WHY AREN'T MORMONS DEMOCRATS?

There are so many parts of the Mormon religion that seem so contradictory, that sometimes it is difficult to remember which part is the one that you are supposed to follow or believe more than the other; even though both, or more than two, choices can both be the right choice and yet the one that is more important to the....never mind. I think you understand that understanding can be something that is difficult to know because the knowledge is searching out the....crap. There I go again. That is how I would feel sometimes in church when listening to someone tell me what the more moral way to be was. So what is it that I am trying to get at here?

I did not grow up in Utah, but I live here now. Made the trek with the fam right after high school. Had a tough time adjusting over the first few years, so I would move back and forth from my home town to Utah. One of the things I had a difficult time with was trying to understand the political affiliations that the church held on to. For some reason, the church has had a strong tie with the Republican party. When I say “tie”, what I mean is they are in bed together. This has never been more apparent than the recent war on gay marriage in California. Not only was this a war on homosexuals, it was a strengthening exercise and way to flex money at the republican base. A loss, I believe, would have many future implications that the church was secretly trying to avoid. For example, if the vote would have been won by the gay agenda, the door would have been open for future federal rule changes. Tax breaks could change for non-profit or religious groups. If those groups would then exclude certain individuals based on something that was deemed legal, they would no longer receive the tax assistance that the government was giving. This would cost the Mormon church millions, if not more, of dollars they could be using to invest in properties and other entities…I mean help them to spread the true word of God.

So I guess that is one reason to look at why the church leans republican. But what if you thought the reasons were more based on Christ’s teachings, rather than purely for political and financial gain? Sure, there are one or two simple ones that seem obvious. Republicans are a pro-life organization. The modern revelation part of the church is pro-life. This has become even more apparent with the talks in conference recently about avoiding birth control to allow God’s plan to take effect. Most of the time, when one hears the term ‘pro-life’, one assumes we are talking about abortions and the lives of unborn children. But what about other life ending, or life saving, situations that are out there? What about the death penalty? The Republican party, as is obvious by the talking points during the recent republican debates, is supportive of the death penalty. Utah also has the death penalty in force. So what is the difference? Is the fact that the person they put to death, who is guilty of killing others, justification for ending their life? Or, is the bottom line that they get to decide which life is okay to be ‘pro’ for. I am not a huge fan of people murdering other people. At all. For any reason. So, when a person, or community, or entity, decides to end one life and fight to save another, how do we say they are any better than the original crime? Can it really be justified? Does it take away from all the time and energy we put in to finding ways to improve and extend the lives of our people? What about the killing in war? The republicans seem to favor that as well. Did Jesus teach to kill those that society deems unfit? Does the fact that someone may be an innocent, unborn child that may be alive, or a murderous adult that clearly and consciously ended the lives of others, change the simple truth that they are both ‘children of God’.

The Republican party is big on small government. Big on keeping the government out of the lives of the people. The Mormon church supports this. However, the Mormon church does not operate this way. They are heavily in the lives of their followers. They are the opposite of small government. They involve themselves in every aspect of life. They tell you the proper way to raise your family, when to raise your family, why to raise your family. They tell you how much taxes (tithing) to give to the organization. By the way, if you do not pay the proper amount of taxes, you cannot achieve the highest degree of living and dying. Curious, don’t you think? They tell you what groups to be in, where to be and what to do on certain days of the week. They tell you what to believe, and if you forget, they have people to come to your house to remind you. The church is designed around the concept of big government. They have several different programs that come down from the church leaders. Priesthood, Relief Society, Primary, Young Adults, Single Adults, Home Teaching, Choir, Scouts and Sunday school. Each one regulated with leadership hierarchies that report to the next highest entity.

It would appear, to the outsider, that if one were to compare the ideals of both the Democrats and Mormons, one would have difficulty differentiating between the two. They both want programs designed to assist those in need. They both believe in the right of its members to be heard and represented, and to be able to express their beliefs to others freely. They both are based on the need of the community and the social responsibilities that go along with it.

What about the law of consecration? Isn’t that the end goal plan of the LDS church? To give all of your time, talents, energy and all things that aren’t needed to supply the basic needs of your family, to the church. This plan, if it were to commence, would be the envy of the democratic party; and the disdain of the republicans. However, if you were to ask anyone in the church if they would be willing to take part in this activity, I can guarantee you there won’t be an approval from a single soul. The church, of course, would never implement such a plan, because they know it would never work. It looks great and idealistic on paper, but socially it would never stick.

