In many ways man is much like the earth. In the beginning we are formless and empty, we wait for the world, our parents, family, friends, and God to paint upon us, to shape and form us (either with genetics or through the environment). And as such I was not born liberal and these writings might hold little interest if I always had been. Indeed, my childhood was devoid of both religious and political discourse. Looking back I'd say my family defined what it means to be moderate. My parents seemed to appreciate and accept Christianity without clinging to any given sect. My dad was a lifelong military man that didn't always vote Republican. We were taught the importance of honesty, fairness, family, hard work, and respecting your neighbors and their property but usually without any overt religious intonations. Of course not all the lessons stuck, the point is simply that they were there and I don't want to paint a picture of my parents being absent from the process of raising my brother and me just because we never spoke directly of religion or politics. So in some regards I was probably a more blank canvas than many of my teenage peers (though I'm sure we were all more impressionable at that age than we believed).
With this as a backdrop I was told about Ayn Rand by a couple of friends and one day, during my first year of college, while digging through a box of books in my future mother-in-law's garage I found
Atlas Shrugged. Knowing my mother-in-law and father-in-law as I do now I can guess the book was his and not hers as she's a much more moderate lady and his right-leaningness can be strong enough to threaten capsizing even the sturdiest of ships.
Atlas Shrugged spoke to me, as it has to many young minds (not young as in stupid, but I think it can be argued that people of a certain age have a great enthusiasm for her writings). Rand is good with ideas and drawing contrasts and speaking toward ideals and painting heroic figures (at least men). I devoured the book, all 1100 pages, and then
The Fountainhead and then
We the Living and then
The Virtues of Selfishness and eventually
Anthem. The "you get what you work for" message was not only attractive to a hardworking kid with the world in front of him but it was understandabled in its simplicity. Objectivism, the philosophical underpinnings of her stories, succeeds for the same reasons: it's simple and understandable--it makes sense. Selfishness is so intuitive it's incredibly hard to argue against it, like arguing against 1+1=2. And even though I've given up on many aspects of the things Ayn Rand taught me, I cling tight to a subset of her teachings and I believe they've generally made me a better person. In particular her teachings have helped me understand people. People are selfish, it's part of our nature, it makes sense. Realizing and accepting this fact has allowed me to waste very little time being angry with people when they show their selfish sides (which we all will do eventually and repeatedly). However, I believe an important difference between myself and a more stringent Randian is that like Richard Dawkins is fond of saying (paraphrased), "just because we can describe how something
is doesn't mean that's how it
ought to be." I try not to let my selfish nature dictate my behavior. Secondly, Objectivism was such a strong influence on me that it's at the root of what I consider one of my better traits, but which sometimes infuriates those who are closest to me: I have a true desire to understand all sides of a conflict. I can't just agree with someone because they are my friend or wife (sorry Robyn).
Those are the parts that stuck. At the time her atheism was appealing as well, though that wasn't learned from her. Her enthusiasm for Capitalism and shunning of Communism played a huge role in how I viewed economic politics (though her conflation of Communism and Socialism doesn't do anyone any favors, IMO). Her idealization of people of talent, the stars of society, held great sway over me as well, and though I probably appreciate such traits somewhat less now, her ideas have allowed me to eagerly search out such people, to admire them and appreciate them while not being jealous of the greatness that they hold, to appreciate without envy.
In my most formative years the single most influential thinker acting upon me was the mother of the Libertarian party, the root of today's Tea Party. If modern conservatives had their own Mt. Rushmore Ayn Rand would be on it.
How strong was this conservative bent? It's hard to say for sure. A lot of time has passed and even at the time I don't think I had a good grasp of what the words "Liberal" and "Conservative" meant so any effort to measure it now would be fraught with difficulty. I do know that before going to Berkeley I thought I was more Liberal than Conservative, but then I went to Berkeley and the school proved me wrong. I still remember writing one day that, "Liberals are people who seem to be able to suspend reason/logic in order to support a cause." From my point of view the Liberalism I experienced at Berkeley reeked of socialism and subjectivism, two ideas that represented all that my great teacher Ayn Rand had taught me to despise and mistrust.
1
But wait, how does one get through Berkeley and not come out the other side full of liberal ideas and propaganda? There are likely a few ways to do this but for me it was pretty easy. I was a computer science major. That means 98% of my classes were about physics, math, and computers. These classes had very little room for social discussions. In addition, as a computer science major I was appropriately socially awkward, which prevented me from mixing with those outside of the major, which means most of my extra curricular activities still revolved around computers and other nerdy stuff. The two direct interactions I had with liberalism at the school didn't alter my beliefs in any major way. At one point there was a hunger strike by a group of students protesting some alteration in the Affirmative Action policy. I recall joking frequently with my roommate and best friend about how not only did we think the method was ineffective but that the protest in general was stupid and for a bad cause. Along those same lines the only class I took that would have fallen under the umbrella of Liberal Arts at the school was suggested to me by many of my roommate's friends: "Race and Ethnicity in American Education." If you take all of your imagined ideas about liberalism at Berkeley and put them into a formal classroom setting, then you likely have imagined what this class was like. I suspected this would be the case when I signed up for the class so I took it pass/no pass (the only class I've ever done this with) since I feared my beliefs had a realistic chance of bombing my GPA. It turned out to be a wise decision; I barely passed the class. It fought against every idea I'd found amongst the Ayn Rand books I'd read. At one point I turned in a paper that argued against Affirmative Action (perhaps the only paper they'd ever seen take that stance) and when it was returned to me there was a big fat F circled in red at the top; underneath the F was scribbled the words, "What the fuck are you talking about?" This is the truth, or at least what I remember of the truth--the T.A. had dropped the F-bomb on my paper in two different ways.
I give these examples not to belittle the University, but to highlight that it would be incorrect to insist it was the catalyst for my changes. It's a great school, especially for the major I was involved with, even if it can be a bit overzealous. There are many things to appreciate about it and the goals it has set for itself and its students, but at the time it succeeded only in entrenching me further in my own comfortable ways of thinking.
