Our unhappy political moment has unfortunately corrected a longstanding asymmetry in ideologically-driven exit options.
It has long been apparent that some liberal and progressive members of the church experience tension between their religious and their political or intellectual commitments. After seeing enough people follow a path from internal critique to a left exit, and as someone who tends toward liberal politics and intellectual pursuits, I have to be honest with myself about the potential for secularism, intellectualism and progressivism to become deadly heresies for me.
Until relatively recently, there was usually no clear equivalent on the right. The primary pitfall for conservatives was if anything fundamentalism, an unyielding and inflexible commitment to particular or contingent teachings and secondary or cultural elements of the church rather than to the core doctrines of the gospel. Fundamentalist faith can be brittle and risks a major rupture whenever a program changes or new possibilities for interpreting scripture emerge. While fundamentalism might bind individuals more closely to the church, I have doubts about its viability as a vehicle for propagating faith across generations.
Secular intellectualism is not the left-hand counterpart of fundamentalism in any case. Instead, the pervasive brittleness of fundamentalism finds its opposite in the cumulative antinomianism of people who see themselves as happily committed members of the church, except for the things that (so they tell themselves) aren’t really essential anyway. For example:
- I love the church, but coffee just doesn’t matter.
- Not ordaining women is nothing but patriarchal culture that the church will soon outgrow.
- The church doesn’t need the money, so I’ll use my tithing for other worthy causes.
- The prophet and apostles simply aren’t prepared to receive revelation about gay marriage, or just haven’t asked.
- The church needs to get away from a simplistic historical view of the Book of Mormon.
- Obedience and following the commandments are antithetical to loving the Lord.
- The concept of sin is harmful and causes psychic distress.
The ultimate conclusion is that there is no sin, no divine law, no need for a savior or a church to provide salvific ordinances. Maybe you find one of these points attractive. But two points define a line, and that line is sloping in the wrong direction. While the fundamentalist clings inflexibly to everything until one sudden movement disrupts the whole structure of belief, the antinomian pares back belief bit by bit until there’s no substance to it.
But creeping antinomianism differs from the tension felt by progressives or intellectuals between their competing commitments. While conservatives have largely enjoyed alignment between their faith and their politics, the rise of Trumpist populism has changed that. Now conservative church members too have to be wary of political currents that will distance them from the church, including
- racism and white nationalism,
- gun rights fundamentalism,
- pandemic denialism,
- conspiracy theories, and
- the embrace of cruelty.
If you’re a Republican, you have to remain vigilant about ongoing changes in your political party. If you’re profoundly upset by the church’s support of immigration and condemnation of racism, or that you have to wear a mask and can’t concealed carry at church, you are in spiritual peril. Progressives have at least become practiced at living with their political and religious commitments in tension, but for you it’s new. If you’re dabbling in the alt right, cosplaying civil war with your AR, mocking Fauci, huffing Q, or delighting in owning the libs and separating families at the border, you may find yourself experiencing the novel feeling of being at odds with the church’s public statements or the target of the prophet’s rebuke.
I’ve lived a long time and sought diligently to grow in understanding in things of the Spirit. I’ve been reading in the bloggernacle since July 2007. I even started a blog of my own when one of the more liberal powers in the nacle blocked my comments because I would discuss things of the Spirit in a way that offended him. Then one day after a little over 10 years my blog disappeared without notice from LDSBlogs.org. That was about a two years ago.
I preface my comment with the above to let those who read my comment have some background information.
As I read Jonathan’s post it reminded me of the tension that exist between those who are born with a testimony and those who struggle to obtain a testimony. I wasn’t born with a testimony like some, but when I asked the Lord to reveal to me if the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith were the real deal. At the time I asked this question, sincerely I might add, because of the challenge of going to war (Vietnam War) in a few weeks. The weekly body count at the time was very high.
In my simple, brief prayer, I promised Him if He would answer my prayer in a way that I could understand, I would give up the riotous life style I was living and serve Him for the rest of my life. A few hours after that prayer my spirit left my body and I encountered an angel, not one like Moroni. This angel wanted to destroy me. I called upon Heavenly Father to save me from the evil being. No, I wasn’t possessed any more than Joseph Smith was when encountered an evil power in the sacred grove. After my prayer for help the evil beings power ended as was the vile ugly words he spoke to me. I watched him slowly walk away into the night. I looked around and realized I could see things in a way that let me know I was in my room but my view was much greater and that side of the veil. After returning to my body, which wasn’t quick and easy, I knew a whole lot more than I did a few minutes prior to this experience.
