As previously announced, the second Faith and Knowledge Conference for LDS graduate students in religious studies programs and related fields, entitled "Reconciliations and Reformulations," will be held at Harvard Divinity School on February 20-21, 2009.
The program has now been finalized and participants have been notified of their acceptance. The organizing committee is pleased to be able at this time to offer fully-subsidized accommodations (room plus breakfast and lunch Saturday) to THREE additional graduate students in order to facilitate their attendance and participation at this conference as well.
In order to apply for this subsidy, please send an email to the committee at org@faithandknowledge.org stating your interest and verifiable status as a graduate student in religious studies or another related field. Additional information about the conference can be found at the conference website, http://www.faithandknowledge.org/.
30 December 2008
12 December 2008
Nuremberg it ain't
This week brought the latest development in the prosecution of five Blackwater private security guards for the shooting deaths of 17 civilians in Baghdad in 2007. The development: the formal unsealing of the Justice Department's indictment of the guards and the surrender of the accused to federal authorities.
What's my particular interest in this case? The guards chose to surrender themselves in Salt Lake City, Utah. Why Utah, you ask? Great question. Let's review the geography:
Venue ordinarily reserved for prosecution of crimes committed overseas: Washington, D.C.
Place where atrocities occurred: Baghdad, Iraq
Place where accused's employer has its HQ: Moyock, North Carolina
Homes of the accused:
But why surrender in Utah? News sources are reporting that it is in order to be in a "more conservative, pro-gun" jurisdiction. Puh-leeze. Utah fits that description, clearly, but aren't Tennessee, Texas, and North Carolina also full of hicks clinging to their guns? (Disclosure: I lived in NC for 26 years--and my entire family still resides there-- until I moved to Texas, so I do not think I am speaking from ignorance.) And any of them would be closer than the place where the trial actually ought to be held- Washington, DC.
So it can't just be conservatism and "pro-gunness," right? What else might there be? From the AP, we learn that the guards wanted a jury pool "more likely to support the Iraq war." In 2006, Utah was one of only three states (including its neighbors in Idaho and Wyoming- does anybody actually live in Wyoming?) where not-my-President Bush had a 50%+ approval rating. In 2007, it became the only state with that lofty distinction. However, at the same time support for the Iraq War (and Pres. Bush's handling of it) was only at 41%, right around the time that President Hinckley made some negative remarks about the consequences of the war. Granted, at the exact same time, support for the war among the broader American populace was at 23%. Behind. The. Curve. Its part of that "dangerous culture of obedience" that former SLC Mayor Rocky Anderson identified that same year. When Utahns are becoming sought for their propensity to side favorably with mercenaries and war criminals, we are in dangerous territory. (And yes, I know that not everybody in Utah is Mormon. But the 41% that still supported the Iraq War in 2007 definitely are, and those are the people that the defense attorneys are hoping will make it on the jury. The rest of them just finished voting for Obama.)
Utah- now known for the greatest snow on earth, Sundance, Mormons, natural beauty, and a lack of accountability for "war crimes."
What's my particular interest in this case? The guards chose to surrender themselves in Salt Lake City, Utah. Why Utah, you ask? Great question. Let's review the geography:
Venue ordinarily reserved for prosecution of crimes committed overseas: Washington, D.C.
Place where atrocities occurred: Baghdad, Iraq
Place where accused's employer has its HQ: Moyock, North Carolina
Homes of the accused:
- Dustin Heard, Knoxville, TN
- Evan Liberty, Rochester, NH
- Nick Slatten, Sparta, TN
- Paul Slough, Keller, TX
- Donald Ball, West Valley, UT
But why surrender in Utah? News sources are reporting that it is in order to be in a "more conservative, pro-gun" jurisdiction. Puh-leeze. Utah fits that description, clearly, but aren't Tennessee, Texas, and North Carolina also full of hicks clinging to their guns? (Disclosure: I lived in NC for 26 years--and my entire family still resides there-- until I moved to Texas, so I do not think I am speaking from ignorance.) And any of them would be closer than the place where the trial actually ought to be held- Washington, DC.
