My opinion is not a popular one, especially among Mormons. It’s based on one of my foundational beliefs that I still maintain from my days as a centrist: both sides of our political divide are founded on sound principles that are imperfectly applied – because we’re humans. (Just like I believe our Church organization is inherently flawed because it’s a human organization.)
Conservatism in the United States seems to be marked by virtues of personal liberty, sovereignty, tradition, judeo-christian belief, protecting family values (as they define them), robust national security, free markets, and low regulatory burdens. American liberalism is based more on expanding civil rights, pluralism, international cooperation, aid to the disadvantaged, government regulation to limit exploitation of workers/citizens, community, redistribution of power, diversity, and federalism.
Is it possible for there to be too much: tradition, religious tests, defense, free markets, sovereignty, etc.? Yes
Is it possible for there to be too much: secularism, cooperation, welfare, regulations, redistribution, etc.? Yes
Then it is our obligation to come together and find a way to compromise – or in other words, work out a way for moderation in all things to be a principle of how we relate politically to each other. Each political virtue is often in contrast with an opposing political virtue, imagine a pendulum swinging back and forth. In response to one good thing being taken overboard and having negative consequences, course corrections are then needed. A modern society cannot be stable if the two sides demonize each other and in an attempt to “win” try to destroy the opposing principles.
We have plenty of modern Mormon leadership who have been vocally conservative. So much so that in Elder Holland’s recent call to serve the poor – the cultural environment required him to include a caveat (couldn’t be seen as a bleeding heart liberal!). Not being a Mormon historical/political scholar I admit my shallow knowledge and ascribe our Mormon conservative roots to the rise of Ezra Taft Benson and his vocal politicking from the pulpit.
Yet it seems that Mormonism has not always been so stridently conservative. Over the last 24 hours an opposite-minded political quote from early Mormon leaders has gone viral on imgur titled, “Early Mormon Leaders feelin the Bern.”
“…since all capitalistic systems are founded upon the institution of private property, inheritance and the profit motive, great inequalities of ownership and income inevitably result. …Among the more plausible suggestions offered to correct existing abuses without adversely affecting the productive system, is to continue the socialization of our service institutions through a system of progressive taxation based upon ability to pay…taking the bulk of their [captains of industry] profits to finance free education, free libraries, free public parks and recreation centers, unemployment insurance, old age benefits, sickness and accident insurance, and perhaps eventually FREE MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL SERVICE (Emphasis mine). …The average family may not have much more money, if any, to spend under such a system than now. But…then the meagre (sic) family income can be devoted entirely to the necessities of life, plus some of the comforts now enjoyed by the higher income classes. …To finance all of this, of course, will necessitate huge sums of money. …And it will also require a carefully worked out tax system so that every one will contribute according to his financial ability. Inheritance and estate taxes will become progressively higher, until the present system of permitting large fortunes to be passed on from generation to generation will become extinct. And incidentally, the so-called idle rich who have been living on the earnings of past generations will be no more.”
Since the quote was cherry picked from a whole chapter I wanted to see if there was broader context – I don’t own a copy of Priesthood and Church Welfare (A Study Course for the Quorums of the Melchizedek Priesthood for the year 1939 – prepared under the direction of the Council of the Twelve, pages 88-89) so I transcribed the whole chapter from the posted images here. It’s worth reading the whole thing, it’s less than three pages long.
Overall the chapter seems to be more of a thought experiment than a sermon, especially when one includes the questions at the end of the chapter that highlight the tensions between the virtues of caring for the poor and rewarding hard work.
- How can we reduce inequalities of wealth and income and still retain the qualities of individual initiative?
- If we eliminate the profit motive will we destroy individual initiative?
- What incentives do Church workers have to spur them on to maximum achievement?
- Is it not wrong to take wealth away from people after they have struggled so hard to acquire it? What if the wealth was acquired through inheritance?
- Is there a difference between confiscating wealth and taxing the income from the wealth as it is produced?
It seems there was once a value on critical thinking in our culture (!) and encouragement to have debates on complex topics at Church. Anyways, just reading the questions doesn’t provide the full picture either, as one of my favorite money lines was:
Thus we see how the Mormon Church, through the wisdom and foresight of its leaders, has led the way in the movement toward a greater diffusion of the benefits of our economic progress. They have set the pace for a greater realization of the Christian ideal of the brotherhood of men, through a wider distribution of economic and temporal things as well as in religious and spiritual blessings.
It seems the purpose of the manuals back then wasn’t to make sure you agree, but to make sure you think. I would have LOVED to attend one of these meetings where these principles were discussed.
Again, I wish I were a historian and had done the hard work to answer my own questions, but it seems prior to the Cold War there were no real disagreements from achieving the principles of the law of consecration through government intervention. I think in the Baby Boomer generation, especially, we can see a real reaction to the fear of the world they grew up in – when the narrative was evil socialism/communism vs. god-fearing capitalists. My mom still tells the story of the day she learned of socialism at school and all the Rigby High School; kids freaked out that it was the law of consecration, but to their great relief their seminary set them straight that socialism is Satan’s plan because it takes away your agency. Obviously our early Mormon forefathers did not espouse this line of thinking.
