So I came across a book at the library: Do I Stay Christian? A Guide for the Doubters, the Disappointed, and the Disillusioned (St. Martin’s Essentials, 2022). It’s by Brian D. McLaren, who is described as “an American author, speaker, activist, public theologian and was a leading figure in the emerging church movement.” He’s a postmodern Christian, if you will, convinced the traditional Christian Church is, in some ways, failing Christians and arguing for a new and improved approach (the Emerging Church).
I’m not so much interested in the remedy as in the diagnosis. What does he (and those disappointed Christians he interacts with) think is wrong with the traditional Christian Church, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Evangelical? And does the same set of problems also concern disappointed or disillusioned LDS doubters? Maybe it’s not just we LDS but maybe all Christian churches that are suffering from (for lack of a better general term) a crisis of faith and confidence.
Recalling a dinner program where he heard a litany of complaints from various Christians, the author commented, “Latter-day Saints, Adventists, Unitarians, and many others have reached out to me about their similar spiritual frustrations in their unique contexts” (p. 3). So that’s a hint right up front that some LDS see the same sort of problems in our Church. Some specifics:
- At some point after college, McLaren said, “I discovered I had been given a whitewashed version of Christian history” (p. 5). Yup.
- Support for Trump: “No matter how many lies their candidate told, no matter how small-minded and vengeful he showed himself to be …” etc., “white Christians, especially Evangelicals, stood by him” (p. 6-7). Yup. And he wrote that in 2022. It’s gotten worse.
- “I was taught my religion’s historical upsides and few of its downsides, and I was taught about other religions’ historical downsides and few of their upsides. That’s a perfect recipe for creating ignorant and arrogant religious jerks” (p. 15).
I could go on, but let’s work with whitewashed history, Trumpism, and religious jerkism for now.
The author shifts to a more positive approach in the second half of the book, counseling repentance, which he describes as “soberly rethinking the past, facing it without minimizing it, … righting the wrongs, changing the systems that protected the wrongdoers,” and so forth. He concludes with: “We still have a chance at goodness and decency” (p. 126). There is hope. Try using that line in your next talk from the pulpit: “Brothers and sisters, we as a church have really screwed up the past few years. But we still have a chance at goodness and decency.”
But let’s get back to the original inquiry. Do the problems the author reviewed, at least the three I listed in the above bullet points, also compromise the LDS Church, at least for some members? Probably not the members sitting in the next pew, more likely the family that left five years ago, but still a relevant question.
So let’s kick it around.
- How much does correlated history (the Mormon term for whitewashed history) bother you? Of course, you don’t recognize that it’s whitewashed until you read some un-correlated history, so the question doesn’t even arise for most LDS. At this point, it doesn’t really bother cynical me as much. I expect all institutions (corporations, government, the military, churches) to lie about their history.
- How much does LDS Trumpism, aka the MAGAfication of about two-thirds of the American LDS Church active membership, bother you? It bothers me a lot. It’s a failure of LDS leadership (that just stood by and let it happen) and a failure of those individual members. It has made the Church a not very fun church to belong to. Can anyone, like anyone, still honestly say, “I’m proud to be a Mormon”?
- Does the phrase “ignorant and religious jerks” describe what has happened to any LDS you know who are under the spell of Trumpism? Honestly, there are a lot of really good people in the wards I have been familiar with. I’m sure it depends on what state or region you are in and what colored glasses you look at the world and the Church with. In the Age of Trump, is LDS religious jerkism on the rise on in decline?
- [Aside: It strikes that the past ten years and the next few will, collectively, be described as the Trump years rather than the Nelson and Oaks years in future LDS histories.]
Of course, you might take an entirely different view and say that it is edifying LDS history, not whitewashed history; that political views, even Trumpist ones, don’t really affect one’s religious faith and practice; and who is a religious jerk is a matter of perspective, maybe it’s just righteous people of faith trying to live thier religion who get called jerks.
.
Wheat & Tares 
Is it any wonder that people are leaving? While the world and our country are burning the church is concentrating on hair length at BYU and beards on temple workers. There appears to be little or no compassion emanating from the Q15, a situation I think would be different if we had women in authority. We are in need of less ‘Follow the Prophet and more ‘Jesus Loves Me’
David B.
Thanks for writing this and asking these questions. I don’t know where to start.
I quit attending church during COVID. We all did for a while and did Zoom, but when you could go back, I only did for a few meetings because the “lessons” I learned from COVID were not the lessons many members of my ward learned. I was actually pleased when Pres. Nelson talked about wearing masks and getting vaccines, but there was a faction in our ward that pushed back and said how it was taking away free agency, etc. Eventually, three “stalwart” members died of COVID, and a new Bishop was called, and he was one of the anti-maskers.
It was also frustrating because when there were lessons in Sunday School or Priesthood, if there was a question that could be answered in a way that opened up things to the wider world, I was “put” in my place with how it was either too political or what I pointed out didn’t apply to what they were talking about when it really did. It was just that I would mention Brown vs. Board of Education instead of the persecution of the saints in Missouri. History was not only watered down in the lesson, but it was also not applied to anything in the real world, even if the principles were the same.
Finally back to free agency. I thought that was one of the things the church was founded on, but more and more, whether from Leadership or LDS Politicians, a very authoritarian approach is pushed. In the Church, it’s about how many things seem top-down, with local leaders given very little latitude. It’s also because it’s so hard to push back or talk to someone who is higher than the ward or stake level. Then there is the what seems like the complete worship of Trump and his politics. He wants to restrict voting from a federal level, which is unconstitutional because it’s a state responsibility, and LDS Politicians jump in line to support him. Trump goes to war, lies about it, and LDS Politicians give him a pass. I could go on and on with examples from the State Legislature or how everyday common Mormons support these politicians, but it makes me sad to realize how much the church has changed from “The Glory of God is Intelligence,” or “Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves,” to get in line and shut up.
Finally, all you have to do is drive the freeways in Utah to see the ignorant and religious jerks. It’s not only the excessive speeding (Utah has more speeders than every state except North Dakota), but also the number of gas-guzzling trucks jacked up to guzzle even more gas, and the sight of how many are parked in the church parking lots on Sunday. In a winter when Utah has had virtually no snow and record heat in March, we have a huge percentage of members who don’t believe there is a problem with climate change.
I miss the days in the church when there were road shows, or priesthood manuals where books like Gospel Doctrine or the Great Apostasy were the anchor of lessons instead of a curriculum written by an unseen and unknown pool of writers with set questions, quotes from LDS Prophets instead of the scriptures. I miss when you could go to the temple and not only do an endowment session, but also be able to eat with your friends inside the temple instead of going to some fast food place. Granted, change happens, but I don’t believe it’s always for the good and that sometimes we lose what we had at a cost.
I enjoyed this post. I too have Brian D. MacLaren’s book that you talked about. there is a lot more in that book than could be discussed here but I would encourage everyone to read that book.
“Correlated history” doesn’t bother me much, because I recognize it for its intended purpose. The analogy I like to give is the way that math and science are taught.
Consider physics. In middle school and high school level physics, they teach a version that is based on algebra, and you learn fairly simple formulas for motion. (For example, a falling object accelerates at -9.8m/s^2.) However, as you progress, if you keep studying physics, in college you learn calculus-based versions of the subject, where it’s more complicated, the equations are messier, and it’s a lot harder for people to handle. Under most circumstances, the calculus equations will simplify down the to algebra equations, but the calculus ones give a much fuller understanding of the subject.
Then, you continue studying even more, and you learn that not only are the calculus equations are themselves a simplification of the differential equation versions, but also that there are situations where the equations just don’t work (see also: Relativity), and you need a far more complicated version of the equations to describe and understand it. Again, those equations will simplify down to the calculus equations under most circumstances (which will then simplify to the algebra equations), but you lose a lot at each step along the way.
How much does LDS Trumpism, aka the MAGAfication of about two-thirds of the American LDS Church active membership, bother you?
A great deal. A great deal. That’s not a typo or a copy paste where I accidentally pasted twice. I took the time to type it out twice. For me personally it’s the defining point of our generation. Which side of the political divide do we fall on?
What is the point of a prophet if not to stand up firmly and call his own flock to repentance? Perhaps the leaders of the church don’t see the need to do so because they are cut from the same cloth. Perhaps I’m the one that’s misled and not seeing things correctly. If so, perhaps leaders should stand up and boldly declare that I’m in the wrong so I may have the opportunity to repent.
Instead the best we can hope for is a generic, non-committal call to be peacemakers. Great, so the people that support Trump walk away from the talk believing they’re being peacemakers by insisting that the other side of the political divide remain silent, that peace is attained by bullying people so much that their own opinions go completely unopposed. That’s all the call to be a peacemaker has produced thus far.
Followers of Christ (not just our church) continue to support a man I’ve seen mock the disabled, brag about committing sexual assaults, lie about the outcome of elections to preserve his fragile ego – so much so that he called on a large group of thugs to lead an assault on our government to prevent the certification of election results, funded a private army that regularly violates people’s 4th Amendment rights, regularly engages in stochastic terrorism against his political opponents, and all this being just the miniscule tip of a rotting iceberg.
Continued support of Trump doesn’t elevate Trump, it’s devaluing Christ.
To sit in church knowing that such a man enjoys the political support of at least half the people in the room, likely more, and to know that the prophet is content to sit in silence, likely because he’s too afraid to test the loyalties of those members because he knows he won’t come out on top. It’s sickening. The silence is absolutely sickening.
Members in the USA will also be treated to a 5th Sunday lesson on religious freedoms and the Constitution on May 31st. It absolutely boggles the brain because I know the meeting won’t be used to reign people in. It’s going to be a MAGA pep rally full of “area men passionate defenders of what they imagine the Constitution to be” pointing to their religion as the driving force behind how their chosen guy is saving the Constitution all while being blind to how he and their political leanings have already done irreparable harm to it. What was the church hoping to gain out of such a meeting? It’s only going to embolden the ignorant.
So yes, it bothers me a great deal. It’s hard to feel a part of a community that has diametrically opposed values to my own. It’s not about imperfect people failing to live up to a standard, it’s about having different standards entirely. If Trump supporters have a bottom, a point at which they’ll wake from their slumber and say, “Enough is enough!” I surely haven’t seen it yet. There doesn’t appear to be a bottom and there doesn’t appear to be a point at which our leaders will gain the fortitude to speak plainly or even address the issue at all.
Again, likely because church leaders are cut from the same cloth. An organization that delivers the gospel in an authoritarian package can’t be relied upon to recognize or call out secular institutions that are authoritarian. Rose tinted glasses.
To your three points, here are my answers:
1) White-washed history, while I find it disingenuous at best, is something I observed and was aware of for decades, and I could *mostly* deal with it. It mostly made the church members who fell for it look like unquestioning dolts to me (particularly those who thought they were somehow “scholars” for reading the pablum the church published), but I could also see that every single religion has a rosy view of its own history that doesn’t really accord with facts on the ground.
2) I literally cannot get over the Trumpism. It’s unacceptable on every level, and has only gotten worse the longer this nonsense continues. The church is to me a personal embarrassment. Thank god I’m no longer working in corporate because I wouldn’t want anyone to know I graduated from BYU. It’s like admitting you used to be a docent at the Creation Museum at this point. The MAGA members are so completely unchecked and so many are in control at the local level that they have destroyed the good that used to exist. I agree with Fred VII that leaders who are themselves authoritarian (as LDS leaders are) will never be able to rein in their followers who truly are more devoted to Trump than to their conscience, their critical thinking skills, their Christian values, and the church. And that’s even if they were capable of recognizing it which I doubt.