So it can't just be conservatism and "pro-gunness," right? What else might there be? From the AP, we learn that the guards wanted a jury pool "more likely to support the Iraq war." In 2006, Utah was one of only three states (including its neighbors in Idaho and Wyoming- does anybody actually live in Wyoming?) where not-my-President Bush had a 50%+ approval rating. In 2007, it became the only state with that lofty distinction. However, at the same time support for the Iraq War (and Pres. Bush's handling of it) was only at 41%, right around the time that President Hinckley made some negative remarks about the consequences of the war. Granted, at the exact same time, support for the war among the broader American populace was at 23%. Behind. The. Curve. Its part of that "dangerous culture of obedience" that former SLC Mayor Rocky Anderson identified that same year. When Utahns are becoming sought for their propensity to side favorably with mercenaries and war criminals, we are in dangerous territory. (And yes, I know that not everybody in Utah is Mormon. But the 41% that still supported the Iraq War in 2007 definitely are, and those are the people that the defense attorneys are hoping will make it on the jury. The rest of them just finished voting for Obama.)
Utah- now known for the greatest snow on earth, Sundance, Mormons, natural beauty, and a lack of accountability for "war crimes."
06 November 2008
The Passage of Prop 8 - Three Consequences
By almost all accounts, it appears that CA voters approved Proposition 8, which eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry in the state, on Tuesday. Opponents of the measure still have rapidly fading hopes that thousands of uncounted absentee ballots will reverse this outcome, but Prop 8's passage appears substantially certain at this point. As has been noted widely, Prop 8's passage would not have been likely or possible without heavy involvement, both financial and otherwise, from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. From my own observations, here is what I see for California Mormons, and the Church more broadly, in the near future.
1. A hollow victory- It seems fairly clear that Prop 8's passage will only delay the arrival of gay marriage in California, not prevent it. In the eight years since Prop 22, which was similar in language but was only a statute, rather than a constitutional amendment, almost 10% of opposition to same-sex marriage has fallen off. Furthermore, exit polls (which I know, incorrectly predicted a loss for Prop 8) indicated that the under-30 crowd overwhelmingly voted against it (67-31) while the retiree set voted in favor 57-43. This means that in another ten to twenty years, a large portion of support for measures like Prop 8 will simply die of natural causes, ushering in a more tolerant electorate.
Also, legal challenges against Prop 8's passage have already started. Their merits and prospects are debatable, but it shows that this battle ain't over. This could end up in SCOTUS, which does not look favorable for gay marriage advocates right now, but could look much more so in another four years. I fully anticipate that a pro-gay-marriage proposition will be on the CA ballot at the next election, followed by a responding ballot proposition depending on who wins the first. (No matter what side of the SSM debate you are on, I think that we can all agree that the ability to amend the state constitution based on a simple 50%+1 majority is positively ridiculous. A 2/3rds requirement I can get behind, but the purpose of constitutions is the protection of the rights of the minority. If a simple majority can change the constitution, it is not doing its job.) Which leads me to the second consequence...
2. A massive Mormon exodus from California- The next ten years or so are going to be quite expensive for California Mormons. If, as I alluded to in the first section, we see a series of back-and-forth ballot propositions on SSM in California every two years or so, few members of the Church will be able to afford to live in California (as if it were not hard enough already). They are facing: higher federal taxes on their $200K+ income (Obama), CA's already crazy-high state taxes (which may grow due to budget shortfalls), and a special "Mormon tax," which will end up being an extra ~$5-25K or more every couple of years to a "Yes/No on ___" campaign. It may finally get to the point where opposing gay marriage prevents California Mormons from building their food storage, having more kids, sending those kids on missions/to college, and saving for retirement. At that point, they will bolt for Utah and other points in red states. That leaves CA church units in the hands of 1) less-affluent members of the Church who were not donating to the campaigns in the first place, and 2) those who did not donate because of their support for SSM. Of course, this may end up being a boon to Utah and other "receiver" states since many of these members will be high-functioning members of society and the Church.
