My inspiration for this week’s post is an article at The Atlantic, “I Remember Conservatism.” Well, that’s the title the piece was given in the print magazine. In the online version, the one you get if you click on the link, it is titled “What Happened to American Conservatism?” So I suppose I could have titled my post “What Happened to American Mormonism?” But I’m going with “I Remember Mormonism.” I’ll defend my overt linking of politics and religion in this post by noting the extent to which, over the last generation or two, a lot of religion has leaked into American politics, and a lot of politics has leaked into American religion. I don’t think the result has improved either politics or religion. It has certainly changed and arguably harmed the LDS Church.
The author of the piece in The Atlantic is David Brooks. He is a dedicated if moderate conservative, and these days something of a lukewarm Republican (read the piece). I suspect a parallel description might apply to some Latter-day Saints of late. “I’m a dedicated if moderate Christian, and something of a lukewarm Latter-day Saint.” My thesis is something like this: The recent evolution of the LDS Church resembles in disturbing ways the evolution of American Conservatism and the Republican Party that so troubles Brooks. Do you remember Mormonism? What has changed?
The Devolution of a Party
After a walk down memory lane, citing classical conservative thinkers of the last few centuries, Brooks offers this lament:
Today, what passes for the worldview of “the right” is a set of resentful animosities, a partisan attachment to Donald Trump or Tucker Carlson, a sort of mental brutalism. The rich philosophical perspective that dazzled me then has been reduced to Fox News and voter suppression.
He continues, “to be a conservative today, you have to oppose much of what the Republican Party has come to stand for.” Later, he emphasizes what is unique about American Conservatism as opposed to European conservatism: the American Revolution; a heritage of pioneers and immigrants; an wholehearted embrace of capitalism. He winds up with several paragraphs reflecting on how American Conservatism of late has devolved into Trumpism. Here is a portion of one of those paragraphs:
Trumpian Republicanism plunders, degrades, and erodes institutions for the sake of personal aggrandizement. The Trumpian cause is held together by hatred of the Other. Because Trumpians live in a state of perpetual war, they need to continually invent existential foes—critical race theory, nongendered bathrooms, out-of-control immigration. They need to treat half the country, metropolitan America, as a moral cancer, and view the cultural and demographic changes of the past 50 years as an alien invasion. Yet pluralism is one of America’s oldest traditions; to conserve America, you have to love pluralism.
The Devolution of a Church?
One aspect of what I earlier referred to as leakage of politics into religion is that many American Christians now align their primary values with conservative political values rather than Christian values. Even without realizing it, they are Republicans first (this is primarily a conservative and Republican development) and Christians second. This holds for Mormonism as well. There are plenty of Latter-day Saints who, without realizing it, are Republicans first and Latter-day Saints second.
That has been going on for some time now (think decades), in part because LDS leaders have been hypersensitive to ideological threats from the left and largely unconcerned with ideological threats from the right. A dozen Mormon women walk up to the Tabernacle and ask to be admitted to an LDS General Priesthood meeting (how Mormon is that, to ask to attend a meeting?) and the leader gets exed. A dozen Mormon thugs occupy a federal building, damage property, threaten federal agents, preach guns and liberty … and that’s apparently okay.
Now it is true the LDS leadership does put out statements, generally around election time, reiterating the claim that the LDS Church is politically neutral and encouraging members to vote for the candidate of their choice. (They used to encourage members to vote for candidates who exhibit good moral character or something similar, but that suggestion has been dropped.) I think that is a sincere attempt. But it hasn’t worked.
The real fly in the nonpolitical Mormon soup is Ezra Taft Benson. Deeply conservative (in the wacky sense) and deeply Mormon, he was an apostle who became a politician by serving in the Eisenhower administration for eight years as Secretary of Agriculture. He was a Bircher, embracing the wacky conspiracy theories of the day and incorporating them into his worldview and his religious view. And preaching all of that in Conference talks and other official speeches. Other LDS leaders didn’t really know how to combat this development, and an old and failing President McKay was either not able or not willing to make it a fight and rein him in.
