NOM

Why are Mormons mostly conservative Republicans?
The mormon theology is extremely liberal, so it makes me wonder why Mormons are so conservative.
For example, we believe in New revelation and that at any moment our prophet may speak with God and get new revelations. We believe that this world will be burned in fire and become heaven. We believe we can become gods. We believe in New scripture.
All of these concepts are very progressive in thought.
What say he?

2bizE wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:43 pm Why are Mormons mostly conservative Republicans?

Conservative Republicanism is the family/traditional values party, opposition to homosexual marriage and traditional family roles are in their wheelhouse. As long as the leadership and membership appear to pine for the Norman Rockwell 1950s America as the ideal it's a hand and glove situation.

All of these concepts are very progressive in thought.

Once upon a time these things spoke to a liberalism in Mormon thought since they were changes and adaptions to prevailing religious thought but Mormonism has left it's young inventive days behind. Once upon a time every religion was new, at some point they age and become the establishment instead of the young feisty upstart they used to be.

Supper cynical answer for a day marked by the news that our senate just passed a huge tax break for the supper rich and big corporations. The church is for the most part a corporation. The repulsivacans just passed a huge tax break for corporations. Any other questions? It is all about the money. The repulsivacans have been for taxing the middle class and stiffing the poor and doing as the big corporations want for years now.

Typo humor. I left out the p at the beginning of passed, then wondered if I should leave it as they "assed a huge tax break". Maybe that goes too far, calling what they do in the Senate as assing bills, but the asses.

Less cynical answer. At one time they claimed to stand for family values, but now they elect child molesters and serial adulterers and child rapists, all in one dude.

Oh, oops, I was trying to be less cynical. Family values, like stay at home mothers and all white neighborhoods. Back in the 60 when the church was resisting integration, they were also resisting integration. The republicans are much stricter on abortion than the church even is, but because most church members see the world in black and white, they fail to see that things like late term abortions are only done to save the mother's life. They think God will protect women from dying of eclampsia. But the repulsivacans have been against every progressive social movement from civil rights, to ERA, to gay marriage and if you notice, the church has also been against every progressive social movement. In fact, the church has been leading the charge against equality every where you look.

I read in an institute manual many years back that when Utah was pushing for statehood, One of the objections in congress was that the Mormon population was heavily Democrat. Keep in mind that in the 1800's the Democrat party was the ones to push for westward expansion and manifest destiny. Republicans also apposed slavery and polygamy which the church both supported.

Republicans objected to granting statehood to Utah since it would give the other party more votes. The church made a push for some members to join the Republican party so that Utah would have a more even political makeup so they could get statehood. This made it okay for members to be Republican. Over time and as parties evolved, more and more Mormons sided with them.

I used to be a republican in my TBM days. Since I have started turning everything upside-down I have changed the way I feel about a lot of things. I was talking to my very liberal friend who said, "Its good to have you on our side now" I had to correct her, just because I am not a republican anymore does not mean I am a democrat.

Frankly I think conservative republican/liberal democrat are basically two sides of the same coin. Both parties are controlled by the wealthy, and have no interest in actually changing things for the average American. I have just become so cynical I have little hope or faith that the clowns up there on capitol hill will get anything right.

And no, I don't think the democrats, when they were in power, did anything to make our lives better either, they just picked a different group of the wealthy to make more wealthy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz_V4lRdtjo

The Republicans have done a better job of courting interests of the American Religion.

Ronald Reagan was the master of this. I attended a BYU forum assembly in 1976 where he spoke. Actor that he was, he showed great mastery in playing a religious audience. He whipped those Mormon kids into such a frenzy that the student giving the closing prayer felt totally justified referring to the Democratic Party as "the Party that leads us away from thee". (Fortunately, letters in the student newspaper expressing disapproval of that appeared the next day).

Look up the quote, "you cannot endorse me, but I endorse you" if you want to see the kind of rhetoric Reagan used to court the religious voters. His methods are canon in the current Republican playbook.