It is perplexing to me why some of my closest friends that are very strong believers in the LDS church teachings, are also staunch republicans. Those two ideals just don’t, in my mind, seem to appreciate each other. I have often found myself sitting in church, listening to the talks given by other men that are preaching the works of Christ. Yet, when not in church, the actions of their lives are often contradictory to said teachings. I don’t think they consciously do it, to be completely honest with you. I think there is some sort of strange dichotomy that exists, at least with most Mormons in Utah, that allows one belief to coincide with one of almost opposing ideals. The reason I say this is because when questioned about the literal meaning of their beliefs and if they would actually follow them, the answer is no. The answer is usually in the realm of the idea that they believe in the church, but that does not mean that they believe ALL of the religion; notably that the literal sense can be interpreted to mean different things for each individual. I know I am rambling here, and probably not even making sense. For that I am sorry. That is how my wife lives every day, so feel sorry for her; she has earned it. Back to my point…Take the new ‘message’ that has come out of the LDS conference this last week, that I briefly touched on earlier. It was mentioned, more or less, that birth control should be taken very seriously before being used. It is something that the church is encouraging the members not to use; especially permanent means of birth control. It was even brought up in our local church meeting a few weeks prior by our bishop (no doubt passed down from above to prep for the big meeting). The message by the bishop was the same, but added that before making a decision to ‘get fixed’, he would encourage couples to come in and have a meeting with him to discuss the importance of not doing it. In discussing this with members, I have been given several different interpretations. Now remember, this is a message that has been given by the leaders of the church. This basically means that it is the message that is approved by the prophet, which in turn means that it is a modern revelation from God himself. So, knowing this, one would assume that there is not much room for interpretation. On the other hand, do you really think that people that are old enough to be making decisions on permanent b.c. will actually change their entire lifestyle on a message that they deem to be private? I don’t think so. If they have already planned this out, they are going to do it. They will find a way to religiously and personally justify going against the teachings of the church. And how dangerous is it to tell people to not use birth control? I can think of several people that should have used something to prevent them from having any offspring whatsoever. I’m talking to you, couple at Costco with the five kids that are wilder than hyenas on the safari.

The point is; where will the line be drawn in the sand? At what point is it either necessary to follow the leaders and teachings of your church, or make a personal decision that goes against their commands. Can the personal choices and changes be justified in the eyes of your God? 

change

Excusing the past, changing the present and making it appear that it is all part of the plan. How is it that one can look at the past, and even origin, of the LDS church and, through strange and broken reason, justify the idea that it is all good now.

The priesthood Vs. black men. To me, this is a very fascinating situation; and for several reasons. There are different rationales that are attempts to credit the decisions made. There are arguments as to why God has made this such a controversy. I enjoy this topic, because I think it brings to surface the real, raw, inescapable problems of the Mormon church’s past. Even one of the prophets, on national television, found himself attempting to skirt the question and avoid the ultimate proof: The simple fact that there is no real excuse or legitimate justification that will satisfy even the smallest portion of the threat of racism and inequality that is the Mormon Church. When I say, the Mormon Church, I do not just mean the church in the old days. I also do not mean the present church. I mean both of them together. I do not believe they can be separated. There are too many parts of the religion that stem from the same origin and are still accepted today. For example, women not able to have the priesthood originates from the same time period. However, this concept remains upheld today. Why? I believe it is because women have not pressed the issue. It has not become a huge social issue that has become completely unavoidable. Racism did not matter at the time that the ‘revelation’ was implemented. The ban was then lifted when it was no longer acceptable to separate by color. However, when you look at the time frame of allowing the black race to obtain the gift of the priesthood, it clearly demonstrates the idea that the church leaders held on to the separation for as long as possible. Yes, the revolution occurred years prior to the lift, and many use this fact to demonstrate that this was a true revelation from God and not a social construct. They argue that if this was a social change, it would have been done years prior during the changes involving Mr. King. I say it is because the leaders of the church rode it out, resisted, for as long as they could. Look at the Prop8 situation now. The church is completely against the ‘gay agenda’ and are doing everything they can to keep them excluded. However, as will be demonstrated over the next few years, the Lord will slowly reveal the ideas that will allow homosexuals more inclusion in the mainstream church. The reason for this is because of the social pressure that will be put upon the organization; just like that of when the black members of the church were allowed the same privileges as the white members. Just look at what is happening in San Francisco. Five years ago, the church would state that being gay is an abomination. Two years ago they came out and said that some people have gay tendencies, and they are welcome to participate in the church functions, so long as they did not act on their ‘problem’. This year, the church made a big public relation move by notifying the world that they put an openly gay man in San Francisco in a power position in the church. Perhaps by learning from the past, they are trying to do this slowly as to hopefully fly under the radar. This a great strategy for them, because when they take that final leap of total inclusion, it won't be drastic; and it will almost seem as if it is the next logical step for God to take. Oh how the money will talk. Can you truly find any other reason to fight PROP8 other than preserving the opportunity to make and keep more money?  If you can, let the church know, because they are having a hard time actually coming up with an excuse.

