This is the third in a series of posts answering questions by a non-member who is curious about Mormonism. The actual question has been restated to help with a more intelligible answer.
I'm trying to figure out how the political conservatism and the theological liberalism of Mormonism doesn't clash. It seems open to a wide source of religious information, but adhere to social and economic conservatism. How does a non-authoritarian religious culture mesh with an authoritarian political culture?
This has been the hardest question to answer based on my own conservative beliefs. It just seems natural that Mormonism and conservative ideals go together. Obviously there are liberal members of the LDS Church, with Sen. Reid as an example. Even the current Mormon U.S. Presidential hopefuls are considered by many conservatives as liberal, where others have noted they are pragmatic rather than ideological. I think the pragmatic assessment is closer to Mormon politics more than a conservative or liberal label, but it does lean conservative for definitional purposes.
Strictures of Authority
To understand the conservatism in the LDS Church and its members is to acknowledge the authoritarian nature of its structure. It starts with a strict Priesthood line of authority that Joseph Smith claimed came directly from Jesus Christ through administration of Angels. He testified that the Resurrected angels of John the Baptist and then Peter, James, and John literally gave him the Keys to teach, organize, and preside over a new Christian era. No one has any authority except it be given to them within the Priesthood positions they have been given by others above them. All members are under the authority of the leading Prophet and President of the LDS Church, who is currently Pres. Thomas S. Monson. It has been that way since Joseph Smith as explained in D&C 28:6-7 about his position, "And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church; For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead."
Discussion have focused on the populist teachings and doctrines found in Mormonism and how much they influence its course. To a degree they can as history has shown what the members think about the most often is confronted by the leadership. Sometimes it means a change and other times an entrenchment. Regardless of the outcome, little is normalized until after the President and Apostles who are at the top decide to issue instructions or by example. Personal revelation for individual members no matter what position is taught to be important, but no one is given the right to use those to determine the requirements of belief or actions for others. To again quote D&C 28 with verse 6, "And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church . . . " It is only when called and set apart for specific positions does a Mormon have any authority over others, but not for anyone above them. Since those in charge of the Church are at times two generations behind those in other organizations, any changes if they occur can be considered by the more liberal as slow. It might be said that the leadership continues to live under the old foundations when the new generations hold to more recent views. Conservatives might say this is to ensure that the word of the Lord is not overtaken by the whims of temporary fads.
Probably the next reason Mormons remain mostly conservative is the beliefs about the traditional structure and importance of the family. Despite the historic practice of polygamy, a nuclear family of man, woman, and child has remained the template. The father was the head and breadwinner of the household while the women had children and took care of the home. The last few decades this has officially been relaxed with concerns about modern living conditions and single motherhood, but ultimately the nuclear family is theologically a requirement. This continued and consistent belief has been challenged by the modern world and therefore Mormonism has been thrust into the conservative side of the argument. An important proclamation by the LDS leadership warns, "that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." The political ramifications of placing the traditional family structure as the pinnacle of eternity is not hard to recognize.
History of Subjugation
The place of individualism and secular government in relation to the LDS Church is a complicated subject. Perhaps nothing, not even theology, can explain well why Mormonism contains so many conservative members. What can be known is that Mormonism and the United States it was founded in have had a rocky relationship. At times it has been more liberal than its aggressors and then after what has been called "the assimilation" it became more conservative compared to social trends.
Race has been a huge part of the history of the United States, and no less Mormonism. Very few who criticize the history of blacks and the LDS Church have acknowledged the liberal views it held during the life of Joseph Smith. He often proclaimed that blacks would be no worse than whites if let free. A few blacks were given the Priesthood before the ban took effect during later years. Neighbors took just as much issue with the theology as they did the neutral or abolitionist tendencies among converts. The violent clashes were Southerners against a largely Northern church membership the farther west they headed. Liberals have argued that the anti-black positions during the Brigham Young years was in part a reaction to older criticisms that had a psychological impact. The Mormon leadership, they at times argue, were trying to prove to their past antagonists there was nothing to fear and that became entrenched in theological teachings. Later on during the social revolutions in the 1960s and 70s the antagonists became different and the Priesthood once again was offered to all. This is all, of course, if certain assumptions are maintained about history and intentions.
The more telling examples of Mormons becoming more conservative because of the U.S. Government is polygamy and communal economics. The former has been discussed, but it was after a long protracted battle with U.S. laws that the traditional family structure became absolute. Just as equally was a more liberal economic structure called the United Order where possessions were shared with the community. It depends on what period of Mormon history is examined how much of a communist plan was used. Practices went from a near complete sharing of land and capital to a central gathering of excess materials that was then handed out for individual ownership. The constant political, policing, and military engagements against Mormonism took its toll. The economic structure of Mormonism became capitalistic near the time of capitulation of other Mormon peculiarities. A conservative highly capitalistic country forced a more unconventional populace to conform or be disbanded. Historians have uncovered letters and records that prove that was the Government's ultimate plan.