3. A brooding storm- The next few years are going to be very trying for members of the Church, both in California and elsewhere. We can break this down into several headings:
Missionary work- As I alluded to earlier, the vote of the under-30 set was overwhelmingly in favor of allowing SSM. In addition, people with any college education voted against Prop 8 by a wide margin. I suspect that something similar is afoot in other states, to a lesser extent in the South and Midwest, but still true in urban areas and college towns of those regions. Because the Church's crucial involvement in passing Prop 8 is so widely known (thanks Internet!), missionary work in this demographic is going to suffer terribly. Affluent college-educated folks are your future mission presidents, bishops, stake presidents, etc. and a whole lot of them will never give the missionaries a sympathetic ear after this.
Getting things done- In the next couple of years, whenever the Church wants to accomplish anything that requires any kind of public approval (building a new building, etc.) in CA or any of the more liberal states, they are going to find a whole lot of obstructions put up by those whose approval they need. I feel like most liberal-minded people looked at Mormons pre-Prop 8 and said: "well, they have some crazy beliefs but they seem to be genuinely good and kind people." Those days are over. We have become a "hiss and a byword."
The opinion of others- this could fall equally under the previous heading, but I will elaborate further here. The number of people I have seen on the Internet swearing an eternal hostility towards the Church, not because of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, an embodied God, etc., but because of our advocacy on Prop 8, is absolutely frightening. I suspect we will see more of the attitude that this unfortunate commercial espouses. In the mind of SSM advocates, because of our open and public involvement in this political issue, everything we do will be put under the most rigorous scrutiny, and any criticism is fair game. We have already seen public protests at temples and meetinghouses, which is, in my mind, extremely unfortunate, but again, we are getting no more free passes ever again.
The membership- You might have read stories in the news or elsewhere on the Internet about people leaving the Church because of the Yes on 8 campaign. I don't have any personal anecdotes, but it seems like Yes on 8 is really going to tear apart the fabric of families, wards, and neighborhoods within the Church. My sense is that a lot of these people were inactive anyway, and while it is still a great loss, it is not likely to be felt in individual wards and stakes. But there is a "ticking time bomb" out there of members who have been hurt, either on their own behalf or on behalf of friends, relatives, and neighbors, and this pain is going to fester and stew. Some are just waiting for some other excuse to push them over the edge into inactivity or more direct measures to end their membership. If the "Yes on 8" campaigns repeats itself in the near future (see my #1 above) that will likely be sufficient excuse for many.
Also, any thawing on the SSA issue is over. Members who struggle with SSA but are trying to stay active and chaste are going to sense the increased hostility towards those like them, not because of Prop 8 itself, but because of the sometimes hostile and inflammatory rhetoric used in the campaign. They too are likely to bolt.
These prognostications are somewhat hyperbolic (and intentionally so), but not so far outside the realm of possibility that they should not be taken seriously.
1. A hollow victory- It seems fairly clear that Prop 8's passage will only delay the arrival of gay marriage in California, not prevent it. In the eight years since Prop 22, which was similar in language but was only a statute, rather than a constitutional amendment, almost 10% of opposition to same-sex marriage has fallen off. Furthermore, exit polls (which I know, incorrectly predicted a loss for Prop 8) indicated that the under-30 crowd overwhelmingly voted against it (67-31) while the retiree set voted in favor 57-43. This means that in another ten to twenty years, a large portion of support for measures like Prop 8 will simply die of natural causes, ushering in a more tolerant electorate.
