Ideological Fault Lines in (Post-)Mormonism

[Kishkumen]

Turning back to how this relates to Mormonism, and how to win hearts and minds that inhabit that conservative and/or Mormon schema, I am reminded of this TED Talk from Megan Phelps-Roper, who was formerly a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. She shares why she left, and how strangers on the internet were effectively able to change her mind. I've returned to this video several times, and I honestly think it's one of the most important talks given over the past ten years. From her talk:

One side effect of having strong beliefs is that we sometimes assume that the value of our position is, or should be, obvious and self-evident. That we shouldn't have to defend our positions because they are so clearly right and good. That if someone doesn't get it, then it's their problem. That it's not my job to educate them. But if it were that simple, we would all see things the same way.... We are all a product of our upbringing, and our beliefs reflect our experiences. We can't expect others to spontaneously change their own minds. If we want change, we have to make the case for it... Each one of us contributes to the communities and the cultures and the societies we make up. The end of this spiral of rage and blame begins with one person who refuses to indulge these destructive and seductive impulses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY

That's really cool. Thanks for sharing that video with us. One thing I would like to see is a lot less political discussion in the religious sphere. I recall my disaffection started at the same time I became increasingly aware of the Republicanism that was obtrusive in LDS meetings. Now, Democrats are starting to match Republicans in bringing the political into the religious sphere. I don't know that this is an improvement. It would have been preferable, I think, to decrease the role of politics at church altogether.

I understand there was no good old days when Mormons were not intensely involved in politics. They always were, right back to the founder. That said, I find the whole thing a major turn off.

[Atlantic]

One thing I would like to see is a lot less political discussion in the religious sphere. I recall my disaffection started at the same time I became increasingly aware of the Republicanism that was obtrusive in LDS meetings. Now, Democrats are starting to match Republicans in bringing the political into the religious sphere. I don't know that this is an improvement. It would have been preferable, I think, to decrease the role of politics at church altogether.

I understand there was no good old days when Mormons were not intensely involved in politics. They always were, right back to the founder. That said, I find the whole thing a major turn off.

Sometime in my lifetime, the faithful Mormon default switched from "We wish our political leaders well," "We keep politics out of our church meetings, "Our leaders don't tell us who to vote for," etc. to "Hillary/Obama/Biden/Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are agents of Satan bringing about the end days," "Trump is restoring Christ-like principles to our Christian nation," etc. Don't get me wrong, members would gab about politics in hushed tones in between elders quorum or while overseeing a Boy Scout activity or whatnot. But now it's infected the doctrine itself. There are *several* anti-mask, anti-vaxx, Q-Anon curious folks in wards in my area. And they behave that way because they've gotten absolutely no pushback from the First Presidency about any of it. Utah Mormons booed Romney, the biggest Mormon superstar there is.

I really fear the poison will spread. There's going to be less and less place for faithful prog-Mos in wards across the country, and slowly they will leave. The LDS church of 50+ years from now is going to be a reactionary, right wing, apocalyptic church. It may never become full fire and brimstone, but it will probably be Evangelical Lite.

[drumdude]

I think we're seeing an overwhelming distrust of leaders, media, science, ect. Just look at how the Wuhan lab leak theory is now magically plausible, after a year of telling us "it's impossible, trust us, we talked to the scientists." We need trustworthy leaders, media, and scientists but it seems they have all become politicized and are no longer trustworthy.

It's not surprising that some LDS would cling to Mormon leaders, and see this all as proof that they're correct. It's also not surprising that some post-Mormons would lump all this deception in with how they were deceived by LDS leaders. That the media is lying to them just like Mormons used to.

It seems harder and harder by the day for any of us to agree on very basic facts and ideas. We're all being asked to take sides in a war we didn't ask for. Nowadays the only people I trust and listen to are those who don't fall neatly across any ideological fault lines. But they're hard to find.

[Analytics]

Well, it seems that the need for tribalism is etched deep within our souls. Perhaps from 1945 to 1989 we saw "us" as the U.S.A. and saw "them" as the commies. When the U.S.S.R. fell we need new enemies, and with perfect timing Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich were there to tell us that the liberals were the enemies.

When conversations about bad political behavior came up on the old Spirit Paradise board and somebody said the bad behavior came from "both sides" or at least from the extremes of "both sides," EAllusion could be counted on to say that is a false equivalency. The truth of that gets clearer every day. The leaders of the Republican party hire consultants to brainstorm about scary things and then conduct focus groups to find out what words, phrases, and potential threats are the absolute scariest to their base. Once those things are discovered, their propaganda machine goes into high gear to make the scary thing an issue.

Utah schools were not teaching "critical race theory." They weren't even thinking about it. But since the Republican puppet masters are saying this is what they should fear, a special legislative session is called to combat this made-up threat. Before that it was transsexuals playing girl sports in high school. Transsexuals in Utah weren't playing girl sports, much less unfairly dominating it, but this fear tested well in the focus groups, so it became the issue that Republicans had to fear. Before that it was transsexual women using women restrooms. There must be a law!