There is one further piece of evidence that shows I was more conservative than liberal after leaving Berkeley and prior to joining the church. Had I not been apathetic toward voting in the year 2000--I'm loath to admit this--I would have voted for George W. Bush. Four years later--three spent within the Church--I was heart broken when he was re-elected.
1. This timeline might be confusing for those who don't know me well. I went to De Anza Junior College for two years before I transfered to Berkeley. So I discovered Ayn Rand while at De Anza prior to attending Berkeley. (
Back to text)
A Hurdle to the Discussion
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.' -- Lewis Carroll
As noted above I didn't have a very firm understanding of what Liberal and Conservative meant when I was in high school and college. If one were to have asked me back then which label better described my own parents I probably wouldn't have been able to give a sensible answer. However, by acknowledging ignorance from that time in my life I'm not trying to infer that I've gotten it all figured out now. The terms by their very nature are elusive and rarely mean anything if not put into some context with the other. And of course, on any given topic you and I can feel more or less conservative or liberal about it than we do about some other topic. So I'm noting the danger of being too general with either word but pushing ahead because they are the terms we use and some words must be used to have this conversation, even if they end up being somewhat vague terms. Still, they will have to suffice as a starting point.
For the sake of completeness I've included
a section that attempts to define what I mean when I say "liberal" and "conservative." I already feel bad enough about the length of these writings, so read the definitions if you're worried I'm using the terms funny, but to summarize I try to use the words how I think they're most commonly used. To whatever degree you believe I've misappropriated a certain idea or characteristic, feel free to ignore my definition, disavow it, claim the idea as your own and do what you will with it. If you're conservative and feel I have stolen some good quality from you by attributing it to liberalism, please know I don't do so as an indictment against you. I'm merely presenting two sides of a coin, one I shall call liberal and the other I shall call conservative, to the best of my ability and knowledge I'll make my definitions jive with those that are culturally accepted. If I mislabel one and you feel we have more in common than the labels I use would make it appear, then I pray that you will rejoice, as I would at discovering our common humanity.
Moroni 10
4. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
This is an idea I'm newly exploring. Like raising a first child the process is bound to contain errors and have a certain awkwardness to it, but I won't let that stop me from pressing forward since the overall intention is exploration of thought as much as a statement of any facts. I submit that the very act of conversion, at least to Mormonism, is at its core a process closely related to an essential liberal concept, and that Moroni's challenge is liberal in its very nature. Take the old, take what you now know, take the world, take life, take all your doubts, take what you know about love and re-examine it, all of it; be open to change, to being wrong, and be willing to move forward when you find more truth. In brief: be willing to accept that something new is better than something old. Thankfully the process doesn't stop there. Prophets have since asked that we continue to pray, continue to seek, continue to increase our understanding. God has given us modern Prophets for the precise reason that we are ever evolving. That which lay behind us is only useful inasmuch as it points toward a better way forward. We were not given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to sit upon, nay, there are still doors that need to be opened, barriers to be broken down, and love to be spread.
On a personal level this process required that I depart from a life that I was very content with. I was not a sad person. I was not displeased with my life. I felt stable, happy, and well grounded in my beliefs. To make this move, to even start the investigation, was to admit that I could be wrong; that a better way may exist. And this was no small thing. As an atheist Randian, looking into Mormonism was both confusing and dizzying. The process itself made me feel somewhat dirty. I had little hope for its success, because in so many ways I'd already made up my mind about religion. This investigation was a last ditch effort, but the details of it are for another time and a smaller audience. But when the moment came to shed the old and to pick up the new I did it, and I now consider that moment coming out of the waters not only my birth into Mormonism but also liberalism.
This seems as good a place as any--at the point of conversion--to discuss what some might be thinking. How true was the conversion or how valid are my religious experiences? I acknowledge that I can't defend them in any definitive way. The best I can do is to reassure you I had them and they are real. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide how much value and trust they put into such a reassurance from me. You can question whether I've interpreted the experiences "correctly." Just remember that whatever holes you poke in subjective religious experiences, you're more than likely floating along in that same boat.
Matthew 25
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
This is likely where I've seen the biggest shift in my political beliefs: the welfare state. Before joining the church I was mostly anti-handouts and assumed most programs like welfare and food stamps were good for nothing other than perpetuating laziness. I believed generally that those who were rich in America deserved to be rich and those who were poor in America deserved to be poor--that everyone had the ability to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps. Then I joined the church and read The New Testament and The Book of Mormon. Within these books I was rebuked for my hardheartedness. Jesus made clear his stance on feeding and sheltering the hungry, the poor, the sick, and the afflicted. One can read these books and walk away with questions about how Jesus felt about topics like same-sex marriage and the legalization of drugs, but from my reading there is no confusing what the Son of God believes we should be doing for those who are less fortunate. Not only is it our job to help, but it is NOT our job to judge those who need the help. For me this is enough to support government efforts--for we are the government--to create what I consider a Christ-like society. A society where the poor and needy don't have to hope that they are judged worthy of help, and where they don't have to pray that some good Samaritan will cross their way today. I want to live in a society where Christ-like love is woven into the very fabric of the structure.
Here is where I receive the expected complaint that you can't force people to be generous and love like Christ did. That love not given freely, love that is forced from your hands through government taxes, is in fact counterfeit. Implicit in this argument is that by taxing people for the purpose of caring for the poor you rob those who are taxed of the opportunity to grow and do the work themselves directly. This seems plainly false to me. You need not be rich or have 10% more cash to act on whatever Christ-like love you have (even a widows mite can be enough); we shouldn't look to the amount given but to the intent of the heart in giving.
Usually with this argument comes the insinuation--though rarely is it said outright--that if the protester against these sorts of programs were not taxed as much then they would surely be more generous with their money. I can't answer that question for anyone other than myself but I've often wondered if I received a 10% raise would I give it straight away to the poor and needy? I believe we should all wrestle with this question before being too eager to kill off these programs while hoping private replacements will crop up. Nothing stops such private institutions from starting now and defeating the problems that so plague the poor and needy in our society.