You probably know President Benson as a champion of the Book of Mormon. He did tone down his rhetoric once he became President of the Church. My view is that he championed the Book of Mormon not because reading it would make you a better Christian but because reading it you would come to identify the book’s secret combinations with the shadowy enemies of his conspiracy theories (Communists, socialists, the UN, and so forth). If you buy into one conspiracy theory, you become vulnerable to any other conspiracy theory that comes along. And it came to pass that Mormon Bensonites joined with the Mormon Trumpites, and spread throughout the kingdom. And, once again, LDS leaders don’t really seem to know how to combat this development.
So I miss Mormonism the way Brooks misses conservatism, by looking at the affiliated real-world institution (for him, the Republican Party; for me, the LDS Church) and saying: “What happened? What changed? What went wrong?” I think a lot of LDS members at the moment think of Ezra Taft Benson as the true leader of the Church, not President Nelson, because Benson embodies the crude conservative political values (not the gentle ones Brooks identifies) and conspiracy-theory political thinking they have adopted. If I need an alternative leader, I’d opt for President Hinckley, who did a reasonably good job of steering Good Ship Zion away from troubled waters during his many years in the First Presidency. In a strange sort of way, President NelsonOaks seems to oppose the drift of both the large group of Church members who view Pres. Benson as the final authority on values and beliefs, but also the drift of the smaller group of LDS who view Pres. Hinckley as the model for Mormon leadership. When NelsonOaks endorses vaccinations and masks, the Bensonite/Trumpite Mormons rebel. When NelsonOaks shifts from “I’m a Mormon” to “We don’t use that word anymore,” the Hinckleyites object.
But the current leadership has not energetically pursued its initiatives that, in some sense, reject both the Benson and the Hinckley approaches. Like earlier LDS leaders who didn’t quite know how to counter Ezra Taft Benson’s political preaching, current LDS leaders don’t quite know how to counter the Trumpite insurgency within the Church. And thus we see how Trumpism has come to define the LDS Church almost as thoroughly as it has come to define the Republican Party. Or, to put it a different way, Trumpism is now the primary set of values for many Latter-day Saints (displacing traditional Mormon values) in the same way Trumpism has become the primary set of values for many Republicans (displacing traditional conservative values). In the battle for the hearts and minds of mainstream Mormons, Trump won out over NelsonOaks, even as NelsonOaks directs most of its efforts at erasing Hinckley initiatives.
I don’t view that as a positive development for the Church. Is it permanent? Could be. Once Mormons get pointed in a certain direction, they can stick with it for generations, through thick and thin. Think polygamy. Think racial thinking and the priesthood/temple ban. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the primary legacy of the NelsonOaks presidency is the Trumpified Church? I’m not suggesting NelsonOaks necessarily intended the Trumpification of the Church. But they haven’t done much to stop it. Perhaps the Church is facing a leadership crisis as well as an ideological crisis.
Maybe you agree with the primary point of my discussion (Trumpism has hijacked two institutions, the Republican Party and the LDS Church) and maybe you don’t. I rolled out my claims without a bunch of “in my view” and “as I see it” and “it can be argued that” qualifiers. But these are opinions and views, not firmly established conclusions. You may see things differently. Here are a few questions that might sharpen your agreeing or disagreeing comments to follow:
- For you, what is the golden era of modern Mormonism? Is it the current Church, the Church of Pres. Hinckley, the Church of Pres. Benson, or the Church of David O. McKay? Or maybe a vote for the Church of Heber J. Grant?
- What do you think explains the reemergence of Ezra Taft Benson’s views and thinking? Personally, I think the existence of videos of his speeches, readily sharable through social media, is part of the explanation.
- Does the collective leadership of the Church actually have any influence over the beliefs and values of the membership? Maybe they are sitting at the front of the bus thinking they are driving but, in fact, they aren’t really steering at all. Maybe culture, politics, and current events influence the LDS membership a lot more than anything LDS leadership says in Conference or asks of the members via First Presidency letters or Newsroom posts.
- Is this development permanent? Can LDS culture and ideology be revamped or rebuilt? (See suggestive image at top of post, rebuilding the Salt Lake Temple.)