THE TEMPLE: Superior Beings Vs. Women

"Don't you just love the celestial room? The spirit is so powerful here." "If I am having a bad day, or if I need to find answers to really difficult problems, the best place for me to go is the temple."  "Being in the celestial room is as close to being with God as one can get on earth". 

These are some of my favorite temple quotes that I have heard over the years. However, I can honestly say, I have never once felt comfortable, or enjoyed being, in the temple. From day one, that place gave me the willies. Even the basic functions as a kid, going to the temple to do baptisms for the dead, seemed wrong to me. Why did we think it was okay for us to decide if someone would get baptized? If they were alive, they may have said 'no'. When they are dead, you can't prove whether they would want it or not. Therefore, it is not okay to take away someone's free will simply because they are dead. I mean, a main concept of the Mormon religion is that our lives continue beyond death and before birth. We are still "us", even after we die. So the concept of making different rules for someone because they are dead, to me, is the same as deciding to baptize in their name while they were on a vacation in the Bahamas.  When I was a teenager, our youth group used to drive for 3 hours to the nearest temple, do a quick set of dunks and prayers, and drive 3 hours back to home. The trip was fun, because I was with friends and we always found a way to have fun. But I remember feeling bad on the way home, because what we were doing just didn't sit right with me. But, of course, I kept my mouth shut and went with the flow.

If someone were to ask me if there was one thing more than any other that would convince me that the church was a hoax and not based on truth from a 'loving' God, it would be the temple ceremony. And, while attempting to remain respectful to believers, I will give a few examples without revealing too much. First off, the clothes, or uniforms are ridiculous. They also bring out the main problem I have with the whole gig: Sexism. The entire temple experience is based on the premise of sexism. Nay, the entire religion is based on sexism. And, if you disagree with that, you truly need to take a step back. The concept of the Mormon religion and their idea of the expectations and plans from God, are based on the notion that men are superior to women. There is  an attempt made to nuance this concept in to an accepting form of government, but at the base of the rules it remains sexist in pure form. The crazy part for me, that I just can't quite grasp, is that the devout women in the religion believe it is the way to live; even to the point that they make sure they are placed in an inferior position. It literally blows my mind. Let me explain as best I can...

In the temple, from the beginning of the 'session', men and women are segregated. Men sit on one half of the room, while women sit on the other. Even if I wanted to sit with my wife through the tortuous couple of hours, I would not be allowed. There are times during the ceremony when you, as a group of men, or women, are prompted to make promises to God. Most of these are done by standing and repeating aloud a promise that is scripted. Most of these, if not all, are done in the order of men going first and the women going second. It is important to note here, that there is a certain familial hierarchy in the Mormon religion. It is as follow: God speaks to Jesus, Jesus speaks to his followers or messengers, the messengers speak to the males, the males speak to the females. In reverse order, and this is the significant part, it ends up as follows. If a women wants to ask of something from God, she cannot go to him directly. She must go to her husband and then he can continue with the connection to the almighty. Also, a woman is to take cues or spiritual guidance from her husband, as he gets it from the Lord. The weirdest part to me is that they say women are to take counsel from their husbands, as long as they are following the guidance of Christ. If a women is not allowed to directly communicate with God in the first place, how is she supposed to know if her husband is actually following God's commands; or is taking a slight detour over to "whatever I want to do" avenue. Near the end of the 'session', there is a symbolic entrance in to heaven. A man (never a woman) plays the role of God, accepting worthy members only in to heaven. Once the man has entered, he is allowed to test the woman to see if she is worthy to enter heaven as well. It can't be the other way around. Also, while women are making some of these promises aloud, they are required to place a veil over their faces. So basically, from a societal perspective, the temple is teaching, reinforcing and even encouraging the idea that men are superior to women; not only here on earth, but also in the eyes of the supreme being. 

