A history of the LDS Church’s political engagement on marriage equality
As we’ve written before, the LDS Church’s stance on homosexual individuals has changed–it’s no longer a question of whether the Church’s orientation toward homosexual individuals will change, but how much. We don’t claim to know the answer to that question, and honestly only time will tell, but we are still interested in the Church’s political involvement. Two recent articles published by Mother Jones tell a striking narrative of the Church’s efforts on the issue of marriage equality. After outlining the Church’s deep involvement over the past 15-20 years, the articles argue the Church has fundamentally changed its course:
In the five years since the LDS church sent busloads of the faithful to California to canvass neighborhoods, and contributed more than $20 million via its members to support the initiative, it has all but dropped the rope in the public policy tug of war over marriage equality. 1
In fact:
[T]he church seems to have returned to focusing on homosexuality as a personal issue rather than a political one. After years of working behind the scenes, hiring lobbyists, and mobilizing its members to fight state referendums sympathetic to same-sex marriage, it appears to have simply dropped the rope. “In the other four states last year that had marriage, you didn’t see the Mormon church anywhere,” says Kevin Nix, spokesman for the LGBT advocacy group, Human Rights Campaign. 2
Since Prop 8, the Church hasn’t been officially involved in any of the many state-level campaigns (in Maine, Minnesota, Washington, and Maryland, Rhode Island, and Delaware, where gay marriage has been allowed, or in states like North Carolina, which recently banned gay marriage). But this lack of involvement wasn’t an accident:
Last year in Maryland, the church even went so far as to squelch an effort by some Mormons to organize against a pro-marriage initiative on the state ballot. The loss of the church as an ally has been a huge blow to foes of gay marriage, especially given its ability to deploy a host of motivated volunteers. (The efficiency of the LDS church during natural disasters has been compared to that of the German Wehrmacht.) 3
The National Organization of Marriage and the other anti-gay marriage groups have really struggled since losing the support and funding of the LDS church:
While NOM used the specter of legalization in Rhode Island to raise money, it had a poor showing in the state. The rabidly anti-gay group Mass Resistance complained bitterly, calling NOM “clueless and ineffective,” and noting, “NOM did no serious organizing or strategic planning. Meetings with activists would be set up, then go unattended.” That’s the sort of thing that would never happen if the LDS church had been on board. 4
Of course, it’s important to note that this isn’t necessarily a permanent shift:
[I]t’s too soon to know whether the LDS church has unilaterally withdrawn from the marriage fight or whether this is just a temporary cease-fire. 5
But there’s no doubt that there have been significant changes, starting with Elder Marlin K. Jensen’s apology “for the pain that Prop. 8 caused”:
The apology from a high church official turned out to be just the beginning of a cultural shift toward greater acceptance of gays and lesbians within LDS ranks. In 2011, [Mitch] Mayne was called to serve as an official of his local San Francisco ward, as an openly gay man. It was a historic appointment in an institution with a long history of excommunicating openly gay members, which it referred to as people who were “afflicted” with same-sex attraction. 6
In addition, the Church has worked with a San Fransisco State University initiative to “craft an educational booklet aimed specifically at helping Mormons parent their gay kids, to keep them safe at home and to prevent suicide.” 7 Mother Jones describes it as
a remarkably humane document instructing church members on how to embrace their gay kids even when they’re uncomfortable with their purple hair and transgendered friends. The pamphlet is now being used in lots of Mormon wards. Meanwhile, in Salt Lake City, where the church is headquartered, the church has teamed up with the LGBT community to open a shelter for young homeless people there, about 40 percent of whom are known to be LGBT. 8
While these changes have been significant, the articles stress they have not been doctrinal, nor has the Church changed its position on the issue of gay marriage itself:
Not everything has changed, of course. The church still filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of Prop. 8, although it doesn’t read like the same sort of full-throated anti-gay sentiment that drove the initiative. The church lawyers who drafted the document seem to have bent over backward to express how much they like gays, and to frame the issue in terms of states’ rights, as opposed to morality. Mormon church doctrine still defines homosexuality as a sin. The gay Mormon website clarifies that while having a same-sex attraction is not a sin, acting on it is. Mayne was only able to take on his leadership role in the church after he broke up with his longtime partner and was single again. And noncelibate LGBT members are still excluded from “temple recommends”—access to the church’s most sacred spaces and ceremonies. Dabakis says that there are still many points of disagreement. “I don’t think the church has given one iota on gay marriage—maybe they never will—and neither have we. On the other hand, we have found a lot of commonalities that we can work on,” he says, pointing towards the joint efforts to help homeless kids. 9
Notes:
- http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/prop-8-mormons-gay-marriage-shift ↩
- http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/mormons-lds-church-gay-marriage-fight ↩
- http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/mormons-lds-church-gay-marriage-fight ↩
- http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/mormons-lds-church-gay-marriage-fight ↩
- http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/mormons-lds-church-gay-marriage-fight ↩
- http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/prop-8-mormons-gay-marriage-shift ↩
- http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/prop-8-mormons-gay-marriage-shift ↩
- http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/prop-8-mormons-gay-marriage-shift ↩
- http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/prop-8-mormons-gay-marriage-shift ↩
 So, we'll thank you the best way we know how: with a video of a man talking about a lanyard:
Watch )
 So, we'll thank you the best way we know how: with a video of a man talking about a lanyard:
Watch "Pin It")
Thanks, Mom
We want to thank moms everywhere. Even moms of liberals 
So, we’ll thank you the best way we know how: with a video of a man talking about a lanyard:
Watch “The Lanyard” by Billy Collins on PBS. See more from Poetry Everywhere.
