If my experience is any indication, there is a new, palatable, and recondite frustration among more than a few Utah Mormons over the Church’s effective alignment with the Republican Party’s priorities and policies.
As anyone with Mormon friends living in Utah knows, we gentiles occasionally and gladly serve as confidants to our Mormon friends in what I will call “special conversations†in which (how do I say this gently?) the company of a second Mormon, might result in self-censorship. (I neither condemn nor condone this behavior) The subject is often an innocent lament about how restrictive or demanding the lifestyle is. Sometimes it’s about how judgmental Utah Mormons can be of one another. Often a prerequisite of the “special conversation†is acknowledgement that the stereotype shall not apply.
I love those conversations, and cherish those relationships. But recently, the subject has changed. The seriousness has changed. And the frequency has gone from occasional to almost daily.
Put another way, there is a very real however guarded re-alignment going on in the Mormon community. People are waking up to the fact that Democratic Party values are closer to true Christian principles where Republicans continue to pander to fundamentalist Christians for political expediency by exploiting low priority hot button issues.
If there is a message here, it is to my Mormon friends who seem to think they are alone on this subject; you are not. In my experience you are in good and growing company.
It seems people have grown tired of the few loud, shrill voices on the right who claim to represent “good Mormons,†who loudly shout down anyone who expresses a progressive or liberal viewpoint. It is little wonder so many active members are reluctant to speak out. So bad is the situation that some more progressive Mormons have even been accused of not being Mormon.
It is no secret that within the Church, dissent is somehow muted. But to whatever extent Mormon culture has managed to harness non-conforming outward expression of disagreement within the “community,†today, at least in the case of the Church’s willingness to take a political position in line with the Christian Fundamentalist contingent, while ignoring more pressing issues, the individual whispers taken together suggest a rising chorus.
Certainly, we do see public evidence of frustration coming from members over the Church’s political and policy alignment with the current administration from members. This frustration ranges from the exception to the rule.
The local blog “A Liberal Mormon†provides a classic example of how what would otherwise be considered dissent, takes instead the form of reserved “questioning†dressed in subtleties of scripture and use of the passive subjunctive and third person plural, such as “we can succumb to the hubris [or…],†expertly crafted so as not to be confrontational.
A recent article in the Salt Lake Tribune “The LDS Church, extremism and the leadership vacuum†is another example. After following a quote by the LDS Prophet with, “An ennobling viewpoint, I’d say,†the very next line says, “But, for any true believers who still see global warming as the literal fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecy…â€
I was speaking with Steve Olsen the Young Democrats BBQ in Sugarhouse Park recently. He is running against Ron Bishop for US Congress. Steve is a deeply religious man who after years of pondering the problems facing his own and the broader community and their solutions, realized he was a Democrat. This came as a great and unwelcome surprise to Steve who is also a bishop.
In an effort to resolve this apparent conflict, he wrote…and wrote, and he ended up with a long essay or short booklet – depending on the venue – and entitled it “Why Most Utahns Are Democrats and Just Don’t Know It Yetâ€. His argument that Christian principles are more closely aligned with the Democratic Party is pretty bulletproof.
Unfortunately but not surprisingly, we have been unable to engage in this debate here in Utah.
Anyone who still thinks the Democratic Party in Utah is the sole domain of gentiles is in la-la land. If the LDS leadership is truly interested in political neutrality in this climate, it must either abstain from endorsing public policy positions or find a way to reinvigorate advocacy of Christian principles like taking care of the poor, peace, the Earth, and protecting children and families with reasonable wages and healthcare.
May God bless us all.
#1 by Paula on July 6, 2006 - 8:01 pm
So what you saying is, even if half the membership of the LDS church were leaning democratic, the church would never know it?
Its so funny you describe the special conversation we have with our Mormon friends. I call it the “Please treat me normally” routine.
It’s especially hard for Mormons who move here because they don’t understand the Utah Mormon culture until the first time they’re told they can’t wear slacks to relief society meetings or go to a picnic where they can’t REALLY drink beer.
Keep up the pioneering work Cliff!
#2 by Doug on July 7, 2006 - 9:16 am
Interesting points, but I think this issue is so dominated by oft-untrue conventional wisdom, that it is hard to uncover the true reasons for Utah’s conservatism.