It's important to recognize that we live in a democratic/republic society, one, that if you're Mormon, you probably believe is God inspired. And as such we live in a society where our tax money and our country's considerable power shall be used in ways that we do not one-hundred percent support. Christ has asked us to feed the poor and to render service to the least among us; for me I can't see a better use of tax dollars than in that effort, even if that means not all of my fellow well-to-do Americans are on board. If I were to spend time protesting the use of American dollars and power it would make more sense to me to protest those things that are offensive to God (unjust wars, spending billions of dollars on weapons of mass destruction while children literally starve) and not the one cause he has been unambiguously clear about. I'm sure God would love it if we all came to the table with our hearts and pocketbooks open, but until then let us drink milk before meat and prepare ourselves by our actions, even if we're not yet ready in our heart, for that more perfect society.
This is one reason why I will vote for taxes and programs that help the poor. The same with those that intend to bolster public education, especially if aimed at helping those who are disenfranchised. In doing so I recognize no government program is perfect, that money will be wasted (which doesn't mean private programs are perfect and don't waste money). But this imperfection is no reason to remove funds or pull support for the general idea and I'm glad to work with anyone, conservative or liberal, whose desires are to improve the effectiveness of programs for the poor, but I have no desire to dismantle them.
2
The thoughts above were my takeaway after reading the scriptures for the first time. You can imagine my shock when I slowly realized that these ideas were foreign to most Mormons, and for some even offensive. I still feel amazed at how differently the average Mormon and I understand the content of these two books, and how Mormons aren't on the forefront of turning their government into a haven and rest for the poor, the sick and the widowed. My speculation is that there is a disconnect of some sort, a belief that the government is something other than the people, that though we give reverence to the Constitution as if it were a holy documents we don't actually believe that it has rendered us a government of the people, by the people and for the people; and therefore its actions are somehow unrelated to us. I've been otherwise unable to understand the typical conservative Mormon reaction to social programs.
After being in the Church for a while I was also amazed to discover how many of my fellow members praised Ayn Rand and used her philosophies to justify many of their political beliefs. At one point during my discussions with the missionaries I voiced some concern about baptisms for the dead. I wondered how it could be right to baptize someone who didn't agree with your philosophy, and not just disagree but be diametrically opposed to it. I specifically protested that it would be completely inappropriate to baptize Ayn Rand or John Galt (were he a real person) into the Mormon Church without their explicit consent. As a Randian joining the Church it was clear to me that I needed to distance myself from her philosophy and seek out their weaknesses. While doing so I failed to notice most everyone else running the other direction, into a philosophy centered around selfishness and a disbelief in Diety.
Footnotes:
2. I know there is a contingent of people that believe programs for the poor harm them more than help them, that in their current form all they do is encourage bad behavior. So again, to the degree that your aim is to improve the effectiveness of the programs I applaud your efforts, but you lose me when your closest political allies don't appear to be interested in such a course and look only to reduce the amount of money that goes into the effort. Also, this line of thinking flirts along a line that requires a fair amount of judgment about who does and doesn't deserve help, which is fine, but coming from a Christ-centered viewpoint, I'd argue the judgment should be light, and the goal shouldn't be to prevent abuse of the system if it comes at the cost of supporting those who are truly in need of our help. (
Back to text)
2 Nephi 2
25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
I don't want to overplay this because I had a healthy respect for family prior to joining the church, but the respect grew with my participation. The teachings of the Church hinge greatly upon the Plan of Salvation and the importance of families. Not only is the family important but it is a core component of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Families, and the love experienced with in them, are essential to the human condition from a Mormon standpoint. And as Nephi points out we are not here to be miserable; that is not God's plan for us. Further, the church teaches (though this is not scripture strictly speaking) that "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." These teachings together led me to the conclusion that the appropriate stance on same-sex marriages was to allow them to happen in order that more people could experience the joys of family and be granted the privilege to worship how, where, and what they may.
3 I do of course realize that the Church has officially come out with a stance against same-sex marriage, and that there is no place for it in the eternal beliefs of the Church, but the stance came as a surprise to me,
4 just as the stance conservative Mormons take against welfare came as a surprise. It seems plain to me how Christ would have us behave toward our fellow man in this case. Even more vexing is that the arguments usually made against welfare programs (we can't force people to be good) are the exact opposite of the arguments made against same-sex marriages (we shall force people to be "good"). How it is justified in one case but not the other is unknown to me. We are willing to use the government to withhold happiness from others because of our religious beliefs but we are unwilling to use the government to do the good works of Christ. I could write many many many more pages on this topic alone veering well out of the scope of religion, but I think that would miss the point (though if anyone is interested I can point you toward other things I've written in regard to same-sex marriage). The point is that the stance I've taken was influenced by the words I learned and read in the Mormon scriptures and teachings, not in spite of them.
I'd like to pause here a moment and reiterate what I said in the preface. I don't know how to say these things without implying some sort of moral judgment upon the contrary stances. I believe I'm right on this topic, plain and simple. I believe history will bear that out (I believe it already has started to as the Church recognizes its mistake in being so hands on during Prop 8 and has been a lot less so since, and even pushing for some positive change (positive from a pro-same-sex marriage P.O.V)). But I can honestly say there isn't a topic in relationship to the church that I've spent more time thinking and praying about. The Spirit as much as my mind has moved me to these conclusions. I've been counseled that I'll know the goodness of a fruit by its taste; I've tasted--and seen others taste--the fruit of the anti-same-sex marriage movement and it is exceedingly bitter. I've expelled that fruit from my mouth and move boldly forward in good conscious, and will not be lukewarm water in God's mouth. I recognize everyone's right to have an opinion on the subject and act accordingly. I do not desire to squash your voice or your religion and believe the long term resolution that our country heads toward shall do neither.