The reverence for the U.S. Constitution in Mormon theology as divinely inspired mixed with the reality of the same country that enshrined the documents not acting upon its own rules has created a strain of conservatism that is both the same and different than the wider population. The nuclear family and all political positions that give it primacy are highly supported. Mormons intermingle with a group that could easily turn against them because the past has proven they are more powerful and dangerous than the liberals who are currently antagonistic. Mormons are wary the government can help people without forcing itself upon those it claims to protect. This creates a fierce independence from both the liberals and conservatives that is more practical than purely ideological. At the moment conservatives hold to ideals of God, Country, and morality that are shared with Mormons. That could change if the priorities of the left, particularly the rhetoric of anti-religiosity and supremacy of the Government to dictate economics, were to shift to a more libertarian viewpoint. Time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hi Jettboy. Thanks for taking a shot at the answer. I do see the connection between groups that have had problems with the federal government and being suspicious of the federal government. In between the time I asked this and you wrote your response I've tended to see the Mormons as having thrown in with the Whigs (Republicans) early because of problems with the Democrats and kinda stayed with them over time.
And I guess we should probably look at the varieties of conservatism somewhat separately. So we will break out social, economic and foreign policy and then also the connection to the Republican party.
On social issues clearly the Mormon church has a long tendency of being pro-family, pro-patriarchal, pro authority. So falling in with social conservatives all other things being equal is easy. The irony being of course that Mormons are faced with a choice between groups that:
a) Disagree with them on policy but have no particularly strong theological disagreements.
b) Agree with them on policy but have strong theological disagreements and might turn on them.
But... when the Democrats were the socially conservative party (prior to 1964) Mormons were still Republicans. Essentially all of the pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-feminism... were Republican factions. This is kinda interesting.
On economic issues though the Mormon church has a history of communism, as you mentioned. It didn't last long and that sort of thing isn't atypical for young social movements so I wouldn't give that much weight. That is I think it is more fair to say that Brigham Young used communism to create social cohesion rather than Brigham Young took advantage of high levels of social cohesion to create communist structures.
And there is no denying that the Mormon church is currently very pro business, very pro a sort of western conservatism economically. You mentioned the "supremacy of the Government to dictate economics" which is rhetoric right out of the western conservative playbook. So I would agree that Mormons seem somewhat libertarian.
And I think it is possible this comes from fear of government power, but I don't see Mormons on the front lines fighting for any kind of civil rights. You don't see heavy Mormon participation in groups like the ACLU, People for the American Way, EFF, EPIC... In other words Mormons don't act like Libertarians. Nor were they active in the Libertarianism of the 1960s-1980s. They joined the Libertarians when Libertarians became mainstream conservatives.
And to this day where Libertarians disagree with conservatism they side with conservatism. Opposition to military adventurism, abortion, drug legalization, gambling, lighter prison sentences with more focus on restitution.
Which gets to the 3rd area, foreign policy, "country". Why the support for country? Why not for example internationalism?
"But... when the Democrats were the socially conservative party (prior to 1964) Mormons were still Republicans"
From what I have read, I don't think that was historically true. In fact, I think a large number of Mormons became Democrats a little after the turn of the 20th Century, even if the leadership was not. The even more homogenous Mormon population of the first half of the 20th Century voted overwhelmingly for F.D.R., and I assume the Democratic ticket that he belonged. This despite a few in the LDS Leadership who openly opposed his policies. After him I think the Mormon votes started turning more toward the Republican party again, especially after the radical 60s transformed the social Democrats.
"That is I think it is more fair to say that Brigham Young used communism to create social cohesion rather than Brigham Young took advantage of high levels of social cohesion to create communist structures."
The same can be said about polygamy. It was more about creating a social cohesion among an elite leadership than breaking socially accepted bounds of sexuality.
"Mormon church is currently very pro business, very pro a sort of western conservatism economically."
I think this can be taken too far in stating economic positions of the LDS Church. Of course you did mention a libertarian strain in Mormon viewpoints. A true picture would not be complete without a recognition of the continued focus (that Harpers completely ignores) on charitable work and donations. It is a strange mixture of communal philanthropy using Capitalist methods of buying and selling land and capital.
"And to this day where Libertarians disagree with conservatism they side with conservatism."