And an excellent clip of Elder Holland talking about motherhood:
The Gospel and the Iraq War
This post was written by Tim B.
This month we remember the 10th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and consider the lessons learned. LDS scripture commands us to “renounce war and proclaim peace.”1 Even in the limited circumstances where nations are justified in defending themselves, our scriptures teach us that serious, repeated attempts at peaceful resolution of conflict must be attempted first.2,3 In the face of danger and conflict our bias must be for peaceful solutions.
If the Iraq War has anything to teach us it is that our obligation to seek peaceful resolution of conflict must not be subverted by fear, hate, partisan loyalty, so-called patriotism, or any other philosophy of man. Somewhere in the complex combination of post-9/11 sentiment, poor intelligence, and misinformation we lost our way. In retrospect we see we are not safer as a result of the war; we are arguably more vulnerable. The cost in lives lost, families displaced, and treasure spent continues to accumulate. There were no weapons of mass destruction to confiscate and there were no meaningful ties to Al Qaeda to disrupt. Many of our allies and others in the international community were skeptical of these claims from the outset, foretold the challenges that war would bring, and adamantly opposed the invasion. Tragically the United States did not listen; our commitment to peace and diplomacy was derailed.
What if we had listened more? What if our fear of perceived threats was tempered by a strong moral commitment to peaceful recourses? Perhaps we would have discovered before it was too late that Saddam Hussein’s refusal to allow U.N. inspectors into Iraq was motivated by his fear of what neighboring Iran would do once it was known that there were no WMDs.4 He wasn’t hiding an arsenal of powerful weapons; he was hiding his country’s weakness from regional threats. As we confront future threats this should remind us that even when dealing with tyrants, our worst fears are not always borne out.
Some will argue that such a tenacious reliance on non-violent methods is irrational and dangerous, but what about Christ’s teaching to “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”5 President Joseph F. Smith explains this seeming paradox: “For years it has been held that peace comes only by preparation for war; the present conflict [WWI] should prove that peace comes only by preparing for peace, through training the people in righteousness and justice, and selecting rulers who respect the righteous will of the people…While they [the rulers] seemingly acknowledge allegiance to the Christian religion, they are not touched nor influenced by its teachings, for these are fundamentally opposed to war and discord”6 As we approach present and looming conflicts it is imperative that we prepare for peace by supporting leaders who share our commitment to non-violent conflict resolution. We should be more skeptical of partisan rhetoric that instills fear and promotes aggression. Where leaders are quick to advocate for war we can do as President Gordon B. Hinckley observed a few weeks after the invasion of Iraq: “We can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out…emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right…”7 If we can remain committed to peace despite threats and sound bites we will have learned a valuable lesson.
References
1. Doctrine and Covenants 98:16
2. Doctrine and Covenants 98:33-38
3. The Book of Mormon, Alma 43:46
4. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/fbi-interviews-saddam-bluffed-wmd-fear-iran/
5. Matthew 5:44
6.Joseph F. Smith, Improvement Era, Sept. 1914, pp 1074
7. Gordon B. Hinckley, “War and Peace”, Ensign, April 2003
Invitation to Understand
Marriner Eccles: A Mormon New Dealer
By Aaron Frank Nelson
The financial crash of 2008 made historians and economists draw immediate comparisons to the Great Depression. A year after the crash, the reasons and complexities of why the crash occurred were easy to find. Documentaries, books, and an endless amount of media delved into the Great Recession. However, while there were tons of problems on “why” the crash occurred, there were very few books and analysis that explained how to fix the problems. Lately, historians and economists have gone back into the archives and libraries to find ways that America overcame the devastation of the 1930’s. One person keeps coming up in this search—Marriner Eccles, the American Federal Reserve Chairman from 1934 to 1948. The ideas that created the most peaceful and stable American economy from 1945-1980 were directly influenced by the philosophy and knowledge of Utah’s greatest public servant.