Wheat & Tares 
Dave B: Nice work here.
There’s so much I could say because I relate personally to what you have written. But I’ll focus on one idea: The Church has a demographic problem, much like the Republican Party. The older white folks aren’t going anywhere else so no need to worry. But the young, more diverse folks are looking around and they aren’t sure they like what they see. They value inclusion, diversity, and non-judgement over division (i.e., “us vs them”, uniformity, and rigidity. The culture has changed, but the Church has not (yet).
We all know that the Church eventually changes over time on virtually every issue. If you don’t believe me go back and read old conference talks about the role of women for example. So it’s very likely that the Church will soften on issues like gay rights in the future, recognizing that 51%+ of its members favor this. But I see two main barriers that will keep progress slow:
1. Oaks and Bednar: There’s a very strong likelihood that Oaks is the next president of the Church given that he’s next in line and given that Nelson is 97. He isn’t likely to be a major advocate of reform and change. And given Bednar’s age and place in line, it’s very likely he will be the president the longest over the next 25 year. Again, not a likely change agent.
2. Progressives vs. Conservatives: The Bretheren have to walk a fine line. Try to compromise with progressive objectives in the Church while not pushing out the conservatives. You can reduce the meeting bloc from 3 hours to 2 and take away home teaching but allowing gay couples to be members in good standing? We learned from the Nelson vaccination push that you can only push some of these folks so far before they go from “follow the prophet” to “he’s only speaking as a man” overnight.
I expect slow change to continue but until Bednar is in the rear view mirror I wouldn’t count on too much.
PS: The Church is NOT a democracy, and I don’t really expect it to change just because we as a society are changing. I really don’t. We don’t vote for leaders nor do we vote for policies or approved doctrine. So if it doesn’t change that is fine with me. But I have changed. And I’m not alone. So when you see many of us exiting the Church it isn’t because the Church didn’t change. It’s because some of us don’t believe it. I want to make that clear because unlike many of you, I don’t advocate change in the Church. I advocate change within each of us to either embrace the Church for what it is or leave it if you don’t like it.
That magnificent tool the Internet is simultaneously Bigtime Wrasslin and La Brea Tar Pit for the credulous. Mormons, always susceptible to the tall tale, have unsurprisingly jumped in with both feet.
I agree with josh h that the old white men are here to stay. But the younger folks are not willing to put up with all that our generation did (ie repetitive lessons, boring teachers, harmful doctrine and policies, obedience is the first law of heaven). Once the young folks leave, the only young folks less are worse than the old white men. The tent will contract, and become more orthodox in policing its boundaries.
Is this permanent? I would like to say no, but can’t. Alas, the ETB stuff was always there just under the radar during Hinckley and Monson’s tenure, but resurfaced very quickly with Trump and Nelson. It did not die and re-appear. It simply took a nap.
It’s hard for me to say I miss the Mormonism of my youth, as a 90’s kid. By then all the fun stuff my older siblings got to do was gone when it was my turn, and all that was left was the work. By then paid janitors were gone. By then the members were expected to pay for everything. So I think I missed the golden age of Mormonism to begin with. Don’t cry for me.
At times I think the church must feel it is between a rock and a hard place. I think they must be wrestling with how to best manage their segments: Conservative white men in Utah who pay a lot of tithing. Progressives who are highly educated and who also pay a lot of tithing. Young segments who are progressive and need to be retained and converted into reliable tithe payers, and younger segments who are DezNat and seem perfectly okay with culling the membership down to a homogenous, populist militant few. And do this all while continuing to grow the church. What a job that must be.
Then I remember how Ben Park was erased from the Maxwell Institute website following his Washington Post Op-Ed, replay Elder Holland’s “musket fire” talk, watch President Oaks’ memory lapse at U of Virginia forum, notice how slow the church was to congratulate Joe Biden on his win, and how the church has donated money to the NAACP and made a few statements against racism, but really doesn’t appear to be serious about challenging members to change their racists mindsets and ways…and after sorting through all of these thoughts I realize the Brethren may not struggle to balance segments. They may be quite content with the state of affairs, save stemming the exodus of Millennials. They are who they are: Very conservative white males, largely, from the Wasatch Front. They probably see Trumpism as something that can be leveraged and that the worst elements of it will pass in time. Just wait. Wait and see and only act if the problems become completely intractable. Then move in increments and move as slowly as possible.