The other big social issue of our day that seems to follow a sharp line of division is abortion. And although many in the church are "Pro-Life" the church's official position is not one that is exactly "Pro-Life." It leaves room for special situations and the determining of those situations and the appropriateness of the procedure is left to the mother and her doctors. The position is "Pro-Choice" by definition though it's more limited than a lot of liberals would like. I do think our country's abortion policies could be a little better but given the ambiguity of so much on the topic I'd rather error on the side of the mother in most cases and more importantly I agree, that the best approach to limiting abortion is education, especially sexual education. So in as much as "Pro-Life" politics also push an abstinence only philosophy I'll likely more often find myself on the other side of the aisle. It's better to fix the root of a problem than merely fight the symptoms. That all being said I feel my mostly "Pro-Choice"
5 political beliefs are not only not in conflict with the Church but follow naturally from the Church's own stance.
Footnotes:
3. I'm familiar with the argument that Christ-like love doesn't mean you let people do anything and everything--we don't let pedophiles and rapists run wild. Ignoring the ridiculous comparason between same-sex marriage and pedophilia and rapists (and murderers), I'll agree it is true we do not live in anarchy where anything goes. However, in my opinion, you have to have some pretty strong reasons to withhold these happinesses. If the reason(s) cannot be made manifest then we have no right to withhold. Worrying about someone else's eternal salvation is fine but we shouldn't do so at the risk of taking away their agency and chances at happiness in the here and now unless there is some other benefit being granted or harm being prevented. (
Back to text)
4. It's hard not to delve into polygamy here. Above all others, Mormons should know the dangers of the government interfering with marriage and the harm that can come from preventing reasonable relationships between consenting adults. I know that most Mormons like to distance themselves from their Polygamist past, but it seems a dangerous path toward negating much of the early church to do so. (
Back to text)
5. I'm not a baby killer. So please don't ignore everything else I said and assume that by accepting the "Pro Choice" label I think women should be able to terminated babies willy-nilly and at any stage of gestation; that's not what the terms means. Don't be stupid. (
Back to text)
Economics
"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. … All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came." Thomas Paine.
I admittedly don't know a lot about this topic in relationship to Mormonism. And it's hard in some ways to separate the discussion of economics from taxes and the welfare state. But I believe the Book of Mormon presents a warning to all of us. There is a repeated cycle within it. The people become wealthy and rich. They wear fine clothes. Have big houses. But when God and his prophets look around they see the poor are not treated well and the gap between those who are well off and those who are not is wide. He rebukes His people and they are humbled in a variety of ways. They return to helping the poor. Prosperity returns and the cycle continues. This message is for us. The Book of Mormon was written for our good, not for the good of some ancient people (see the Introduction in the Book of Mormon). I took these lessons to heart shortly after joining the Church.
6 In doing so I felt a great urge to render service to my fellow man and acted accordingly. Which isn't to claim any sainthood, I still often get sucked into my own world and forget the lessons the book taught me as well as the fruits of those good works. The Mormon scripts convinced me to move and act. Which is in no way saying conservatives do not render services. Quite the contrary, I believe they do, and with love in their hearts. But being active in liberal politics leaves the same Spirit of service in me as the direct works of helping my fellow man. They go hand in hand. There is no conflict, my political life reflects my peronal life. I need not separate them. I feel a great congruence. Mormonism has given me this.
Footnotes:
6. This could not have been accomplished without a great teacher; thank you Mark Oliver. (
Back to text)
Mormon 3
9 And now, because of this great thing which my people, the Nephites, had done, they began to boast in their own strength, and began to swear before the heavens that they would avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren who had been slain by their enemies. 10 And they did swear by the heavens, and also by the throne of God, that they would go up to battle against their enemies, and would cut them off from the face of the land. 11 And it came to pass that I, Mormon, did utterly refuse from this time forth to be a commander and a leader of this people, because of their wickedness and abomination.
There is a cycle of war within the Book of Mormon similar to the economic one presented. The Nephites were not pacifists, but every war in the book was started by either Nephite traitors or Lamanites, and brought about for wicked purposes (as recognized by the Prophets of the time and often self-proclaimed as wanton by the Lamanites themselves). Even when the Nephite people asked their King-Prophets to start preemptive wars they were rebuked and either retained the moral high ground by entering into a defensive battle or had their commander and leader leave them. It is easy to say that the reasons given for why a preemptive war was never entered were specific to the wars and times in question, but remember the Book of Mormon is not simply a recounting of history. It is not a complete history of a people; the choice parts that were selected for recording were selected specifically because of their relevance to our own time and for our own benefit. And this is not a singular occurrence in the book, but a pattern of repeated hostilities and reactions.
These lessons I believe would have served our own country well when Bush declared a preemptive war upon Iraq. Here again I found guidance in the Book of Mormon. It tempered my desire for wrath against a foreign people. True, my desire for vengeance was not strong in the first place as I believed Iraq was the wrong target. The war that pushed liberals and conservatives even further apart, the war that most Mormons supported at the time, seemed a perfect opportunity for our Church to preach a valuable lesson, to set itself apart from the rest of the world, to sing praise to peace, and acknowledge the wisdom of not entering into an offensive war. I was surprised by the silence from the pulpit and surprised again when President Hinkley finally gave a talk that touched on the subject he only gave a metaphorical shrug of the shoulders.
Once again I was left confused about how so many people reading the same books and claiming them as the word of God reached these vastly different conclusions about how we should interact with warfare. I've heard lots of reasons: we were mislead, we thought they had WMD, there was some link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. None of the reasons presented at the time turned out to be true and no strong evidence was given for them even at the time. Without that hard evidence it seems to me the best course of action for a Mormon would have been to fall back upon the wisdom taught in our very own scripture and to distance ourselves from the bloodshed. And thus, once again, the scriptures led me to actions more liberal than those taken by most of my Mormon contemporaries.
I know at this point someone is thinking I'm a hypocrite because they are assuming I've been okay with every military action that Obama has made. This is not true. Some I think are wise and others are not. Some I lament and some cause me to loathe the course we took with Iraq even more as it has set a dangerous precedent that would have otherwise likely constrained Obama's actions as well as all the Presidents that will follow him.
