This was originally posted on Leah Marie’s blog. Click here to visit her blog.
A week or so ago I was seeing a lot of this “Smart Mormons” article, written by one Mike Jensen on Canada Free Press. Conservative Mormons were loving it and it was popping up all over social media. I didn’t love it. Indeed, it really got under my skin. And it is not just that Jensen ignorantly lumps all Mormons together as though we are clones.
Although, that does bother me a great deal. It’s ridiculous. He talks about the American Mormon Republican as if that is the only kind of Mormon. Never mind that there are American Mormon Democrats, but most Mormons in the world aren’t even American and they hold vastly different political views all around the globe. (And NEVER MIND not all Mormons even have the exact same religious beliefs. Let’s just leave that out of the discussion for now.)
Whatever. What gets me more is that he refers to these generalized American Mormon Republicans as the “most political wise human beings on the planet.” (GROAN!) And he does so by making inferences about these political beliefs in connection to our shared religious beliefs. But it is all erroneous. The connections he makes between conservative politics and my religious beliefs are not sound.
For starters, he equates political liberty with our notion of free agency. But his interpretation of it is not accurate. Free agency is not the idea that we’ll always be free of anyone ever telling us what we should be doing. Free agency is our God given right to choose a life of good or evil. It is the right to decide between the choices that drag us down and the choices that will bring us back to God at the end of all things. It does not exempt us from responsibility. It does not exempt us from the consequences of our actions. And, most importantly, it does not exempt us from living and functioning within societies and the rules and responsibilities that come from functioning within a civilized society. And I guess in that aspect, it does have something in common with liberty. Because liberty—the freedom from captivity and oppression, which does NOT carry the same connotations as free agency—also does not exempt us from the rules and responsibilities that come from functioning within a civilized society. Heck, liberty also does not mean that we are free of anyone ever telling us what we should be doing. Liberty is not an anti-government notion, and neither is free agency.
Mike Jensen
Furthermore, Jensen makes this jump from the discussion of free agency and liberty to opposition of governmental tyranny, and I think he thinks he is explaining why all Mormons favor limited government (or, as I like to call it, crippled, pointless government. See? Some of us don’t favor it). He also claims that the Founding Fathers would’ve favored this Mormon notion, and his proof is that the Declaration of Independence also guarantees us “free agency,” or limited government, with its talk of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Of course, the Declaration of Independence guarantees no such thing. These notions are borrowed from John Locke who wrote about the government’s responsibility to protect civil interest. He described civil interest as, “life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things.” By saying we are all created equal and are endowed with certain gifts from God, the Declaration of Independence isn’t protecting us from the government. It is about the government protecting us from outside forces, including each other. And not all the Founding Fathers even agreed on what that meant.
So, beyond the fact that I really don’t like Jensen’s conclusion that all Mormons have the same political beliefs, I really don’t like—or agree with—the rationale he provides for those beliefs. And I don’t think that American Republican Mormons should be sharing this article as a way to explain themselves. Really, I think American Republican Mormons should probably steer clear of trying to base their political beliefs in doctrine at all.
They wouldn’t like my doing it.
Carl Bloch – Healing at the Pool of Bethesda
I could talk about how very frequently Christ admonishes us to care for the poor. I could point out that when the poor are mentioned in the scriptures, it is not once in conjunction with the idea that they are lazy, dependent, and need to learn the value of hard work. I could point out that Jesus never said anything even close to the idea of “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”(That’s just an old Chinese proverb, for the record.) Indeed, I recall that He actually just fed a lot of people fish. He didn’t seem to think that helping the poor was a disservice to them. Nor did he ever task us with the responsibility of making sure they were worth the investment. His assumption seemed to be that they always are.
I could talk about how when people asked Jesus if they should pay their taxes, He said yes.
I could talk about the forms of government that are applauded in the scriptures, the forms that we are told would be more utopic, and then I could point out how they much more closely mirror socialism than they do anything else.
I could bring you scripture after scripture after scripture that speaks to the importance of equality, and that promote the idea of those with excess giving to those without.
But listen, American Republican Mormons, I’m not gonna start pinning my political beliefs on our shared religious beliefs and use that as a way to browbeat you into seeing our government as a useful tool that we could use to better the quality of life of all citizens in our society. I believe that using our shared religious beliefs to try to get you to understand that government is not the enemy is not only disrespectful to you, but also going to be a fruitless endeavor more often than not. And that is simply because we see the world differently and so have differing political views. And the reality is that those differing political views are still possible, even if we have all the same religious beliefs. Mike Jensen, who is not a Mormon, doesn’t seem to understand that. But you should.