Again, I think it has to do with Mormon beliefs in very religiously conservative and traditional notions of pro-family, pro-patriarchal, pro authority. Those other groups seem far too anti-religious, anti-Christian, and above all anti-authoritarian for Mormon tastes. More importantly is that anti-Mormon conservatives have railed against Mormon theology, but not the more harmful political ways they used to. The Liberal groups have been openly anti-Mormon politically. Probably the one way that there was a permanent gulf between them is the issue of race, particularly with the former issue of blacks and the Priesthood. Liberal groups still scoff at Mormons for that after more than 30 years, indicating no desire for alliance. Mormons get the hint and go where they feel at least not politically bothered. Besides, Mormons are not by nature activists. My guess is you won't find many Mormons "on the front lines" with conservative groups either. We would rather be just left alone to express our wishes at the ballot rather than holding pickets.
I think that your question about foreign policy goes with, although has some differences to, theological reasoning of the list you mentioned about "military adventurism, abortion, drug legalization, gambling, lighter prison sentences with more focus on restitution." I will have to write about each of them as separate issues. In fact, a few of them are more complicated than you think.
It's interesting I wanted to see if you had posted anything regarding the Jeffress thing. I hadn't seen this earlier comment. But I think it offers a nice launching pad into your comments because it exposes to my mind the basic irony.
On the one hand obviously Jeffress is expressing the general evangelical attitude: Mormons are good people who have "Christian values" but their religion isn't Christian. Mormons object that in a political context one shouldn't be bringing in these theological disputes... And they are really offended that a speaker at a Republican event would essentially advise people to vote for Perry over Romney on the basis of their personal faith. Catholics have essentially defended Romney vs. Perry on the whole issue arguing that this was below the belt campaigning; the Catholic position (for the last 2 generations) being no religious tests for office.
However these comments were made at the Value Voters Summit whose entire purpose is to create unofficial religious tests for office so as to use the state to advance Christian lifestyles. If Romney objects to intermixing church and state then what is he doing at the Summit? This was John Huntsman's point, earlier in why he didn't go. As I see it, if Romney agrees that church and state should be intermixed then who should be the Republican nominee can be examined in a purely religious dimension.
This incident in my mind gets right to the heart of the paradox as I see it. Mormons don't seem to see the contradiction between Value Voters Summit and the kinds of religious tolerance they are asking for with respect to their own faith.
___
As for FDR you have an interesting point there. The church was officially quite anti-Democratic though at the time, the membership just refused to obey. Which is a fascinating point where the membership and the leadership did diverge on an important issue.
I'll wait for your comments on foreign policy if you do, do a followup.
___
Finally, I'd disagree with the idea that liberals are anti-Mormon in any meaningful sense. They are anti-conservative and in so far as the Mormon church chooses to involve itself in conservative activism it picks up those enemies. Basically when Mormons opposed the ERA, the Civil Rights movement and the Gay Rights movement they got attacked for their opposition. But these attacks are rather mildly and are generally limited to hostility based on their opposition to those movements. The Sierra club, PETA, AFSCME, Global Justice... admit Mormon members as far as I can tell without any discrimination or even distinction. I just don't see the any kind of anti-Mormonism.
"It's interesting I wanted to see if you had posted anything regarding the Jeffress thing."
His comments are a dime a dozen. I like, although I don't support him politically, Huntsman's comment that Jeffress is a moron. What more is there to say?
Read here and here and here for similar thoughts of my own. The Evangelicals are not as big and powerful in the conservative movement as they (and the media) would like to believe.
"However, these comments were made at the Value Voters Summit whose entire purpose is to create unofficial religious tests for office so as to use the state to advance Christian lifestyles . . .
Mormons don't seem to see the contradiction between Value Voters Summit and the kinds of religious tolerance they are asking for with respect to their own faith."
Frankly, I don't think you see the irony of what you just wrote. Maybe Mormon Republican's don't see the contradiction, but it seems the Values Voters Summit organizers don't either as they invited Romney and Catholics. Mormons have never turned down an invitation to hang out with Jews, Catholics, Evangelicals, or Muslims who have things in common. If they don't want to invite us, like the Perry prayer rally, then so be it and we will shrug our shoulders; its their loss and not ours. Mormons don't believe in separation of Church and State if it means keeping silent about our values, but they do believe in something like a non-denominational national religious sentimentality. I think what you don't understand is that Mormons give the benefit of the doubt, even if others don't return the favor. There isn't enough numbers and power to do otherwise.
"Basically when Mormons opposed the ERA, the Civil Rights movement and the Gay Rights movement they got attacked for their opposition."
There you go. From a Mormon perspective that is de-facto anti-Mormonism. You can't criticize the LDS Church for its particulars on these issues and think it comes across as not anti-Mormonism. I think part of is, at least since the 1960s, if you agree with one particular of conservatism and liberalism then you are seen as, or are expected to be, agreeing with the whole political package. I have never heard of a pro-lifer joining PETA, but they will join Club for Growth. Do you know anyone who mixes and matches liberal and conservative activism groups?
Wow interesting we are disagreeing on a lot here.
Do you know anyone who mixes and matches liberal and conservative activism groups?