Abraham 4
26 And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Mormonism didn't alter my views on evolution, but I think it's an important topic to touch on since often there is a strong correlation between conservatism, religion, and a disbelief in the Theory of Evolution. Mormonism, from a doctrinal point of view, has no official opinion on evolution. The members are free to decide how they feel about it. It's even taught at BYU (or so I'm told, I've never taken a class there). Still, most Mormons seem to be creationists to some degree and many believe that your testimony is in jeopardy if you have faith in the Theory of Evolution. But it's important to this discussion because it highlights how Mormonism allowed for some of the liberal views I already held to stand without conflict. I don't have a desire to argue for Evolution in this context; I just wanted to note there is room for it within the Mormon landscape. Someone once pointed out to me that if you look at all of the major creation stories/myths that exist across cultures and religions, the one told in Genesis and Abraham closest resembles that of the story of Evolution. Both present a building up of things over time in approximately the same order. So if Evolution can coexist with any religious creation story, ours seems as good a candidate as any.
Words of Wisdom
12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.
Vegetarianism is another attribute that tends to correlate strongly with one's political beliefs. And though the Word of Wisdom does not suggest we all become vegetarians it effectively implores us to rarely eat meat. This is one of the few changes I've made to my diet since becoming Mormon. Abstaining from coffee and alcohol was easy as I never drank coffee, and alcohol was something I had on occasion but was not a major part of my life. Smoking and other drugs I've never tried. But I was a great consumer of meat. I would be a liar if I told you the Word of Wisdom was what turned me vegetarian, but once I made the change I was reaffirmed of the decision by these words. I felt that Mormonism not only did not present a conflict with the diet but encouraged it as much as practically possible, far beyond what you'll get from most Christian sects.
Forgiveness, Mercy, and Justice
"All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it." -- Joseph Smith
There are a couple concepts at the core of my understanding of Mormonism. There is mercy, and her sister forgiveness; then there is justice, and his brother punishment. In the Mormon cosmos they are like twin stars circling around each other. Christ's life and his atonement are based in the art of balancing the two, a thing that only God-as-man could do perfectly. We've been asked to be kind and merciful to our fellow man, and we've been told that extending forgiveness is one of the greatest commandments--to love our neighbor as ourselves. Meanwhile the other part mostly falls into the hands of God and Christ. For what reason exactly God has reserved this part is not known to me; but I don't believe it's because it's the harder of the two. Nay, unto us he has given the more difficult task. Forgive and find mercy for your neighbor. Hide not your love of man under a bushel. Believe that salvation is not found alone, that all of mankind is our community and all are sons and daughters of God, no matter how terrible their crimes and how cold their hearts.
This is hard to do, but it's essential. One of the hardest parts is you don't know if you're any good at it until a real test comes along. I haven't had that real test (I've been tested, but my life has been generally pain free), so often my words of love for Mercy and Forgiveness ring hollow even to my own ears. But when the day comes that I'm tested, as I'm sure I will be, I pray I'll hold true to that ideal, that in my darkest and saddest hours mercy will still flow from me when the natural reaction is to lash out and punish. I pray for strength and peace and to truly know God at those times, and I pray for the same for all those that I know and love.
These feelings go hand and hand with my desire for reform over punishment, which I believe usually falls toward the liberal side of politics. I'm not against strong laws, especially those that prevent future harm. But it's my belief that all laws should be enacted with an eye toward reform and redemption, the death penalty is a non-starter for me for this reason. The worst among us test us the most, their past actions we cannot change, but we can choose to either falter before humanity or be a beacon of light in a dark Universe.
I have a sincere and true belief that God has a capacity for forgiveness far beyond anything we can imagine. Even though I believe that mercy is perhaps the most important attribute that the Church and Christ teach about, and sometimes think the doctrine doesn't go far enough, I fully expect to be humbled and amazed when I stand before the Lord of Hosts and realize how short I've fallen to the ultimate goal. This thought gives me great joy and hope.
Summary
My goal here was not to convert you to either liberalism or Mormonism. Nor was my goal to pat myself on the back for any job well done. I'm a sinner the same as everyone else. I have my good and bad days the same as everyone else. That being the case, to whatever degree I fail to live up to my own ideals, that failure is no reason to discard the ideal (nor is the failure of any given politician reason to shed the ideology). I merely write to shed light on a position I'm often told is impossible to hold, to be Mormon and liberal. My journey from a more conservative person to one of a more liberal nature can be directly linked to my experiences with Mormon doctrine. To whatever degree you feel inclined to disregard my experiences and beliefs that is your business, for no man can truly know the heart of another. But I stand by them, and feel that although I'm not perfect, on the day I stand before my creator, I'll feel no shame for my liberal politics nor the roots that they grew from. This is my testimony.
For full disclosure it is important to talk about my current status within the church. I'm no longer an active member. My wife and my two year old daughter still go. There are a few reasons why I know longer participate but one of the biggest is the conflict I feel between what the doctrine teaches and Church culture. If you take away the heavy-handed nature of the Church's involvement in Prop 8 I would probably still be going, but for me the Church broke its own rules and thousands of hearts during that time. I need distance from that pain, not just for myself but for the sake of my friends and family who were more closely harmed by the Proposition and those who supported it. In addition to this there was some disappointment with my local leaders during Prop 8. Those who I most hoped would do what I thought was clearly the right thing didn't act accordingly. I still love the teachings I spoke of along with countless others that weren't pertinent to the conversation. I know my status with the church will alter the perception and weight of all of my words in the eyes of some, but it's a detail too significant to leave out. And, of course, the reasons I've listed above are not the only reasons responsible for my political beliefs; these are just the reasons that were directly influenced by what I learned from Mormonism, but each is accompanied by a handful of secular reasons that I do not discuss.
If you want to leave a comment feel free to do so
here.