Early Life and Business Career
When Marriner Eccles was born in 1890, America was at the tail end of the Gilded Age. In many ways his life was an example of those who were in the upper one percent of all Americans. The oldest son of “Utah’s richest man” David Eccles, Marriner enjoyed a life very few people in America enjoyed. It was a life filled with Ivy Leagues Schools, golf, and huge mansions. Prior to 1931, Marriner was an avowed laissez-faire capitalist. On the other hand, Marriner, who was born to David’s second wife Ellen in Logan, Utah experienced the difficulties that many Mormon children felt during this unique time in Mormon history.
To understand Marriner, it’s important to have some knowledge of his father David Eccles. Three things defined David Eccles—his Mormonism, his Scottish heritage, and the poverty he experienced as a child. Yet, like most second and third generation Mormons, David Eccles life was contradictory. He was definitely a man of his time—on the other hand the values and Mormon upbringing separated him from other industrial capitalist of the same time. Perhaps, famed Mormon historian Leonard Arrington said it best:
There is much complexity, even paradox, in the man David Eccles. He was “close” with his Money, but he might buy his twin girls new hats or pay off a destitute couple’s mortgage. He disdained social status, but he was proud of his profits he had earned. He was not particularly active in his church nor meticulous in heeding all its precepts—a glass of forbidden champagne seemed not to bother him—but he paid a full tithe and volunteered on several occasions to help the church in a business way. He loved his wives and children, but his life revolved around his business way. He was honest and straightforward in all his business dealings, yet most of his fortune was made by taking advantage of situations arising out of legislative and administrative loopholes in the use of forest lands (Arrington, 1975).
When David Eccles suddenly died of a heart attack at the Salt Lake City train station in 1912, Marriners life was thrown into turmoil. David hadn’t left a will, causing great contention within the family. On top of that, the anti-polygamous laws of the 1880s, made it impossible for David’s second wife to gather any inheritance. When it was finally settled, David’s first wife Bertha and her family (referred to as the “Ogden Eccles”) received the bulk of the family fortune. Marriner’s mother was left nothing—while the children were left with around $600,000 in comparison to fifteen million dollars left to the Ogden Eccles.
Instead, Marriner went to work protecting and building up his side of the family fortune. He shrewdly invested money into the Utah Condensed Milk company. The business later changed their name to Sego Milk. Within a few years, Eccles had quadrupled the fortune of the Logan Eccles family.
Meanwhile, havoc was being wrecked to the “Ogden Eccles” fortune. Because of mismanagement, poor business decision, and outright fraud, the business empire of David Eccles was ready to collapse. Many of David’s business partners approached Marriner and requested his leadership. He was willing, on the condition that his two older half-brothers were kept out of the business affairs. From that time forward, Marriner who was in his mid-twenties rebuilt many of the companies that were vital to the lives of many Mormons and Utahns (Hyman, 1976).
Chief among these businesses was the banking and construction company. First Security Bank and Utah Construction Company would play an important part in the economy in Utah during the 1900’s. The Utah Construction Company, during the 1930’s, was the chief construction company that built many of the roads, bridges, and dams (including the famous Boulder Dam) that dot the landscape of the West.
The Great Depression
Up to the Great Depression, it seemed like Marriner’s life was following in the footsteps of his father. He was an intelligent, diligent private entrepreneur, who exemplified the very best in intermountain and Mormon culture. As noted before, Marriner was a true believer in laissez-faire capitalism. His economic philosophy was similar to most businessmen during the 1920’s. The Great Depression changed all of this. Following the Crash of 1929, Eccles believed that the economy would sooner or later correct itself. He soon realized, after most of his banks and businesses were close to imploding, that the Great Depression was a different matter. As he noted in his biography:
I saw for the first time that thought I’d been active in the world of finance and production for seventeen years and knew it techniques, I knew less than nothing about its economic and social effects. Friends whose estates I managed, my family, whose interests I represented, and the community at large, in whose economic life I played a sensitive role, all expected me to find a way out of the economic trap that we were all in. Yet all I could find within myself was despair. Having been reared by my father to accept the responsibilities of wealth and having been placed by circumstances at the helm of many enterprises, there were times when I felt the whole depression was a personal affront. Wherein had I been at fault? Night after night following my head splitting awakening, I would return home exhausted by the pretensions of knowledge I was forced to wear in a daytime masquerade. I would slump forward on a table and pray that the answers I was groping for would somehow be revealed. As an individual I felt myself helpless to do anything (Eccles, 1951).