Also, legal challenges against Prop 8's passage have already started. Their merits and prospects are debatable, but it shows that this battle ain't over. This could end up in SCOTUS, which does not look favorable for gay marriage advocates right now, but could look much more so in another four years. I fully anticipate that a pro-gay-marriage proposition will be on the CA ballot at the next election, followed by a responding ballot proposition depending on who wins the first. (No matter what side of the SSM debate you are on, I think that we can all agree that the ability to amend the state constitution based on a simple 50%+1 majority is positively ridiculous. A 2/3rds requirement I can get behind, but the purpose of constitutions is the protection of the rights of the minority. If a simple majority can change the constitution, it is not doing its job.) Which leads me to the second consequence...
2. A massive Mormon exodus from California- The next ten years or so are going to be quite expensive for California Mormons. If, as I alluded to in the first section, we see a series of back-and-forth ballot propositions on SSM in California every two years or so, few members of the Church will be able to afford to live in California (as if it were not hard enough already). They are facing: higher federal taxes on their $200K+ income (Obama), CA's already crazy-high state taxes (which may grow due to budget shortfalls), and a special "Mormon tax," which will end up being an extra ~$5-25K or more every couple of years to a "Yes/No on ___" campaign. It may finally get to the point where opposing gay marriage prevents California Mormons from building their food storage, having more kids, sending those kids on missions/to college, and saving for retirement. At that point, they will bolt for Utah and other points in red states. That leaves CA church units in the hands of 1) less-affluent members of the Church who were not donating to the campaigns in the first place, and 2) those who did not donate because of their support for SSM. Of course, this may end up being a boon to Utah and other "receiver" states since many of these members will be high-functioning members of society and the Church.
3. A brooding storm- The next few years are going to be very trying for members of the Church, both in California and elsewhere. We can break this down into several headings:
Missionary work- As I alluded to earlier, the vote of the under-30 set was overwhelmingly in favor of allowing SSM. In addition, people with any college education voted against Prop 8 by a wide margin. I suspect that something similar is afoot in other states, to a lesser extent in the South and Midwest, but still true in urban areas and college towns of those regions. Because the Church's crucial involvement in passing Prop 8 is so widely known (thanks Internet!), missionary work in this demographic is going to suffer terribly. Affluent college-educated folks are your future mission presidents, bishops, stake presidents, etc. and a whole lot of them will never give the missionaries a sympathetic ear after this.
Getting things done- In the next couple of years, whenever the Church wants to accomplish anything that requires any kind of public approval (building a new building, etc.) in CA or any of the more liberal states, they are going to find a whole lot of obstructions put up by those whose approval they need. I feel like most liberal-minded people looked at Mormons pre-Prop 8 and said: "well, they have some crazy beliefs but they seem to be genuinely good and kind people." Those days are over. We have become a "hiss and a byword."
The opinion of others- this could fall equally under the previous heading, but I will elaborate further here. The number of people I have seen on the Internet swearing an eternal hostility towards the Church, not because of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, an embodied God, etc., but because of our advocacy on Prop 8, is absolutely frightening. I suspect we will see more of the attitude that this unfortunate commercial espouses. In the mind of SSM advocates, because of our open and public involvement in this political issue, everything we do will be put under the most rigorous scrutiny, and any criticism is fair game. We have already seen public protests at temples and meetinghouses, which is, in my mind, extremely unfortunate, but again, we are getting no more free passes ever again.
The membership- You might have read stories in the news or elsewhere on the Internet about people leaving the Church because of the Yes on 8 campaign. I don't have any personal anecdotes, but it seems like Yes on 8 is really going to tear apart the fabric of families, wards, and neighborhoods within the Church. My sense is that a lot of these people were inactive anyway, and while it is still a great loss, it is not likely to be felt in individual wards and stakes. But there is a "ticking time bomb" out there of members who have been hurt, either on their own behalf or on behalf of friends, relatives, and neighbors, and this pain is going to fester and stew. Some are just waiting for some other excuse to push them over the edge into inactivity or more direct measures to end their membership. If the "Yes on 8" campaigns repeats itself in the near future (see my #1 above) that will likely be sufficient excuse for many.