Meanwhile, today’s generation is growing up where the countries who rank highest in education, health, and happiness are founded on social democracy. The biggest threats to our safety, so they say, are from groups that are theocratic and let the rules of their religion rule their government. We also see widespread peace where pluralism rules the day.
Nearly four years ago I was pulling the lever for Mitt Romney as a self-described moderate conservative. Then I was a centrist, and recently admitted to myself I am now a liberal. I vote for liberal policies and politicians because I see progress that needs to be made (and I believe the pendulum of tea party is pulling us far to the right) and my theology has changed in that I believe the purpose of the Gospel is to serve the poor and liberate the captive/oppressed. I’m a bit of an undecided voter because I think the establishment has allowed an Oligarchy to gain power (so I’m feelin’ the Bern, #OccupyWallStreet) but I know that good government is pragmatic and makes compromises. I don’t think the visions Sanders & Cruz are selling are achievable and could possibly only lead to more angry, disenfranchised voters (Which leads to more Trump). I’m not happy with any of the candidates, either.
The reason why I think God is apolitical is that I don’t think God has a horse in the race. I think God cares about leaders spreading peace and doing good for their constituents, whoever they are [1]. I don’t think God wants anyone to win, I do think he wants us to be at-one. I also think God cares about you being engaged and thinking critically about the issues, studying history and learning from it, and even learning to identify the tensions and even the virtues of opposing sides. I think when our scriptures reference the condemnation of a people and a land who has forgotten God, it isn’t referring to government leaders – it is referring to their interactions with each other in their communities (even the love of God waxing cold in your heart for your political opponents). If you want a Christian nation, than it starts at home and in your community. YOU need to be a better Christian. You should walk out your door every morning and be more Christ-like. That’s how it happens.
I think there have been plenty of world leaders who were religious who burned their countries to the ground and there were plenty of godless leaders who were pretty darn good leaders (#ImWithHatshepsut). In the end, I’m of the opinion if you think God agrees with your politics, you’re wrong. You might want to review the part of the Gospel about not remaking God in your own image.
[1] I do think God cares that you vote for a leader that would spread peace and be a good governor. So, #NeverTrump.
Wheat & Tares 
Love it! I couldn’t agree more.
God told me to vote for Donald Trump in order to hasten the work of the apocalypse.
Seriously, though, good post. I’m a Democrat, but I’m not so convinced of positions Democrats take that I want them to win everything. I think you’re right that values Republicans focus on more are important too, and shouldn’t be completely ignored.
And I love your point that God is probably not on anyone’s political side. When we think God is 100% on board with our politics is probably when we’re most dangerous.
Great thoughts, Kristine. I agree that God is apolitical. I see issues all along the political spectrum that God could support or disagree with. Those who think God is squarely behind their platform are missing the point.
This reminded me of a conversation I had 20 years ago during my mission in Europe. A good friend (and active church member) mentioned that she belonged to the Communist party. Being a “Reagan baby” raised in the 80’s, this was totally shocking to me. The communists were the bad guys, right? She and I had a spirited political discussion (which is generally forbidden by mission rules for obvious reasons). At one point she turned to my visibly nervous companion and said, “It’s okay, Elder B. and I are still friends, even though he’s an imperialist.” We agreed that no system or leader is perfect, and that each of us has to decide for ourselves.
Like you, I’m not happy with any of the candidates, either.
I’m politically conservative, but the candidates aren’t making me happy, either. We have a 94-yr-old sistr in our ward who worked with Cleon Skousen back in the day. Many of her comments in RS veer towards the evils of socialism and communism. She likes the political platforms of all the current conservative candidates, including Trump.
I think the Great Depression made a lot of people suspicious of capitalism and more favorable towards heavy government involvement (WPA, for example). When you go through church exhibits on welfare and humanitarian aid, the church points how the church welfare system under Heber J. Grant was seen as a model program by government leaders. These topics were heavy on the minds of American churchmembers in the 1930s.
The older manuals had deeper discussion material. I held on to some of my grandpa’s manuals from the early 1950s that went into the history of Christianity all the way through the middle ages (it was a three-part series from 1952-1954). Just as in the 1939 welfare lesson, they’ll include references to the scholarly books upon which the lesson materials are based.
A little history primer, as conservative Mormonism didn’t begin with ETB:
In pioneer times, the Church members were encouraged to vote as a bloc (“People’s Party”). In order to gain statehood, this was dissolved and members split to the Democrats and Republicans. Most of the lower class went to the Democrats including prominent men like B.H. Roberts and H.J. Grant. In some wards, the bishop stood up and divided the congregation literally “down the aisle” in order to obtain the 50/50 split the hierarchy in Salt Lake desired.
