I've had run ins with many local LDS "leaders" over growth (development) issues. Unfortunately they seemed more interested in the financial bottom line rather than the spiritual bottom line. There seems to be some built in standard that drives such "leaders" to succeed financially placing other concerns by the wayside.

I wish that conservative LDS folks would remember that the Lord originally told Adam to take care of the Garden (planet) and not to "rape" it. There is nothing more conservative than conserving.

Do you have an idea of what a steward of an estate is? Adam was made Lord over the whole earth, according to the good book.

Perhaps we should not use anything at all to better mankind's condition but only that which will sustain and maintain the status quo?

BTW, I totally deplore the "sardine" community plans that so many builders use. No wonder there is road rage -- the people live to close to their neighbors and can't even expell gas without their knowing it.

We all know that for the last how many years, that the mainstream LDS membership has ridiculed environmentalists as "tree huggers" or as terms much worse. The LDS church builds huge churches and office buildings, and that the majority of the LDS leadership has been made up of successful businessmen for at least 2 decades. The majority of people in Utah are LDS, they have to take responsibility for what has happened as far as growth, development and pollution in this state. So now things are changing with new scientific evidence, and with evidence we can see for ourselves, that we're seriously harming our environment. In fact, it's becoming popular to go "green". But still, isn't it a little late, and a lot ingenuous for the LDS church to start a publicity campaign to publicize how environmentally friendly they have been when that is anything but the case?

I have always considered myself to be a conservative AND pro-environment. I would bet that most conservatives do as well.

The question, however, comes into play for what is best in total equilibrium between the environment and mankind. I believe that the "environmentalist" movement has been hijacked by the extremists, and that these extremists are more about control than they are about the environment itself. For example, I believe in global warming, but I am not convinced that it is man made and am convinced that the so-called "remedies" that are being proposed will cause several economic crises with little improvement. (Can anyone say ethanol?)

That said, I am in favor of the green movement and hope it continues without government interference. Let's get the information out there and let the people decide.

In my opinion, the more religious a person it, the more environmentally friendly they should become. Stewardship is to responsibly govern, not to exploit.

There is a reason that President Kimball told members in the 1970's to clean up their yards..

We as LDS people should be the best stewards of all. We should worry about waste, Gluttony and environmental impacts. We can still have growth and prosper. Im not talking about extreemism, neither was Pres Kimball.
Im also reminded of Presiden David O. McKay, walking on the beach in Laguna (The church owned a vacation home there many years ago)
He saw someone telling their dog to chase and kill a bird, this really bothered him and he said so.

I love eating meat and living in a world of progress as much as anyone.. but we MUST have a higher level of respect for this planet.

This was the first I have heard of pioneers shooting buffalo for sport.

So, when do you think the majority of American members of the Church will become more evironmentally minded (start caring about the environment instead of mocking scinetists about global pollution and ocean climate change) and stop killing for sport (hunting)?

A few years ago, one of the General Authorities was touting the Church's stance on environmentalism and mankind's obligation to be good stewards of the Earth. He then concluded by stating that "The Earth was made for man, not man for the Earth." This comment effectively negated everything that preceded it. How can anyone consider him or herself to be conservative when they dismiss the concept of environmental conservation? Is it because if we conserve something then we can no longer exploit it for profit?

for their own purposes and entitled to experience their own being and sense of joy

I believe a large part of the animals purpose and sense of joy is to provide nutrition for the human race.

The fact that they are so tasty is a bonus.

The earth is our home. We have all seen folks who don't maintain their home, particularly those who haven't invested in it, and don't appreciate it. It is shortsighted. All of us should take good care of our home; the earth.

That being said, why must so many become fanatical about environmentalism? Just think how much less dependent upon fossil fuels we could become if we used the technology to provide almost limitless nuclear energy to power our homes, our cars, our cities. But the fanatics resist atomic energy and resist refineries and resist tapping untapped fossil fuel resources, throwing mankind into a catch 22 that is stressing international relationships and threatening the welfare of mankind.

What about solutions instead of just being against EVERYTHING!

It is one thing to take care of the environment and be a good steward over it. However, when individuals are shoving it down our throats to make money and profit from it-- that is a different story.

General Electric, Al Gore and a numbers of other companies and individuals are making a killing financially on "green" junk science theories and forcing that agenda on this generation of youth.

Remember church leaders have also told us "all things in moderation" this includes the enviromental nutters and their agenda.

Teddy Roosevelt was a conservationist but one would have to think if he were around today he would be disgusted with the militant environmental agenda.

Has very little to do with man, but is a natural cycle of the earth.

To the person that claimed local leaders do not listen regarding the environment: Read the title of the article please.

I am agnostic and am sick and tired of ANTI mormons that spout their anti garbage into each and every single article. Hurray that Early Church Presidents (nope sorry, I don't believe them any more prophetic than me) believed in environmentally sound practices.

They can't be called environmentalists because conservatives today have used that word as an insult ever since the hippies tried to educate them about living in harmony with the earth. Next you will hear about prophets that denounced civilian casualties in useless wars and we can't call them pacifists since that's a "bad" word too.

The article just doesn't seem true to me. I did a computer search of Brigham Young's speeches and writings. He never used the word "ensouled" anywhere. The phrase "entities with souls" was never used by Joseph Smith.
I did found in the Liahona of September 1983 “Out of the ground I, the Lord God, formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; … and they were also living souls; for I, God, breathed into them the breath of life. ...even all things which I prepared for the use of man; and man saw that it was good for food.” (Moses 3:19.)
But, that's not saying rocks have souls or are living souls or have feelings.
Every "thing" on earth is for the intelligent use of Gods highest creation.
PS Environmentalism is a socialist 'ism'.

A conservationist believes in the responsible use of the Earth’s resources. An environmentalist believes that human activity damages the planet, and that our impact should be restricted as much as possible. Completely different philosophies.