While Benson did make many leaders uncomfortable (even Harold B. Lee and Joseph Fielding Smith were outraged by many of his public statements), he didn’t make them so uncomfortable they were willing to break with decorum and condemn him publicly. While I think this is unfortunate and we have suffered costly unintended consequences over time as a result, obviously the brethren would not agree with me.
PS: Ezra Taft Benson was absolutely insane. Publicly calling Dwight Eisenhower a communist tool is my favorite moment in Benson far-right history. Benson made Joseph McCarthy blush he was so far out there. Matthew Harris’ book, ‘Watchman on the Tower: Ezra Taft Benson and the Making of the Mormon Right’ is a must read to acquire a full understanding of just how endmost Benson’s views and beliefs were.
Dave B. —
One minor correction. Benson was not a John Bircher. I understand he was forbidden to join, I believe by President McKay. His son was the Bircher leader for Utah for years and Benson certainly loved the JBS. Of note, it is a secret society. The founder (Robert Welch) thought the best way to defeat the communists was to emulate their spy cells. So, the John Birchers don’t disclose membership but infiltrate and use other “front groups”. Much of the current anti-vaccine efforts in Utah and Idaho are through Bircher front groups.
I believe making ETB an Apostle was about the worst decision J. Reuben Clark ever made. It has damaged the Church for about 80 years now. I’m pretty sure, if Benson were alive, he would endorse Trump, personally if not publicly. But I think you’re spot on about many Latter-day Saints being more Republican than Mormon. The pandemic has revealed divisions in the Church that I think have surprised and shocked the Q15, and they don’t really know what to do. The percentage of Latter-day Saints who are swallowing misinformation from the right-wing echo chamber is frightening. But so it goes. I’m not sure where the Church is headed, but right now it doesn’t look like a happy place.
While white evangelical Christianity has hugely influenced conservatism, when it comes to Mormonism it is a one-way street. Church leaders have no influence on Mormons who support Trumpism, except when leaders reinforce their Trumpism. Scan through the comment section of the Deseret News (the Church’s most direct pipeline into political commentary). The DesNews supports moderate conservativism (think Romney and Cox), but Trumpism supporting commenters consider it leftist lies.
“A dozen Mormon thugs occupy a federal building, damage property, threaten federal agents, preach guns and liberty … and that’s apparently okay.”
To be fair, my understanding is that most or all of these men were also exed. They probably didn’t blog about it or embrace the news media like Kate Kelly did, although I’m partially surprised the media didn’t try to make an example out of them by quickly flipping the narrative and praising the Church for ridding itself of these men. I imagine it was quite the dilemma for multiple news outlets.
As on who voted for Trump the second time around only, and one who likely wouldn’t vote for him in another primary, I think Trumpism is way overblown. For every friend or relative I have who is a die-hard Trump fan, I have two who simply view him as the lesser of two evils, and one who has all but disavowed conservatism as we know it (or knew it). Most all of these are members of the Church. I do not think the Church or its members will be defined by Trump, or Republicanism as it is now. I would concede a strong vein of traditional conservatism will remain.
With respect Dave B., permabloggers like you and Hawkgrrrl do an excellent job attempting an analysis of conservatives and conservative members and do so in an extremely articulate fashion. And yet, despite some regular soul searching each time I read your posts, I can’t help but feel they often ultimately end up missing the point. Most attempts to explain it to others quickly gets reduced to “typical Trump supporter,” so I’ve grown increasingly weary and wary doing so not only here, but among friends and family.
I honestly think ETB would go third party before going with Trump, based purely off what I’ve read from him.
Eli: if you espouse progressive themes on this site you’ll get many thumbs up. If you try to defend Republicans in any way you’re likely to get a few thumbs down. That’s the way it works here. I’m a Reagan Republican (bad) but also a very progressive Church member (good) so I know what I’m talking about. I’m mostly good but a little bad :).