3) Religious jerks, particularly following the recipe outlined above have always existed in my experience. It’s basically how missions work–we tell these ignorant 18 year old kids that they have the answers to all of life’s problems and send them out with white-washed information to debunk much older and more established religions, tell them that only they have access to the Spirit, the Priesthood, and that everyone else is “playing church,” and of course a whole lot of them are going to become arrogant little a-holes.
Fred VII and Hawkgrrl:
Ditto, Ditto, Ditto
False Christs, prophets crying lo hear and lo there, people calling wrong right and right wrong, every searching and never able to find the truth, laying obstacles for the fatherless, immigrants, and widows, and I feel like one of the animals looking at the pigs and humans and not being able to tell one from the other with Trump and the Church.
Hawkgrrl and Fred:
Yes Yes 1000%
SO embarrassing!
The church is founded on occult ceremonial magic- okay ??
But is it GOOD today? Is it honest? Does it protect children? Does it truly value women? Does it value marginalized and non-binary people? We know the answers here.
Does it teach us that God’s love is unconditional? No!!
Nelson taught quite the opposite! What is left, I don’t know!
I also didn’t return after the covid shut down. Mainly because there was no sign of there being involvement of God in church leadership.
The fact that church leadership didn’t warn against trump confirmed this, and continues to. Not a prophet but a moral vacume.
We had an election in an Australian state last weekend. The Labor party increased its majority. We have a tight wing party lead by a woman with red hair and trump like attitudes. A few weeks ago she said there are no good Muslims. In this election she got more votes than the traditional parties of the right who have been in disarray. But she only got 22 or 23% of the vote, v what % trump got.
So maga are not our kind of people. We do not want to associate with them! And we don’t have to.
1. I’m ultimately not bothered by most of it. I can see how one would quickly chalk it up to confirmation bias, but if the church teaches us church history version A, and former or anti-Mormons teach us history version B, my experience and research, from a number of sources, often ultimately lead me to version C, which is usually just version A again, but much rougher around the edges and more multifaceted, or sometimes even better than I originally thought.
I’m not above saying certain parts of history boil down to “some men were stupid” at times either, but I find I’m much less bothered by things than others. And knowing the Lord worked with stupid men increases my belief He might be willing to work with someone like me. Would I be happier if the Church showed those rougher edges more often? I’m just content if there’s mild access to it, which I think it does more than many give it credit. No need to parade it, especially if you’re trying to save on paper. Saints was just a small step in the right direction though.
Even (or especially) if you remove the Spirit from the equation, whether you believe in the Spirit or not, you’ve got to admit that some small amount of the narrative you’ve come to accept requires a certain level of faith. If so much of it was made up or a flat-out lie, you ideally have to entertain the possibility that those working to expose those lies could be doing the same thing. There are plenty of self-admissions of such in church history. There’s a lot of information out there and likely more waiting to be uncovered, and only so much time decipher it, so again, whichever narrative you come to accept is going to take some level of faith.
2. Dave is making me very wary of Wyoming, though I guess he admitted some good people in wards.
I’ve lived in Utah County the past sixteen years. I know of no member of the Church who self-identifies as MAGA. I may have seen one or two MAGA hats on someone driving main in the last twelve years, and maybe a dozen Trump flags (likely the same two or three people). I only know two people personally who have never had anything bad to say about him (whereas, of my liberal friends and family, the percentage of those who have nothing bad to say about Biden, Clinton, or Harris is much, much higher). I can’t recall hearing Trump invoked, prayed for, or praised in any meeting or activity the past twelve years. The political climate of the ward I’m in is exactly the same as it was sixteen years ago (generally conservative with some leaning moderate and a liberal or two sprinkled in). In some ways, though the word is overused, the narrative here at W&T does feel a bit like gaslighting.
It does strike me as just a little ironic that many of those complaining MAGA has taken over church, admit in the same paragraph that they haven’t attended church since COVID or earlier.
. . . Come and see?
Yes, a lot of us voted for Trump, with a lot less enthusiasm than other states and religious groups. I’ve heard the analogy of a person wanting to hire a contractor to build a new home. There’s only two in town. One is a jerk to many, a serial adulterer, and has any number of flaws, but has a reputation for building great homes. The other has outstanding character, and a charming personality, but reports are showing many of his recently completed homes are cracking at the foundation. Whether you agree with that person’s assessment of the two contractors is totally beside the point, but you can at least somewhat understand why they went with the first one.
Most Trump voters just wanted someone to get the federal government to ease off. I don’t think they counted on more government being used to try to accomplish that.
3. The spell of Trumpism is exaggerated. But honestly, those I know who voted for Trump are, with few exceptions, some of the nicest people I know. They’re the ones who will mow your lawn if you’re having a hard time. They’re the first ones to help neighbors move in. They’ll stop to help if they see their neighbor working on the car.
It’s many of my liberal friends, coworkers and associates that I have a harder time with. This often goes above passionately standing for what you believe and simply becomes being mean. And yes, there does seem to be some stereotypical entitlement involved. You wonder how far some of the meanness goes. The media loves to harp on Trump for the way he supposedly treats his staff and the number of people who leave it, one way or another. But one of the things that turned me off to Harris were reports that her staff was practically a revolving door, and that she treated everyone poorly. Yelling was apparent commonplace.
But again, if you felt she was the better contractor, I completely understand.
In the future, I just hope all of Mormondom and America can put up some better choices on both sides of the aisle.
Geoff-Aus,
I don’t wish to derail the thread, but would you mind giving us a quick update on how your stroke recovery is going please?
I realized a couple years ago that around here in Utah, most of these people have had to have lied on their temple recommend interview questions when asked if they support anything that is contrary to the teachings and doctrines of the church. Trump is anti-Christ in every sense of the word. And I can’t help but wonder how we lost the plot so badly. I mean, I used to wonder how people didn’t see Hitler coming, but I don’t have to wonder any more. It is unfolding before my eyes among the people who self-proclaim themselves the chosen of God.
Years ago I used to mingle in a FB forum organized around the writings of John Pontius, the Visions of Glory author. I cut that off a while ago. Last week I saw one of those people comment on a Deseret News post about Trump. This person proclaimed that Trump was the first horseman and would usher in an era of unprecedented peace. Jaw…..floor. The complete and total disconnect from reality is so completely astounding. These people are so stuck in trying to match what they see with fantasy in scripture, they fail to recognize that reality is out here and becomes what we make it. I don’t know how Trump got himself so completely wound up in prophecy, but he did so masterfully to the point that he really could do whatever he wanted and these people would not think twice about it.
Eli, I live in northern Davis County, so the other side of Salt Lake City from you. I attend church essentially every week and am very active in our ward. My experience is very different from yours.
I live in a politically active neighborhood. I don’t have any idea if my neighbors and fellow ward members would self-identify as MAGA, but many are loud and proud Trump supporters. Not just believing that he was the better choice, but very actively supporting and campaigning for him. One told me that he liked the fact that Trump is openly corrupt because that’s better than pretending to be honest. During his first term, many houses sported Trump flags. Most flags have disappeared now, though I don’t know what that means. Many also actively support the most MAGA connected local politicians. One asked the state Republican party to add language to the party platform banning anything woke or politically correct. If I correctly understand what they are saying, many support Trump and MAGA because they see both as fulfilling part of the Last Days prophecies, which seems to me to be a pretty clear mixing of politics and a type of interpretation of LDS doctrine.
Church is seldom overtly political, but the way doctrine is expressed is nearly always aligned with MAGA politics. Those of us who are uncomfortable with that political approach have learned that it’s best to just keep quiet. There are quite a few “private” but easily heard conversations in the halls that are overtly political, and nearly always MAGA in philosophy. Sometimes church does become overtly political. A couple of years ago we were invited to attend a political meeting with Elder Tad Callister and Texas AG Ken Paxton. And yes, the printed invitation listed him as Elder Callister. The newly called high council member from our ward frequently used his previous positions to tell us about the evil gay people, evil women who work outside the home, evil women and minorities who have taken the jobs he deserves, etc. We have 3 ward members who give talks and make comments that actively promote MAGA politics. This month, one of them bore a testimony that the people in Iran don’t deserve protection because they aren’t even Christian.
I’m not a liberal. I’m active in the Church. My personal experience is just apparently the opposite of yours regarding politics and the church.
I can stomach attending only a Spanish ward. Real people there. I will never attend a white English-speaking Utah ward again. In my life. If I find out someone openly supports Trump (different if they are conservative or libertarian), my relationship ends with them right then and there (unless they’re family).
That said, I find it interesting to hear other people’s stories of how and why they leave religion. I have make friends who were raised Muslim. Many of them still claim they’re Muslim although they barely practice the religion at all. For them being Muslim is nothing more than a culture label and am acceptance of Islam as valid even if they somewhat agnostic or deistic. In Mormonism that just isn’t much of an option. People who have an extremely loose attachment to Mormonism usually don’t consider themselves Mormon and the church doesn’t consider them active. In Islam there are no small-scale gatherings where leaders are keeping tabs on religiosity so much. There are no temple recommend interviews.
Eli,
Where in Utah county do you live? I live in Lehi and have family in Lehi, Saratoga, Lindon, Orem, Provo and Spanish and some former co-workers in Payson and Santaquin. I know MAGA members in all these places and that is without really any effort. One in my neighborhood flew a “let’s go Brandon” flag for a while. I’ve never experienced MAGA talks or doctrine in church, but I’m also in primary. My parents in Saratoga experience MAGA church stuff in their ward and neighborhood rather frequently.
I honestly cannot connect with your contractor metaphor. Trump built great homes? Not only was he on record and known for his shady business practices, everyone who knew him knew he was a liar and a cheat. It was not a secret. He just wouldn’t pay people. And then when they’d sue him, he essentially buried them in court until they would settle for a fraction of what he owed them. He did this to one of the shark tank sharks and was a common practice for him. I feel like you just handwaved over “serial adulterer” as just a flaw. You also forgot civilly liable for rape. Also the 34 felony count that the courts refused to vacate—because, yeah, he actually committed financial fraud. I’m sure you remember the Clinton era. Just one adulterous affair was his downfall. And frankly, just being an adulterer and rapist would have immediately disqualified Trump with the GOP (especially the Christians) 15 years ago. I mean, you’re basically putting on display how low the GOP has gone.
And then you bring up Kamala and the revolving door thing—a carefully curated sensationalist story perpetuated with heavy bias by right-wing media—91% attrition was the magic number that went viral. But they forgot to report that the attrition under Pence was 83%. And then as I recall, the first Trump presidency set a record on the number of people who were fired or quit. ALL of whom have come out with no good things to say about Trump. Even his own former VP does not speak nicely of Trump. So right-wing media sensationalism about Harris yelling turns you off, but literally none of litany of things Trump has done (i.e. rape, adultery, felon fraud, bully, liar, conman, making billions off of being president in his 2nd term, etc) for which there are ample receipts does it for you? I think some self-introspection would reveal why relationships with your liberal family and coworkers are strained. If reports of yelling turn you off on a candidate but serial adultery and rape does not, there is a big gap in character judgement that appears unbridgeable.
Chris,
I’m also Lehi.
The metaphor wasn’t meant to be that complicated, so I apologize. If you hire someone to do anything, do you want the one that you think would do the best job, or the one that simply has the best character? Ideally, I’d seek for both, but I don’t think America has had that luxury in a long time, unfortunately. You’d absolutely be welcome to label me ignorant and completely wrong in my decision, but I don’t think that you can blame someone for voting for someone they think would do a better job than the other, on that principle alone, even if you think they’re flat-out wrong. Despite that fact many of the liberals I know can be meaner, I’ve never attributed the fact that they voted liberal with the idea that they’re just a bad person for doing so. That idea is somewhat foreign to me.
