacyforkindness toanimalsthatthe Churchheld anannualHumaneDay,beginningin1897andlastinguntil1918, to emphasize care for animals as a moral obligation.24 Joseph F. Smith was also a passionate advocate for animal welfare and fre- quentlyrecitedthefolksaying:“Takenotthelifeyoucannotgive, for all things have an equal right to live.”25 Inadditiontoascripturalandteachingbasis,thestewardship 74 DIALOGUE:AJOURNALOFMORMONTHOUGHT,44,no.2(Summer2011) tradition was also perceptible in early Mormon orthopraxis. Jo- seph F. Smith tells of crossing the plains when an ox collapsed from exhaustion. He relates: “The brethren poured oil on the headoftheoxandthenlaidtheirhandsuponit.”26Thefactthat these men would perform a priesthood ordinance on an animal proves the strong connection between their spiritual and temp- oral lives. Theresponsibilityofindividualmemberstoacceptandmag- nifytheirwardcallinghoweversmallisacriticalpartofMormon orthopraxy and a frequent theme in lessons and general confer- ence discourses. As political scientist Ronald Smith shows, in early Utah wards bishops also frequently served as “water mas- ters”tomaintaindecentralizedcontroloveracommunity’sirriga- tion water. The bishop resolved disputes and made sure that the water was distributed equitably.27 While early Mormon agrarian communities did not separate utility from aesthetics or the temporal from the spiritual, it was not long before overgrazing and deforestation led to acute envi- ronmental problems such as sand storms, flooding, and drought.28 Despite the admonition of early Church leaders, the spirit of capitalism was too strong to resist and soon utility be- came the domain of the market, aesthetics the domain of the parksandwilderness,andspiritualitythedomainofpersonalmo- rality. Today the vast tracts of manicured farms have all grown houses,andDoctrineandCovenants104:17(“Fortheearthisfull, andthereisenoughandtospare”)invokesimagesofsupermarket shelves rather than brimming root cellars or granaries bulging with wheat. Since the 1960s, the rise of environmentalism has radically shiftedthepoliticalimplicationsofmoraldiscourseregardingthe earth. In a contemporary American context, this movement has resultedinthedeclineofthestewardshiptraditiontosuchanex- tentthatstewardshipfortheearthisnolongerarecognizableim- perative of Mormon moral discourse. One of the last recognizable contributors to the stewardship tradition is Ezra Taft Benson. Benson frequently repeated the themesofGeorgeQ.CannonandJosephF.Smithregardingkind- nesstoanimals,avoidingwaste,andalleviatingsuffering.Benson’s environmental theology fit squarely within the stewardship tradi- Brown: Whither Mormon Environmental Theology? 75 tionwhenhetaught:“Itisterriblyimportantthatwepreserveand improvethegreatnaturalresourceswithwhichtheGodofheaven has so richly blessed us, that we may not follow the experience of some other nations that have come and gone because of the mis- management of their natural and God-given resources.”29 Ironi- cally, despite the fact that, as Church president Benson was well known for his enthusiasm for gardening, though perhaps less so thanPresidentSpencerW.Kimball,asSecretaryofAgricultureun- der U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Benson oversaw the ex- pansion of industrial farming and the demise of the family farm, partofthe“getbigorgetout”philosophy.30 Hugh Nibley, a legendary scholar of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University but never a General Authority, has been a lone voice in the wilderness (sometimes quite literally) in defense of the Mormon stewardship tradition. Nibley went to great lengths to defend the benevolent exegesis of Genesis 1 by framingstewardshipasachoicebetweenGodandSatan’sdomin- ion. He was quite comfortable within the stewardship tradition andsawplentyofmoralimplicationsforourrelationtotheearth with its teachings. By focusing on the Latin root dominus, rather thantheharsherHebrewRadah,Nibleypointstotheapocryphal writings of early Judaism and Christianity to show humankind’s proper role as caretakers. Nibley famously wrote, “Man’s domin- ion is a call to service, not a license to exterminate.”31 Thestewardshiptraditionmakesasignificantcontributionto a potential Mormon environmental ethic. However, for me it re- mainsproblematicbecauseitismarkedbyaninstrumentalvalua- tionoftheearthand itscreaturesbygivinghumansubjectsmas- teryovermaterialobjects.Theearthisalwaysframedinreference to human needs and wants. Moral duty is concerned with meter- ingwaste,notcausingunnecessarysuffering,andbeautifyingthe earth. Another potentially problematic aspect of stewardship is thatthescripturesdefinetheearth’sproductivityasanincentive that will reward obedience to other moral and ritual command- ments—a sort of conditional ethic of the land, rather than an au- thenticlandethic.Caringforthelandisneveracommandmentin itself. Leviticus 25:18 is an example: “Wherefore ye shall do my statutes,andkeepmyjudgments,anddothem;andyeshalldwell in the land in safety.” The Book of Mormon is full of “if, then” 76 DIALOGUE:AJOURNALOFMORMONTHOUGHT,44,no.2(Summer2011) promises regarding obedience to God’s laws: “And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper” (1 Ne. 2:20). BoththeancientHebrewsandearlyMormonswerekeenlyaware of the fragility of the land, and perhaps obedience to God was simplyinsuranceagainstcropfailure;butcaringforthelandwas never a moral imperative in itself. Despite these problems, contemporary Mormon moral dis- courseismarkedbytheconspicuousabsenceofearthstewardship as a moral focus. As evidence, there are no stand-alone environ- mentallythemedSundaySchoollessonsoncaringfortheearthin anyoftheChurch’smanuals.TheChurch’sofficialwebsite{LDS. org} and its social networking site {Mormon.org} include no in- troductory doctrinal positions. Neither one includes caring for the earth as part of the Church’s core “principles” or “values.” Whilestewardshipdoesappearon{LDS.org},itrefersexclusively totheresponsibilitytofulfillone’scallingsandtocompleteone’s monthly home teaching duties. The Vitalistic Tradition The Oxford English Dictionary defines vitalism as “the theory thattheoriginandphenomenaoflifeareduetoorproducedbya vital principle, as distinct from a purely chemical or physical force.”32 Vitalism is common among the world’s spiritual tradi- tions. In Chinese culture this energy-force is ch´i. In the Hindu Vedas,thisvitalprincipleismostcloselyassociatedwithprana.In Pacific Islander philosophy, this impersonal force that dwells in all life is called mana. Although the concept was quickly rejected by Western science, the idea made an appearance as ether. In his 1907 Creative Evolution, French philosopher Henri Bergson coin- edthetermélanvital,whichhepostulatedassimilartoelectricity, as the animating principle of life. Within Mormonism, this vital primordial force is intelligence. Thus, the vitalistic tradition con- tains scriptures and teachings that elaborate on the nature of in- telligence.Italsoincludesteachingssuchastheeternalnatureof matter and expands traditional Christian notions of spirit to nonhumans,includingtheearthitself,bothofwhichjoinhumans in possessing an eternal existence. Many of these teachings have alreadybeenretrievedbyMormonenvironmentaltheologiansto bolster Mormonism’s moral obligation to the earth,33 but unlike