Shawn Kessler
The Testimony of Three Witnesses
The words that follow are not intended as witnesses to the truth of any particular position that I've espoused. In fact I'm positive there are those among the list below who disagree with certain portions and none that agree with every word; they are not accountable for my words. Instead, their words are further proof that within the well of Mormonism there is a vast expanse of liberal waters to be had.
The Words of Jeff Zentner
Let me start by saying that I cosign everything that Shawn has said here, especially his charitable and thoughtful attempts to arrive at a fair-minded definition of "liberal" and "conservatism." In my mind, one of the fairest ways to define "conservative" is by reference to the way it was defined by one of conservatism's intellectual titans, William F. Buckley, who I now paraphrase: "A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop."
I understand this statement to mean that the grand project of conservatism is to maintain society more or less as it is, or turn back the clock to a time when it holds that society worked better than it currently does. It is from this admittedly flawed and imperfect rough-n-ready definition that I begin.
I am a liberal Mormon. I believe that I belong to a profoundly unconservative church. This realization came to me while walking the now-quiet streets of Nauvoo on a crisp autumn afternoon, on a vacation with my wife's family. I looked around and imagined the city as it once was--a bastion for a people who thought, believed, and lived things very, very different from any previous society or religion. I imagined the energy and fervor that once existed there. The sense of community. The revelations coming thick and fast.
I thought about the prophet of these people, Joseph Smith, a man who was profoundly unhappy with the religious status quo in his society, and sought more answers. A man who acted on the revelations he was given to enact some of the most profoundly radical experiments in redefining marriage and communal living that this country has ever seen. This was no conservative. Nor were the people who were willing to follow their hearts and follow this man.
This is a Christian religion that does not believe in hell, as other Christian religions use the term. This is a religion that believes that God was once a man, and that men may become like God. This is a religion that believed and may still believe that polygamy may be divinely sanctioned. This is a religion with entire books of scripture that other religions lack. This is a religion that has a hymn referring to space travel to a planet called "Kolob." I could go on. Make no mistake: this is a religion very unconcerned with the social and religious status quo.
I don't know how this people became so politically conservative. I don't know how this people became so disdainful of others who are unsatisfied with the status quo and seek a better way. I don't know how a people that holds as prophets men who had tens of wives can take such offense at the idea of expanding the definition of marriage to be more inclusive. I don't know how a people who once practiced a form of communal living can be so contemptful of the most modest attempts to distribute wealth more equitably in society. I don't know how a people that believes that intelligence is the glory of God can walk in such lockstep with a political party that fetishizes ignorance and treats science and learning with narrow-eyed suspicion.
It even seems to me that on the occasions where the Church sails against the prevailing conservative winds of the day, the membership will take the more conservative path, causing me to wonder whether their true religion is, in fact, conservatism.
I don't believe that pondering the scriptures and teachings of Mormonism leads inexorably to political conservatism in its 21st century American incarnation. I think that the political views of most American Mormons are the product of sociocultural influences in the American West, and not the product of Mormon doctrine. Observe that conservatism dominates the American West, even where Mormons are not in the majority. Observe too that faithful Mormons outside the United States are not nearly as offended by their socialized medicine as American Mormons are by the health care program that a former stake president named Mitt Romney invented. This, along with all of the reasons Shawn cited, is reason enough for me to be perfectly comfortable as a liberal Mormon. I take the Church at its word when it professes its political neutrality. I do not take these statements with a nudge and a wink. I have faith enough in my church to believe that if it endorsed a political party or philosophy, it would be courageous enough to say so, tax consequences be damned.
I wonder how Mormonism's membership's lockstep with political conservatism affects the willingness of a significant segment of society to hear its message. Many Mormons tend to make friends with non-Mormons who, although not being Mormon, already share most of Mormonism's values. I'm not one of those people. I tend to make friends with much harder cases. I know that the political activities of many of my fellow Mormons have made it very difficult for me to feel comfortable discussing my religion with friends. I feel that many of their grievances with these activities are well-founded and that these activities are indefensible. I wonder if Mormonism can survive and be a vital religion when it only appeals to political conservatives, a large number of whom, ironically, already have their own religions that they are loathe to trade in for a newer model.
The Words of Molly Fehr
Allow me to begin by providing a brief account of my childhood, growing up active in the LDS Church and being raised by a loving pair of socially liberal and politically active Mormon parents. I was born in Salt Lake City and have spent the overwhelming majority of my life here. My mother is a women's health care practitioner who has been active in the church her entire life. She served a mission in Japan, has held myriad callings within the church and is currently a teacher in Primary. My father is an electrical engineer who has been active in the church his entire life. He served a mission in France, is a worthy holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood, has held a plethora of church callings and is the most humble, loving and Christ-like person I have had the honor of knowing. Both of my parents hold Temple Recommends and attend the Temple regularly.
I owe my parents everything as they created the atmosphere of love, safety, humor and intellectual vibrancy in which I was raised. I cannot stress enough my respect and gratitude for them, and am strongly feeling the tender stirrings of the Holy Spirit as I type these words about them. They are amazing people and I am blessed beyond belief to be their daughter.
I realize that my upbringing has placed me in an ideological minority. It is true that many current Latter Day Saints in America have more conservative political views. However, this has not always been the case. It is interesting to examine the history of political affiliations in the early church. During the nineteenth century, most Mormons identified themselves as Democrats. Brigham Young himself was a member of the Democratic party. In 1893, church leadership asked some families to become Republicans, realizing that the majority of Latter Day Saints voting Democrat was a thorn in the side of Republican Senators still opposing Utah's bid for Statehood.
Political affiliation of our Pioneer ancestors aside, I feel strongly that my liberal political views and my Mormon religious beliefs are perfectly harmonious. I'll try to focus on some areas Shawn didn't discuss rather than reiterate my conviction that the Pro-Life platform is Satan's plan, but I may not be able to help myself about some issues about which I feel quite strongly. (Support the exercising of our God given agency, support a woman's right to choose!!)
