Ideology, Religion, and Mormonism

[Kishkumen]

Thanks for the though-provoking post, Reverend.

Taking a step back, I think history is one of those subjects that naturally attracts ideologues, including those who yearn for a sacred past. Heck, weren't the ancients themselves already yearning for a sacred past? Isn't that the essence of scripture? "The past" therefore I am personally special is a way of thinking deeply ingrained in us, some take it to greater extremes than others.

Interesting thoughts, Gadianton. The good old days is a recurring theme in ancient literature. The Romans usually assumed that the past was better than the present, but it was Plato who really solidified the proto-utopian vision in his creation of Atlantis. I don’t know that I agree that history attracts ideologues. If it does, then a good education in historical method ought to beat it out of them. Of course, there are always those who will “proof-text” anything.

You are right about the fact that constructing the past as a kind of proto-ideological statement of identity is par for the course. I would hope that a broader historical education might be an antidote or at least a moderating influence.

[Kishkumen]

It might take a very otherworldly religion to remain entirely aloof from state power, but some religions have been more theocratic than others. Brigham Young's Utah regime has got to be have been on one end of the spectrum. Orthodox Christianity has also been toward that end, I think. The Eastern Church never got any Emperors to stand in the snow and plead for forgiveness from any Pope, because while the Western Church had Popes with localised secular power as well as pretensions to universal spiritual authority, the secular rulers in Byzantine lands essentially were their own popes. The Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world were a little less separate.

That's my impression, at any rate, from an admittedly small amount of reading. I'm not surprised if an enthusiast for Orthodoxy also had a Fascist streak and an appreciation for a BY apologist.

Good thoughts. I was thinking more about the relationship between religion and politics in fascism, which is shaped by the myth of the nation state. I had not really considered that BY’s Zion may or may not fit in such a conversation. My guess is that pre-modern empires do not, but I am open to correction.

[Kishkumen]

This is an interesting opening. I have not studied Eliade though the name has crossed my attention possible connected with Joseph Campbell, area of concern overlapping.

I found myself thinking this might be pointing to areas of human psychology that help generate things like Trump enthusiasm which is a bit of a puzzling subject.

msnobody wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 20, 2024 11:22 pm
Having lived all of my life in the Southeast, I saw great benefit within the African American community here during Trump’s presidency. Benefit that I have never seen in 50-ish+ years. I, strikingly, have seen what has been in my lifetime an oppressed community, now thriving, upwardly mobile, and finally in possession of a long overdue rightful sense of dignity. Much of that oppression coming from our own U.S. government. For this reason I can focus on Trump’s positive aspects and the benefits of his presidency and not get caught up in persuasion of others who in self-righteousness are quick to point out the speck in someone else’s eye, while ignoring the plank in their own.

I have puzzled over just what could have possibly have created the idea that Trump provided for black Americans a long overdue sense of dignity and upward mobility. I do not see any reason for that idea and pointed to objective information hoping fro clarification. Perhaps the idea is not one of objective details but of vision and hope. Clearly Trump provides hope for some people and black Americans certainly may share those same hopes. That some should see hope in Trump is no more mysterious than the fact many white Americans find hope there.

In Terrestial Kishkumen posted a relevant discussion about Nibley, Eliade and extremist hopes for reestablishing a sacred past for the country. Such a hope perhaps not fully articulated may be energizing Evangelical energy for Trump. Perhaps the lack of details in the hope helps it to spread and continue. It may not need evidence, specifics or achievements. Expectation may be stronger.

Is there another explanation for tacking the word "again" on the slogan?

Great post, huck. I think we can bring Trump into the mix here. The Trump movement is a fascist movement, for sure. I don’t intend to hurt anyone’s feelings here. Many people I know and love are into Trump, but Trump’s movement is anti-democratic, authoritarian, and it does exploit the idea of a mythical past of greatness. All considerations of Trump must be contextualized within these facts. They are not opinions.

The question is whether we believe in a form of government that is republican or a form of government that is fascist. A fascist government CAN benefit certain groups, and that is why people are drawn to it. They think about how Roe v. Wade was scrapped, lower taxes for the wealthy, or how people they know felt more hopeful, lives were transformed for the better, etc. I don’t really question any of that.

The trouble is that it is irrelevant. At the end of the day, you either have a republic or you do not. In a republic, people vote for their leaders in free and fair elections that have real competition between differing viewpoints. The rule of law is respected. That does not mean that elections are perfect or that everyone is following the law to our satisfaction. It means that the system as a whole succeeds in preventing things like the demonstrably proven theft of elections. In fascism, on the other hand, the leader decides, the leader determines the truth, and the leader determines what is legal and whom the laws, such as they are, benefit.