(1) golden age – Hinckley (but only because I’m too young for anything prior to that). Mostly positivity, be a good person, life is good, be positive. Didn’t seem so fear-based and fundamentalist. Yes, there was a shadow that I didn’t see (Sept. 6), yes, we were sexist and homophobic, but so was everyone else at the time.
(2) re-emergence – I think this just coincides with trends in overall public discourse and thinking. 24 hour newscycle, polarization in politics, shrinking middle class, xenophobia over immigration, culture wars, conspiracy theories – all of this is taking place outside of Mormonism. Mormons just put their own ETB spin on it.
I also think that the internet blew up Mormonism and the leadership responded by retrenching into fundamentalism instead of opening up, so the Church is skewing to the right instead of embracing change and difference and pluralism as it seemed to be doing before (but maybe it wasn’t really doing that before).
(3) leadership influence – seriously diluted by the internet and availability of information on a scale and scope that didn’t exist before. probably true of every other organization too.
(4) permanent – I think this will just follow society trends as it is now.
***
overall, i think it’s a bummer time to be Mormon. NelsonOaks are boring. Even if I were still a more conservative orthodox Mormon, I think it’s not what it used to be. The community isn’t there. Someone should post on this, but I think getting rid of YM presidencies has been an unmitigated disaster. While I’m glad we broke up with scouts, nothing has replaced it. The youth and kid programming is basically gone. In fact, I think it’s the fact that the experience has tanked so quickly and become so sterile and boring that really accelerated me into full-blown faith transition because I was no longer attached to Church and so I was emotionally ready to throw everything out in a way I hadn’t been before (because it just wasn’t meeting needs anymore). I really think when you combine really problematic truth claims with a really poor experience – you have a real problem. This is no golden age.
***
@Eli, you’re probably right that the percentage of TRULY Trump-loving Mormons isn’t that high. But when even just a handful of kids show up to a youth activity in MAGA hats, or even a handful of neighbors line their walkways with TRUMP 2020 flags way past Jan 6, the impact kinda feels outsized because he’s just so very, very divisive.
Before you write off the Church as a tool of the Republican party, you need to watch this BYU forum address by William Barber. That the administration can permit this after Holland’s talk is remarkable.
https://www.byutv.org/player/4d317f8c-60d1-470a-abc6-f925e74e4197/byu-forum-address-william-barber-ii-author-and-pastor-113021
I’m partly with Elisa about the Hinckley era being peak, but I think that was only partly due to Hinckley’s willingness to embrace the nuance of PR (which sometimes was pretty spinny, e.g. “I’m not sure that we teach that” or “there’s no agitation for that”), and the “I’m a Mormon” campaign was pure genius, IMO. But I think (as she also mentioned) that the Hinckley era was before the internet made it impossible for the Church to maintain its own narrative and get away with things it used to get away with. That’s only going to continue. There’s no going back.
I find Dave B’s analysis depressingly accurate, BUT I think there are a few glimmers of not-quite-hope, but maybe qualification: 1) there are a lot of (quieter) non-Trumpies there, too, just holding their breath whenever the Trumpies get the mic, 2) quite a few Trumpies have also left the Church, even though they obliviously farted all over the rest of us on the way out, 3) while I’m appalled at the relentless targeting of progressives, I suspect that Pres. Nelsoaks (patent pending) is more of a Brooksian conservative, and that’s the type of conservative I find comprehensible at least, although I don’t agree with them on any social issues, and question their ethics on social spending (vs. my questioning of the wisdom of social spending on the left). I don’t see any way I could survive a Bednar presidency.
I remember the very early 1980s. I was a graduate student at BYU, teaching French at the MTC, and also teaching Gospel Doctrine on Sundays at the MTC. The article I wrote on Orson Pratt and Brigham Young’s controversies appeared in Dialogue. Shortly afterward, the director of curriculum at the MTC sent a memo to the other Gospel Doctrine teachers (I think) congratulating me on the publication of the article and referencing Dialogue specifically. For me, that was an especially golden time.