Also, any thawing on the SSA issue is over. Members who struggle with SSA but are trying to stay active and chaste are going to sense the increased hostility towards those like them, not because of Prop 8 itself, but because of the sometimes hostile and inflammatory rhetoric used in the campaign. They too are likely to bolt.
These prognostications are somewhat hyperbolic (and intentionally so), but not so far outside the realm of possibility that they should not be taken seriously.
13 October 2008
Why I Voted For Barack Obama
With the exception of various Mitt Romney-related posts, I have tried to stay away from explicitly political posts on this blog. Now, anyone who knows me knows that I LOVE politics. I could watch CNN all day; I could even probably watch CSPAN for....maybe a half hour. I have been content over the past several months to let that little Barack Obama banner sit over on the side of this blog and speak for itself. But I voted for Obama this morning here in Texas as soon as the polls opened, and now I am going to explain a little bit as to why.
First, I think it is important to explain that I do not want to get bogged down in details about positions and issues. Issues are hugely important and decisions on who to vote for should be determined by the sum total of a voter's feelings on many different issues, not just one or two that produce knee-jerk reactions. No candidate is a perfect match. Like I said, I don't want to go down a list of those here, but it suffices that I am comfortable that my own beliefs about most of the issues are much more closely aligned with Sen. Obama than they are with Sen. McCain.
What I want to do here is give a couple more meta-reasons why I voted for Obama:
First, I think it is important to explain that I do not want to get bogged down in details about positions and issues. Issues are hugely important and decisions on who to vote for should be determined by the sum total of a voter's feelings on many different issues, not just one or two that produce knee-jerk reactions. No candidate is a perfect match. Like I said, I don't want to go down a list of those here, but it suffices that I am comfortable that my own beliefs about most of the issues are much more closely aligned with Sen. Obama than they are with Sen. McCain.
What I want to do here is give a couple more meta-reasons why I voted for Obama:
- Because "dumb but likeable" (Bush) had eight years in the White House. We can't give her (Palin) four or eight more. Isn't it time to give "intelligent and thoughtful" a turn?
- Because those who mock the idea of "community organizing" lack the compassion to lead a country as diverse and unequal as this one
- Because we need leaders who understand that "citizen of the world" and "redistribution of wealth" are not naughty words
- Because most of the people out there yelling "Marxist! Socialist!" at Obama don't really know what those words mean
- Because while Sen. Obama may have one acquaintance or friend (I don't care which) who was a terrorist 30 years ago, when Obama was 8 years old, Sen. McCain has hundreds and thousands of bigoted and hateful supporters today in 2008
- Because Sen. Obama has mobilized youth in this campaign like no candidate in recent history and his presidency will reinstill hope in those youth in a difficult era in American history ("the children are our future..."); McCain's victory may bring joy to a couple of dying old people
- Because we need someone who understands that when asked, "When does life begin?", the only right answer is "that's above my paygrade."
12 October 2008
Mormon liberals, liberal Mormons, and the inadequacy of labels
Among all the insults that a Mormon might throw at you, few epithets are as damning (in their eyes) as "liberal." My goal in this post is specifically not to rehash the familiar and troubling political imbalance among Church members nor to decisively crush all criticisms that liberals can't be good Mormons. Rather, I merely want to examine my own (dis)comfort with the label.
On one hand, I am totally comfortable with being known as a Mormon. I suspect that most of my frequent readers will need no explanation on what that means, but for the sake of some others and in order to point out exactly where I stand, I will make it explicit. I believe that divine beings, including God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are real and not merely mythological constructs of a particular culture or religion. I believe that human beings are offspring of these divine entities and possess divine characteristics and potential that are unique in nature. I believe that man, through (mis)use of a divine gift of choice or agency, is fallen from its noble potential, but that through the historically real sacrifice of Jesus Christ (the Atonement), men can be redeemed from their own errors. I believe that in 1820, Joseph Smith did in fact have a direct experience with the divine (the First Vision) through which he was called to set up an institution that continues to enjoy divine approbation. I believe that part of Joseph's role was the revelation of the Book of Mormon, which I believe has an inspired origin. I believe that another part of Joseph's role was the receipt of a power and instrumentality (the priesthood) through which we can experience part of God's power in the Church. I have tried to state the preceding in language that might be understood by non-Mormons, and is broad enough to bring me into agreement with most who claim to be Mormons. Obviously, we may differ on details, but I am satisfied that what I have stated above qualifies me as a Mormon, and excludes me from any other religious affiliation (with the possible exception of the UUs).