So why is it that women in the Mormon church are not only okay with this notion, but are incredibly supportive of it. Like I stated before, the nuance of changing it from sexist and demeaning, to god-like and appropriate is supported by women and, of course, men. The male support I can understand, from a basic, lazy and controlling perspective. The female support is what I have trouble with.  Do they support it because they truly believe God made it this way? Or, is this more of a traditional role that has been carried down from the generations of male dominated societies, under the geise of holy scripture. Have women been suppressed for so long, they aren’t even consciously aware that it is happening to them? The concept has been there for as long as the King James version of the Bible has been around. The belief is supported by the idea that God made Adam and then created Eve from Adam. The idea in the Mormon church is that God created Eve as a “help mate” for Adam. But that was written a long time ago. The Book of Mormon, and the origination of the Mormon church occurred during a time when women were still not regarded as equals…not that they are yet even today, by many standards. However, times are changing and people are waking up to the idea that a penis, or lack thereof, is not a determinant to automatic superiority, or key to extra spiritual privileges. The mormon church, as pathetic as it is to watch, remains this way. This is not god-like. This is not American; and American is supposed to be god-like. We are placed on this earth as equals. We are given citizenship in this country as equals. We are taught to treat each other as equals. The Mormon church does not support this notion; especially during it’s early years. Polygamy, just by definition, is a sexist cultural entity. It is a man collecting women. A male polygamist, or as I like to call them, a jealous pimp with really bad business sense, is a social construct of sexism. That is why the Mormon church fights to separate the old ways from the new. They don’t care that it was illegal at the time; that never bothered them (that is an entirely different story of hypocrisy for another time). They separate themselves from polygamy because of the appearance it gives to male superiority.  

This is the part that baffles me…the justification, by women, of male superiority within the church. Boys, when they turn 12 years old, are blessed with the sacred powers of the priesthood. Girls, at the age of 12, are not. As the boys age, they are blessed with increased  levels of priesthood abilities. This continues in to adulthood and for the rest of a man’s life, as long as he remains worthy to hold the priesthood. Women, no matter their level of worthiness, are not able to obtain the priesthood. So sayeth the lord. In the family construct, it is important for a man to be worthy of this office, so that he is able to bless his wives and kids with the priesthood. In other words, the woman and children will be blessed by having a worthy man in their home to share the powers of the priesthood with them. They are the benificiaries of the priesthood that is held by the man. They cannot have it themselves, so it is important that they keep the man around and treat him with respect, so they can have that all-important blessing nearby. This is one of the reasons the church hates divorces. The female divorcee is encouraged to try to keep the family together so they can have the priesthood in the home. Without it, her children with spiritually suffer. This is a wonderful message to give to pressure a woman to stay in an abusive relationship. Quality stuff.  Now, if you were to ask a mature, card carrying female member of the church, why she does not have a problem with the fact that she cannot be given the priesthood, you will most likely be given similar answers to these: “I don’t want it. My husband, or future husband remains worthy and that is all I need”. Or, “God has given women other blessings that men cannot have; like childbirth, ability to raise children”.  And, “If God didn’t give the priesthood just to men, we wouldn’t need them for anything”. The hard core will just say, “Because that is what God has decided and that is the way it should be”.  If you were to ask a man in the church why women cannot have the priesthood, you will usually get an answer like, “They don’t need it. They are more spiritually in tune with God than us men are”. Or, “We don’t question God. He hasn’t given us all the answers, because we aren’t able to comprehend them all yet. Joseph Smith received this information from God, and it is supported through our modern day prophets, so that is the way it is”.

Gun to my head; if there was one reason more than any other, why women and men are willing to continue on with this sexist society, what do I think it is? That is a tough question, because I believe there are many factors that play in to this. Social factors are probably the largest part of it. There are many parts of our culture, here in America, not just in the church, that support sexist ideas. Slowly, however, they are disappearing. The church’s stance on sexism will remain, because it is the foundation of the religion. Tradition in cultures is a very difficult fire to put out. Women in this country weren’t even allowed to vote, which is the concept we were founded on, until very recent. We judged each other, within the law, by color. Eventually, we saw the errors of our ways; and we have many more to rid ourselves of. I just find it appauling that no matter how hard we fight for equal justice in this country; no matter how many people die defending this opportunity, the Mormon church will not allow that to happen.

They will do it in the name of God.