You Didn't Build That
Conservatives have been quick to jump on a sound byte from President Obama's speech in Roanoke, Virginia on July 13, 2012. The President's point was that financial success does not occur in a vacuum, no one can take sole credit for what they've achieved because every successful American benefits from the infrastructure, both literal and figurative, that we have inherited as citizens. Conservatives have delighted in taking this statement out of context and responding with exaggerated indignation, how dare Obama try to credit my accomplishments to anyone other than me? Of course I built my own success!
As Mormons, we place great cultural value on industriousness. We chose the hard working honey bee as a symbol for ourselves because it reflects our Pioneer "can-do" attitude. One of the most oft repeated arguments I hear from Mormons against government provided welfare systems are that they encourage people to be lazy. Laziness is a cardinal sin in our eyes and judging others to be guilty of that sin is a common and accepted act in our society. Latter Day Saints who achieve financial success are almost deified in our culture. These cultural beliefs imply that when you work hard and succeed you have earned your blessings, and people who do not have the same level of success did not deserve to be so blessed. These feelings are based in the actual sin of pride and they fly in the face of the teachings of our Gospel.
Throughout the Book of Mormon, there repeats a cycle in the lives of the Nephites. They are delivered from persecution by God, they live in peace and prosperity, their prosperity grows, they become prideful in their success, they are warned that their pride is an affront to God and if they do not heed the warnings of the prophets they are delivered into the hands of their enemies. After their destruction, the faithful are then delivered from persecution to live in peace and the cycle begins again. The time that this cycle takes can vary greatly but it is always the pride of those who have riches and power that signals the impending destruction of their civilization. In Third Nephi chapter six, we get a particularly condensed version of this cycle as it takes a mere 30 years for the Nephites to go from humble righteousness to the rich and powerful plotting to overthrow the government. It is particularly telling that their straying from the path of God is evidenced by the widening gap between the rich and the poor: (3Nephi 6:12) "And the people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their riches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ignorant because of their poverty, and others did receive great learning because of their riches."
Working hard and enjoying the fruits of your labor are positive aspects of being a contributing member of any society. But in a secular sense, you cannot ignore the fact that everything from your upbringing and access to education to the economic climate in which you excelled had an impact on your financial growth and success. In a religious sense, everything you have, your EVERY opportunity came as a blessing from God. Not because you were worthy of those blessings but because God is infinitely generous. From either standpoint, the pride that is evident in the conservative response to President Obama's statement is inaccurate and abhorrent. We Mormons need to closely examine our reaction to his speech because we have been specifically shown how closely pride cometh before the fall and how great is God's disappointment in us when we take credit for the blessings he has bestowed upon us.
...Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Poor
I know that Shawn touched on the subject of welfare programs but this is the single most glaring incongruity between the Gospel and the conservative Mormon culture and I have to address it.
I am at a loss as to how any Latter Day Saint can oppose government welfare programs. Truly, I cannot comprehend this viewpoint. We are taught from when we are in Nursery through Primary songs that our main goal in living a righteous life is to try to be like Jesus. What did Jesus do during his ministry? He healed the sick. He comforted the poor. Did he make any qualifications and only heal those who "deserved" to be healed? Did he lecture the needy on their poor life choices? Obviously not. Yet I have heard conservative Mormons rail against all government run assistance programs because they encourage people to be lazy. Implicit in this argument is a very cynical and judgmental worldview. And even if, as some say, poor people on welfare are actively choosing to remain poor because they would rather subsist on food stamps that put in an honest day's work (an opinion that is laughably false, and offensive and prejudiced) it would still not be an adequate reason for a Mormon to oppose welfare programs. God is very clear that we are not to judge others.
Please read the entirety of Mosiah 4:16-22 because it is very clear about how we should treat the poor. I'm quoting verses 16 - 18 because they specifically refute the argument that poor people are poor because they made bad choices and they should have to bear the consequences.
16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just--
18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.
To further support the fact that we are not in any position to judge who among the needy are deserving of our help, here is a quote from Brigham Young.
"Suppose that in this community there are ten beggars who beg from door to door for something to eat, and that nine of them are imposters who beg to escape work, and with an evil heart practice imposition upon the generous and sympathetic, and that only one of the ten who visit your doors is worthy of your bounty; which is best, to give food to the ten, to make sure of helping the truly needy one, or to repulse the ten because you do not know which is the worthy one? You will say, administer charitable gifts to the ten, rather than turn away the only truly worthy and truly needy person among them. If you do this, it will make no difference in your blessings, whether you administer to worthy or unworthy persons, inasmuch as you give alms with a single eye to assist the truly needy."
Throughout the scriptures, we are commanded to care for the needy among us. We will be judged as a people by how well we treat the least among us and in that light I feel strongly that Americans would rightfully be judged very harshly indeed.
The Words of Nate Grover
The first time I saw real live liberals was when my parents took me to see Ronald Reagan speak at a junior college by my house. They were protesting with signs outside the event. I remember they were scruffy looking people. They seemed unreasonably upset about something, but I had no idea what. Most of the adults I knew were Mormons, my parents' friends from the ward. They were pleasant and smiled a lot and combed their hair. They had a certain twinkle that suggested they possessed something that others didn't. Reagan had that certain twinkle, too. When I was very young I had a hard time differentiating between the president of the Church and the president of the United States.
I wouldn't say I grew up conservative. I grew up Mormon. My parents were Republicans by default, but they never talked about it. There was a vague sense that we (Mormons, I mean) didn't want the world to be more evil than it already was and so we should vote to get people to live more Mormon-like lives.
When I got older I went on a Mormon mission and that was where, as many Mormons do, I became converted to Mormonism. I fell in love with an idea, and I loved this idea so intensely that it changed who I was. The idea formed as I read the scriptures and contemplated the life and words of Jesus. It spread its roots as I learned to love and serve the people who I'd been called to teach. Before long my whole soul glowed with this love. It was a radical love, an irrational surrender of myself to love, which took no thought for my own needs or wants.