Since then, over 50 years, I have had many manifestations of the Spirit. Heavenly Father has been so kind and loving to me. I can’t understand why. Keeping the commandments hasn’t been easy for me. I’ve been reading “Insights” about Pres. Nelson. He has lived a life where the Spirit has guided him constantly, but I don’t think he has trouble keeping the commandments like I do.
The greatest blessing of my life is to have a testimony, I might add, one that I realize is unusual. If I don’t share it often, I feel it is not pleasing to Heavenly Father. I hope the Spirit will testify what I shared is authentic and will provide added power in your life, even if it is only for a few hours.
I plead with you to listen carefully to Pres Nelson talk about “Let God Prevail” and take up your cross and move forward to the goal of Eternal Life.
Ideology is a function of modern priestcraft.
I know of LDS family and friends who cannot see the world, except through an ideological lens:
they share an appetite for the “sacrament” of media—television, internet, podcast, radio;
they repeat political “liturgy” exactly as they hear it;
they feel as outraged as the “priestly” commentators they revere;
they scream loud for “justice,” but are quiet about mercy;
The spell of political priestcraft overshadows the LDS priesthood. Divisive, contentious, distracting. If you cannot interpret the world except through spoonfed ideology, then smoke-and-mirrors already got you. It amounts to false worship.
There is an aspect of finger pointing in this post.
Bryan, unfortunately, finger pointing is all I can do.
I agree with Bryan in Virginia that there is an element of finger-pointing in this post. I also enjoyed reading it immensely.
I was a Goldwater-Reagan Limited-government conservative when I joined the Church, and became immediately and uncomfortably aware that there was a strong alt-right, conspiracy-fixated John Birch Society element in the Church—so much so that in Utah, the John Birch Society was matter-of-factly referred to as the JBS. This element has morphed over the years, and IMO is now largely a pro-Trump ethno-nationalism and racism that believes in conspiracies. I am reminded of a cult.
Church leaders became aware of this problem in 1992, when Bo Gritz, the fringiest of minor-party candidates, got six percent of the vote in Utah. It is my belief that Church leaders are more worried about the right-Wing fringe in the Church, than the progressive Mormons. Disaffected progressives just tend to fade away; the right-wing fringe tends to set up survivalist communes in Idaho or polygamist groups in the desert.
I pretty much agree with Green‘s assessment. But the problem, in my experience, is that when these people are confronted with being out of harmony with what the Church teaches, they come back saying that Church leaders don‘t dare say what they really think, so they are carrying the true flame for the Church.
I am sorry if I sound angrier than I normally do in my comments, but the garbage from about four of my Ward members is getting to be a bit much, as Election Day approaches.
Thanks to Green for his post.
Thank you Brother Green. You hav described something I have seen, and which has concerned me for a long time, though I have never been able to fully put it into words.
We’ve had an apostasy from the left, and many have left. Some of us have learned how to accept dissonance between our politics and our faith, and choose our faith, despite the pain that sometimes accompanies that decision.
Now it appears it is the turn of our brethren and sisters on the right to face this challenge. As badly as the natural man in me wants to feel smug about this, I don’t. This is a miserable experience to go through, and I wish them well, may they be swifter to hear, and more willing to turn than many of us were.
Living in Australia, I am only aware of Church culture from conference, and the blogs I follow.
I understand there are reasons why church leaders could not explicitly say vote one way or the other(could they say I will vote for Biden)? Were there any subtle messages, one way or the other?
1. A group of people all social distancing, and wearing masks. Not Trump
2. Racism is bad and we must work to eradicate it. Not Trump
3. Demonstrations are constitutional, but violence is bad. 93% of BLM protests peacefull, violence come with white supremacists, or heavy handed policing. Not Trump
4. Contention, and bullying and hatred of the devil Not Trump
5.Zion society, one mind, and no poor among them Not Trump
6. Remove our prejudices, and find our moral compass. Not Trump
7. Heal society by being Christlike, honest, peacemakers, living and respecting our fellow men, be kind, humble, caring. Not Trump
8 Racial and other Diversity, and love can go together Not Trump
9. Be subject to law, oppose anarchy. Not Trump
10. Peacefully accept the results of elections. Not Trump
11. Loyalty to established law, not temporary leader. Not Trump
12. There were no warnings about socialism. Not Trump
13. Nothing about masks = attack on religious freedom. Not Trump
These are all from the Saturday morning session. Because of time zones we usually watch Sunday sessions next Sunday.