I took a hard look at third party. Contrary to popular belief here, I think Ezra Taft Benson would have voted third party before voting for Trump. I actually did the first time. I couldn’t bring myself to do it the second time. The data I saw (and I’ll admit not all of it could be accurate) showed democrats would likely be winning less often in all areas if Constitution and Libertarian parties didn’t exist. I truly believe if Republicans were as good or better at disqualifying candidates based on their moral character as they used to be, you’d see more consistent wins among democrats, at least in the short-term, because
1. There are still a lot of good people out there, without a lot of power and money propping them up, and Republicans would have a hard time getting behind any single one, as they often have in the past. Democrats then unite for the win.
2. I don’t think democrats have ever cared as much about disqualifying based on character, for a long time now. And yes, Republicans are now hypocritical in that regard.
The short-term solution for me then is to keep a democrat out in hopes of getting a better Republican in next time. That truly feels like the lesser of two evils to me. The long-term solution involves being a friendly neighbor, raising some great children, seeking to be informed, and applying that knowledge the best I can. It’s cliche to say, but the answers aren’t going to come from Washington.
The revolving door was just one of dozens of reasons I didn’t want Harris. The way it was presented to me wasn’t actually all that sensational, to be honest, or from right-wing news sources.
You talk to all my friends and family, regardless of political party, and I can almost guarantee you they’d all tell you I’m one of the friendliest and most genuine people they know, if somewhat introverted. I don’t mean to brag and I don’t say that lightly, but there are really good people out there who are just doing their best to use a political system that really doesn’t have a lot of good in it any more. At least not at the moment. I don’t fault people for that, especially if they’re trying to make things right in all other aspects of their life.
As far as sinking low in character judgment and unbridgeable gaps (Harris was also an adulterer), you can arguably make that statement about any voter from the beginning with almost any of the founding fathers.
Eli,
Kamala was not an adulterer. Her husband reportedly cheated on his first wife many years ago.
I’m curious why you think the Dems haven’t disqualified on character? It really hits at the heart of this post I think. A bunch of people from all walks of life are leaving the church wondering why the people who stay can’t see what is right in front of them.
You said it was a dozen things about Kamala that turned you off, but you only mentioned the revolving door and adultery—the latter being incorrect and the former not being unique to her as that was a hallmark of the first Trump presidency. You obviously don’t have to explain if you don’t want to. But if you feel like it, what other things can she have possibly done to disqualified her for you?
As for Dems and not disqualifying for character. I’ll be honest, I follow the work the Obamas are doing. They are incredible people. By every measure, they are the moral, Christian, upstanding people that LDS are told would make good leaders—-except their party begins with ‘D’ and to be quite frankly, that single measure is nonsense that Benson and the Birch society started and it has been cancerous. I think, for most of the Republicans I know around here, that is the single measure they use. Biden seems to be of similar character. I’ve watched old speeches of his and read about the things he’s done. It’s too bad he was president in his 80s with mental decline. I think he would have made a wonderful president 30-40 years ago. I wasn’t a big fan of Hilary. I’m not saying any of these people were perfect or that the Dems are some superior. But, when you say the Dems don’t disqualify on character, what are you talking about?
If you stacked Trump’s moral and character failings against any of these other people—any previous president of any party, he is singularly unique in the level, depth and breadth of debauchery, excess, and corruption. And it’s to the point that as the rest of us have watched church members vote for this man, we have had to come to the conclusion that principle and moral were never that important of a measure in the first place for these people.
Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
Eli, I often think what America would be like if Kamala was President now. America would still be respected, still be leader of the free world, would still be supporting Ukraine, Israel would be contained, and perhaps Palestine free, and rebuilding, Iran would still be agreeing to not build a bomb, and America would be so much better with a female leader, who also respects gays, and others, of all colors. And the poor of the world would be receiving US aid.
You asked about stroke recovery. I am well after extended physiotherapy. The hospital handed back my ongoing care to my local doctor. My doctor is very good, I am able to phone him at home and seek advice. My main limitation is the inability to walk smoothly or far, but then I am 77. And neither the hospital or doctor cost anything and medicine costs $6 a prescription with an annual limit of $277. after which they are free.
Fuel prices here are horrendous because of trump war. Petrol $2.50 a litre ($10 a us gallon), and diesel $ 3.1 a litre ($12.50) but as our house has 2 electric vehicles, powered by solar panels and batteries, we are isolated unless trumps war continues and grocery deliveries are affected.
Chris,
I feel like we’re bouncing violently between specifics and general voting philosophy, but I suppose that was actually initiated by me.
“Kamala was not an adulterer. Her husband reportedly cheated on his first wife many years ago.”
Willie Brown? In fairness, I guess there’s no conclusive evidence that was outright adultery, but it strains intellectual integrity to claim a married man wouldn’t keep a woman by his side if he wasn’t already comfortable living the life everyone already suspects he’s living.
And in further fairness to your point, the last President in which I’ve been unable to find anything in their personal character that rubbed me the wrong way was Carter.
I assume you generally vote democrat. Let’s say the next democratic candidate is of same moral caliber as Trump. The Republican candidate is– as far as most everyone can objectively and subjectively agree in this day and age– of impeccable personal moral character.
Do you
A. Vote for the democratic candidate because you believe they will advance your party platform, albeit imperfectly, and you believe your platform is more moral overall.
B. Abstain from voting.
C. Vote third party.
D. Vote for the other guy.
I went with option A because it felt the most right (at least at this point in my existence). But in all honesty, I could not bring myself to call you bad person if you choose any of the other three options. Whether or not I believe the platform you choose is actually moral is utterly beside the point. It’s enough for me to believe you do.
Maybe it was meant as hyperbole, but to say members are essentially lying on their recommends appears highly disingenuous at worst, and very out of touch at best. The majority of people I know are neither religious nor political jerks, and are just trying to do what’s right. That’s worth some minimal form of acknowledgement, even if you think they’re entirely ignorant or misled in their goal.
Geoff-Aus,
Thank you for the update. You’re my dad’s age, so that kind of hits close to home. Keep up with the improvement.
I am finding more and more that too many people refuse to offer any measure of grace or charity to others in more and more contexts.
The Church teaches “correlated history” in Sunday School? It must have been an attempt to hide the truth, rather than simply focusing on what they felt was more important in classes focused on the Gospel.
Someone voted for Trump? They’re obviously a horrible person because [racism/adultery/Russia/etc], instead of considering that maybe they wrestled with the decision and thought he was the best of bad alternatives.
Someone voted for Harris? They must hate America because [open borders/DEI/etc], instead of considering that maybe they wrestled with the decision and thought she was the best of bad alternatives.
Someone stepped away from the Church because of [LGBTQ/Word of Wisdom/Tithing/etc]? They were a wolf in sheep’s clothing all along, instead of being someone who is hurting and genuinely is striving to follow the Spirit.
Someone stayed faithful to the Church in spite of [LGBTQ/Ensign Peak/etc]? They’re a mindless sheep, instead of being someone who honestly believes that they are where God wants them to be.
The list could go on and on.
Regardless of what your political positions are, or who you voted for, the scriptures still command us to “Love One Another”. It doesn’t matter if your neighbor votes the same as you, or if they sit next to you in the pews on Sunday. You should still treat them with charity and decency. Each of us is still a child of God, and we are all still brothers and sisters.
Instead of constantly focusing on how horrible you perceive “the other” to be, and then patting yourself on the back for not being like “them”, why not get down from your Rameumtom and try actually living the Gospel like Christ actually taught us?
Eli,
I don’t know you in real life, but I’ll take your word for it that you are a genuine and friendly person. I’ll even assume that you are kind and helpful, like most of the Latter-day Saints I interact with and care about. The one thing I do know is that, by own admission, you voted for Trump.
And this is what that tells me: last fall you looked at Kamala Harris and Donald Trump and said, “Neither one of these people is my ideal candidate for president, but in the end, Trump represents my values more than Harris. I trust Trump more than Harris. I would rather have my children (and perhaps grandchildren) live in a country where Trump sets the tone for political discourse and policymaking rather than Harris. I think that Trump offers a better model of public service than Harris does. There are things that I care more about than Trump’s many obvious flaws. If I had to choose, I like Trump more than Harris. Deep down inside, I am more like Trump than Harris.”
Do I have that right?
I think a bit differently about these issues.
1. History is hard. Historians rarely produce the types of materials that various political or religious institutions can hold up as true or inspiring. Instututions almost always have to produce their own educational materials (I guess we could call it “propaganda” but that is too perjorative). But I am not shocked that so many members have relied upon church educational materials as being absolute truth. They never were, nor will they ever be.
2. Churches and religions always have to respond to changing conditions if they are to provide meaning and guidance in current times. Christian churches have not been good at this, hence the draw down in activity, and disaffiliation that we see. It should be shocking that the LDS church is enduring similiar losses, with its empahsis on continuing revelation. But I don’t think leaders are plowing new ground and are simply reacting to unfolding events.
3. I have noticed a trend of LDS people adhering more closely to their political ideologies rather than their religious principles. Liberal LDS have always taken heat for differing views on abortion, SSM, etc. and they have seemed to deal with it just fine. But many conservatives are getting away with placing their political values above those principles most reflected in Christ’s teachings. That is what I have found most challenging. It has never been that I believed that my ideology was 100% the will of God. It has been my friends at church believing that their ideology was 100% he will of God.
Aaron,
No, you don’t have that quite right.
I don’t like Harris. I don’t like Trump. I don’t want him to set the tone for political discourse. I am working to raise kids and one day grandkids that will hopefully change the tone of future political discourse and politics in general, and would like them to have the freedom to be able to do that. I do believe Trump has nominated judges that will help keep that a possibility (again, whether you think that’s actually the case is beside the point). I am happy to see some of those same judges oppose him as they see the need and understand the desire to see them do that more often. I am nothing like Trump or Harris. I want to advance many of the same party goals the former has (whether he believes in those personally is debatable) but do not always agree with his methods in achieving those goals. I do believe Harris would have been more harmful long-term.
It all sucks. It still felt the most right.
Worsel, you’re right we should be less judgemental and love one another. It is simply not entirely clear what that is supposed to look like. How do we balance standing for values and truth and accommodating the expression of ideas and actions that seem extraordinarily false and wrong, if not plain evil? Take what you said and then put it in the context of a radical Muslim. How do we love the jihadist? We can’t just lie down and accept that jihadists are going to jihad and we might disagree but love them anyways. That sounds weak and absurd. I speak as someone who has lived in Muslim countries and have seen individuals turn to extremism and jihadism and have had many a conversation with individuals whose family and friends have turned to jihad. Can jihadists be good people? Of course. In particular contexts. I’ve probably had pleasant interactions with individuals who support suicide bombing, but it was simply not apparent at the time. After all I’ve lived in Palestine, visited Gaza and interacted with hundreds of Palestinians.
There are situations that arise where an individual’s views and actions can become so extreme that continued and sustained interaction with the person while knowing their extreme views and then knowing that you know of their extreme views can be interpreted as you accepting their views. Hence once I openly know of an individual’s embrace of Trump, I either distance myself from them or openly express my condemnation of their views. I cannot have that. Trumpists aren’t jihadists, but their views are based on lies and delusions that are dangerous to this country, even to the point of tearing it apart through violence, as we clearly saw on January 6, 2021. Some Trumpists are evil to their very core, having openly adopted a platform of racism, bigotry, and an embrace of political violence to settle differences. I love the Trumpist but only conditionally. They must reject Trump and Trumpism. They must open their minds to reason. Those who repent, I will warmly welcome.
I am not particularly troubled by the church’s past whitewashing of history. It’s a normal human response and one that the church is slowly walking away from, thankfully. I would go further and do more than they have, but they are moving in the right direction. Mostly I lament the fact that most members seem to prefer living in a bubble where we can’t talk about the hard things at church in most wards. That’s a cultural problem as much as an institutional problem, though I do think the institution could do some things that would steer us in a healthier direction.
