- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I am curious about any insights out there about how a politicially left-wing, communal, socially expermimenting little church like the LDS church of the early 1800s has produced a staid Utah society who is so predominantly right-wing politically that doesn’t venture out of the ‘path’. At the time of the birth of the Republican Party, Polygamy was one of the ‘twin relics of barbarism’, and Mormons were the sworn enemies of the Republican Party. Now we have a society controlled by the near John Birch right!! How did that happen?
I think that second temple recommend question has some influence on it: 2. Are you a republican?
Silentstruggle: Jan Shipps in
Sojourner in the Promised Land, her personal reflection on being a Mormon historian for 40 years, says that the big watershed in being a Mormon happened during and after World War II. Before 1940 being Mormon was much the same as being born a Jew, Mormons were literally an ethnic group centered in the inter-mountain west. There is no question that the ethnic experience tended to make the entire culture more conservative and the Brethren as a whole, after moving firmly away from polygamy concentrated on maintaining the essential “differntness” of the culture, however this could never be allowed to become too great (so that we became say like the Amish, entirely apart from historical and technological developments) because we were sending out missionaries at an increasing rate even then. World War II and the economic boom that followed also saw the significant increase in the size of the Church. With that increase in population and the need to field more missionaries the Mormons lost their “ethnic status. Jan notes:
Quote:Now although still centered in Salt Lake City, Mormonism has gone in the past half-century from being primarily western to being a worldwide faith. In the same fifty years, Mormonism has gone from peoplehood to church membership, and Latter-day Saints have gone from being simply Mormon to being Mormon Christians.” p.30
The move into full acceptance by US society at large was a tense time and the leadership while wanting to push forward the missionary efforts did not want to lose the uniqueness of the religion. It is a constant tension and mistakes on the side of conservatism are far more acceptable than on the other side of the ledger. Mormons were shaped to a degree by the leadership and our own PR department into the “perfect American family” and the conservatism seemed to flow with that.I’m sure there is lots more but that is a start.
Thanks, very interesting. I had always thought that the Pro-life stance of the Democratic Party was the biggest reason that Utah was cemented firmly in the right, however it seems that the process began longer ago than that. My grandfather was a staunch democrat. I remember this being mentioned in the family in hushed tones with eyebrows raised while I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, like it was a family embarrassment. I have always been interested in Heber J. Grant’s role in homogenizing some our cultural practices, such as the business suit, the conservative haircut, and I believe a lot of the solidification of what consistutes ‘worthiness’, etc. He did retain his differences from the mainstream however, being a practicing polygamist well after the manifesto.
With the manifesto, there was no longer any reason to break any civil laws. The “rebel/outsider” mentality started to “fizz out”. (to use the technical terminology 
Taking polygamy away as a requirement was a relief to many. A huge burden was lifted and the people saw statehood and “fitting in” as regular Americans a welcome change.
That’s an understandable reaction from people who perceive themselves as being “good”, but are persecuted for it.
As humans, we want people to like us and think positive things about us. That’s a heck of a conflict when obeying what you consider “God’s law” comes in conflict with the rest of the world thinking that you’re “ok”.
Oh yeah, the other best topic: politics! I doubt many are going to like this and some will dispute it but the move of southern christians from staunch democrat to crazy conservatives matches almost perfectly the move of the church culture.
First, christian churches started to really rally around patriotism and manifest destiny during the cold war, viewing the ussr as an existential threat to christianity (which was true to a certain extent). This made religious philosophy an important component of politics and government.
Secondly, orthodox-style christianity had deep roots in the doctrinal concept of racial differences. Democrats were leading the charge for racial equality. This is when the democratic party started losing the white christian south (and utah).
Lastly, the overwhelming societal upheavals of the 60’s bore fruit in the 70’s and mainstream orthodox christianity pushed back. Hard. And with the political activism rooted in the cold war mentality of all or nothing, this movement was ready to roar.
The cultural battles made into political battles under the banner of “morality”, for better or worse, were abortion, miscegenation, acceptance of homosexuality, ERA, literalness of the bible, and the idea that the U.S. is a “christian” nation. That last one has become important as the best known Mormon in the country, Mitt Romney, just wrote a book called, “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness”. And the last presidential administration famously would not apologize for anything. As a “christian nation led by God…” one need not apologize.
And, of course, mainstream southern christians (and mormons) came down over and over on the side of the Republican party on all of these issues. Or the Republican party was hi-jacked by mainstream christianity to fight the “culture wars” on all fronts.