Sure. Up until the financial crisis that might very well have been the majority of the population. You had 49% of the population that was either:
Economically liberal / socially conservative
Economically liberal / socially moderate
Economically moderate / socially conservative
That whole group of people was badly served by our two parties. There has been a major political / idealogical shift according the the polling, since the recession and now you don't have huge numbers like that. However you still have large groups like:
socially conservative minority voters
libertarians
who mix and match between the parties.
In the North East where I live the North Eastern Republican establishment was primarily ethnic not idealogical. Liberal Republicans, when they used to exit, were essentially last generation's version of libertarians, people who were economically moderate (rather than liberal) but socially very liberal. Most of those people are Democrats now that the Democrats have moved right on economics. Planned Parenthood was firmly in the Republican camp when it started and even during the 1980s in the NE it still was heavily Republican.
If you want some mixing and matching:
-- labor unions have tons of social conservatives as members.
-- a lot of the minority rights groups are quite socially conservative.
-- Many business groups are quite supportive of economic regulation, especially those that control competition while being pro low taxes for the rich and corporations.
-- The NRA has a large Democrat membership
Evangelicals are not as big and powerful in the conservative movement as they (and the media) would like to believe.
This is our next area of disagreement though this isn't really Mormon oriented. Pew uses "staunch conservatives" to describe a group of voters that are heavily engaged in politics, extremely partisan Republicans strongly conservative on economic and social policy and favors an assertive foreign policy. They are 9% of the population and 11% of voters.
More than nine-in-ten (92%) non-Hispanic white and 56% male. The oldest of all voting groups (61% ages 50 and older). Married (79%), Protestant (72%, including 43% white evangelical), and financially comfortable (70% say paying the bills is not a problem).
Lifestyle notes: Many are gun owners (57%) and regular churchgoers (57% attend weekly or more often), and fully 81% are homeowners.
___
Moderate Republicans are also 65% Protestant, 38% white evangelical.
Basically 18% of the American population are white Evangelicals but they make up 40% of the two core Republican groups. And Protestants kick you up to around 70% in those groups, with Catholics being another 20%.
Conversely if you go to the other extreme: liberals and Post Moderns (young independent voters) you are at 2-4% evangelical and with 31-40% totally unaffiliated with religious institutions. And in terms of church attendance just 19% of Solid Liberals and Post-Moderns attend regularly.
The political parties are starting to divide on religious grounds. The outliers are
a) The poor who are heavily protestant (70% with 20% white evangelical and 17% catholic)
b) Libertarians who lean Republicans but look just slightly less secular than liberals.
____
Now we get to the final point.
In the original post you wrote, "Mormons are wary the government can help people without forcing itself upon those it claims to protect. This creates a fierce independence from both the liberals and conservatives that is more practical than purely ideological."
The Values Voter Summit isn't a group of people hanging out together. It is an organization whose purpose is to get people to comply with religious behavioral norms through the use state power. It is a planning meeting for those policies. In exactly the same way that if you went to a PETA event you would see people looking to use state power against animal abuse, importation of certain animal products, creation of vegetarian options in restaurants and cafeterias.... And if a religious organization attends a PETA summit they aren't there to hang out, they are there to cooperate with and shape the agenda.
And obviously the Mormon church is entitled to be against state power, or it is entitled to be in favor of using state power to advance its goals; but it can't be both. To a certain extent this contradiction exists throughout the Republican party which champions smaller government while assigning to government missions that can only be accomplished by a larger, more powerful government. And so that's typical, I still don't get it but... I agree that isn't something Mormons have to defend.
But in the case of Mormonism it is more direct because the religion itself is mostly non-authoritarian. Evangelical Christianity is non-authoritarian on issues of faith but not on issues of morals, because those moral issues are seen as secular. Mormons don't have that division, seeing the moral as within the realm of the church more like Jews and Catholics. But Mormonism doesn't make the same sort of absolute claims as the Catholic church.
So that's where I'm seeing an interesting question.
I just thought I'd close by saying I kinda came up with my own theory, to answer my question.
Hermeticism can be seen as conservative, a Greek/Egyptian movement rejecting the political innovations of the Romans. Many of their focuses like spiritual purity even for the laity are rather socially conservative. For the last 1000 years Hermetic Christians have been political and sexual radicals; but so was Joseph Smith and the early Mormon church.
However, there really hasn't been a broad based Hermetic movement that operates intra generationally. In other words a fixed church rather than something that sees itself as a sect. The sorts of people that would "rediscover" Hermetic Christianity are very different from the sorts of people being led by it.
So at least as a theory, were some of the other Hermetic groups to successfully create an intra-generational churches those two would rapidly become conservative.
That is the conflict between the theology and the culture comes from intra-generationality of the institution.
Post a Comment