I’m troubled but not terribly surprised by Trumpism in the church. If you’ve voted for one party your whole life, it takes a lot to make the big step to supporting a party you once thought of as immoral. I know; I did it back during the George W. Bush administration. It’s even harder, probably impossible, if you live in a propaganda bubble, as some appear to do.
On the last question, it’s always been true that there are some really insufferable people in religions. Half of the gospels are stories of Jesus calling those people out. We should not be surprised that they still are among us. I do think that Trump has normalized a lot of behavior that wasn’t previously socially acceptable, which has possibly empowered some people to show their true colors in ways that they might not have previously. I am not convinced that there are actually more of those types of people; I just think they are more visible.
Trump destroying and the Constitution and Republicans letting him: at least we don’t have to hear about how bad slavery was; at least we believe in smaller government even though we now have way more government force; Harris would be way worse!
Lol, gotta love it.
Eli: “I do believe Harris would have been more harmful long-term.” I’m genuinely curious. Even if you think Harris was under-qualified, we would have (under a Harris term) continued to enjoy the backing of allies who shared our values worldwide. We’ve thrown all that away, deliberately, in favor of a cesspool of dictators trying to outfox one another, and Trump is so far the one getting outfoxed. Prices are higher, not lower. Gas prices are going to continue to be a problem thanks to this president’s “feelings” that Iran was going to strike, backed by literally no evidence whatsoever. There are likely to be food shortages next year as fertilizers can’t get through to growers in time for the season. Sure, most of that will decimate poorer countries more than ours. Trump has pardoned violent insurrectionists simply because they supported him, and he is making every effort to subvert the upcoming election. Another thing that isn’t getting a lot of air time is the rise in crypto scams (which benefit him), online sports betting, and the manosphere content that is creating a new generation of venal psychopaths. There’s still been no accountability for the Epstein class, and the billionaires keep getting richer and more powerful (we need to repeal Citizens United which never should have happened). The lines at TSA are reported to be up to 4 hours long, which Trump thinks is good for him, so he refuses to endorse any bills that Congress might agree to, and GOP representatives won’t wipe their ass without a signal from Trump that it’s OK to do so.
So exactly what do you think would have been worse in the long-term due to a Harris presidency?
Thanks for responding, Eli. That helps me understand. The depth of your disappointment and disengagement with both parties is striking. (Perhaps it’s unfortunate that the US does not have a multi-party system.) From my perspective, however, the differences are much clearer. Even though Harris would not have been my first (or second or third) choice, when I had to make a final decision, I was thinking of D&C 98:10 and its injunction to support politicians who are good, honest, and wise. (Unlike you, I am happy to concede that I am much more like Harris than like Trump.) Political agendas matter to me, of course, but character matters more to me than judges or any number of policies, at least in extreme cases. And this certainly seems like an extreme case.
What follows may not make much sense to you if you are accustomed to paying more attention to right-leaning news sources, but asking me to vote for Donald Trump would be like asking me to vote for Bill Cosby, another TV celebrity. Even if Cosby promised to appoint judges I like and to implement reforms that I have long wanted, I would have voted for a Republican of good character like Mitt Romney or Nikki Haley, even if I disagreed with their policy preferences, rather than a moral monster. We’re talking about the President of the United States, to whom we hand over incredible power, not some run-of-the-mill senator or representative or local politician. Sometimes the right thing to do is to put country over party. It’s hard for me to shake the feeling that Trump voters failed that test–as much as I may like them personally and value them as relatives, friends, ward members, and fellow Latter-day Saints.
Most of my Republican friends and family supported other candidates in the primaries, and Trump wasn’t their first choice, but in the end, they felt like he was the better representative of their deepest moral and political values. That bothers me. Despite our political differences, I have long appreciated the perspectives and contributions of people I considered principled conservatives, but now it seems that I didn’t really know them at all.
Hawkgrrrl,
I’m not at all pleased with the actions in Venezuela and Iran. It will likely come back to bite us. I’m not really a one issue voter either, and while I think we sometimes overestimate just how much power the judicial system has, most of it does come down to judges. I’m trying to get better at reading the small print. When I looked at the type of judges Trump had nominated his first term, it seemed reasonable that the pattern would continue. I wasn’t convinced Harris would make nominations I would agree with.
I am aware that is in no way the answer to all our problems. I do think it holds the door open wider to push through more lasting solutions to those problems, and on more local levels as well. I’m willing to be called naive, wrong, and ignorant on all of that. Evil seems a bit of a stretch.
Aaron,
I do feel like I understand where you’re coming from. Please don’t give up on the people you don’t feel like you know any more.
Aaron, “I have long appreciated the perspectives and contributions of people I considered principled conservatives, but now it seems that I didn’t really know them at all.”
I recently listened to Sarah Longwell from the Bulwark YouTube channel, who has been a lifelong Republican and now leads an anti-Trump podcast/YouTube channel (which is very good by the way) talk about her surprise and shock upon talking to a focus group of conservative voters after Trump’s first presidential victory. For her, being Republican and conservative was all about lower taxes and spurring business innovation and less government waste. When she heard the responses of people she thought were her fellow conservatives, she had the same thought as you: did I really know these people? Then over time it became more and more apparent what a lot of conservatism was all about and had long been about, we just wanted to wish it away and pretend that this set of conservative opinions weren’t really all that serious. These conservative opinions were: an exaggerated fear of foreigners and the foreign world, a fear that the US was somehow losing to the foreign world because of outsourcing, a deep-seated loathing of LGBTQs, an extreme distrust of science, an eagerness to embrace conspiracy theories, a religious fervor and zealotry, a hatred and suspicion of government institutions, and an obsession with so-called left-wing political correctness. Trump hit all those buttons. The pre-Trump establishment Republicans, like Longwell, had been so sheltered in their bubble they had forgotten that they were there. The conservatism of the folks over at Bulwark, I have no problem with. It’s principled and reasoned. I can disagree with it and respect it. It isn’t based on lies, just a different approach. But their conservatism is not most of conservatism.
Data point – I voted for Trump in the 2016 general. Same in the 2020 general. I disliked all my options, but disliked that one the least. I live in the southwest.
But: shortly after January 6, 2020, it became obvious the party had left moderate, centrist conservatives like myself behind. I withdrew my registration as an (R) voter and have remained independent since that time. I did not vote for Trump in the 2024 general (voted Haley / Gabbard). I’ve spoken to many LDS people in my city who have followed similar paths.
Eli: I’ve heard some other LDS people say that for them it was all about SCOTUS, but given the things I’ve seen SCOTUS do, I’m really not sure what you are seeing that I’m not seeing. Here’s what I see SCOTUS doing:
– Giving Trump unprecedented, uncheckable power
– Repeatedly allowing Christians to blur the lines between church and state
– Emboldening law officers to do racial profiling (Kavanaugh stops, which he apparently rethought after doing it)
– Rolling back environmental protections
– Expanding gun rights, including for those with a track record of abuse
– Allowing states to punish doctors who perform abortions when necessary to save the life of the mother. Even if you want fewer abortions, you have to realize (although apparently not in red states) that dead mothers don’t give birth. States have also been allowed to punish rape victims and to force incest victims to give birth to their abuser’s babies. Dobbs didn’t just “turn it back to the states” in eliminating Roe v. Wade. It turned it back to the states with absolutely no guardrails for common sense and human decency. Likewise allowing bounty hunter laws which can be used by states to eliminate any civil rights they choose.
So, from where I’m sitting, I don’t see what this SCOTUS has done that is a public good. Please clarify what you find laudable here. To me, they look like fanaticized religious hacks trying and succeeding to eliminate civil rights, not to uphold them.
All of the conservative leaning voters who feel they must support whoever the Republican candidate is because of the Supreme Court should really think carefully about how each election will actually affect the court. (Same for Democratic candidates, but rarely to I hear Democrats cite judicial nominations as the primary driver of their voting choice.) It was absolutely true that the 2016 election was extremely consequential for the court. Anyone who felt they had to support Trump in that election because of the Supreme Court can feel somewhat justified in that decision. It was obvious in 2020 that the election would have no effect on the balance of power, other than replacing an old left-leaning judge (Breyer) with a younger one if a Democrat won, which is exactly what happened. It was also obvious in 2024 that the election would have no effect on the balance of power because none of the three liberals will retire this term, and it looks unlikely that either of the two oldest conservatives have plans to retire any time soon. I really don’t understand how anyone can claim that they had to vote for Trump in either 2020 or 2024 “because of the courts”.
Eli,
I don’t play party politics. I find the two party system to be a major root of the issue here. And you highlighted the problem perfectly in your choice A—it’s party over principles. I was a Republican until Trump and voted Republican until Trump. I left the Republican Party during the first Trump presidency as I became disgusted with the platform. I’ve since had my eyes opened to how the Republican Party has been steered by one-issue platforms for much of the last 60-70 years. When segregation stopped being a lever to stir up a frenzy in the GOP, abortion took its place. And now when you talk about a “moral platform,” in the GOP it is typically some very underdeveloped thought on abortion that is the single deciding factor on what is “moral platform” and what is not. The other single issue is LGBTQ. So in answer to your question about who I would vote for, I would vote for the most principled person. Trump does not have those. The Republican Party used to, but not any more.
You’re trying to save face on your Kamala comment—it might just serve you better to say “I was wrong” rather than continue to try to insinuate.
Hawkgrrrl, (and Quentin)
I was actually thinking in terms of all federal judges, not just SCOTUS, in which the lower ones often serve as a pool to draw from for the latter.
We can get into specifics, but I think a lot of just comes down to ideology, which we obviously differ.
-I would agree that the President has too much power. I’ve felt the last two or three did as well (and many before for that matter). I don’t think that’s entirely the supreme court’s fault, but amendments that have been made over the years. It needs to be fixed.
-The line between Church and state was entirely meant to be blurred. I heard one scholar once say that the way we interpret that now days is the rough equivalent of saying Trump originally wanted to build the wall to keep Americans in. It was all about limiting government intervention, not religious influence. Christians can be annoying and they also happen to be the majority religious group. I don’t think that merits distinguishing lines where they were never meant to be.
-Racial profiling. Can’t really argue there.
-Environmental Protections. Nowhere have I been convinced that it’s the Federal Government’s job to regulate that. Last I checked, the company I work for goes above and beyond federal regulation anyway. Whether you agree with climate change or not, most are trying to do something about it. That takes innovation, which is also rarely encouraged through government intervention. Admittedly, it likely took federal law to kick that into gear. I’m not convinced that would have remained necessary.
-Gun rights. There are plenty of enforceable laws on the books already. We’ve already had plenty of discussions here as to whether it’s guns that are actually the problem.
-Abortion and the states: I’ll admit it’s extremely messy. I do think that should be left to the states and that they should figure it out a little faster.
Essentially, I simply believe a more conservative supreme court gives more power to the states. Nothing is stopping those states from enacting more liberal laws. If the majority of states decided to enact more liberal laws, I would 100% be okay with that purely in terms of the principle in which they’ve been given power. We’d get what the people voted for. I can understand the argument that a conservative supreme court makes conservatism more powerful. I ultimately disagree. At least, in the long run. We obviously differ.
Chris,
My Harris comments were poorly worded and poorly framed. I apologize for that. I still do not believe she is a moral person. Maybe slightly less so than Trump.
Likewise, do you still stand by your comment that the majority of conservative members are essentially lying to get their recommend?
Edit: Maybe slightly less immoral than Trump.