The Mormon Prosperity Gospel is fertile ground for them. As Howard Bloom put it

Howard Bloom wrote:Persuasively redefining Christianity has been a pastime through the ages, yet the American difference is brazen. What I call the American Religion, and by that I mean nearly all religions in this country, socially manifests itself as the Emancipation of Selfishness. Our Great Emancipator of Selfishness, President Ronald Reagan, refreshingly evaded the rhetoric of religion, but has been appropriated anyway as the archangel of American spiritualized greed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opini ... hrough.htm

slavereeno wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:36 pm I used to be a republican in my TBM days. Since I have started turning everything upside-down I have changed the way I feel about a lot of things. I was talking to my very liberal friend who said, "Its good to have you on our side now" I had to correct her, just because I am not a republican anymore does not mean I am a democrat.

Frankly I think conservative republican/liberal democrat are basically two sides of the same coin. Both parties are controlled by the wealthy, and have no interest in actually changing things for the average American. I have just become so cynical I have little hope or faith that the clowns up there on capitol hill will get anything right.

And no, I don't think the democrats, when they were in power, did anything to make our lives better either, they just picked a different group of the wealthy to make more wealthy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz_V4lRdtjo

I mostly agree with you Slavereeno, depending on how far back in history you go. Currently Left and Right is just the diversion in American Politics. The real divide in America is economic, and the real problem is the corruption of our democracy by those with economic power. It was a big shelf bender, and maybe even a shelf crasher for me that so-called (if you can use it, Elder O, so can I) prophets, seers, and revelators had nothing relevant to say as our supposedly divinely inspired constitutional system has been systematically corrupted by greed. I thought Mormonism was a unique force for good and it ends up being just another cog in a broken machine.

Stepping off the soapbox now . . .

If one feels a pull to the democratic party, most of the Unitarians churches in my area seem to be basically a grass roots political organization for them.

The Church once made a Faustian bargain with Leland Stanford. In exchange for the support of the Republican Party, the Presidency of the Church would deliver the Utah vote to the Republican Party. The Republican Party of that era was the more liberal of the two parties. The Republicans kept their bargain, but from their perspective, it was contingent upon Mormons giving up their beloved foremost "Principle" of polygamy. Needless to say, the Mormons kept their fingers crossed behind their back.

The first Mormon sent to Congress, polygamist Apostle B.H. Roberts was not seated. The second Mormon sent was Apostle Reed Smoot. The Senate finally agreed to seat Smoot after four-years of hearings. The committee conducting the investigation even questioned President Joseph F. Smith. It did not go well at first because President Smith was under the impression he could gaslight the Senate Committee. After the years of this hearing, the Senate failed to reach a two-thirds majority to expel Smoot, so he retained his seat as the first Mormon Republican in Congress. All this attention resulted in the Second Manifesto on polygamy in 1904, a subsequent shakeup in the Quorum, and by 1909 new polygamist marriages ceased to be made in the LDS Church.

When the Republican Party shifted to place their emphasis on catering to the wealthy, it was natural for LDS Church leaders to embrace this emphasis. They even helped push the Utah party further to the right.

The majority of the LDS membership is well known for voting what they perceive to be the wishes of their Authorities, rather than their own wallet.

Just This Guy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:16 pm I read in an institute manual many years back that when Utah was pushing for statehood, One of the objections in congress was that the Mormon population was heavily Democrat...The church made a push for some members to join the Republican party so that Utah would have a more even political makeup so they could get statehood. This made it okay for members to be Republican. Over time and as parties evolved, more and more Mormons sided with them.

I recall reading something like this, but can't recall where. From my recollection, which I cannot verify at all, to some extent the church even made "assignments" of a kind, where some people were going to be democrat and others republican and somehow that was related to drawing political boundaries for statehood. That may or not be true, it's just something I recall reading from long, long ago.