@lastlemming, I don’t think Forum talks are really at all reflective of the leanings of BYU adminstration or the LDS Church. They are just speeches given on campus by a really wide variety of speakers and do not reflect the views of the University or Church. That’s why they are Forums and not Devotionals and are given by speakers from lots of different backgrounds. So I think it’s great that they have them, but I wouldn’t read anything into it at all.
@angela 100% agree with your comments about Hinckley. Still, it would be interesting to see what he’d do today. I do think he was an entirely different type of leader than NelsonOaks. Really an entirely different type of human, unless I misread him entirely.
I think the article touches on the church being conservative, but not so far-right conservative that they land in a middlish ground where everyone is a bit unhappy because no one sees the church aligned with their political views (because it doesn’t align with either party). I don’t see Trumpism taking over the church. Like Eli and Elisa said, Full on Trump supporters are a minority at church, they just stand out. I only know a couple of them, and they definitely feel like the minority. They feel somewhat out of place at church, but feel the need to speak their mind loudly (because they are so convinced that they are right). They complain about how the church is filled with “Liberal idiots”. So I see the church continuing to be conservative, but not adopt Trumpism.
If there are any full-on Trump supporters that read this blog and are willing to comment- How do you feel at church? Do you see the church accepting Trumpism? Or do you see the church not being conservative enough?
“If there are any full-on Trump supporters that read this blog and are willing to comment” . . . LOL, but yes, I’d be interested in hearing their perspective, although I consider it unlikely we have many Trumpy lurkers out there just waiting to be asked to the prom.
The effect of Benson on the Church is one thing, but to me, the more immediate concern is what his ideas did to people I love (or should, as, honestly, I find it increasingly difficult to do so). Benson’s ideas and influence made my father a paranoid, judgmental, self-righteous, authoritarian bigot–which caused him, a well-intentioned perfectionist to suffer from depression and anxiety, to rule his home with an iron fist to protect them from all those evils in the world, and to teach us, his children, mistrust, fear, and anger. We were raised to believe in conspiracies, to dread the future and the evils that were coming our way. It was mentally destabilizing and traumatic. Most of us children are still recovering from it. Some, however, have full-on continued in the tradition. I worry about their children daily. Others of us have found find that, though this experience could easily be framed as a “chicken or the egg’ conundrum, we blame Benson and the Church rather than my father. And we have left. I can never forgive Benson. The damage he has done has lasted two generations. It will likely last a third.
I don’t even care how it effects the Church anymore. It’s nearly impossible for me to accept a church and a people who have so thoroughly embraced the ethos that ‘everyone acting in their own self-interest’ as ethical Christians. If you preach selfishness as your economic model, don’t be surprised when we end up were we are. Trickle-down economics was never a good idea and doesn’t work. Benson was a short-sighted fool. More importantly, his ideas have destroyed good people and shackled them to fear, delusion, and hate.
Brooks did a good enough job of explaining what he finds compelling in conservatism that I, a fairly liberal chap, could not take serious issue with his framing (inherited from Burke) of the human condition from that perspective. I may not agree with him, but I cannot identify where I think he’s obviously incorrect. I felt like Brooks’ essay was most compelling when he identified the weaknesses of conservatism: race, economics, and spiritual decay, and I think the LDS church shares these issues.
The thing is, true conservatism still has a logical foundation and legitimate evidence on which to stand once Trumpism is buried under an ostentatious headstone and grammatically incorrect epitaph. The LDS church, which has made no serious effort to combat race issues, miserly economic decisions, and spiritual meandering, is undergirded by far less. Should the Republican party survive beyond the current moment, it can reconstitute itself–the structure exists. The LDS church, however, lacking historical, doctrinal, linguistic, genetic, philosophical, and anthropological support for it’s creation story, seems to be creeping ever closer to a structure based on fealty alone, which for me is perhaps the characteristic it shares most obviously with the Trumpist Republican party.
Thoughts.
Using religion as a political tool or using politics in religion destroys both.
What is the purpose of organized religion?
Should it not produce people who are more honest, more charitable, more humble, more kind, more forgiving, less judgmental etc etc?