At the same time, I am very at home with being called politically liberal. Among many other things, that means that I am in favor of a strong and comprehensive social safety net, progressive taxation, civil rights, pacifism, abolition of the death penalty, protection of the environment, promotion of the interests of the impoverished and oppressed, adherence to international law, universal health care, increased economic equality, and generally the proposition that enlightened government has something positive to contribute to the life of humanity, and something that the raw logic of the market cannot offer. I am generally uncomfortable with platforms, statements of principles, and mission statements; however, I can generally sign on to many of the sentiments of the 2008 Democratic Party platform (which has been criticized, rightly IMO, here) or to the Euston Manifesto.
My comfort with each label in isolation is not matched by my comfort in their combination, at least as applied to me. By my own discomfort, I mean no criticism of those who have adopted this label, such as this person (who happens to be a personal friend). Your mileage may vary.
The convergence of "liberal" and "Mormon" has two possibilities, as alluded to in the title: liberal Mormons and Mormon liberals.
My discomfort with the title of "liberal Mormon" comes from the fact that it tends to imply, among Mormons, something more than simply my political leanings. It suggests that there is something not-quite-orthodox about the way I practice Mormonism. In particular, it suggests to some that I am less than "faithful"- that I have compromised some of the high ideals of Mormonism for my own selfish desires. While the gory details of my testimony might differ from your average Iron Rod TBM, I attend church, hold FHE with my family, go to the temple, pay tithing, and obey the Word of Wisdom, etc. in what I imagine is the same way as 99% of the other active members of the Church. I think I sin no more, and perhaps somewhat less, than those who consider themselves within the orthodox mainstream. An objective observer, not seeing inside my thoughts, would be hard pressed to label my practice of Mormonism as in anyway liberal. I am also uncomfortable with the way in which the label "liberal Mormon" seems to qualify my "Mormon-ness", either by asserting that I am not 100% Mormon, or that my identity as a liberal must take precedence over my Mormon self- like saying "Oh, I'm not a Mormon; I'm a liberal Mormon."
My discomfort with being called a "liberal Mormon" is matched by my unease with its mirror twin, "Mormon liberal." The reasons behind my discomfort are also parallel. Again, I fear that such a label implies that there is a special Mormon nature about my liberal political views. While my personal belief is that my Mormonism is a complement to and support of some of my liberal positions, my liberal identity does not derive in particular from Mormonism and the development of that identity was largely independent (though simultaneous) of my spiritual growth within Mormonism. You might have a hard time distinguishing my politics from a liberal Jew, liberal Protestant, or liberal Catholic. To put it more succinctly, the two simply do not intersect on a frequent basis. Also, I worry that "Mormon liberal" places a higher value on my Mormonism than on my liberal identity. Some might question the sincerity of my liberal views, claiming that they are held merely to be "different," or to be "cool" within the Mormon circles that I travel. But I believe that certain of my positions are currently as an inseparable and dear part of my self as my testimony.
Of course, I anticipate growth and change in my political views over the course of my lifetime, but the same is true of the content of my testimony. In neither case do I anticipate an imminent and radical departure from my current worldview, religious or political.