Leah Marie
Leah Marie earned a BA in Political Science, and a Masters in Public Administration. She is currently working towards her PhD in Public Policy. She is wife to an English professor, and mother to 3 beautiful boys.
All posts by Leah Marie
Thank-you Leah for an enjoyable yet truthful article! I am in awe of how we ignore all of the scriptures-the D and C are FULL of them- that encourage us to “care for the poor” because, as Jesus said, “You will always have the poor with you…” or at least close to that. (Why will we always have the poor with us? This is another discussion but one simple reason is that never, ever will we ALL be able to prosper ON OUR OWN in certain settings that we have no control over. Nuff said for now.)
In King Benjamin’s address he says, “Perhaps thou shalt say: the man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance..for his punishments are just. But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this hath great cause to repent…and except he repenteth of that which he hath done, he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.” Mighty strong words from King B!
Thank-you again for a great article!
That scripture from King Benjamin is one of the most difficult ones to rationalize away. Very precise counsel on how to treat and think about the poor.
That scripture is another great example, thanks for bringing it to light.
I do want to point out that I don’t believe conservatives ignore these scriptures necessarily. I know many generous conservatives, who are trying to live as Christ asked. They just don’t make them a part of their political rationality or discourse. Which is fundamentally because they disagree with liberals on the role of government.
The point I’m trying to make here, is that when I use those scripture in political discourse, it makes them twitch and feel uncomfortable. So generally I avoid doing that. I’m breaking my rule here to make a point, in the hopes that I can ask them to avoid doing it too. I hope that point comes across.
Those scriptures don’t need top be rationalized away. They just need to be read, and not have anything “added unto”. God commands us to be charitable, but he never says, “and if your neighbor ISN’T helping the poor, well, use the government to be sure he pays his fair share through taxes.” THAT is force, the adversary’s plan, that Mr. Jensen referred to. Denmark has astronomically high tax rates, and there is a nanny state saftey net for everyone. So who is there to be charitable towards? No one. The agency to be charitable was removed. It is a proven fact that conservatives and republicans in the US donate more money to charity than liberals and democrats. Yet the left deludes itself into thinking we have a problem with charity, while they are the cheap ones.
Excellent response to the Jensen article, Leah. I had not seen it. But it was a good read. Mr. Jensen does a fine job of articulating the worldview of most of my conservative Mormon friends. But I agree with you, he really isn’t giving a fair assessment of Mormons or of our beliefs. “Never mind that there are American Mormon Democrats, but most Mormons in the world aren’t even American and they hold vastly different political views all around the globe. . .” Well, said!
I remember feeling frustrated and down-right sqeemish about Mitt Romney representing all of Mormondom. He certainly didn’t represent me. Like other of my moderate republican friends, I have been unable to align myself with an increasingly consticted, ultra-conservative platform. I voted for Obama. And not because I think he is any more concerned with “the poor” than is Romney, but because Romney’s personal maxim (religious or otherwise) seems to be precisely this: “. . .the man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance..for his punishments are just.” Thanks for that reference, Susan. Amen to your comment.
Personally I love diversity in politics and religion. I even love the diversity of thought within Mormonism, and I think it is a great thing. Mike Jensen is wrong to try and paint all Mormons as if we were clones.
With respect to your comment about Mitt, I feel like too many people tried to claim Mitt was representing all of Mormondom when he never actually made that claim. We have a wide variety of Mormons in politics just like Catholics do. For the record, I consider myself a moderate so I am not being a defensive conservative.
Also, his actions speak much louder than the personal maxim you try to pin to him. He has spent much of his private life helping the poor and underprivileged and even Romney Care was an attempt to provide health care for those that need the social safety nets. I guess I just feel like some of your rhetoric is the same as Mike Jensen’s, just the opposite end of the spectrum.
I think we mostly agree, Cody. My personal views about Mitt aren’t rhetoric. They are simply my feelings. Neither I nor you can know what his motivation was for Romney Care or for any of his actions — personal, professional or political — a wide variety of actions which were beneficial in some instances and not in others.