First off, the main thrust of this post is that many Mormons are coming around to the progressive viewpoint and that “Anyone who still thinks the Democratic Party in Utah is the sole domain of gentiles is in la-la land”. However, the fact is that Mormons have made up a plurality if not a majority of Utah’s Democrats for many years and still do. Of course, they also make up a super-majority of Utah’s Republicans. The problem is not so much where the Mormons are (because they numerically dominate both camps), but that the overwhelming majority of people in Utah vote Republican.
Second, for most of us who are “young” and progressive, we can only think in terms of Utah as a long-time conservative monolith and that the only way the pendulum can possibly swing is back to the center or left. I remember in 2000 talking to the Executive Director of the Democratic Party who told me that every day he received at least one phone-call from someone so fed up with things (House Bill 320, “yes†to guns but “no†to sex ed in schools, etc. etc.) that they wanted to change their voter registration to Democratic. That trend was not unlike the one that this post expresses. The problem is that it is HUGELY MISLEADING. The fact is that huge chunks of Utah, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Colorado have become MUCH more conservative over the last 25 years and are still doing so. In other words, the pendulum is still swinging against us. Is this because of the Mormon Church or evangelical movements? No. It is because of demography. The posterity of the West Coast Goldwater/Reagan Republicans –who are MUCH more conservative than your average 5th generation Utahn– have been moving here in droves.
Case in Point: 29 years ago, Utah’s Senate was controlled by Democrats. 25 years ago we had a Democratic Governor. As recently as 1996 Utah County had a State Senator and State Representative who were both Democratic. That’s not ancient history—but the real question is WHY those individuals were not re-elected in ‘96. Believe it or not, the State Senator in question (along with Bill Orton) received MORE votes in 1996 than they ever had before in the elections they won. They didn’t lose because they didn’t get their messages out or because they failed to motivate their supporters. Nor did they lose because they were not the David Magelby-Mormon profile (they were). Instead they lost because they were drowned out by newly registered voters who increased in number each year until it was inevitable that they lost. I was shocked once as I pored over election returns over the past 10-15 years to find that many of the Democrats who were getting slaughtered 70-30 were actually getting more votes than Democrats who won the same races 10 years prior. An example is Donald Dunn who received more votes in the 3rd District in 2000 than Bill Orton did in 1990, 1992 and 1994. So what happened? What happened is that although the Democrats increased by “significant†numbers, the Republicans increased by about 10 TIMES what the Democrats did. Religion had nothing to do with it. In fact, there is some evidence that Utah has become LESS Mormon (but more active Mormon) and MORE Republican at the same time! This is definitely true in Carbon County which has started to vote like the Florida Panhandle—Dem local and Rep national. But according to the recent Tribune story on Mormon/non-Mormon percentages, Carbon County’s percentage of Mormons has receded over the last 20 years.
I am told by a Democratic activist that the most conservative demographic in Utah is females from 18-30. That’s anecdotal, but I believe it. On the campaign trail I have had much greater success with lifelong Utahns than with young families who moved here (or their parents moved here) in the last 20 years. (Now of course, I am talking about Davis, Utah and Washington Counties—not Sugarhouse or the Avenues). If you look to Idaho you will find the same problem. True, the Mormon-segment of migrants to the Mountain West tends to come to Utah (for obvious reasons) but their Republican fervor can’t simply be ascribed to their faith.
Lastly (and this is the toughest idea for folks to swallow), the Mormon Church has Democrats even in its top ranks, and I believe, is truly neutral when it comes to Partisan Politics. We progressives seem to be as easily blinded by the Church’s position on hot-button issues as are foolish conservative Mormons who think that the Church’s position on Gay marriage dictates who they must elect County Surveyor (not to mention President). The fact is that the Mormon Church has only spoken out on a miniscule amount of issues, but encourages its members to be active on their own. This is why it’s O.K. for a Mormon to be active in lobbying for environmental causes OR for polluters. That irks folks on both sides but in spite of all conventional wisdom to the contrary, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not expected to take any particular view on the vast majority of issues. Instead they are simply encouraged to be involved. As for the Church’s being viewed as a shill for the right-wing movement we have to remember that their view on gay marriage pre-dates the Bush administration and was to be expected.
I guess it ultimately comes down to the old dichotomy of The Official Church versus Mormon/Western/Conservative “Cultureâ€, but all I know is that the Church’s friendly pronouncements towards Democrats get much less attention than it’s pronouncements on gay marriage. And unfortunately, that’s less attention not just from the conservatives, but from us as well.
