Okay, I think I just had an epiphany about members of the LDS Faith who also fall on the left side of the political spectrum. The vast majority of Latter-Day Saints have been politically conservative for quite some time now. And it's not without good reason, either. We feel that economic freedom, the importance of faith and family, and many other principles that the GOP strives to uphold are much more in line with the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ than those of the Democratic Party. Many conservative members are, therefore, surprised to learn of the growing number of LDS Democrats, even here at BYU. They're still a minority, but they've got plenty of momentum. Last year, with the election of Barrack Obama to the U.S. Presidency, the number of registered Democrats on BYU grew to unprecedented levels. And, being significantyl far along in the English major, I've seen that a large majority of the faculy at the Y (especially here in the Humanities) view the world from a moderate to significantly liberal standpoint.
Logically, it doesn't make sense where they are coming from. But, that's where my epiphany comes in. As one who see's Conservative ideas as grounded in logic and linear reasoning rather than emotion, ambiguity, or circular reasoning (and, yes, I am biased), I honestly think that Latter-Day Liberals identify themselves with the more ambiguous parts of the gospel.
Let me explain. The fundamental principles of the gospel make perfect sense to me. For example, if prophets were on the earth in ancient days, why would they not be on the earth today? If God is our Father, why would he not prepare a way for us to become like him? There is plenty of this if-then logic within the basic tenets of our beliefs. As I've dug deeper, however, I've had to rely on faith as things become more complex.
Let's take the Fall, for example. The classic question that almost all Latter-Saints wonder is as follows: Why did God give Adam and Eve the commandment not to partake of the fruit when he knew that they would need to partake in order to keep his other commandment to multiply and replenish the earth? For most of us members, we don't know and will have to rely on faith. We need to remember that it's not pertinent to our testimony, and someday we'll know the answer. But, maybe, this isn't an issue of faith for the minority of members who swing to the left when it comes to politics and philosophy. Maybe, these kinds of principles speak more clearly to the ambiguous way they see the world. Maybe, one of their tests of faith (at some level) comes in relying on the basics.
I hope my Latter-Day Liberal friends understand that I'm not questioning their testimonies here. In fact, I'm trying to understand them. To my conservative friends, you can take this for what it's worth. Whethere you want to be more tolerant of liberal members, or just want to know how to debate with them, I hope this can be a good resource. Hopefully, it will even spark some intelligent converstation on this blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Unfortanutly, the same things that you are accusing the democrats, or left-wing people, to be are exactly what you are doing to them. I think you are treading dangerous water when you start to become so passionate about your "ideals" that you forget the whole point of it. What happened to being a Christlike, non-judgmental person? Make arguments and discussions off of truth, NOT opinon, which is exactly what you are asking people to do on this blog.
ReplyDeleteLook, I might be wrong as to how people connect their religion with their political ideology, or whether they connect them at all. My point is that, if people belong to the same church (in this case, a church that is very broad in scope and encompasses aspects from many different religions) and still see the world differently, then they will probably identify with different aspects of that theology.
ReplyDeleteThat should be obvious, I know, but a lot of people from both major political parties in this country tend to forget that. Until they realize that just become somebody sees the world differently doesn't automatically make that person evil or a bad member of the church, they won't know how to have an effective conversation with that person.
I think judging another person because of their ideology is just as big of a problem on both sides. And, in this case, I was speaking more to my own side than anything.
I'm sorry if you thought I was trying to label LDS Democrats. I was simply offering that as a suggestion as to how they might think. I'm not an LDS Democrat, so I don't know how they think. So, of course, I was offering my opinion. I'm trying to spur discussion of contingent truth which is pretty much the same as thing as opinion. I don't think a discussion of contingent truth or opinion is bad either. I think you completely missed the point of what I was saying.
I think this is about more than judging, or even labeling LDS democrats, as one thing or the other. I like the basic concept that people on different sides of the political spectrum may identify more or less with different principles of the LDS (or any religion). This may be true, just as it may be true that different INDIVIDUALS, regardless of political or religious affilation, may identify with one belief, moral code, or set of interests than someone else. These preferences are the core of our personality, our character. We are born as people with personalities and affinities before we develop political (or any other) affiliations.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am bothered by is the subtleties in your description. In your comment you "simply offer" a potential explanation for the thinking of LDS democrats. Your statement that you are not one of them and therefore do not know how they think reminds me a lot of arguments made about gay or lesbian individuals. It is a subtle slight that makes is sound as if "they" (to whichever group you refer) and their ideas or perception of the world are so far from your understanding of reality (which is reportedly grounded in logic and linear reasoning) that they cannot possibly be understood. As if they cannot be something other than subversive, underground or, in your words "grounded in emotion, ambiguity, or circular reasoning."
I believe that perhaps your heart and/or mind are in the right place, and you are doing better than most by virtue of the fact that you'd like to be informed enough to at least have a dialectic. However, it is frustrating that the option for the dialectic seems more like a straw man in that you still view the other as someone mentally/emotionally weaker than you and, whether you admit it or not, somewhat inferior.