Trump has proven time and time again that he believes that he and his followers are above the law, and that he intends to use the law as a cudgel to destroy his enemies. His rhetoric is directed at excluding immigrants on the grounds of their being a “taint” on the blood of real Americans, and punishing liberals because they are “vermin.” This rhetoric comes straight out of Hitler’s playbook.

There is no valid reason to vote for Trump if you want to live in a republic come January 2025. If you want to reverse the gains of the American experiment, destroy civil rights and religious liberty, and let Trump & co. decide your fate instead of law and democracy, then vote for him. It is definitely true that he managed to pack the court with right wing Christians who were eager to take away a woman’s right to choose. He definitely promises that he will weaken the separation of church and state and make some Christians feel more secure at the expense of everyone else who disagrees with their agenda.

Personally, I would rather have democracy and the rule of law, which is much better suited to preserve real freedom for all, not just the freedom and comfort of the followers of one leader and his party.

[Kishkumen]

I was struck the other day by the fact that people appear to have forgotten the terrible struggles that got us to the US Constitution. The real one, not the conditional one Trump is willing to set aside if he does not get his way. Think of the religious wars in Europe that cost untold numbers of lives. Think of the kings and tyrants who threw their peoples into those wars. Where is this sacred past people yearn for? It is not to be found in reverting to monarchy or a state religion. It is not found in Putin’s Russia or Ping’s China. The American experiment is messy, but we are so much better off free to practice our own different faiths or lack of faith with no one group able to curtail our personal choices in this way.

The sacred past may be something to yearn and work for as much as you can in your voluntary associations, but it is not something you should seek to force on your neighbors. If you believe that you have the right to compel others in their personal lives and choices, and you are so concerned about their failure to live your way that you will vote for an authoritarian ruler to make them do so, then you have really lost the thread of American republicanism.

When people say they don’t want the separation of church and state to continue, I feel like asking them, “which is your preferred state religion?” Which of all the sects of Christianity do they want Trump to make our new state religion?

[Physics Guy]

I was thinking more about the relationship between religion and politics in fascism, which is shaped by the myth of the nation state. I had not really considered that BY’s Zion may or may not fit in such a conversation. My guess is that pre-modern empires do not, but I am open to correction.

For what it's worth I'd agree with your guess, which is more informed than mine, that pre-modern empires didn't think about religion and politics in terms of nation states. I'm pretty sure that Fascists did and do mix myths of pre-modern empire into their nationalism, though. Mussolini and Hitler certainly did, enthusiastically. If you're a Fascist it never seems to be enough to be nationalistic within your national state. You've got to expand into an empire, ideally by restoring your own nation's mythical former empire, making it great again.

So I think there may well be some ideological connection between contemporary theocratic movements and Byzantium. The holy empire is an old meme that Fascists seem to have adopted into modern nationalism, in spite of the multinational nature of the real pre-modern empires.

[Kishkumen]

For what it's worth I'd agree with your guess, which is more informed than mine, that pre-modern empires didn't think about religion and politics in terms of nation states. I'm pretty sure that Fascists did and do mix myths of pre-modern empire into their nationalism, though. Mussolini and Hitler certainly did, enthusiastically. If you're a Fascist it never seems to be enough to be nationalistic within your national state. You've got to expand into an empire, ideally by restoring your own nation's mythical former empire, making it great again.

So I think there may well be some ideological connection between contemporary theocratic movements and Byzantium. The holy empire is an old meme that Fascists seem to have adopted into modern nationalism, in spite of the multinational nature of the real pre-modern empires.

Yes, indeed! Fascists romanticize past empires such as the Byzantine Empire. This is what puzzles me, though. It is always a distorted understanding of an unrecoverable past that they are on about. A global network of nation states does not seem to do very well at facilitating the formation of a pre-modern empire. If we look at the Roman Empire, for example, my guess is that it innovated in technologies that facilitated governing over vast distances that other peoples had to catch up to. Eventually others did. It was only a matter of time before pre-modern empires gave way to other kinds of empire that relied on new technologies.

Once a place has achieved a nation-state self-consciousness, it is probably very difficult to throw a straightforward imperial yoke on them. The same may be true of interactions of modern global imperialism with non-nation states. These empires are good at extracting resources while leaving some form of semi-autonomous local/indigenous government in place.

My hunch is that modern global empire does not replicate pre-modern imperialism well at all.

[Dr Exiled]

Years ago, I read a couple of books by the late Mircea Eliade, longtime faculty at University of Chicago’s Divinity School. I thought these books were amazing. They really appealed to me and seemed to mesh well with my reading of Hugh Nibley. Later, as a BYU student, I was jazzed to learn that Eliade had praised Nibley’s work. It was one of those times I felt like I must be hitting the right groove, so to speak.