There simply isn't an equivalence to this on the left.

[Kishkumen]

There simply isn't an equivalence to this on the left.

I agree. And I am not claiming that there is equivalence, although I understand that it would appear that way. I have noticed, however, that there is a fair amount of internal strife between people from the center to the left. A lot of name calling and virtue signaling. In saying that I am not suggesting that people on the right don’t have their versions of the same. Still, I don’t remember things being so tense as they got in the last two presidential cycles.

[jpatterson]

A lot of name calling and virtue signaling.

I have a particular trigger around phrases like "woke mob" and "virtue signaling." Almost universally I see them employed simply as a different type of rhetorical bludgeon by people who simply don't like that other people are taking certain principled stands on certain issues.

How does one determine if someone is merely virtue signaling or professing "wokeness" or if they are genuinely committed to progressive values/principles? Especially with the limited understanding we have of other people in online settings.

For example, someone claiming that I am virtue signaling by, say, using #BlackLivesMatter in my Twitter profile -- how does that person know what I do on a daily basis to tackle racism/white supremacy in my everyday life? How would anyone outside my inner circle have any clue whether I'm virtue signaling or actually engaged real-world solutions?

Or someone claiming that I'm part of the "woke mob" because I bring up the concept of white privilege or male privilege. How does that person know the level of depth I have engaged in the scholarly research around issues of privilege and race and gender?

Isn't accusing someone of virtue signaling simply a different form of name calling?

[Atlantic]

I have noticed, however, that there is a fair amount of internal strife between people from the center to the left. A lot of name calling and virtue signaling. In saying that I am not suggesting that people on the right don’t have their versions of the same. Still, I don’t remember things being so tense as they got in the last two presidential cycles.

I consider myself progressive, but I've been disheartened by how tribal certain pockets of progressive causes have become. I think there should be room for people to make mistakes, put their foot in their mouth, etc. without excising them completely from the movement. My default is to take people in good faith and assume that if they participate in a cause or movement, we have much more in common than we have apart. I assume that they are someone who can learn from mistakes and become a better person tomorrow than they are today. Still, there is a more recent faction of progressivism that is quick to draw lines in the sand when an ignorant but well-intentioned person says something inadvertently tone-deaf.

Still, this is not the same as what's happening on the right. I agree with the sentiments other have expressed above in that respect.

[jpatterson]

I consider myself progressive, but I've been disheartened by how tribal certain pockets of progressive causes have become. I think there should be room for people to make mistakes, put their foot in their mouth, etc. without excising them completely from the movement.

I was thinking about this very issue just the other day as it relates to the last election and the upcoming midterms.

Take "Defund the Police" for example. That one issue, if you believe exit polling, nearly cost Biden the election. There is a whole wing of the Democratic party that seems completely unwilling to compromise or at least tone down rhetoric like "Defund the Police" even when it's clear that using said rhetoric whittles away much-needed support.

Liberal Dems seem to want to have their cake and eat it to. They want to be able to take radical stances on things like defunding the police, medicare for all, etc and they want the kinds of majorities needed to abolish the filibuster.

Problem is, that completely ignores the ideological makeup of our country. There are too many moderate voters out there to be able to have it both ways.

Politics is a game of pragmatism. Ideological entrenchment may work in specific districts (like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's), but it simply doesn't work at the federal level in terms of gaining and retaining power.

[Atlantic]

Politics is a game of pragmatism. Ideological entrenchment may work in specific districts (like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's), but it simply doesn't work at the federal level in terms of gaining and retaining power.

I hear you. I'd say apart from the most left leaning faction of Congress, democrats are still more moderate. But it gets lost in the shuffle, because republicans amplify the most left-leaning policy proposals with coordinated outrage and suck all the oxygen away from dem policy proposals that would be broadly liked.

Reminds me of an old adage: Democrats have good ideas. Republicans have good messaging. These days, messaging trumps ideas. Republicans know how to make extreme ideas sounds reasonable, and reasonable ideas sound extreme. They have the formula down to a science.

[jpatterson]

Politics is a game of pragmatism. Ideological entrenchment may work in specific districts (like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's), but it simply doesn't work at the federal level in terms of gaining and retaining power.

I hear you. I'd say apart from the most left leaning faction of Congress, democrats are still more moderate. But it gets lost in the shuffle, because republicans amplify the most left-leaning policy proposals with coordinated outrage and suck all the oxygen away from dem policy proposals that would be broadly liked.

Reminds me of an old adage: Democrats have good ideas. Republicans have good messaging. These days, messaging trumps ideas. Republicans know how to make extreme ideas sounds reasonable, and reasonable ideas sound extreme. They have the formula down to a science.

This board really needs a simple "like" function. Couldn't agree more with all of the above.