Slightly less immoral than Trump? Only slightly? In terms of what? Trump’s grifting right and left in office–his corruption is unparalleled. He was judged to have raped E. Jean Carroll (after the statute of limitations, but still). He’s bragged about sexually assaulting others. He’s all over the Epstein files, including a claim that he forced a 13-year old to give him a blow job. You must know the list of the things he’s done. What exactly are Harris’s great sins that put her anywhere near Trump’s Caligula-level behavior? I totally get if you think she was not ready to hold the office, or you didn’t like that she was unwilling to throw Biden under the bus, or that you think she was slippery in some of her answers? Trump has lied constantly about everything including stupid things nobody even cares about. How are the two of them close at all in terms of morality? Harris fought hard to protect victims of sexual abuse. Trump is fighting hard (and very successfully) to protect perpetrators of sexual abuse, including himself. To say that she’s only slightly better than he is, well that’s quite a claim.
Hawkgrrrl,
Uh, yeah. You got me fair and square. I was actually thinking in terms of corruption, but that’s no excuse.
I do think Democrats already lost a leg to stand on with the rape argument with Clinton, as so much of it was there ahead of time. As already mentioned, the Republican Party is now completely hypocritical in those regards. It’s gotta change. I understand if you think I’m doing an absolutely poor job working towards that.
I can’t stand the false comparison between Trump and Kamala Harris, or between Trump and any Democratic politician for that matter. Trump has profited billions with a B from the presidency in violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause. He has been criminally convicted of fraud, a case in which his co-conspirator Michael Cohen served prison time. He tried to overturn the results of the 2020 through crime and violence. Dozens of people surrounding him have been convicted of crimes and misdemeanors. He has repeatedly said racist things. He lies practically every sentence he utters. He contradicts himself on nearly every position he has. He has been found civilly liable for over $80 million for sexual abuse. He has threatened and intimidated media that disagrees with him or paints him in a negative light. He has a long history of heaping praise upon ruthless dictators, and has said himself that he would be dictator on day one. He has routinely insulted war heros.
If any Democrat had said and done even a mere fraction of the things Trump has said and done, you would be screaming bloody murder and you know it. I can barely understand voting for Trump in 2016. You thought in his heart of hearts he was a moderate with a weird strategy. He wasn’t serious and we shouldn’t take him seriously was the general vibe. Many who voted for him in 2016 repented not long after and I forgive them. If you voted for him in 2020, you were a deeply ignorant and immoral person. But if you voted for him in 2024, after January 6th, my question is what is wrong with your brain? Are you incapable of reasoned thought? Are you bereft of any moral compass? Do you not care about the Constitution? You’re either an evil person or you’re dangerously ignorant who enabled a great evil to illegitimately overtake this country. I question and doubt your moral integrity and competence at every turn if you voted for Trump in 2024.
“Rape argument with Clinton,” you’re kidding, right? Clinton was never convicted of Rape. Did he have sex? He said he didn’t, but we know he did because of the stain on the dress. But then, was it Rape, no. It was Quid Pro Quo and a misuse of power dynamics, but it wasn’t Rape as nonconsensual sexual aggression. Trump, on the other hand, has 34 felonies related to Rape. There are millions of pages of files with his name redacted that imply sex (rape by legal definition) with underage girls. As for Harris, Hawkgrrrl summed it up really well. I’ll just add that I think Republicans will say anything about her because she’s black, female, and powerful. She had a huge hill to climb because of Biden’s withdrawal from the election, and she almost pulled it off. Republicans, though, following their leader, can only slander, insult, or put down anyone who is anyone. Do we have to go through a list of names that Trump has done this to? The biggest accomplishment of Trump is how he’s proved that when the wicked rule, the people mourn. Voting for Trump in 2016 because of the Supreme Court, 2020 because you think he made America Great, even though we were in recession, turning into an inflationary period, and in 2024 because knowing he was going to implement Project 2025, an authoritarian guide, but at least she wasn’t a woman and a Democrat, all while claiming to be Christian means there’s a lack of Christian values in your heart. It’s time to realize that 3 votes for Trump is not a thing to be proud of, but an indication you should probably repent and quit watching Fox News. The mote in the Democrats’ eye is pretty insignificant compared to the beam in the Republicans’ eye.
Clinton also happened in the previous century. The Democrats have had a lot of time to clean up. If Clinton had done what he did in the 2020s it’s likely he’d be hounded out of office like Al Franken was. That makes me wonder why Republicans aren’t hounding Trump out of office like Al Franken was.
I’m a community college professor near a major metropolitan area. My students are overwhelmingly immigrants, refugees, and low-income minorities. I just met with a student last week who missed a month of class because her Costa Rican husband was denied reentry to the country despite being a legal green card holder with no criminal record, so she’s been having to work double shifts to afford immigration lawyers in both countries to clear this up. My students write me essays about their neighborhoods being terrorized by ICE, who violate the constitution with impunity. My students include Haitians who suffered death threats after JD Vance spread that lie about them eating pets, Mexicans who’ve been slandered as rapists and criminals by a man who is himself a confirmed rapist and a felon, Muslims labeled terrorists by a man who instigated the January 6th terrorist attack on the capitol, and Ukrainians worried sick about their relatives in the old country getting massacred by the Russians now that Trump has cut off military aide. Even the non-immigrants are being further squeezed by skyrocketing gas prices due to this unprovoked, poorly planned bombing of Iran, on top of the tariffs that have already further driven up inflation. Obviously none of this—ICE raids, tariffs, screwing Ukraine, bombing Iran—would have happened under Kamala, who explicitly tried to warn us he would do the same. Tell me, who was it who said that by their fruits ye shall know them.
Since Clinton has been cited here: I was a small child during the Clinton years. I remember very clearly all the adult conservatives in my life despising Bill Clinton because he cheated on his wife and lied about it. Naturally I assumed for years that must mean conservatives hate adultery and dishonesty. I was very thoroughly disabused of that painfully naive assumption when all those same conservatives in my life then enthusiastically voted for the serial-adulterer/liar Trump. Ever since then, I’ve come to assume all Trump voters are just bad-faith debaters desperately trying to convince themselves that they are still good people despite voting for him, and nothing Eli has posted on this chain has convinced me otherwise. He is here not to persuade, but to seek absolution that we won’t grant him. That’s because when we had a choice between a woman and a rapist, people like him chose the rapist.
The reasons why youth retention is down in not only our church but all American churches lately are of course varied and multitudinous, but surely at least one factor is that if the adults in the churches clearly don’t believe what they preach, then why should the kids?
In response to Eli’s comment that he’s also concerned about lower court judges, I would say that once again, the first Trump term did give conservatives who care about that exactly what they wanted: a whole bunch of judicial nominees recommended by the Federalist Society. The second term is another story entirely. Trump hates that some of his previous nominees are ruling against him so he is now choosing judges based on loyalty to him over loyalty to general conservative principles. That is really dangerous, especially given that these are lifetime appointments. We’re going to have some of these crackpots making bad rulings that get overturned on appeal for decades to come. I suppose the question here is, for a voter wanting conservative judges, was this predictable? My most generous response to that is that even I have been surprised by the depravity of the second Trump term, despite my expectation that it would be worse than the first. Still, I fail to see how any traditional conservative would trust Trump after his behavior after the 2020 election. His own previous vice president has turned against him for exactly that reason.
I’m late to the conversation, but I just wanted to reach back and highlight this line from Instereo that struck me like it was written in neon lights:
“History was not only watered down in the lesson, but it was also not applied to anything in the real world, even if the principles were the same.”
This is so, so spot on. There are obvious parallels, but we always shy away from them because they would offend the Trumpists.
This conversation with Eli is very enlightening. I believe it highlights the most fundamental problem in our society (both in our country and around the world).
I believe that Eli is a decent person and would never participate in nor sanction in his own circles the depth and breadth of the evil that is Trump and his administration.
However, and this is what I view as the single biggest obstacle to change., people like Eli put such a high value on being right that even when faced with overwhelming data they will obfuscate, justify, play whataboutism and outright lie rather than admit they were wrong.
Until we can collectively admit openly and candidly when we make mistakes and work to correct them, we are doomed to perpetuate the political, religious and economic warfare that is tearing us apart.
Its almost like we are Shiz and Corinatumr wielding our swords until we all die. Who would have thunk
Eli,
Yes. I stand by it.
The two temple recommend questions I’m referring to are specific:
“Do you follow the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ in your private and public behavior with members of your family and others?”
“Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?”
Those questions don’t point to the Church’s political neutrality policy. They don’t reference party platforms. They point back to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Love your neighbor. Care for the poor and the stranger. Be honest. Be humble. Forgive. Blessed are the peacemakers. Blessed are the merciful. These aren’t ambiguous. Here are a few examples:
Honesty. The 13th Article of Faith says “We believe in being honest.” D&C 42:21: “Thou shalt not lie.” BoM: “Wo unto the liar.” The church teaches that leading people to believe something untrue in any way — including by silence or partial truth — is dishonest. I get that this can come off a bit rich coming from the church especially as they have been caught substantially lying–but I think the ideal is still important and fundamental to a healthy society. Trump’s first term produced over 30,000 documented false or misleading claims. The Big Lie about the 2020 election was contradicted by his own Attorney General, his own campaign’s researchers, over 60 courts, and Republican election officials in every contested state. He told DOJ officials to just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to him. This isn’t a man who occasionally falls short on honesty — lying is his operating system. When you champion that, you are promoting something contrary to Jesus’ teachings.
Chastity. Three marriages, cheated on multiple wives. Multiple documented affairs — covered up with hush money that resulted in 34 felony convictions. A civil jury found him liable for sexual abuse/rape of E. Jean Carroll and awarded $88 million total. Not to mention all the stuff concerning him in the Epstein files.
Immigration and welcoming the stranger. The Church’s official position calls how we treat immigrants “the bedrock moral issue.” When Trump’s zero-tolerance policy separated over 2,000 children from their parents, the Church said it was “deeply troubled by the aggressive and insensitive treatment of these families.” In January 2025, the Church reaffirmed that it provides aid regardless of immigration status and is especially concerned about keeping families together. Meanwhile, Trump called immigrants “rapists,” “animals,” and said they’re “poisoning the blood of our country.”
Religious freedom. Trump called for banning all Muslims from entering the country.
Humility. Trump has publicly said “I alone can fix it,” that he knows more than the generals, that he’s the most successful person ever to run for president. When asked if he’d ever asked God for forgiveness, he said he didn’t think so, that he just tries to make things right himself. He doesn’t bring God into the picture. In LDS theology, that isn’t a minor character quirk.
Forgiveness vs. Revenge. We are required to forgive all men. Christ’s teaching in the Sermon on the Mount explicitly repudiates “an eye for an eye” — the verse Trump has called his favorite. This is not a man who falls short of the Christian standard of forgiveness. He has built an entire worldview on its opposite.
Degrading others. Trump has consistently and persistently engaged in degradation — from “shithole countries” to dropping f-bombs in public statements about Iran. He mocked a disabled reporter. He attacked a Gold Star family. He called fallen soldiers “losers” and “suckers.” I think he has set a presidential record on his inflammatory hateful rhetoric about the left. His entire public persona is built on name-calling and personal destruction.
Democratic institutions. The 12th Article of Faith says we believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. Trump has repeatedly violated constitutional law. He insighted an insurrection. Trump’s charity foundation was dissolved by court order after a finding of “a shocking pattern of illegality” including self-dealing. He believes he is above the law and behaves consistently as if he is. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Court records are packed with illegal Trump exploits. Any other person would be in jail right now.
Eli, I hear you when you say most people you know are good neighbors. I believe you. But the question isn’t whether they mow lawns and help people move. The question is what they are promoting and supporting in their public/private behavior — and whether that squares with what they are asked for temple recommend issuance.