What a great question. I personally do not see Christian values in conservative politics, other than the value of life(babies, not death row prisoners). I think Mormon republicanism has more to do with its history. We were white, collected women to bulk up our eternal family, and regarded black people as cursed and every other color as Lamanites/sinners: hardly a platform for helping the little people. I think this early thought process developed a view that minority groups somehow deserve to be in the lower class, that it could be God’s will. But I think that’s bull. I saw a bumper sticker that said,
I’m already against the next war. I rolled my eyes until I saw a priest get out of the car. I thought, oh, alright, he actually believes in what he preaches, how refreshing. Much of what we associate with Joseph Smith’s vision of a theocracy was embodied by his Nauvoo. Its fairly safe to say that most of the practices (with the exception of the endowment) that were embraced at Nauvoo are rejected today. The church was initially a Zionistic, “Christ’s Second Coming is Eminent,” “Gather or Perish” religion. However, as Christ’s Second Coming did not materialize, and the church was forced to deal with statehood, rejection of polygamy, etc., it also HAD TO REJECT the theo-democracy embraced by Joseph Smith. You can’t be part of the USA and have your own, exclusive government. At least, the Utah Mormons decided that wasn’t the way they wanted to go. From there, I suspect that the politics of individual prophets had alot to do with the politics of the Mormons. After all, Pres. Benson once said that a prophet could speak on anything, including politics, and it should be considered as God’s word.
Oh I see, a humorless crowd (or a bad joke). Some very good points made here. It is a very interesting topic, especially when you consider that when the Saints first hit Utah they were assigned to a political party, with the whole idea of making sure it was 50/50. This was because of previous persecution based on politics/economics when the Mormon’s dominated areas they moved into.
Part of this was also to please the feds as they worked for Statehood.
Another possibility that may have influenced the shift was the “McCarthyism” of the 50’s. I assume that conservatism was one of the furthest possible safe stances from the witch hunts of the time.
timpanogos wrote:Oh I see, a humorless crowd (or a bad joke).
Neither, timp. My DH and I both laughed aloud at your joke!
😆 😆 😆 Swimordie said: Quote:Secondly, orthodox-style Christianity had deep roots in the doctrinal concept of racial differences. Democrats were leading the charge for racial equality.
Sorry- wrong. Just because you might be picturing John and Bobby Kennedy (Democrats) heading the charge. They really hadn’t lead, but rather caught the wave President Eisenhower (the General who knew how blacks performed in WWII, along with Republicans in Congress, they had already done most of the heavy lifting). By the way, it was the democrats of the south that had to be reigned-in. It’s not good to paint just one party as bringing about civil rights. Johnson did sign off on the legislation, but the Republicans were just as involved and supportive.
I noticed that all the comments so far are left of center. To me, that means that most of you are newbies to being inactive, less active, or “questioning” the Church. It’s as though the conservatism is tarred by the Church and visa-verse. And supposedly liberating oneself, is liberal.
I went down that road. My Mormon guilt had me in the Rainbow Coalition wearing buttons for Jesse Jackson for President.
I stood-up for Clinton in conversation with Mormon family (until Monica). I voted for Al Gore.
9-11
Made a big difference in my life.
There’s nothing wrong with re-visiting conservative values. It can be an experience for at least someone here- and realize that it may satisfy some of the values that you miss- or don’t appreciate, that do resonate in what is moral in Mormonism.
Sorry primary, I didn’t mean to insinuate that it was just democrats. I was simply pointing out in broad brush-stroke one of the big reasons that the south turned republican in the 60’s-70’s. Democrats took the credit, whether they deserved it or not. Not sure how I got painted lefty; I’m a raging libertarian in the Barry Goldwater/Ron Paul mold. I actually think that’s the overriding political philosophy for most of us here, at least as far as I can tell without anyone talking much about politics.
Being a liberal has nothing to do with my disaffection, I was liberal before I joined the church. Fwiw, my politics are liberal, moderate and conservative – depending on the issue. I’m impressed to see that there are a few libertarians on here! I am one too! Funny how that works. People raised in the Church tend to be fairly conservative, but there are definitely some good cases to be made for libertarian politics using Church doctrine. For example, “Everything is permissible for me”—but not everything is beneficial” (1 Corinthians 6:12) seems to make a good case for social liberalism.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.