On one hand, I am totally comfortable with being known as a Mormon. I suspect that most of my frequent readers will need no explanation on what that means, but for the sake of some others and in order to point out exactly where I stand, I will make it explicit. I believe that divine beings, including God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are real and not merely mythological constructs of a particular culture or religion. I believe that human beings are offspring of these divine entities and possess divine characteristics and potential that are unique in nature. I believe that man, through (mis)use of a divine gift of choice or agency, is fallen from its noble potential, but that through the historically real sacrifice of Jesus Christ (the Atonement), men can be redeemed from their own errors. I believe that in 1820, Joseph Smith did in fact have a direct experience with the divine (the First Vision) through which he was called to set up an institution that continues to enjoy divine approbation. I believe that part of Joseph's role was the revelation of the Book of Mormon, which I believe has an inspired origin. I believe that another part of Joseph's role was the receipt of a power and instrumentality (the priesthood) through which we can experience part of God's power in the Church. I have tried to state the preceding in language that might be understood by non-Mormons, and is broad enough to bring me into agreement with most who claim to be Mormons. Obviously, we may differ on details, but I am satisfied that what I have stated above qualifies me as a Mormon, and excludes me from any other religious affiliation (with the possible exception of the UUs).
At the same time, I am very at home with being called politically liberal. Among many other things, that means that I am in favor of a strong and comprehensive social safety net, progressive taxation, civil rights, pacifism, abolition of the death penalty, protection of the environment, promotion of the interests of the impoverished and oppressed, adherence to international law, universal health care, increased economic equality, and generally the proposition that enlightened government has something positive to contribute to the life of humanity, and something that the raw logic of the market cannot offer. I am generally uncomfortable with platforms, statements of principles, and mission statements; however, I can generally sign on to many of the sentiments of the 2008 Democratic Party platform (which has been criticized, rightly IMO, here) or to the Euston Manifesto.
My comfort with each label in isolation is not matched by my comfort in their combination, at least as applied to me. By my own discomfort, I mean no criticism of those who have adopted this label, such as this person (who happens to be a personal friend). Your mileage may vary.
The convergence of "liberal" and "Mormon" has two possibilities, as alluded to in the title: liberal Mormons and Mormon liberals.
My discomfort with the title of "liberal Mormon" comes from the fact that it tends to imply, among Mormons, something more than simply my political leanings. It suggests that there is something not-quite-orthodox about the way I practice Mormonism. In particular, it suggests to some that I am less than "faithful"- that I have compromised some of the high ideals of Mormonism for my own selfish desires. While the gory details of my testimony might differ from your average Iron Rod TBM, I attend church, hold FHE with my family, go to the temple, pay tithing, and obey the Word of Wisdom, etc. in what I imagine is the same way as 99% of the other active members of the Church. I think I sin no more, and perhaps somewhat less, than those who consider themselves within the orthodox mainstream. An objective observer, not seeing inside my thoughts, would be hard pressed to label my practice of Mormonism as in anyway liberal. I am also uncomfortable with the way in which the label "liberal Mormon" seems to qualify my "Mormon-ness", either by asserting that I am not 100% Mormon, or that my identity as a liberal must take precedence over my Mormon self- like saying "Oh, I'm not a Mormon; I'm a liberal Mormon."
My discomfort with being called a "liberal Mormon" is matched by my unease with its mirror twin, "Mormon liberal." The reasons behind my discomfort are also parallel. Again, I fear that such a label implies that there is a special Mormon nature about my liberal political views. While my personal belief is that my Mormonism is a complement to and support of some of my liberal positions, my liberal identity does not derive in particular from Mormonism and the development of that identity was largely independent (though simultaneous) of my spiritual growth within Mormonism. You might have a hard time distinguishing my politics from a liberal Jew, liberal Protestant, or liberal Catholic. To put it more succinctly, the two simply do not intersect on a frequent basis. Also, I worry that "Mormon liberal" places a higher value on my Mormonism than on my liberal identity. Some might question the sincerity of my liberal views, claiming that they are held merely to be "different," or to be "cool" within the Mormon circles that I travel. But I believe that certain of my positions are currently as an inseparable and dear part of my self as my testimony.
Of course, I anticipate growth and change in my political views over the course of my lifetime, but the same is true of the content of my testimony. In neither case do I anticipate an imminent and radical departure from my current worldview, religious or political.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)