The Great Depression was especially devastating in Utah. In Ogden, unemployment rates reached over 50% at certain times during the 1930’s. Even the LDS Church, which played a vital role in the economic and religious lives of most Utahans, was financially in trouble. Reed Smoot, a Mormon Apostle and Senator from Utah, didn’t have answers to the throngs of parishioners who were pleading for answers to the great national calamity. As Sidney Hyman noted, “Marriner had approached the senator to say, in his trip-hammer style, that private or local governmental sources of support for relief work in Utah were exhausted; that the Mormon Church, in common with other religious institutions, could not “take care of its own”; that Church funds depended on contributing members, and the members were in a desperate condition along with everyone else; that the federal government alone was in a position to provide funds for relief on a scale needed by distressed Utahans, and by people elsewhere. Smoot, however, looked at Marriner ‘with cold eyes that received light but no images. It was clear the he was either blind to the fact of the case, or was too old and too tired to be stirred by them. (Eccles, 1951)’”
As with today’s economic situation, many politicians and economists had differing views on how to cure the nation of the Great Depression. For Marriner, his previous views on economics had changed. No longer did he believe that “depressions were due to God-made economic laws.” Instead, he realized that the only way out of the economic mess was through government intervention. As he wrote in his biography:
I saw at the time that men with great economic power had an undue influence in making the rules of the economic game, in shaping the actions of government that enforce those rules, and in conditioning public attitudes towards those rules. I did not want to politicize every aspect of economics. I wanted the widest latitude left to the individual to make his own economic decisions, whether they might be wise or foolish. But I no longer believed that the rules of the market place were Holy Writ. The rules were made by men who had special interests of their own to serve or protect. If this was true, then my own reason said that all the people, and not just a favored few, had an equal right to share in the political process by which economic rules are not only made but changed (Eccles, 1951).
As with today, many conservatives and Republicans argued for austerity during a time of depression—Eccles argued against this option. Predating John Millard Keynes, Eccles formulated an idea that would become the thesis of Keynesian economic. In the opinion of Marriner, “A policy of adequate government outlays at a time when private enterprise is curtailing its expenditures does reflect a preference for an unbalanced budget. It merely reflects a desire and the need to put idle men, money, and material to work. As they are put to work, and as private enterprise is stimulated to absorb the unemployed, the budget can and should be brought into balance, to offset the danger of a boom on the upswing, just as an unbalanced budget could help counteract a depression on a downswing. Timing and method are the essence of the problem in either case.”
As the Great Depression continued, and the Hoover Administration came to an end, Eccles became more vocal about his views. Among the elite, he was starting to make the elite and the bankers feel uneasy. Before the Utah State Bankers Convention, he stated:
Our difficulties are not material; they are due, in my opinion, to the failure of financial and political leadership in the world, and particularly in America. They are due to a failure to be able to use the superabundance of wealth which we have been able to produce. We have failed, in the development of our political and financial system, to keep pace with our economic and scientific development……..
The theory of hard work and thrift as a means of pulling us out of the depression is unsound economically. True hard work means more production, but thrift and economy means less consumption. Now reconcile those two forces, will you?
There is only one agency in my opinion that can turn the cycle upward and that is the government. The government, if it is worthy of the support, the loyalty, and the patriotism of its citizens, must so regulate, through its power of taxation, through its power over control of money and credit, and hence its volume and use, the economic structure as to give men who are able, worthy and willing to work the opportunity to work, and to guarantee to them sustenance for their families and protection of want and destitution (Arrington, A History of the First Security Corporation, 1976).
The Roosevelt Administration
When Eccles was first asked by Franklin D. Roosevelt to work in Washington D.C. as a right hand man to Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, he planned on staying for three years. Instead, his career in public service ended up being a total of twenty years, spanning across three decades, into the Second World War, and concluding with the Truman Administration. Eccles forever changed how the economy and Federal Reserve worked in the United States.
During his first three years on the Roosevelt economic team, Eccles invented many innovative ideas that have remained with us to this day. For instance, the FHA (Federal Housing Administration) was thought of and planned by Eccles. While in Ogden, he realized that housing had been devastated by the Depression. Only two houses had been built from 1930-1935. Mortgage delinquencies were out of control. Most people had either foreclosed or had left their homes. Not only this, many companies had been devastated because they manufactured building materials. Lumber, steel, bricks, furniture, cement, and appliances were a few industries that were ruined by the Great Depression (Hyman, 1976).