I’m sure you will have interpreted things differently. I saw a Sumary of Oaks talk on a conservative site as condemning race riots, so they did not hear what I heard
I think you touch on something quite important, Jonathan. Those on the fundamentalist/right have been insulated in their interactions with the Church and have not had to actively manage the cultural disconnect many progressives have become accustomed to (and maybe even made peace with) over the years. But I think we shouldn’t overestimate any disconnect the fundamentalists might be feeling. While a few recent statements by Church leaders might not align with fundamentalist ideals, I find that those statements are dismissed as disingenuous reactions intended to assuage public pressure. Essentially, they don’t think those statements actually reflect the true sentiments of the Church. Unfortunately, many of those on the liberal end are also skeptical that these recent statements reflect the true sentiments of the Church.
While I think that under almost all circumstances there is no justification for rebellion with ar15s, etc. I do have a hard time squaring that belief with the fact that the same was done by blustery colonists and stolen cannons.
Under no circumstances can I imagine the leaders of the church supporting George Washington were he here today. The claims of abuses in the declaration of independence were not any more severe than what many face today in this country and certainly many others.
The church just isn’t and has rarely if ever been a leader in the social, governmental issues of the day. Neither was Jesus, for that matter. The church broadly focuses on individual discipleship as the path to a better community.
Of course the church is in favor of effective civil institutions, and encourages us to support and be involved in them. But a constitutional, “general welfare” sort of way.
When the Spirit is telling you to buy an AR15, something is hilariously backwards. At least half the Church is in this deplorable place – in the Midwest sticks where I live, more like three quarters. Our next EQ function will be a gun shoot. I will literally not be surprised if one of my dear brethren shows up with a flame thrower. I am just waiting for a bumper sticker with Jesus holding an automatic weapon. These will be very popular hereabouts. We’ll fly them proudly from our bumpers on the way to the Temple.
I love P‘s comment about a bumper sticker showing Jesus holding an automatic weapon. But I think even the rightest of right-wingers would interpret it as a mocking criticism of gun rights. So, I plan on getting one made, and placing it next to my Biden bumper sticker…..
There are perils on every side. Not the least of which is confusing who suffers from motes and who from beams. Charity – especially that charity defined as the pure love of Christ – is the only true solution.
I think many members cannot distinguish policy from doctrine. Progressives think doctrine is nothing more than policy and fundamentalist think all policy is doctrine.
Lily, I think that’s an interesting point. While it’s a pretty big generalization, there’s some truth to it. But, I also think it brings up the issue that sometimes it’s difficult to detangle policy from doctrine. Could you give some examples of how you distinguish between them?
Well naturally, I have the perfect compass and can EASILY distinguish the two. (HAHA). If its dealing with our particular earthly situation its probably policy. Such as, how long does Church last, political issues of the day, social customs – i.e. mother stay home. If it is something that would apply to all people, in all generations and all circumstances its probably doctrine. I am sure their are exceptions. The other thing I would look to is if its woven into the actual ordinances or just something we see in the Ensign.
You have raised some interesting questions puzzles, and worries. Chief among them might be “What are the core doctrines and required practices of the gospel?
My reaction to what I take as your main point about both the left and the right in the church often being in error is that the answer has to do with what people believe about religion. More specifically, whether they believe in the religions of man or whether they believe in the true religion of God. Whoever we worship, that is who we take as our rule-giver. If we worship man, we accept him as our rule-giver. If we worship God, we accept his rules. It seems that what is being described and asked here in the original post is “who do we worship and whose rules do we keep?”
Someone mentioned that this post does some “finger-pointing.” Other people might call this condescension. But I believe all of this is simply taking too narrow of a view of the situation.
To more easily say what I want to say, I need to mention the concept of a dial or a gauge. All the way to the left, at zero, are the teachings of men, and all the way to the right at 100% are the teachings of God. The question then is where are specific individuals to be placed on this particular scale? In my opinion, when we talk about progressives or the political left, we are talking about those who 100% worship man and his rules — “politics.”
I’m relatively new to this idea of people presenting blog posts and then other people making comments. It seems to me that on this particular website and on this particular thread, we have a number of people who I believe see themselves as being “progressives.” In my old-fashioned view of things, I equate full-scale atheistic progressivism as being the same thing as Marxism. Today we have the Marxist BLM protesters, along with their Antifa fascist allies, going around smashing, burning, pillaging, and even wounding and killing people in the name of their political religion. As I see it, typically, all the professed progressives may not be willing to go out and actually smash windows, burn buildings, steal goods, and even injure people, but they support the ones who do. They are part of the same voting bloc in our country.