Going back to your contractor analogy. You’re essentially saying character doesn’t matter as long as you like the product— but many of the temple recommend questions are explicitly about character. They ask whether you follow the teachings of Christ in your behavior, not whether your preferred candidate builds good policy houses. Someone who wears the hat, shares the rhetoric, defends the character/behavior, celebrates the cruelty as toughness, and adopts the language of vengeance as their own — and then sits in a bishop’s office and says yes, they follow the teachings of Jesus Christ in their public/private behavior? That person is not striving and falling short. They are running in the opposite direction and calling it righteousness. To re-use an overused scriptural theme, they are selling their birthright for a mess of pottage.
No good person would vote for tRump a 2d or 3d time.
No person who follows Christ would vote for tRump a 2d or 3d time.
That person might bring me a casserole if I were ill, but s/he is working to deprive me of civil and constitutional rights. That person is saying, in effect, I don’t support lying, pd0filia, racism, misogyny, the commission of sexual assault, dishonest business dealing, the sale of national secrets, Nazism, and grifting. However, because the fact that tRump is a liar, a pd0file, a racist, a misogynist, a Nazi sympathizer, a person who sold national secrets, and a grifter was not a dealbreaker for any person who voted for him, means, that at the core of his being, he supports and believes in those very things. The first vote might be through ignorance. The 2d time was concupiscence.
RE: discussion of calling people evil; Republicans, including many members of the church have been calling Democrats evil for decades. When the tables are turned, they cry foul. Personally, I don’t often call them that, but it happens. And I’m not at all I interested in their complaints about it. They can stop being snowflakes and own up to their own sins.
To be fair, Barack Obama did wear a tan suit in the Oval Office.
Trump has so many scandals, I’ve forgotten what many of them are. It is practically every day that Trump says something outrageous and does something to abuse power and commits a criminal act. He and the people around him lie so much, I don’t trust a single word from their mouths. In fact, I simply take what they say and figure that the opposite is true. All we can really do is sit and wait for the next election and hope that the American votership has come to have enough wisdom to oust Trump and his lackey clowns and that the court system and the Supreme Court have just enough integrity (and the Supreme Court has hideously corrupt members who have enabled Trump) to actually let democracy prevail, to actually let people vote, to actually count the votes that have been cast, to install the candidates with more votes, and not let Republican anti-democracy shenanigans derail the will of the majority.
Clowns like Eli are nothing more than aggressive keyboard warriors who come on here as provocateurs who hit you with relentless logical fallacies that they double down on until they die. They are impossible to convince. And I won’t try. I have enough faith in the American public to come to there senses that we can recover this country with them and we can finally tell these MAGA and MAGA-adjacent asshats to go to hell like the deplorable (Hilary was always right) scum that they are.
Instereo,
You’re right, the comparison was poor (I was a teen during the Clinton years). His rape allegations did not occur until well into his Presidency. Trump’s did.
I haven’t watched Fox News in years and the frequency in which people bring it up here has become a caricature of sorts.
“Republicans will say anything about her because she’s black, female, and powerful.”
I was an enthusiastic voter for Mia Love. I’m guessing she’s just a traitor to her race and gender in your mind? I really thought the conversation would be above this.
JB,
If I was coming here to seek “absolution,” as you put it, I would have left years ago. My number one reason for coming to W&T is to understand others. I feel selfish at times if I don’t return the favor. I failed here, but I will be able to sleep okay knowing people here think I’m evil.
Robert,
Again, if I was concerned about being right I’d have left a while ago.
Chris,
That was very thorough, thoughtful, and no doubt took you a long time. Thanks for writing that.
Speaking generally, I realize me saying both Trump and Harris are alike is apples and oranges in the eyes of most people here. Neither met my standards, but again, Trump surprised me by essentially putting boots on the ground that I felt were enabling in helping me and my children make a better world. I did not think Harris could enable that same environment. My vote felt the most right at the time. Venezuela, Iran, and a few other things could very well make me regret that decision. I can completely understand where you are coming from, and I do not expect to be absolved of anything. For better and for worse, I’ve learned a few more things from others.
Brad D/John W,
You sir, deserve your own response. I really do not understand why you made the switch from from John W to Brad D or why you thought all of us were too stupid to notice. Mods harp on people for changing their username but let you get away with it for whatever reason. I’ve toyed with the idea it’s because you may be one of their Mr. Hyde sock puppets, but since I’ve seen TBMs make statements on this blog not even half as abrasive as you so often do, and get their comment deleted while you continue on full bore, I’m guessing it’s more likely they see you as a guilty pleasure or convenient attack dog. Definitely leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
Most of what I’ve read from you over the years scares me on a certain level. I would not trust you with any political power whatsoever. Heck, I would not even trust you around children.
As John W, you’d come after me often, and I’d find that somewhat amusing, and fully admit that you were the single person on this blog (or any for that matter) in which the term “trolling” might have been appropriate for a select few of our interactions. As Brad D you were relatively more civil at first and also ignored me. I’m sure that took every bit of your ounce of self-discipline, but you’ve clearly stopped trying.
Of all the intelligent things you’ve had to say over the years, I’ve never been fully convinced your motivation for coming here amounts to much more than feeling good about being right and getting a momentary high from the up votes. And when I look at what liberal Mormons and Mormon liberals are trying to accomplish here (or at least what I think they are) in relation to more orthodox and more conservative members I find that you often seem to be the biggest impediment to those goals. I do think you’re capable of better discourse.
I used to read every post here religiously. I now only get roughly 80%, for a variety of reasons. But I read them. I think about them. I ponder them. Go back over the last 50 posts or so, count how many of them I’ve commented on, see how many you’ve commented on, and ask yourself who the real keyboard warrior is.
May I point to the recent national notoriety of BYU student Kai Schwemmer as one example of why many question Eli’s claims about MAGA politics as it intersects with the Church.
I genuinely do not understand why expressing support for gay people brings BYU discipline, while expressing support for neo Nazi ideology does not.
Oh, ok then. Who are you trying to convince on here?
To PWS’s point, the church has long turned a blind eye to right-wing radicalism, which has infested the church well before Trump, and pounced on anyone who seems the slightest bit liberal.
I guess I’ll be the contrarywise commenter, though I’m late to the game.
To me, history matters. I left over history, among other things. For everyone saying history doesn’t matter, do you want the Trump years covered accurately in your grandchildren’s history books or is it fine to just say “choices were made” and moving on? This of course all assumes that we decide to correct course. Eli’s happy but based on thumbs down it does appear most of us are not happy and will vote accordingly in November. Rebellions are built on hope.
I also left because of MAGA. Quite frankly, time is limited and letting Eli teach my kids Sunday school class is not how I want to spend it, notwithstanding his mad casserole skills. Instead I now spend time volunteering on my kids PTA supporting raising funds to provide arts programs in underfunded school districts, my oldest child’s university parent board that supports initiatives like first generation college programs. Maybe that sounds like I think I’m better than MAGA because I guess I do.
Serving in these new capacities instead of Church, I can confirm that jerks are everywhere. But the beauty of jerks outside the church is that they have no (pretend/claimed) authority over me. That’s a distinction with a difference.
“Oh, ok then. Who are you trying to convince on here?”
It’s a good question. As stated above, a lot of it has to do with returning the favor. W&T has done a few things for me over the years, not the least of which is a better understanding of others. I’m a lot slower to judge or make assumptions with regard to Mormon liberals and liberal Mormons. But I’m also interested in how a generally conservative Mormon and Mormon conservative like me is viewed through that liberal lense. Plenty to learn there as well.
If I see what I perceive is a falsehood (and I’ve been proven wrong on here before, which is fine), I don’t think correcting it amounts so much to making me feel good. It’s also in your best interest. As an example, I have watched you time and time again call people–myself included–racist, when no such evidence or argument in the thread exists. Sometimes you seem do this because you seem to lack a cohesive response, despite all your intelligence. Other times if seems like you’re trying to make racism something it isn’t. And that isn’t a word to be thrown around lightly.
I’ve said it before, but if you took everything you’ve written here over the years, and everything I’ve written here over years, and asked five thousand random people around the world (white, black, gay, straight, lds, hindu, etc.), to make an analysis, there is zero doubt in my mind that you’d come off as exuding the most hate, and even as one a little unhinged. So when you start to do that and throw words like racism around, I honestly think it reflects more poorly on you than anything, to the detriment of your own argument, and even the blog.
“But I get lots of up votes,” to paraphrase something you’ve said countless times. That’s actually an attitude I also find disturbing, and a somewhat morbid curiosity I still come here to figure out. I’ve also written this before (as one who all but ignores the vote function as it relates to myself), but I’ve seen beautiful comments here that I didn’t necessarily agree with get a ton of down votes, while some other comments that I’ve felt were absolutely depraved (quite a few from you) get a number of up votes. I think that says more about the type of people a blog attracts than it does about the quality of an actual comment. I don’t know if those votes belong to a select few obsessed with the vote function, or represents the blog at large. It’s also a morality by majority vibe that I find very perplexing. I don’t often use the vote function myself, so are the majority of conservatives that come here like me and also abstaining, or am I just one of the few who actually come here regularly to learn and occasionaly give back? I really don’t know. I don’t know if crowd after conservative crowd comes here and leaves because of what they see commenters like you doing, or if they stay and let the self-inflicting damage you do from some of your comments further alienate yourself from any meaningful outreach or change you might have accomplished. Or maybe you and others are just here to pat each other on the back and let conservatives rot in hell? I can be dense sometimes, but yeah, I’m not always sure. So I keep trying.
You’ve made it clear in past comments you’d be fine with force to end what you perceive is hate. But I see you ascribe and define hate repeatedly where none actually exists. I in no way am convinced you wouldn’t punish political opponents if given the opportunity. In short, you and quite a few others, seem to project everything you are onto people like me, and I find that troubling–and another curiosity I’m still trying to figure out.
I doubt you’ll believe me, but as much as I despise some of the things you stand for (which I do find hateful and morally reprehensible), I want you to know that given the ability, I would not come at you with force, I would not set a political machine against you, I would not try to silence you, and I would do my best to stop others from doing the same. I would resist you in places like this and the ballot box only.
I have not been convinced at all that you would do same for me, so figuring out why that is, is another curiosity.
Not a nicely packaged answer, but it’s the best I can do for now.
“I in no way am convinced you wouldn’t punish political opponents if given the opportunity”
And yet you voted for Trump, who was impeached for withholding Congressionally approved aid to Ukraine unless Ukraine went after Trump’s domestic political opponent.
“I would not come at you with force, I would not set a political machine against you, I would not try to silence you, and I would do my best to stop others from doing the same.”
But you voted for the guy who does all those things. Do you see the problem? Do you see why I don’t take you seriously? You’re here to troll. You’re words and positions are ridiculous.
“As an example, I have watched you time and time again call people–myself included–racist”
Again, you voted for the guy who spread lies about legal Haitian migrants, who were cherished members of the Springfield, Ohio community and cherished employees, eating cats and dogs, causing a massive racist reprisal against them.
Have you read the leaked chat exchange among the Young Republicans? Have you read the racist screeds of members of the New Hampshire libertarian party? You folks spend so much time trying to pose as victims of liberal overreactive calls of racism, and then behind closed doors you say vile racist things. Heck, Trump and his lackeys don’t even say it behind closed doors, they just broadcast it with a bullhorn.
I know so many white English-speakers in my community who say that they’re not racist and then when we start talking about the Spanish ward and Spanish speakers, then they can’t help themselves and let out racist jabs. So I don’t know if you’ve said racist things or have racist attitudes in your heart of hearts, but you’re certainly not interested in fighting against it. So far from what I’ve read, nothing has convinced me that you have moral character. I continue to doubt your morality and commitment to it through and through.
@Eli
Racists are extremely practiced in using arguments that don’t explicitly mention race to justify their practices, but racist is as racist does. You should take a minute to think about what all the things that get you called racist have in common (hint: it’s the racism.) Even if you were so miraculously naive that you never noticed that all those things you support “just happen to” disproportionally harm minorities, you’re still willing to turn a blind eye to that harm, which is a racist action in itself.