To fix the problem, Eccles proposed a plan that helped alleviate the problems that Americans were going through during this time. He proposed that the government insure houses that were applied for under the FHA. People who otherwise weren’t able to buy houses because of new or poor credit were able to purchase a new home. He also made sure that the interest rate on those houses was low. Those who had work during the Great Depression were soon able to afford the payments for the new homes.
While many conservatives contend that Roosevelt prolonged the Great Depression, many current analysts have blamed the extension on conservative ideas. Roosevelt favored many austerity measures during this time. He believed that the federal government was required to balance a budget no matter what the current economic issues were. Many conservatives believed that by enforcing austerity measures on the government, it would somehow influence businessmen to spend money. The same conservative senators and critics believed that by spending money, the American government was quickly sliding into Socialism. Eccles adamantly opposed this theory. He brazenly called it “bogus” to many of the staunchest senators and government officials that proposed this theory. Eccles ideas, which predated Keynesian economics, proposed that the government spend money during depressions, and save money while the economy is sound.
In many ways, Roosevelt followed the advice of officials that advocated austerity measures. This in turn prolonged a depression that could have been solved years earlier if they would have followed the advice of Marriner Eccles. It wasn’t until World War II, when the government had no choice but to spend large amounts of money that America finally recovered from the Great Depression.
As the current economic calamity has shown, in many ways Eccles was right. Those countries such as the United Kingdom and Ireland, who have followed austerity measures, have suffered more in the depression than those who have reverted back to ideas that were originally thought of by Eccles and Keynes. Unfortunately, many conservative politicians have held firm to these failed beliefs. It’s strange, because Ronald Reagan, who led a conservative revolution, in many ways followed Keynesian economics. The humongous amounts of money spent on defense helped America out of the 1980’s recession.
The Federal Reserve
Though Morgenthau and Roosevelt might have had their disagreements with Eccles, one thing was certain, there were no doubt about the knowledge, experience, and wisdom behind many of the decisions that Eccles made. They were so impressed with Eccles that when it came time to nominate a new Federal Reserve Chairman, Marriner was the first choice. He took the position on the promise that changes within the Federal Reserve System would be dramatically changed.
During this time the Federal Reserve System was deeply influenced by Wall Street and politicians. Eccles wanted to create a system that was independent from the two institutions. His belief was that politicians and Wall Street were influencing the Federal Reserve for personal financial benefits. When he stepped into office, he eliminated all meetings and committees between the Senators and governors of the Federal Reserve. He also moved the Federal Reserve from New York, where it was basically controlled by Wall Street, to Washington DC. This greatly influenced the governors to propose decisions that were beneficial to Americans (Nelson, 2012).
During his time, Eccles became as well known to Americans as Greenspan and Bernake are today. He changed the System for the better—creating an institution that was beneficial, independent, and provided sound economic advice for America during the post World War II era. Though there were many lapses of judgment away from Eccles beliefs (especially during the Greenspan era), many of his ideas are being reevaluated and studies.
Later Life
After his career in Washington D.C., Eccles came home to Utah. For many years he shared the same apartment building as President David O McKay (he lived directly below him). When Presidents from the United States would come to Utah in the 50’s and 60’s, it was a tradition to stop at President McKay’s apartment for breakfast, and then to Marriner Eccles apartment for coffee or tea. He continued to provide influence, wisdom, and advice for the top leaders of our country—with the exception of Richard Nixon who he found appalling.
Eccles was especially an outspoken critic of the Vietnam War—even before it was popular to do so. He foresaw the calamity and disaster that it would become. He expressed his opinion to both Kennedy and Johnson during visits. Despite his warnings, America would have to suffer through this tragic and preventable war.
In his last speech Eccles stated:
World trade and world friendship go hand in hand. Neither self-isolation nor aggression can solve the acute problems that each nation shares with the rest of the world. It is one world—or no world. The raw materials of the world belong to the people of the world and must be shared through international trade and finance.
One thing is certain; we have learned some important truths about ourselves in these difficult years. We have learned that we can be influenced erroneously: that our judgment and sense of fair play can be distorted. We can be fooled and confused and made uncertain.
Deep down in our hearts we know we have strayed far afield from the ideals on which this country was founded. We know that killing and carnage do not bring us honor. We know the quiet of a shattered country is not peace. We know that the prestige of the presidency and the honor of our country are enhanced in the world by integrity and stability, and we are appalled at the savagery we have unleashed on a small Asian country which has in no way offended us (Eccles, Marriner Eccles Last Speech, 1973).
In the end, Eccles spoke with conviction, courage, and truthfulness. Though there were many who might disagree with him, very few would question the integrity of the man. For a small, Utah, Mormon boy who grew up in the luxuries of the Gilded Age, he represented everything that was fair and right about the Intermountain and Mormon culture.