This was God's love, Christ-like love, which "sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of men." This love and the bonds it created were the Kingdom of God that would fill the earth. My job as a missionary was to spread the kingdom by loving; by showing others God's love reflected in me; by being, myself, a radical lover of their souls. God had woken me up. My heart broke every day for others, and I've never been so joyful.
When my mission ended I went to college (the same junior college where I saw Reagan speak) and in line to register I was approached by a granola-looking girl who wanted to register me to vote Democrat. Because she was eager (and cute) I let her sign me up, but I told her I wasn't going to vote Democrat. Truthfully, I didn't have political ideas one way or the other; I only had my identity as a Mormon. But soon, in my classes, I learned many new ideas, and I would embrace or reject these ideas based on how compatible they were with the kingdom of God.
My first political impulses were not for what I wanted to be, but for what I didn't want to be. I had been brought up to use my feelings to discover truth, and something about the conservative outlook felt wrong.
Those who favored Reagan's trickle-down economics said that greed was good for everyone. This made logical sense to me, but I didn't trust logic; I trusted in the transformative power of selfless love. How could a person champion greed and not fight against the kingdom?
What conservatives seemed to be "conserving" was an old system, a system that benefited others, yes, but mostly allowed them to put themselves first. I wanted a new world that embraced and supported everyone equally. I believed this world would be created by those who put themselves last.
As for "values," conservatives wanted to maintain a code of morality, a code I shared with them, but I'd known many kinds of people as a missionary and had quickly learned that other people's experiences and points of view, though different than my own, were just as valid. To impose my morals on others, I knew, was to place myself above them.
Finally I was shocked to discover that being a missionary and a Christian had turned me into one of the most liberal people I knew. And now I'm the scruffy person who seems unreasonably upset about something.
Defining Terms
Return to main text
Socially speaking I'll define liberalism as a general willingness to look at social conditions and change them for the overall better even if it may negatively impact them personally. The more liberal the person the longer they're willing to put up with the negative impact, but most liberals see the negative going away with time so that the net change is positive for everyone. This is a definition I like because it doesn't hinge on a certain set of ideas. A man from 1700s America who was anti-slavery but against women and people of color voting and against gay marriage can be considered generally liberal for his time and place even though he'd be considered a conservative if dropped into America of today. Just as Abe Lincoln can be considered liberal (though highly pragmatic as well) for his actions before and during the Civil War even though he was part of the Republican party. Which brings to light the fact that I don't believe it's wise to conflate Republicans across all time and eternity with conservatism and Democrats with liberalism. The parties change just as the challenges of our times change.
I shall grant that the above definition is harsh on conservatives. I don't know what to do about it other than to say that even though I consider myself liberal I recognize that the goal set in the above paragraph is a lofty one and one to which I myself more often than not fail at accomplishing. But I have the desire to behave in such a manner, even a mustard seed of faith that I can. To whatever degree you share that desire I see you as liberal in that regard, to whatever degree you see such a view as nonsense I'll view you as conservative, but this shows the weakness of the terms, the chicken and egg-ness, because even though I think of someone as generally conservative it doesn't mean I believe them to be anti-social justice, and vice versa for liberals. I believe we all mostly have good hearts and believe ourselves doing the best for humanity but I can say this with confidence: of the messaging from the two sides one is much more likely to throw social justice under the bus than the other in their rhetoric. And assuming words have some link to our true thoughts and feelings, I must infer that one side values this concept more than the other.
How the two define the role of government is well known, though I believe misunderstood. Conservatives tend to like small government due to fears of the government infringing on rights and wasting tax dollars, and liberals tend to want a stronger government mostly to create a sizable enough safety net to catch all those that fall through and therefore they are willing to pay more in taxes to accomplish the goal. This topic is a little difficult because as time has gone by conservatives still cling to the small government argument but in reality rarely stick to it when in power. Both parties don't want to spend money on policies that they don't like but are willing to spend money on what they deem important. Any Tea Party Libertarian reading this will probably protest and claim a true desire for a smaller government but I'll let them fight that out with their Republican cohorts and they can prove their case when they have the power to make a budget.
The economics for both sides follow directly from how they claim to view the role of government. Where liberals want to keep tight controls on businesses (especially big business) in an effort to reduce risk, conservatives believe government places too tight of controls and is better left out of business. Conservatives have a great faith in the free market (a thing they've never actually experienced) while liberals believe man's selfish nature should be guarded against. This is one example where I think it's made clear the relative nature of conservative vs liberal. I think even the most devout conservative isn't interested in dropping all constraints placed on businesses, and they probably want the government to insure certain rights of corporations (which are anti free market by definition since they require the government to exist at all). So this is really a battle about how much constraint is enough. Conservatives generally think less than we have now and liberals think more than now, but don't let anyone fool you into thinking conservatives want real capitalism anymore than liberals want real communism.
Generally it is my belief that liberals are more open to new ideas in all spheres of life. On the other hand conservatives tend to do just what the word describes, they attempt to conserve old ways and would rather depend on the tried and true methods than branch out into the unknown. They adhere to the idea that if a thing has worked then there is wisdom in not tossing it aside too hastily. Liberals are more willing to alter social norms if there are no apparent downsides or at least tinker with them in hopes of finding a positive in the change.
One last point--which I don't know that I will talk much about directly but it sort of encompasses the entirety of these writings--in the modern age there has been a conflation of religion and conservatism, and liberalism and godlessness. I think these are false correlations. I do think the two groups tend to view and participate in religion differently, but neither are void of it all together or even in large part. And in fact my religious experience, as I've pointed out in the opening paragraphs, has pushed me in the direction of liberalism.
I want to reassert that I'm not saying a person who feels conservative about any one of these ideas must do so for all of them. To the contrary, I assume most everyone fluctuations from topic to topic, and even some vary internally amongst subtopics within each of the topics. However, having defined liberalism and conservatism as I have above I feel generally at ease with labeling myself as a liberal and stating that most Mormons I've known tend toward conservatism. And although I've broken the definitions out into separate topics I don't know that I'll address them all separately, as many are intertwined and separate treatments would feel redundant.
Return to main text