How is it doing on that front?
Years ago, the GOP joined forces with the Moral Majority. ETB spouted John Bircher propaganda. It helped them win elections. But there is a huge difference between Ronald Reagan and Trump.
Clearly morals, ethics and the rule of law have been totally set aside.
Utah is the world headquarters of the COJCOLDS and a majority living in Utah are Mormons.
Yet, they voted for Trump, and would consider voting for him again.
What are we learning in our church services? When did we last hear a talk on honesty or kindness or not judging etc?
It is not surprising younger generations aren’t interested in todays organized religion.
Most here probably don’t remember what the church was like under McKay, because I am almost 70 and I was just a child, but I think that was really the peak of Mormonism. Archeology had not advanced so far as to prove that the Book of Mormon was not really on the American continent. It was still believable that there were elephants and horses on the American continent at the time of the Nephites. There were bones after all proving horses and elephants had been on the continent in ancient times. Smoking had been proven harmful, thus proving the WoW, and no evidence yet that some of the WoW things are actually good for you. Evolution was still pretty much a theory instead of a proven fact. In other words, the church was much more believable than it was even under Hinckley. All the good social thing were there and the ward communities were very strong. I can still tell you where every family from my childhood ward lived and I knew the whole family, instead of just the women from RS or just the children because I worked in primary. That community was getting weaker by the time Hinckley became president.
As far as can the church recover from it current division and all the problems of Trumpism, I don’t think it can if you mean regain it former strength and growth. If it was just Trumpism, then sure. It has survived much worse. But there are multiple things damaging the church. The internet, advancing DNA studies, social change in race relations, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, are all damaging the church on top of the current divisions.
I don’t think Forum talks are really at all reflective of the leanings of BYU adminstration or the LDS Church
I know they don’t necessarily reflect the administration’s views, but I would question the characterization of Forum speakers as representing a “wide variety” of anything. Harry Reid is as far left as they’ve gotten in the past–most outside speakers still reflect a conservative outlook. But this guy provides full-throated advocacy for a left-wing agenda that would make AOC proud. If Holland was trying to appease unhappy donors with his talk, Barber’s speech could undo his efforts.
I’m surprised we haven’t had an article on the proclamation on the family as it is the lesson in SS this Sunday. I think the proclamation is also a contributor to the church keeping / moving right.
If there was a more golden period for the church it was probably the 80s, after the official end of racism, and before we got going on homophobia, and I was on the bishopric, and for 12 months acting bishop, in a small ward in Leura.
Fascinating discussion. I see how ETB really made a mess of the older generation of American church members. But I’ve been pondering on his effect on my own life. Because of ETB’s emphasis on reading the Book of Mormon in the 80s, I read it several times before the age of 25 and really internalized its messages and themes. And because of my testimony of the Book of Mormon, I became a Democrat in spite of all that my parents did to steer me toward the Republican Party. I know I’m not the only member of the church who had that experience. It seems to me that it’s mostly the older people who love Trump, and the younger generations in the church are not going to be quite so tied to a political party.
I couldn’t agree with you more on you post Dave.
The only thing I don’t think you mentioned that I think plays a part is a victim mentality. The church as a whole and members generally have a persecutition complex and are very much “you are with us or you are against us (as in “of the devil”).
I see that same “fear” playing into many church members and many Trump followers. They feel threatened that everything is chaning too fast as too many people are saying “the 50’s were not perfect”. LGBTQ is often touted in a positive manner in today’s society. America is becoming less white. Men are not “respected” like they used to be. And on and on. The progress scares them as they are not see as great as they are in their own mind.
I see it over and over where “if we (as whites) can’t win in a society where everyone can vote, then we need to make it so we can win by limiting/supressing those that don’t vote the way we do.”
@Angela C – “Pres Nelsoaks”. 🙂 Is that related to “soaking” in any way?
I imagine and would hope that ETB would have had a stroke seeing the photo of Trump with the two Russian officials in the oval office smiling and joking over Comey being fired. And knowing the POTUS threw out the American press and had the Russian press take the photo instead. That should’ve been an mega alarming wake up call to conservatives.