Bibliography
Arrington, L. (1975). David Eccles: Pioneer Western Industrialist. Logan, UT: Utah State University.
Arrington, L. (1976). A History of the First Security Corporation. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Special Collections.
Eccles, M. (1951). Beckoning Frontiers. New York: Alfred A Knopf.
Eccles, M. (1973). Marriner Eccles Last Speech. 1973. Utah: University of Utah Special Collections (vol. 3).
Hyman, S. (1976). Marriner S. Eccles: Private Entrepreneur and Public Servant. Stanford, California: Graduate School of Business: Stanford University.
Nelson, M. (2012, December 27). Jumping the Abyss: Marriner S. Eccles and the New Deal, 1933-1940. Retrieved from New Economic Perspectives: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/12/jumping-the-abyss-marriner-s-eccles-and-the-new-deal-1933-1940.html
On Mormon Activism
Much has been written about recent activism in the LDS Church throughout the bloggernaccle. And with the recent announcement that at least one of the prayers in the upcoming General Conference will be given by a woman, and with the launch of a compelling new website devoted to gender equality in the Church it seems this issue is not going away any time soon. There are many in the Church who feel such activism has no place–”revelation always comes from God” they say, “and not from picket lines or protests.” Others support the causes but disagree with the methods, viewing such initiatives as strategically unwise or doctrinally prohibited.
It is important, however, to explore the different reasons for activism. Here are the three general categories I’ve come up with. I’m sure there are others, but I think this is a useful way to get at the various motivations driving activism within the Church.
1) The Church leadership is wrong/uninspired/bad and we need to set them straight
While the teachings of the Church maintain that prophets and apostles can be (and often have been) incorrect on any issue, this impetus for activism is a problematic one for any member to have. We believe that imperfect humans are called to lead the Church, and that while we are all capable of mistakes we are to be as loving and forgiving of others’ faults, blind spots, weaknesses, and errors as we know the Lord is of ours. Sustaining our leaders doesn’t mean we think they’re perfect, just that we support them and know how difficult it is to do their job.
2) The Church leadership needs to make this change, and we’re going to protest until they do
This type of activism is less confrontational than the first, but still doesn’t sit well with many in the Church. I’m not saying this type of activism is never appropriate, but it’s vary dangerous ground. Although, some might argue that the Word of Wisdom came from this type of agitation–Emma Smith badgered Joseph about the mess the School of the Prophets made on the floor of their home, and the resulting prayers from Joseph resulted in what we now know as the Word of Wisdom. So this seems to have some justified precedent.
3) The Church membership needs to be prepared for a change
Imagine that God had given the revelation giving the Priesthood to all worthy males in 1940 rather than 1978. What would have happened? Among other things, it would have angered any openly racist members of the Church. And I don’t have data on this, but I’m willing to bet there were significantly more racist Mormons in 1940 than there were in 1978. I could imagine Mormon civil rights supporters in the 60s and 70s agitating for all men to be given the Priesthood not to change the minds of Church Leadership, but to begin to soften the hearts of the lay membership. Here’s my point: God isn’t going to reveal new changes until the membership is ready to accept them. And the membership often (always?) needs activists to pave the way forward.
This way-paving creates a space within the Church for people who agree with the change, and demonstrates to more reticent members that good faithful Latter-day Saints can have a variety of opinions.
In Fairness to WBMW
A week or so ago I took the blog A Well-Behaved Mormon Woman to task for accusing President Obama of “moral rape” (she since changed that phrase to “a rape of morals”) and for accusing liberals of advancing Satan’s agenda. I reached out to her on Twitter with the MormonLiberals account, hoping to spur some kind of dialogue about the issue. You can go back through the account’s archive to see my attempts to begin a discussion.
Instead of joining in on a discussion, she blocked me entirely. Maybe I went too far, or maybe I was rude. I certainly didn’t mean to be, if I was.
I don’t know why she blocked the account. But I do know I’m still dedicated to fruitful discussion and dialogue. Her most recent post gave me a lot to think about, and I hope you’ll head on over to give it a read.
While Mormon liberals hold many different viewpoints on the issue of homosexuality and marriage, previously on this blog various bloggers have made a pretty good case in favor of marriage equality. But the book highlighted on WBMW serves as a very thoughtful and thorough representation of the opposing viewpoint. I might not agree with all their assertions but I believe it is imperative that we have these discussions, that we engage with the folks we might not agree with. As I’ve said before, if we are not willing to discuss the issues with each other we shouldn’t be at all surprised when our political system doesn’t function very well (or when our kids are not prepared for serving missions because they are completely unable/unwilling to talk with people they disagree with).