As we move a small way along my imaginary gauge, I think Mormon progressives have at least mixed in a little bit of God along with the teachings and rules of men. So, I would put these people at about the 25% mark; that is, they are 75% following the teachings and rules of man and 25% following the teachings and rules of God.
Unfortunately, I think, on average, the Mormon conservatives, as they are considered in this original post, are only at about 50% on the dial. That is, they are using 50% of the rules of men and 50% of the rules of God. Strangely enough, I see many regular Protestants and Catholics who are far further along on the scale, perhaps getting up to the point of using 80% of the most important rules of God and only 20% of the rules of men. Also, strangely enough, it is only the unusual Mormon who gets past the 50-50 mark on the dial. That might need some explaining. I see the church leadership as operating at approximately the 50-50 point on this scale between the rules of man and the rules of God, and a very large number of members stand with them. The difficulty, of course, is that we are still a long way from using 100% of the rules of God. In other words, if the Mormon conservatives are completely in tune with church leaders, they are still only halfway to what the real gospel should be. In other words, I see both the politically liberal and politically conservative church members as being on the wrong side of this scale or dial.
What are those rules of God that are being so much ignored by church members and leaders, and better recognized by people of other faiths? Basically, it is the concepts of respecting the individual freedom of men and of having a desire to engage in individual charitable acts concerning others. (It doesn’t count if you’re forced to pay taxes, under “progressive” laws, and then the government does some charity work with that money. Religiously speaking, “You didn’t do that.”)
I think the basic difficulty is that the LDS Church has chosen somewhere along the way to become a very passive influence on members and on society. The idea of vigorously promoting individual freedom and vigorously promoting individual charity, the two things that would make it an effective Christian Church, have been downplayed nearly to the point of extinction.
As with the old law of Moses, the obsession has become for individuals to be “pure,” especially by staying out of the practical world wherever possible. A person may feel “pure,” but their lives may be almost meaningless as far as improving our society if they simply stay by themselves and enjoy their personal purity. Even if they have to endanger their purity and get a little bit “dirty,” they need to get out and make a serious difference. Otherwise our society collapses, exactly as it is doing today.
Meridian Magazine recently published an article which seems to somewhat parallel the main post here. The title of the article was “Must Everything Be Political?” by Stephen Smith. I guess I’m not too surprised by any of this since I have accepted the fact that our society is so divided on the issue of basic values and rules that there seems to be no obvious solution. Things have not yet gone quite as far as our own American Civil War, or the civil war between the Nephites and the Lamanites as described in the Book of Mormon. However, it does seem to me that we have reached the point of no return, or at least the knife’s edge of no return.
Once again, we have Christians and pagans who have almost completely opposing value systems. In the Stephen Smith article, he laments that something as potentially apolitical and calmly enjoyable as a birdwatchers’ association can be sabotaged by the voices of a few social justice warriors who indeed want to make everything political. The problem, of course, is that for atheists and pagans, everything IS political, since there is nothing else in the world, and they claim there are no external constraints on what they can do. Constitutions are considered evil because they constrain the raw power of parties. They don’t recognize any spiritual forces and don’t recognize that some injustices can and will be rectified in the next life, since they deny that there IS a next life. For a Christian, the realization that there is something beyond this world should add a level of patience with others which a self-centered pagan would never consider.
The pattern today for the political left and some of its allies is that they preach tolerance as they grow in strength and numbers until they reach the point of assuming control, and then all of their talk of tolerance immediately disappears and they become the most intolerant of people. This means it is foolish for Christians to be led along by the nose believing the soft words of tolerance, when underneath is a fixed determination to dominate and ultimately be very intolerant.
This is not to say that there are no ways for Christians to be tolerant without losing ground, but at least they must not be lulled into a false sense of security by false claims of tolerance. We might think of Captain Moroni who spent his life building defensive structures and defensive systems — believing in “peace through strength.” Even hostile enemies will carefully calibrate their behavior if it is clear that aggression on their part could be easily met and countered by their intended victims. “An armed society is a polite society,” as Second Amendment supporters are often heard to say. The political left has made hypocrisy the first rule of political action. Sometimes the same tendencies are called “having a double standard” (as opposed to the only other alternative of having no standards at all.) Today we have the political left aggressively campaigning to disarm the populace, and defund the police, while also burning and looting cities and threatening individuals. This is an organized and aggressive program, not mere happenstance. Tolerance in this situation is foolishness, although in some cases there may be effective nonviolent responses.