Eli: You said “as much as I despise some of the things you stand for (which I do find hateful and morally reprehensible).” In the interest of understanding, what exactly are the things you believe others here stand for that you find hateful and morally reprehensible, specifically? I am curious.
I didn’t notice that Eli said that things I stand for are “hateful and morally reprehensible.” I too am curious as to what these are. My guess is he’s referring to free speech. He thinks he’s more pro-free speech and that I favor censorship and am “fine with force to end what you perceive is hate.” He thinks I’m immoral because I don’t pose as a free speech absolutist and see the question of free speech with a lot of nuance and limits. Maybe he’s referring to my stance on hate speech, which I think should be criminalized as it is in many European countries. But honestly I’m not quite sure. Maybe it’s my stance that private platforms should be allowed to ban people for things they say.
Yeah, Eli, were I a moderator on this blog, I would ban you. You’re a provocateur and a troll. You’re not here for reasoned discussion. But I’m not a moderator, and even if I were, I wouldn’t be violating your freedom to speak.
But what boggles my mind is that in 2024 Eli supported Trump, who has routinely harassed media for publishing things he doesn’t like about him, threatened judges and prosecutors, and has routinely gone after political opponent on frivolous charges. Which all makes me think that this was never about freedom of speech or other sorts of freedom, it is about keeping your side in power at all costs. No matter how much they lie, violate the Constitution, suppress the vote, cheat, steal, and engage in an array of fraud and corruption, your OK with that as long as it’s your side. Eli accuses liberals of being the same: tolerant of corruption, dishonesty, fraud, and power abuse when it is their side. Only problem is that’s not true. Liberals and progressives are several orders of magnitude more principled than conservatives and libertarians. There is no one even remotely equivalent to Trump on the liberal and progressive side. Democrats kicked out Al Franken over sexual harassment. They forced Bob Menendez to face protection. I stand for a far more moral side. Eli stands for evil.
Brad D./John W.
I did vote for Trump. And I’ve repeatedly admitted his faults and the utter hyprocisy of the Republican Party. Can you even see it in your own? I would have called Biden a racist long before Trump, just on his words alone. I’m wiling to call them possible gaffes, but based on your own standard, they’re likely Freudian slips and represent a much deeper resentment. Did Biden or Obama really not go after any of their political enemies either? Is there not a shred of evidence for that at all? The worst thing you’ve ever said about Biden is that he was old. That’s either hyprocisy or delusion.
I look at myself in the mirror politically, and I don’t really like what I see at the moment. But I look at the way you see yourself in the mirror, and grow more hopeful in my own image. Asking why people in their right mind would vote for Trump is a fair question. You might get more mileage out of asking people why they voted against the Democrat (hint: a lot of it is dealing with people just like you).
Former Nonbinary Sunbeam
From Dictionary.com, first definition
Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
I have not ever been taught nor ever had the belief that any race is inferior to my own. I call it out personally when I see it, which, among the people I choose to hang out with, is never.
The most you could try to accuse me of is being ignorant or misinformed, neither of which is inherently racist. It’s wrong of you to assume otherwise. I wouldn’t go so far as to call you evil for it.
Hawkgrrrl,
“in the interest of understanding, what exactly are the things you believe others here stand for that you find hateful and morally reprehensible, specifically?
I was thinking of Brad D./John W. specifically in that comment. Perhaps I just hang out with overly nice people, but the guy just exudes a lot of hate in my mind, but given his up votes, perhaps they are representative of the most blog participants as well. It’s the methods he advocates for and the double standards he often promotes for that that also come off hateful.
Some examples:
Mandates. He’s never specifically said whether that would be termination of employment, garnishing of wages, or jail time. But he has convinced me the mandates would be implemented out of disdain for those who aren’t doing what he thinks is right, more than just accomplishing what he thinks is right. And regardless of whether the action he wants has some moral value, I find forcing a view onto another far more immoral and problematic.
He mentioned speech.
From Dictionary.com, first definition
Hate: to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest.
I don’t hate anyone. I dislike Brad D./John W., but not intensely or passionately. I do find him annoying. I do think he deserves to be resisted. I do think engaging with him at select times (again, compare how often he’s on here compared to how often I actually write anything and see if I’m determined to be the nuisance he thinks I am) is in his best interest as much as my own, so I’d even go so far as to say a bit of charity is involved.
I think Brad meets that definition, however, wholeheartedly. Maybe I should give him the same benefit of a doubt for engaging with me with the same motivations I have, but he’s made it pretty clear how he feels. Seeking to eradicate perceived hate and redefine it as well is misguided and wrong at best, and hateful, at worst.
By his standards, it really does not seem enough to have a access to something you think is a right. You have to eliminate all criticism of the practice as well.
By his standard, applied to me, not only could I have the right to a firearm, but he would be in the wrong for criticizing me for having it, and should be silenced legislatively.
By his standard, I could express my views and be perfectly justified in outlawing anything from him I found hateful in his disagreement.
One could argue that’s just what a person would do who is thoroughly convinced their views are the most morally correct and deserve implementation at all cost, but I am already convinced my views are the most morally correct but reserve the right to possibly be wrong, and not to force them on others because I want the same luxury of not having his erroneous views forced on me.
I do think he exaggerates Trump’s power and influence in this regard and is blind to Obama’s and Biden’s former power, and I don’t think that makes him any more morally competent than me to push the views he has. I won’t personally stop him from expressing them.
I may be mistaken (I really hope so actually, though the shock value kind of burned into my brain), but I can recall him saying, as John W, that he planned on introducing pornography to his boys, at least of a softer nature, and masturbation in moderation.
I’m willing to talk about the dangers of purity culture. I’m willing to talk about the best ways of introducing human sexuality to your children. But even if you tried removing God and agency from the equation, introducing pornography to your boys seems like a huge crime against the human will, and just shows an utter disrespect to women. Based purely on my experience, those I know, and even the experiences of a family member in Child Protective Services, I don’t think it’s going to end well for his boys. I do find that morally reprehensible. I don’t think he represents broader views on that here, but I’ve been surprised before.
Somehow, this thread reminded me of this skit–
@Eli
It seems very suspicious that you ignored definitions 2 and 3 of racism, given that they seem so much more germane to this discussion. I’ll refresh your memory.
Eli, you voted for someone whose promises could only logistically be achieved by committing atrocities against literally millions of people like the ones I baptized just because of their ethnicity. That was the only way it was ever going to happen, and that’s the way it did happen.
You voted for definition 2, and that makes you definition 3. It’s not even a close call.
Rationalizing that you were just voting for the law to be enforced doesn’t get you off the hook. Illegal immigration is a “crime” that was invented by racist Americans to punish people for being Chinese and was later expanded to punish people for being other ethnicities. There are few clearer examples of definition 2.
You say you voted the way you did to prevent some nebulous harm that was even worse than the crime against humanity you voted for that we’re witnessing today. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that your assessment is correct. It still means that you were willing to sacrifice millions of people of other races Lord Farquaad-style. That’s not something you can do unless you functionally believe that people of other races are a lot less valuable than you and the people you care about. That’s definition 1.
Eli, your both-siderisms are dumb. Contrary to what you believe, many people on the left can and do criticize their leaders. But comparing Trump’s immorality and Biden’s or Obama’s, both of which exist, is stupid. The length of your arguments don’t make them better. You are providing grade school logic: well, he said it first, or something like that. When you can honestly come back and have real conversations, I’d love to see it. So far, you’re just convincing us more and more that you are living in a silo. Look, I didn’t thumbs up BradD’s comments to you. They do tend to be aggressive. But that doesn’t make your stance correct. Or persuasive. You’ve got some serious Benson-style wacko comments. Who, by the way, was seriously racists. And wrong.
Nonbinary,
If I don’t see systemic racism and don’t believe my vote is fostering that, you can again only claim I’m ignorant.
But how do you truly propose to change people like me as you perceive them, and at what point does enforcing that change become unethical?
Brian,
There are a lot a people here I disagree with who have said things that have invoked a lot of introspection, and a great deal of pondering.
I’m sure you’ve made one or two of those comments, but they’re usually drowned out by your condescension and frequently off-the-mark attempts to tell people what they’re really thinking.
Grade school logic, for all his intelligence, appears to be exactly how Brad communicates and, for all his intelligence, often seems to be the only way he understands (well, to be honest, I’ve never been sure he understands). “Bothsideism,” as you put it, felt appropriate here.
You say there’s no comparison. I think it’s much stronger than most anyone here cares to admit. Yes, democrats are capable of criticizing each other at times, and I think conservatives will likely lose the next two election cycles, but if people here are utterly incapable of removing the beam in their own eye, the future of America is likely conservatism. I realize you likely strongly disagree with that.
I don’t hate people because of how they vote, nor do I put all kinds of pejorative labels on people who disagree with me. I have friends who voted against Trump, and friends who voted for him, and we behave with civility around each other. Some people voted for Harris in 2024 because they admired her views, and some voted for her because of who the Republican nominee was. Similarly, some people voted for Trump because they admired his views, and some voted for him because of who the Democratic nominee was. Our system effectively only gives us two choices for any seat, and most people aren’t one-issue voters, so each voter weighs things in his or her mind and makes a decision. It doesn’t make a voter a _____ (insert preferred pejorative epithet here) person if her or her calculus resulted in a different vote than mine. Who gets to define right and wrong and to impose it on others? Some are upset at LDS church leaders for not denouncing Trump, but his era will pass. It looks now like Democrats will win the House in 2026, and some think the Senate is in game, and I don’t see Vance winning in 2028 unless the Democrats put forward a bad candidate. I think that Trumpism will pass. Didn’t many Americans fear that our republic was lost in 1828 when Andrew Jackson defeated John Quincy Adams? It survived. Maybe I am an optimist about these things.
Wow, just make up stuff to win an argument. I’m clearly arguing with someone who has completely lost their mind. I’m out.
What I think has been so eloquently displayed in this thread is a good example of why the left and the Democrats continue to fail at their mission–purity culture and failure to accept differences into community. It really doesn’t matter if the right is dead wrong, they have always been so much better at building community and providing safety. The left really sucks at that. And until they fix that, Eli is right, things will end up conservative–not because of what they stand for, but because of the community that they can build so effectively. The only reason the left is winning so much right now is because of how exceptionally bad this admin has been. But they can only ride those coat tails so long.
Eli,
We must be living in different parallel universes. When you say things like: “I would have called Biden a racist long before Trump, just on his words alone” I can’t for the life of me even begin to think of what you are talking about. Especially in light of the fact that he served under the first black president and then his VP was multinational. What could Biden have possibly said to convince you of racism? Or when you claimed earlier Harris was a adulterer, but then backed down on that dubious claim yet continued to insinuate (for reasons that are unclear)–where did that come from?
Or you say this: “Did Biden or Obama really not go after any of their political enemies either?” I don’t know, did they? I will concede that the optics of the NY Leteisha James investigations into Trump did appear political in nature–even though, having read the court documents on that, Trump did commit extensive financial fraud. But that wasn’t Biden doing that. I digress–you said Biden and Obama did this. What exactly did they do that compares even a little to what Trump is doing and has done and said? If they did do something, please, let’s get it out on the table right now so at least we know what we are talking about, because from where I sit, this reeks of whataboutism. I have no interest in giving a pass to either side IF there is wrong to be called out. We have got to at least talk about concrete things here.
I truly want to understand where you get your information and how you are developing these measures. It comes off to me, at least, as off-balance–as a bit of special pleading for Trump and the right. Yet seemingly, without nearly as much (or any?) evidence, you try to put people like Biden, Harris and Obama (anyone in that D party) in the same camp that people here are, including myself, putting Trump–but then when pressed on it, will then concede you didn’t frame it well or “you got me.” And honestly, I just don’t get it, but I’d like to.