So please head on over to her blog and read the excerpts she’s collected.
BSA ban on homosexual scouts and leaders
I just filled out my official BSA alumni survey. I am very impressed by the consideration the Boy Scout organization seems to be giving this issue. I don’t have much to say about the process at this point, though I’m sure there will be a lot to say after they’ve made their decision sometime after April 1st (when they said the survey was due).
I did some across one person, though, who said he threatened to remove his boys from from the scouting program altogether if they change their policy too allow homosexual scouts and leaders. I leave it up to him to know what is best for his family, but I am quite confused about that sentiment. Here’s why:
Imagine an 14 year-old mormon boy who is homosexual. He has the priesthood (openly homosexual males can have the priesthood), attends the temple regularly to do baptisms for the dead (homosexual males/females can hold temple recommends), plans on serving an honorable full time mission (also allowed). In this most fragile of teenage years, though, he is not allowed to work on the same projects, merit badges, or awards his friends and fellow Mormons are, because the BSA won’t allow him to be a Boy Scout. He is ostracized among his own people.
Is that really the message we want to be sending to these people, children of our Heavenly Father whom the Church already openly accepts for who they are?
Where the Mormon Faith Collides with Conservative Politics
Mormons proudly jump at opportunities to give handouts
In a way, having a Mormon stake president in Sandy, Utah give a sermon at a stake conference of a political nature has at least the benefit of sparking a public conversation. In case you missed it, here’s the gist:
An LDS stake president in Sandy did something in a speech earlier this month that other Mormon leaders have done many times: He warned that evil is corrupting the world.
Then President Matthew DeVisser did something few LDS leaders ever do over the pulpit: He rattled off a number of Republican talking points, lamenting that voters last year chose “socialism over capitalism, entitlements over free enterprise, redistribution and regulation over self-reliance.
From at least my perception, most Mormons almost to a fault will avoid discussing anything controversial simply to avoid contention. While I don’t plan on being contentious here, I do believe strongly in “standing for something” in life and that often involves speaking out.
First, I can tell you that this stake president was not speaking for the Lord or the Church, but rather from his own personal opinion and human bias. He obviously felt very passionate about it, even evoking the “Holy Ghost” as his authority. I find that disturbing on many levels.
This story has caught the attention of people in circles outside the church, many of whom are close to me here in Nevada. These sorts of stories do not go over well with people outside the Church, at least the ones who don’t agree with this stake president.
I try to explain that the Mormon Church doesn’t have any beliefs about tax policy, Social Security, or mandated purchasing of health insurance. It’s hard to convince them when even Mormons don’t usually/always understand this. The volume of anti-communist/socialist rhetoric from Church leaders of the past don’t make it any easier.
President Heber J. Grant was adamantly opposed to Social Security and FDR’s New Deal in general. Yet I would submit that most Mormons today don’t see Social Security as a ‘corrupt evil’ or ‘a threat to freedom.’ Mormons and their leaders are subject to the attitudes and prejudices of their day. Members should remember this. After all, it wasn’t until nearly 1980 that black members of the Church were allowed to hold the priesthood or women allowed to pray in church.
Church leaders often speak out about things of a political nature. They’ve spoken out against gay marriage, communism and other moral issues. One thing that has always disturbed me is the lack of speaking out during the civil rights era. How about on wars or illegal torture by our government? Unfortunately they’ve been astonishingly silent. My only point is that leaders of the Church are not perfect. They are human, just like all of us.
How about self-reliance? Yes, that is a principle taught by the Church. Of course the Church has its own robust welfare system. So clearly self-reliance isn’t an excuse to leave the less fortunate out in the cold. So what exactly was this stake president talking about when he started comparing redistribution and self reliance? The truth is he doesn’t even know. He didn’t bother to think about it. He was so juiced up by conservative talking points, he couldn’t think for himself.
The truth of the matter is that with the great recession and the decade leading up to it, this nation has seen a transfer of wealth from the people at the bottom to the people at the top. That’s redistribution of wealth in reverse. That probably never occurred to this gentleman and folks of like mind.
We are living in a time of great struggle for people in the bottom 60% of income earners (that’s more than half of us) and yet this stake president is worried about low taxes, deregulation, free enterprise and self-reliance… things known to help the top income earners, not anyone else. It doesn’t trickle down.
When it comes to poor people, conservatives have an attitude about them that says they are “takers,” that they have a “sense of entitlement” brought about by a “culture of dependency.” Most of them believe the poor need to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, all 47% of them.