#3 by Doug on July 7, 2006 - 9:24 am
Sorry for the long reply and fill free to excise my one word-one comma typo at the end…no I didn’t have more to say! But I hope folks will consider my reply vis a vis Cliff’s post and give feedback…
#4 by Cliff on July 7, 2006 - 1:56 pm
Hi Doug, Thanks for your thoughtful response.
While there are clearly many Mormons democrats, looking across the landscape of elected officials, party delegates, officers, and activists and financial donors, it is not hard to see where people get the sense that we are mostly non-Mormon. Now THAT raises an interesting question. Are Mormon democrats less likely to participate openly?
And this speaks to my main point. Regardless of the actual numbers and democratic voters, the Republican machine’s attempt to equate liberals/progressives with words like immoral, unpatriotic, socialists…(you get the point), has found it’s way into a good chunk of LDS community as a very real stigma.
The title and content of a letter to the editor yesterday is a great example. “Liberal left un-American” It’s an amazing letter really. Here’s an exceprt, “The liberal left — and those who publish their letters and voice of hate and malice toward this country — will pay a penalty they will regret.”
I guess another way of making this point is in a comment I made as Janneke’s campaign manger which I posted on the website. It drew a ton of media attention. I said, “My experience with church members as an ‘LDS-loving gentile’, is that outside of the ward house, most are very well aware that Bush betrayed them. But that conversation is too risky directly after sacrament meeting. post
I’ve gotta run, but I will continue my response later.
#5 by Cliff on July 7, 2006 - 4:20 pm
Indeed, the Church has been very consistent in its attempt to express political neutrality. It has also been consistent in it’s opposition to polygamy. And it’s well within their right to take an ecclesiastical position on homosexuality. But it seems to me that if they were really a committed to a position of political neutrality they would specifically avoid supporting state and federal anti-gay initiatives, which are much more about galvanizing political support from “certain” religious communities, bigots and rednecks, than actually taking rights away from gay people. The Church leaders are not that naïve.
One of the most ardent Mormons I know. He called me on his way home from work one day to say, “How on earth can homosexual marriage threaten my marriage?â€
But frankly the real evidence that this issue is more about politics than religion is that there is no scriptural evidence for their position, while there is nothing BUT scriptural evidence for supporting an increase in the minimum wage. Now there’s a family value!
But getting back to my point. I’m NOT suggesting the Church has anything to do with the fact that liberal Mormons don’t feel comfortable betraying their politics in casual conversation after church. I’m just pointing out the fact that it is a very real dynamic.
I’m sure that happens in some other religious communities as well. I’m just sad that that puts the LDS Church in the company with Christian Fundamentalist as opposed to say the Episcopalians, Unitarian, Catholics, and Jews.
I could give you so many examples. Here’s one. I was knocking on doors in the Capitol Hill area asking people to put up yard signs for Janneke House. Twice in the space of several hours, someone who said they supported Janneke and agreed to put up a yard sign, changed their mind when they saw the donkey.
Here’s one more for ya. A friend of mine is Davis County was given and asked BY HER BISHOP to put up a John Kerry yard sign because he said, “I just can’t”.
This is my point. Is it the Church’s fault? Maybe not. Does being a democrat mean you support gay rights and abortion? Not if you’re Jim Matheson, but he doesn’t put a donkey on his yard signs either.
#6 by Bob on July 8, 2006 - 11:00 am
Cliff-
I’m formulating a post on the discussion in my head, that I’ll probably post on my blog, but I just want to comment on something in your last comment.
I personally feel that members in high positions, like Bishops, should stay nutural, including not posting lawn signs. A former Bishop of mine was very active in Republican circles before and after his service as Bishop, but did not participate on that level while Bishop. If he was asked a political question at church, he refused to answer. At other functions, he always prefaced it by saying he was speaking as a neighbor, not your Bishop.
-Bob
#7 by Doug on July 12, 2006 - 9:22 am
Yes, I agree Cliff that non-activist Mormon Democrats (i.e., regular voters who vote Democratic) are much less visible by choice. I also agree that it would help if they would be visible; and so while I argue that the official Mormon-Republican link is perception rather than reality, it is a pretty powerful perception. And we all know that in politics, perception often = reality.