With the Depression and FDR’s increasing push toward Big Government, many leaders, including H.J. Grant, became disenchanted with the Democrats and switched parties. I’m going off memory for this next claim, but IIRC, Grant became concerned that Mormons were drifting from the “divine constitution,” called J. Ruben Clark to the 1st presidency specifically to address this. Shortly afterwards, Clark published “Stand Fast by the Constitution.”
This began the great rightward swing of the Church. Clark, in turn, is rumored to be the main proponent of selecting ETB to the Q12. However, DOMcKay was also a staunch conservative, and was every bit as right wing as ETB. After all, he supported his speeches and the activities of Pres. Wilkerson at BYU. Perhaps the biggest weakness of Price’s recent bio of McKay is that the author is silent on Pres. McKay’s enthusiastic support of constitutional conservatism.
I like the reminder for us not to attempt to remake God in our own image.
McKay’s sons were all staunch Democrats as were a number of his grandchildren including the one I dated very briefly.
“Perhaps the biggest weakness of Price’s recent bio of McKay is that the author is silent on Pres. McKay’s enthusiastic support of constitutional conservatism.”
(1) Did you mean Prince?
(2) I didn’t see Prince as silent on constitutional conservatism at all. On the contrary, Prince stated that McKay tried to please everyone, and supported Benson quite a bit. However, he drew a line when Benson went too far with the John Birch Society. McKay tried hard to please everybody, and as a result pleased no one. McKay agreed with everyone who came to him with a complaint for or against Benson’s constitutional conservatism.
I don’t know whether God’s apolitical, but for damn sure he’s not in the Tea Party.
There will be a federal election in Australia this year too. We don’t know when, the Prime Minister can call it when it suits him/her, but if seen to be too opportunistic will affect voting.
We have almost as much coverage of US election as of ours.
We have compulsory voting, which means that instead of getting the viters out the parties can present their policies and how they will be paid for, though the conservative side have gone for short slogans recently.
Somehow although politics is a taboo subject, it is assumed mormons =conservatives. If it could be discussed I think perhaps 30% would tend toward Labor.
Interesting times?
I wish we had a parliamentary system with equal representation (40% of the vote for Dems in state elections, 40% of state senators/reps would be Dems).
Of course God agrees with my politics: if he didn’t, they wouldn’t be my politics. (Said with tongue firmly cheek)
Or in other words, people who believe in a political God automatically believe in one who agrees with them.
#10 Hawk,
Does God oppose the personal liberty position, the pro constitution stance, the (American mainstream) Christian values, or the anti-greedy corporatism of the Tea Party?
Of course, these are not all of the political positions of the Tea party, but they are most of the primary ones. The only other main one that I have heard that does not have a clear connection to godly values is the anti-Obama position that is almost reflexive. Most politicians will base their anti-Obama position in the first 3 above.
I base my position that God is not in the Tea Party on D&C 93: 36.
But I also believe that while God may be concerned with the human condition, he’s not concerned with the petty arguments that are the foundation of bipartisan US politics. The human need to be right and to argue to the death over opinions seems to be not just a distraction from living a Christian life, but antithetical to it.
great post, I too do not like any of the remaining presidential candidates. I see too many similarities between Trump and Hitler. I won’t vote republican in Utah because of what I see the republican leaders do, most of whom are LDS. As Christ said “by their fruits yet shall know them” most of their fruits are rotten.
Sanders is also owned by the oligarchy.
There is no Democrats and Republicans in Washington DC anymore……..both party’s are now a Uniparty. The voting records, statements, bill drafting/writing of politicians of both parties show that the politicians are NOT doing anything for the average citizens. All of them do the bidding of their oligarch masters, and pass legislation that benefits only their oligarch masters.
Sanders will be no different as he has very wealthy people supporting his campaign, even some from Australia which is illegal to accept foreign donations.
Is it really fair for all of us to be taxed at 90% just so a few can live free forever? And after being taxed an entire paycheck there is nothing left over to do anything.
Nothing is free. There is always a price for everything.
Communism just does not work and is not sustainable for a long period of time. Karl Marx never worked and neither did Sanders until he finally was elected into government. Democratic socialism is not much better in Europe. Ever wonder why foreign famous come to the U.S. to live and some become citizens? They do not come for the freedoms.
Sorry……forgot……many Presidents of the church and Apostles have said that socialism and communism is dangerous
The “dangerous” parts of socialism and communism are not the collective aspects but the coercive aspects. The majority of people who rail against them have no idea what they really are.
You could make an argument that Sanders doesn’t, either; he’s probably – barring Trump – the flightiest, most ignorant major party candidate since Warren Harding.
There’s a good series of articles in the May 2016 issue of Reason about Bernie’s history, policies, and worldview. That issue is a must-read for anyone considering a Sanders vote.
Yes. To everything.