I think the present majority of US mormons belonging to the republican party has a lot to do with mormons assimilating to general culture in the 20th century and doing a very good job of it, and when the culture began to change in the 60s, the church decided not to, thus maintaining social conservatism, "family values," anti-ERA, etc. The present leadership is still from that era and the 1950s culture is still preached, so the social framing of the conservative right is what many members follow.

Many may disagree, but when I look at early mormonism, really early mormonism, I see a very progressive movement. Even polygamy (which I disagree with) was an experiment with social norms and marriage. Such experiments were common in the early 19th century among progressive groups, some religious, others political or philosophical. Mormonism was no different. What makes mormonism unique is that it still exists, where most of those other communal enterprises failed.

Related question: why does the Republican party claim an alliance with Jesus while consistently pursuing actions that are in direct contradiction to Jesus' teachings about how we should treat each other, particularly the poor and sick?

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:56 pm Related question: why does the Republican party claim an alliance with Jesus while consistently pursuing actions that are in direct contradiction to Jesus' teachings about how we should treat each other, particularly the poor and sick?

Makes you wonder whether the Republican vision for the future of America is something resembling the Hunger Games.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:56 pmwhy does the Republican party claim an alliance with Jesus while consistently pursuing actions that are in direct contradiction to Jesus' teachings about how we should treat each other, particularly the poor and sick?

When I was a Republican I would have said, "They don't believe the government should be the agent of giving. To force someone to give to the poor/needy vis-a-vis the government does not equate to being moral, neither does giving someone else's money to the poor." Of course that puts an awful lot of faith in humanity that is highly misplaced.

Another question I always grappled with is if we believe that the Law of Consecration was ordained of God, why aren't all Mormons communists? I know the short answer is "If God were in charge it would have worked.. Blah blah blah..."

Abortion. But the Republican Party has them all suckered, because it never actually tries to do anything about it (hope that's not too political).

During most of the territorial era, Utah's party system was aligned strictly according to religious preference. The Peoples party was Mormon; the Liberal party was non-Mormon. Now that statehood was within reach, both elements scurried to integrate themselves into the national two-party system. Much of this was accomplished under a Mormon initiative. Striving for balance, church leadership sought to "assign" its members into the Democratic and Republican parties. But as the summer of 1894 approached, the US Senate held the Utah enabling bill in committee, uncertain just how effectively the Utah population had been in achieving party balance.

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapte ... ehood.html

This is how I understood the beginning of the two party adoption in Utah. I would guess the shift over to majority Republican over time would have to do with the church becoming more pro-business corporation and the issues like abortion, ERA and other things that were perceived as good or evil from LDS leadership that agreed with or went against the misogynistic structure and culture.

2bizE wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:43 pm Why are Mormons mostly conservative Republicans?
The mormon theology is extremely liberal, so it makes me wonder why Mormons are so conservative.
For example, we believe in New revelation and that at any moment our prophet may speak with God and get new revelations. We believe that this world will be burned in fire and become heaven. We believe we can become gods. We believe in New scripture.
All of these concepts are very progressive in thought.
What say he?

A lot of these discussions break down because no one can agree on definitions. I'll define conservative to mean someone whose beliefs are chiefly informed by tradition, ritual, order, and authority. I'd define a liberal as someone whose beliefs are chiefly informed by equality, care, openness to experience, and personal freedom.

That said, almost all people are a mix of all these things. As a liberal, I also value tradition and ritual, but I lean more to the other side because I'm willing to reject order and authority if I believe they are causing people harm or producing inequality. From a more conservative standpoint, the importance of authority and order often transcends the need to stop all harm to all people, both because that ideal is unattainable and also that more harm would come to more people from less order and structure.

I would argue that Mormonism used to be extremely liberal in that its early adherents were religious dissenters in their day. They developed a theology in opposition to tradition, forms of worship that were lacking formalized ritual, and new authorities which didn't exist until they created them. While its true that these elements remained in the doctrine, they stopped being liberal the moment they were formalized and institutionalized. Today the theology has nearly 200 years worth of past and tradition. Authority structures are rigid and unmovable. Change and openness to new ideas and experience are strongly opposed by both the culture and extensive network of rules governing every aspect of worship and life. While the doctrine may appear liberal in comparison to other religions, the lived experience within the church is overwhelmingly conservative.