In my estimation, this conservative attitude reflects a regretful level of disdain and judgment towards the poor. The scriptures certainly suggest as much:
“But wo unto the rich, who are rich as to the things of the world. For because they are rich they despise the poor, and they persecute the meek, and their hearts are upon their treasures; wherefore, their treasure is their god. And behold, their treasure shall perish with them also.” (2nd Nephi 9:30)
I don’t think there’s any dispute that free market enthusiasts are more concerned for wealth than they are about fighting poverty. As a matter of fact, fighting poverty is never even brought up in conservative circles. They feel that there is ample opportunity in this country, and if you aren’t doing well, it’s probably something you aren’t doing right, or you aren’t trying hard enough. Hmmm, what does that sound like?
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.
19 For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?
26 And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you—that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.
The Lord has commanded his faithful to take care of the needy. The notion of self-reliance should be taught in example, persuasion, and from a sense of duty, not by means of starvation and deprivation.
If you’ve ever found yourself saying “get a job” or “you reap what you sow” or “poor people poor ways” you should probably strongly reconsider King Benjamin’s sermon. Called it a hand out… or free advice.
LDS Politics: Institutional vs. Personal
After reading President Uchtdorf’s recent statement in favor of President Obama’s immigration plan, I was struck by the separation between what the Church teaches and what our conservative brothers and sisters expect us mormon liberals to do.
We as Mormons have two choices as individuals: 1) follow, in lockstep, all of the Church’s positions on all political issues, or 2) make our own political decisions, as informed by our own personal research, including research on the Church’s institutional positions.
Many Mormon conservatives seem to embrace #1, hammering anyone who supports or votes for anything they view as out of line with the Church’s institutional positions. Therefore, many conservatives harshly condemn anyone who supports increased rights for our homosexual brothers and sisters, anyone who supports a woman’s right to choose related to abortion, or anyone who supports the supposedly satanic plan of wealth redistribution.
What gets us, though, is that there seems to be a double standard. Many Mormon conservatives go against the Church’s institutional political position.
For example, Mormon conservatives cheered when they learned this vernal man charges liberals more than he charges conservatives (read the comments to see examples of this cheering), and when they learned this business owner fires two employees based largely on their liberal politics (the lack of wide outrage in Utah suggests that many Mormons are okay with this, if not openly supportive).
This behavior is directly against the Church’s stated position on politics: It asks Mormons to
“engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters,”
urges Mormon lawmakers to
“make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent”
and assures that
“[p]rinciples compatible with the gospel are found in the platforms of all major political parties.”
Clearly, the Church as an institution is forcefully against the type of prejudice that Mormon Liberals are facing today.
A final example, in light of President Uchdorf’s stirring endorsement of liberal immigration politics: a few years ago Church leaders supported–they attended the signing ceremony to applaud its passage–an immigration bill known as HB116. You would think, if Mormons truly embraced #1 above, that every Mormon in the state would have embraced this without question. That is not what happened, though. In fact, many county GOP organizations from across the state issued an official protest against the Church-approved measure. In a state with 70% of its citizens identifying as Mormon, county after county symbolically rejected the immigration stance institutionally supported by the Church.
And here’s the thing: we think this is just fine, and so does the Church. Many Church leaders have even explicitly suggested that #1 is not the way to go. For example, Elder Marlin K. Jensen said,
“Everyone who is a good Latter-day Saint is going to have to pick and choose a little bit regardless of the party that they’re in and that may be required a lot more in the future than it has been in the past. But I think there’s room for that and the gospel leaves us lots of latitude.”
The Church makes it very clear that, except for in very specific situations, Church members are to behave politically however they want to. The Church as an institution has intervened specifically just a handful times, including in support of “Prohibition” alcohol laws, in opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, and in favor of California’s Proposition 8. Even in those specific situations, the Church didn’t command its members how to vote. It strongly urged one way or another, but didn’t say “vote this way or you’re out of the Church.” In other words, the institutional endorsement of the Church is not meant to dictate the personal political stances of its members.
Here’s why this is important: many Church members cite various parts of The Family: A Proclamation to the World in defense of their personal feelings about gay marriage and abortion. But those very passages can also be used to defend many liberal positions on this same issues. The Gospel isn’t as cut-and-dried as many seem to think it is, and there are many ways to follow the teachings of Christ. We happen to believe, after careful research, that liberal politics are generally more in line with the Gospel than other political philosophies.
And, in this Church, that’s okay. The beauty of the Church is that it embraces #2. Wholeheartedly. The Church draws a line between what The Church as an institution supports and opposes, and what the church membership as individuals support. They don’t always have to be the same thing. And that goes in both directions.