I guess one of my biggest arguments is that Progressives need to be the first ones to quash the notion of Mormon = Republican. (or “obliterate” as Elder Marlin K. Jensen said in the famous 1998 Trib interview). We are often the first ones to wring our hand at what many feel is a blurring of church and state or church and politics. I think you do a lot to show an alternate way of thinking about religion and politics on this blog, but it is very easy for all of us to fall back into the old mold of thinking and talking. And when we do it always reinforces a notion that is ultimately perilous to us in communities where there are lots of Mormons.
Of course, even the smallest nuances of communication can change one’s perception about what one is really saying. I recall Howard Dean’s faux pas about all Republicans being lazy and never doing a hard day’s work. In his mind he was probably sending a barb to his arch-enemies in the Whitehouse, Congress or the Republican leadership (and there is probably some truth to the statement if that is the case). But the problem with Dean’s comment is that every working American–including swing Republicans–that identifies with the Republican party was offended in the same way that every Demcrat is offended when someone charges “Democrats” with being amoral, immoral or valueless.
Contrast Dean’s style to that of Bill Clinton whom I saw on an environmental forum with Ted Turner on CSPAN. Instead of saying something like “we need to get Christians to realize that the bible says human’s have a stewardship over the land” or “if evangelicals knew their own scriptures they would realize that they ought to be protecting the environment” Clinton was savvy enough to say something entirely different, but much more effective. He said something to this affect: “One reason evangelicals take the environment seriously is because they take the bible seriously. Taking care of God’s earth is based in the bible.” [This is a major paraphrase from memory, but you get the idea]. My point is that sometimes the best way to persuade someone is to praise them for what they ought to be instead of telling them what they ought to be. No wonder that Clinton won the evangelical vote (something that seems nigh impossible for a Democrat only ten years later).
As for Bob’s comment–it’s a tough issue and I have mixed feelings. Mormon’s have “lay” clergy, so in one small way it’s kind of like being a Jesuit Priest. I don’t think you will every see a prohibition on political activity for clergy lower than the General Authorities. To do so would put a real damper on community activism (especially in small rural areas where many people wear multiple hats in civic and religious organizations). I knew one Democrat who, while serving as a Bishop would not put up signs (to my dismay). And yet, I think his reasoning was similar to the Bishop you mentioned. As such it was noble and defensible. Basically, he didn’t want people to think he was using his position to sway opinion.
#8 by Right Democrat on July 16, 2006 - 10:49 am
I am a non-Mormon, but have had the pleasure of knowing many LDS folks over the years. We share many of the same values although coming from different religious traditions.
One of the major problems that Democrats have with Mormons (and with other religious people especially evangelicals and traditional Catholics) is the perception of secularism and hostility to moral values. The Republicans are, of course, just using the religious and social traditionalists for votes while advancing a pro-big business agenda. Republicans don’t really want to ban abortion and gay marriage – they just want to exploit these emotional issues indefinitely for votes.
If Democrats are to become a governing majority again, we must focus on the concerns of working families with an agenda of economic populism and move toward the center on social issues. We can’t win large areas of this country as long as Democrats have to carry around the albatross of late term abortion and gay marriage. If that happens, Democrats are going to have a lot more appeal to the Mormons and other religious voters.
Democrats also must be able to relate to the individualism of Western voters and support the right to keep and bear arms.
#9 by Eric on August 3, 2006 - 2:31 pm
I can’t believe you’re all falling for this. The church just wants to look neutral. Look being the key word. Do you really think that the church would make a proclamati0n to the world on the evils of governments that don’t take care of its citizens, or the dangers of gun violence, or greed and corruption? They could, but I EXTREMELY doubt it, they still focus so much on these ridiculous conservative social issues.
I’m leaving the church over the frustration that all this is causing. I know that doesn’t matter, but I still think it’s important to notice the frustration that anybody could be feeling over this.
Take a look at something, the LDS church leadership. The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency, what do you see? They are all rich white men with power. That spells out both disaster and right-wing to me. I don’t think that they are receiving divine guidance on anything, they seem too media-savvy and act more like politicians and businessmen in the capacity that they have to stick up for the church at any cost. They don’t seem like the people that would ever admit that they’re wrong.
Anyway, I know that this message will probably be deleted, and that what I think couldn’t matter less, but this is the message of a very frustrated person. What matters most is that we stop two girls or two boys from kissing, not all the people here that have had enough with the hook-up between the LDS church and the Religious Right.
Thanks for letting me ramble. I hope things end up well for all of you.