Yesterday, I devoured Bruce Lincoln’s book (student of Eliade and emeritus Chicago Divinity faculty) about the mysterious murder of Eliade’s protege and successor Ioan Culianu. The book begins with a long discussion of Eliade’s politics back in the 1930s in Romania. Alas, it turns out that Eliade was pretty clearly a fascist and an anti-Semite, who at one point pretty clearly approved of violence to achieve his party’s goals. I have to say this was devastating news to me. Although Eliade is pretty far in my rear view mirror, I still think of that time in my life and the Nibley nexus pretty fondly.

But it makes me wonder about the yearning for a sacred past shared by Eliade and Nibley. Eliade was motivated by a deep seated conviction that an ethnocentric mystical Orthodoxy was the key to Romania’s future, and it seems he never left this obsession completely behind. Nibley had a similar devotion to the religion of Brigham Young, seeing it as “the key” to Zion.

It would be easy to conclude that the religious yearnings of the early 20th century were hopelessly entangled in the current ideologies, but then I wonder if today is any different. We still see apocalyptic lunacy and anti-Semitic conspiracy theorizing running amok. It seems to be on the fringes, but it was not so long ago that upscale versions of these “ideas” were very much at the center of serious cultural debate and political action. Today our politics are so debased that it is the rest of us against the MAGA looneys. MAGA is just stripped of any pretense of anything ennobling. And yet a large part of the population still finds it compelling for some inscrutable reason.

Is this yearning for the sacred hopelessly in the thrall of modern ideological golden calves?

Recently a Facebook friend noted the leftward drift in BYU faculty’s opinions. This had me wondering whether by implication the LDS Church is a right wing organization? I am guessing this person would say no. My fear is that there is a kind of fascist strain in Christianity today, that people are drawn to push their religion on others to the point that they will abandon democracy to make sure the world conforms to their beliefs. It looks to me to be a persistent feature of our politics in the “West.” A kind of yearning for Christian Rome? A desire for its Protestant analog?

I don’t know, but it kinda freaks me out. Not that the extremes of the Left are not freaky. Less freaky in some ways to me, but Nibley, for example, was a very decidedly leftist person in some regards. He and Eliade were very close on some issues and yet so far apart in others.

Just trying to sort this all out.

How about go meet some MAGA supporters and talk to them and explore their points of view? You might find they aren't the looneys the corporate media portrays them to be? I know a bunch of MAGA supporters and talk to them on the golf course all the time while we play. They aren't so nutty as you portray them to be. They want to stop the wars and bring the jobs home, you know, populism. That doesn't seem so crazy to me. Even so, I support Kennedy for what it's worth (I say this in anticipation of those here who view politics as if you aren't religiously for Biden, you are an evil Trumpist).

[huckelberry]

How about go meet some MAGA supporters and talk to them and explore their points of view? You might find they aren't the looneys the corporate media portrays them to be? I know a bunch of MAGA supporters and talk to them on the golf course all the time while we play. They aren't so nutty as you portray them to be. They want to stop the wars and bring the jobs home, you know, populism. That doesn't seem so crazy to me. Even so, I support Kennedy for what it's worth (I say this in anticipation of those here who view politics as if you aren't religiously for Biden, you are an evil Trumpist).

Dr exiled, for people trying to gain some understanding of why people support Trump it makes sense to look beyond the extremes some of which might be people exaggerating to gain attention. Attention is of course a big part of political campaigns , perhaps more than clear presentation of policy intentions. I can believe there are level headed people not engaging in the theater. I am not so clear on what they are thinking.

Stop the wars and bring jobs back. Most everybody wants that, and a chicken in every pot.

[Kishkumen]

How about go meet some MAGA supporters and talk to them and explore their points of view? You might find they aren't the looneys the corporate media portrays them to be? I know a bunch of MAGA supporters and talk to them on the golf course all the time while we play. They aren't so nutty as you portray them to be. They want to stop the wars and bring the jobs home, you know, populism. That doesn't seem so crazy to me. Even so, I support Kennedy for what it's worth (I say this in anticipation of those here who view politics as if you aren't religiously for Biden, you are an evil Trumpist).

Perhaps it is not wise of you to make assumptions. You assume that I have not interacted with MAGA folk. My second lengthy post on this thread addresses exactly the point you are making. Good people with sincere desires make bad political choices because they value certain outcomes more than the Constitution, or they don’t recognize what the stakes are. All I can do is say that whatever these friends think they will gain by voting for Trump is not worth the cost of the loss of a constitutional republic such as ours, however imperfect it may be.