I’ve got a buddy who voted for Trump who loves listening to Tim Poole (or used to, I don’t know if he does any more). I can’t stand Tim Poole. In that same vein, I used to listen to Brian Tyler Cohen, but had to stop because I got sick of his constant hyperbole about the right. But I choose to remain in relationship with this buddy because he truly is a friend. And that is something I don’t want to lose despite us voting differently. Honestly, this has not been the best forum for discussions of understanding or community. Based on how you’ve been treated in this forum, I can understand your resistance. No one in history has ever been convinced to change their views after being treated the way you’ve been treated here.
“a good example of why the left and the Democrats continue to fail at their mission–purity culture and failure to accept differences into community”
Um, the GOP has actively pushed out members who don’t support Trump enough. Trump sics his cultists on GOP members who say things he doesn’t like. As for differences in the community, the Democrats are far more diverse than Republicans, and far more accepting of an array of political opinions and cultures than Republicans. This is demographic truth.
“they have always been so much better at building community and providing safety.”
Republicans have been so much better at creating a cult of personality around a single figure, spreading propaganda, and making people feel paranoid. Cultism has been effective in the Republican and conservative community precisely because of their lack of acceptance of differences. They’ve been successful in elections because they spread lies and propaganda, which is an effective way of building a movement. They stoke paranoia about perceived enemies, and a common sense of paranoia is another effective way of building a movement. We’re already paying a price for paranoia with the Iran War raging right now with no end in sight.
Eli, to put it bluntly, anyone who says they value deomcracy and Constitution and still voted for Trump after January 6th is either deluded or lying. There isn’t an alternate sets of facts here. Trump and his advisors knew he lost, knew there wasn’t any mass election fraud, and then still tried to steal the election and overthrow the government. [Insert here rebuttal to most likely Eli’s both-siderism about past Democrats also questioning the election because the difference to degree is astounding.]
There are plenty of people who voted for Trump in 2016 and then changed in 2020 because holy hell that man is immoral, dagnerous, and demagouge. Hope for the world. Then there are people who voted from Trump even after January 6th, for whom there is little hope of convincing them how out of touch they are. You, Eli, are one of them.
For you, that hope is so small that it is hardly worth spilling ink over, and this because you are constantly showing an inability to truly engage, look for the truth, or demonstrate critical thinking skills required for productive argument. Conversation, perhaps. Argument, no.
And, look, I know can be as condescending as hell. Of all the valid arguments here, yours aren’t part of them. And your responses are basically demonstrations of worse thinking and engagment with each post. So, yeah, I’m condescending to trolls who come to soapbox their ideas without any honest discussion. The world is too big and wonderful and the stakes too high to engage with your tripe. Yeah, I’m here to shut it down. And yeah, I know it isn’t terribly effective. But, like conservatives do so well, I’ll boundary check. And I don’t play chess with pigeons.
Brad D,
Yes, demographically the Dems might have more diversity, but that is entirely beside the point I’m making. The point I’m making comes out of sociological research. Diversity is not community. Call it cult of personality or something else—in the end that is community. People have a place they can call home, feel safe. And overwhelmingly that is much more likely to happen on the right as it already has the systems in place to make that happen, which is why it is such a sticking point.
If you want these people to come over to a better way of thinking, then you have got to provide a space that is better than the one they are currently in. They have to have somewhere to go. If they don’t, then don’t expect change as it is unlikely—although not entirely impossible.
chrisdrobison,
You’re right that many folks on the right have a community and a place to call home. It doesn’t make that community good or right, though. Jihadists also have tight-knit communities and support networks. That said, there are certainly communities on the left, but the left tends to be more individualistic, supportive of freedom of the individual from norms of oppressive communities, at least for whites. The left tends to be more supportive of minority communities. They are far more supportive of Muslims than the right, even though Muslims tend to be far more socially conservative. Muslims have a somewhat uncomfortable alliance with the Democrats simply because they are more often targets of hatred from white conservative communities. The Democrats’ broad coalition makes it difficult to keep together.
You’re stance seems to be that the Democrats need to build a better community to attract folks on the right. There has to be somewhere for them to go not to agree with, per se, but simply to feel support. My belief is that too many on the right are too far gone. There is nothing that Democrats can do. Right-wing propaganda that holds Democrats to be this demonic force has been so imprinted in their minds that little can be done to bring them around. So I say, forget it. I don’t have to go high when they go low. I’m happy to jab away at them and point out how utterly ridiculous, asinine, dangerous, and evil they are. In doing so I believe there is some risk of alienation, but if done right, it can garner attention and win votes. My belief is that there are a select few in right-wing communities who are like me: grew up right-wing, but are on the cusp of disillusionment and rebellion against them. They sense that their family members and friends are insane. They’ll turn against them politically in due time. I’m here to welcome them and encourage their rebellion.
Second, whites are at a disadvantage in the US. The US is becoming more ethnically and racially diverse. Democrats have the advantage here. Of course, they should not take this for granted. They need to ensure that voters are voting on the basis of policy, and not ethnic or racial lines. Bottom line: the right is at a major disadvantage over the next few decades. I don’t need to listen to the Trumpists, try to understand them, let alone mollycoddle them. Chiding them, and aggressively debunking their lies, while carrying some risks, could help create a stronger sense of an internal enemy (which they in fact are) and spur votes the other way.
Brad D,
You wrote, “the right is at a major disadvantage over the next few decades.” You might be correct if the values and traditions of our constitutional republic hold continue sway among the populace — but if the leaders on the right succeed in destroying those values (and I fear that they are so trying), then the right might succeed in protecting conservatism and destroying liberalism, so to speak. Isn’t that what happened in the 1930s in a certain European country with the rise and success of their conservative party leader? I think they called him their führer. The parallels are frightening to me, and I hope our populace and our traditions will prevail.
p.s. I am mindful of what is called Godwin’s Law (and I do not want to trivialize anything that happened in that era), but I also fear staying silent for too long. I speak as supporter of conservatism in the traditional American political sense and as a supporter of liberalism in the traditional philosophical sense in that I generally support “private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion” (quoted from Wikipedia).
This said, please understand and forgive my mention of that other country in the 1930s.
ji, absolutely. Just a couple of weeks ago I got into a discussion with one of my brothers because I had made comparisons of actions of an individual with those of a certain party in 1930s. He insisted I was being needlessly inflammatory. I insisted but that is what they did. At what point are we allowed to mention the elephant?
On another point raised by Brad D, there are elements of right wing media in the UK at this very moment fear-mongering about left wing support of Muslims, but as an article published in the guardian put it: “Yes, many Muslims are turning to the Greens. But their motivations are neither singular nor mysterious: the cost of living crisis and state of the NHS, for example, loom large. And if someone were genuinely an Islamist, as Blair suggests, rallying behind an ultra-progressive secular party led by a Jewish gay man would be an eccentric choice “. ( https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/01/tony-blair-left-islamism-israel )
Busy week.
Brad D/John W. I don’t make up stuff to win an argument. I have been known to make mistakes and I try to learn from them. Reason number eight or nine I come here.
Chris,
Biden opposed federal mandates to desegregate school buses, mainly because he thought it would encourage “white flight” from public schools. Maybe he was just trying to work around his more racist constituents, but it never sat well with me.
Harris dated Willie Brown in the mid-nineties, a married politician thirty years her senior. He had long been separated from his current spouse, and had many other girlfriends before and after. Given his political offices, many viewed it as political posturing. Regardless, not very moral.
With Obama, I was referring to the investigation concerning his connection with the IRS possibly targeting conservative groups.
My back-and-forth, admittedly, comes from trying to get a frame of reference here, and I’ll admit I’ve done a poor job of it. From a standpoint of corruption, I saw Trump and Harris as both just off charts in my book, but when morally framed by sexual assault only, I was forced to admit no comparison. There isn’t one.
I try to get my information from a variety of sources but will admit my time is limited. About the furthest left I’ll read on occasion is The Atlantic and HuffPost.
Brian wrote “anyone who says they value democracy and Constitution and still voted for Trump after January 6th is either deluded or lying.”
Trump put in constitutionally conservative judges his first term. Contrary to popular belief, they haven’t enabled him at every turn. They have also opposed him. That spoke more to me of judges trying to do their job, not trying to please the President (whether you agree with their actions is another matter). I felt there was a better chance of that continuing with a 2nd Trump term than a second Biden term or first Harris term.
Regardless, the point I was trying to make (and failed, in large part from getting bogged down in specifics) was simply that not all Trump voters are evil. That’s it. One of the biggest warnings that have been impressed upon me in all my years at W&T is the dangers black and white thinking, especially in more orthodox members. That’s applicable to politics as well. But based on what I’m seeing here, a Trump voter is evil, plain and simple, and Harris was a near angel. I don’t think either of those things are true, based on most readily available evidence. As an evil Trump supporter, I’m apparently still capable of recognizing not every Harris voter is evil.
One of my favorite things about Trump supporters is they don’t fall in line at beck and call. My coworkers complain about Trump with nearly the frequency they did Biden, on a number of different levels, yet so many of them voted for him. I guarantee you if Trump starts coming for the American people with the intent so many are trying to predict here, it will be former Trump supporters showing the most resistance.
Eli, all you’ve convinced me of, particularly in relation to your conclusions about what you’re reading here, demonstrates an abysmal reading comprehension, projection, and/or flat out misdirection and lies. Still not convincing, still a troll, still not worth our time. The banality, lack of acuity, and continual, ridiculous both-siderisms are not saved by the verbose, yet controlled, and seemingly reasoned structure of your posts. Ignore the main arguments and threats and continue in your self assured answers all you want. As I said earlier, it’s either lies or delusion to say your support democracy and the Constitution and still vote for Trump after January 6th. He is and was the most direct, existential threat to the US as we have ever seen in a President. That you can’t acknowledge that is, again, either you lying or a delusion. It seems like the latter for you. One can be well-intentioned and yet delusional. Now I don’t now where that delusion comes from, but it’s apparent as anything. Again, it’s most apparent in what you say about the other comments here. No one is arguing Kamala is an angel. I mean, there’s no use arguing with you if that’s your conclusion. Your comments do not reflect reality. It’s sort of unbelievable. Apparently, being criticized for voting for Trump and is calling Trump a threat to America triggers you quite heavily. Okay. Whatever. I’m also done responding to you at this point. A broken record of predictable and unengaged discourse masquerading as good willed discussion.
ji, I actually don’t mind comparisons to mid-20th-century Germany. But let’s look at the context. Irredentism was one of the biggest motivating factors of right-wing movements in early and mid-20th-century Europe. Ethnic groups were interspersed in central Europe. Many countries sought to create a greater ethnic homeland. Hence Germany’s invasion of Poland, France, and Russia. Lots of ethnic Germans historically lived there. Plus, Russia had increasingly expanded its territorial possessions since the 1500s. British and French colonialism was at its apex in the early 1900s. Germany justified its expansionary goals based on what other European powers has been doing.
In the case of the US, there are not many territorial expansionist aims expressed in right-wing discourse. Maybe Greenland and the Panama Canal, but those don’t seem too serious or priority. Irredentism basically doesn’t exist in the US.
Additionally, Trump won 24 only on a plurality of the general vote, not on a majority. On that basis, I hold out hope for the future. Voter suppression tactics, while worrisome, will not be strong enough to stop a blue wave in 2026 Congressional elections and a Democratic president in 28. My prediction. If a big recession hits in the next year or two, Trumpism will be wiped out for good and the Republicans will take a back seat for decades. If you’re a Romney conservative you have my respect, even though we disagree.