One of the primary reasons why many in the church had difficulty voting for Donald Trump is precisely because his is NOT a conservative movement. He breaks with tradition, gives little respect towards ritual or authority, and is an outspoken disrupter of order. Many voted for him because he promised to support policies and ideas important to conservatives, but him and his style is outside the norm of what most Mormons would want in a candidate. If these sorts of candidates continue to win primaries within the Republican Party, then I think you'll see a decided shift away from the new Republican establishment among members. Instead of using the shorthand (R) for making decisions, they'll begin looking for either third parties or conservative Democrats to vote for.

slavereeno wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:52 pmAnother question I always grappled with is if we believe that the Law of Consecration was ordained of God, why aren't all Mormons communists? I know the short answer is "If God were in charge it would have worked.. Blah blah blah..."

Nothing will get you lynched faster in priesthood meeting than pointing out that the United Order and the community of Christians in the gospel of Luke are flat out communism. I have been told over and over that it is the exact opposite of communism. Nope, it is communism.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:13 am

slavereeno wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:52 pmAnother question I always grappled with is if we believe that the Law of Consecration was ordained of God, why aren't all Mormons communists? I know the short answer is "If God were in charge it would have worked.. Blah blah blah..."

Nothing will get you lynched faster in priesthood meeting than pointing out that the United Order and the community of Christians in the gospel of Luke are flat out communism. I have been told over and over that it is the exact opposite of communism. Nope, it is communism.

I think Mormons do not understand Marx, they only understand Stalin. And they cannot comprehend how communism and socialism differ. They have been threatened with "death squads" who decide when a person gets medical treatment and when they will be allowed to die. They do not want to see that our insurance companies are exactly those "death squads" they fear, and that people are dying because they cannot afford things like insulin. Seriously, my own niece died because she had to choose between medical care for her autistic son, groceries, and insulin. She thought she would be OK for a few days. So, now there is a four year old autistic orphan being raised by his grieving grandparents. Because the far right is afraid that people will be allowed to die because they cannot get medical care.

They don't understand that they all ready do pay for the treatment of the poor because the poor wait till they are sick enough to go to the emergency room, then they get treated because emergency rooms cannot turn people away, then the poor stiff the emergency room, and your bill goes up when you need an emergency room or hospitalization. Just how do they think the emergency room pays for covering the poor? They HAVE to raise the bill for all their paying customers. That is YOU.

And people with non emergencies, like running out of insulin, are just left to die if nobody finds them when they go into dietetic coma. And if they are found and rushed to the emergency room, then you all pay more than the insulin would have cost in the first place.

Stupid stupid system.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:44 am Abortion. But the Republican Party has them all suckered, because it never actually tries to do anything about it (hope that's not too political).

I think N.B.I. might be onto something here. I have a (not mormon) very conservative christian friend who basically admitted out loud once that he could "never" vote for a democrat because of their stance on abortion. Thus, he voted for the Cheeto-colored admitted sexual predator...

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:13 am

slavereeno wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:52 pmAnother question I always grappled with is if we believe that the Law of Consecration was ordained of God, why aren't all Mormons communists? I know the short answer is "If God were in charge it would have worked.. Blah blah blah..."

Nothing will get you lynched faster in priesthood meeting than pointing out that the United Order and the community of Christians in the gospel of Luke are flat out communism. I have been told over and over that it is the exact opposite of communism. Nope, it is communism.

I actually heard the Law of Consecration referred to as "Celestial Communism" the other day. Yes, it made me giggle a tiny bit.

Because religious people in general don't like to think for themselves, and prefer to defer to someone else to tell them what is right and what to do, and because their past prophet (E.T. Benson) was a very conservative Republican.