I, personally, would have been more impressed if Romney was actually willing to claim Romneycare has a sign that he thought we should care for the poor. Instead, the idea that he’d provided that social safety net for the citizens of Massachusetts became a dirty little secret he kept trying to sweep under the rug. Which is a shame for him; I think he would’ve done better in the election if he’d approached that more moderately.
You do realize that Obama and Biden gave a minuscule percentage of their large income to charity, while Mitt gives million (and a much higher percent)? So you based your decision to vote for Obama thinking that he cared more for the poor, and Mitt thought they deserved poverty? Seems like typical Obama voter, drawing conclusion from evidence that says pretty much the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
I too would like to know what comments or evidence from Mitt’s life you are basing your opinion that he thinks the poor are deserving of their poverty.
I usually like this blog but absolutely dislike this article. Not because of the sentiments expressed but because of the tone. I was very surprised that a person who is educated wrote it. I really mean no ill will by what I am saying, this article just rubbed me the wrong way!
BTW, I love Melody Newey’s responses. Have her write a guest article, I’d love to read what she has to say.
I read the original article. He never refers to conservative Mormons. He never refers to republicans or democrats. Those words never even surface. He refers to people who believe in the Mormon doctrine of free agency and he equates that to a love of liberty. I was not offended at the article. Interestingly, your umbrage seems to be based on his inaccurate portrayal of what all Mormons believe. Having re-read his article and what you say his article says, do you believe you achieved accuracy about the content of his article? Where does he refer to the “American Mormon Republicans?”
I actually didn’t read the original article and merely took Leah’s interpretation at face value. But after Hagoths comment, I went back and read it. And then I read it again, and I have to agree with Hagoth. My take from the article is that he is giving props to Mormons for valuing liberty. He explains how that love stems from our doctrine concerning the Fall. I didn’t in any way see how it’s a liberals vs conservatives as Leah claimed. In fact, I have to believe that most of my liberal friends would agree that liberty is something to value.
It wasn’t just about valuing liberty. He used these terms to express a belief in small government ideals, which is a conservative notion. Liberals may value liberty, but most of us aren’t anti-government in doing so. Rationalizing that small government ideal with religious ideology is harmful for those of us who share the religious ideology, but not the political one.
Of course he never used the term. That was my point. He just said “Mormons” because he felt like he was describing all of us as he talked about our ideals on free agency and liberty. That generalization was the fault I was trying to point out. I am the one that used those terms, making the point that not all of us see these issues they way that Jensen described.
I must be missing where he said Mormons believe in small government? All he said was that our doctrine should make us opposed to a TYRRANICAL government. He never mentioned anything about size. And again, I’m pretty sure my liberal friends, even the ultra left wing flaming liberals, are opposed to a tyrannical government and feel that our government has been tyrannical, i.e. torturing illegally held prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
Oh, but you see, that is where we disagree. I don’t see our government as tyrannical. I see it as a government made of, for, and by the people. My conservative friends often discuss healthcare, gun control, taxation, etc. as examples of growing tyranny (Guantanamo rarely comes up, although I agree it is an example of government failure.) and as reason why they want less government in their lives. There is a fundamental difference there between the way I see the government and the way they do.
I’m not interested in debating any of those separate issues. My point is just that we see the government outreach (or overreach, depending on your view) differently.
Wanting more government in your life is like saying, “I want someone else to make my decisions and be responsible for them. I want to be command in more things.” Seems like a 1/3 idea to me.
And I should make the distinction, what I wrote wasn’t so much to address Jensen and the generalizations I felt like he was making. He made some implications I didn’t care for, but he’s not LDS and I can only expect so much. It was more to address all of my conservative friends who were using this article to say, “See? This is why I’m a Republican. It is because of my religious beliefs.” As I said, that is harmful for those of us who share the religious beliefs, but not the political.
I still fail to see the generalizations in his article that would bother you. It seems to me that you are reading way, way too much into his article (which was quite fair to be honest) and are coming across quite petty. I get it that you don’t want all Mormons to be lumped into the conservative republican category, but he doesn’t do that. Instead you are projecting what appears to be some personal grudge into this article. I think you would have a point if his article mentioned any of these things that you claim, but it doesn’t.
Thanks Hagoth. You nailed perfectly in my opinion.
You say:
Where does he refer to “small government” or Mormon’s belief in “small government?” He does assume that Mormons must be against tyrannical government, but doesn’t go farther. You are strapping this article onto the bed of Procrustes, but it just doesn’t fit.
Someone who is not a member of our faith who bothers to fact check an anti-Mormon attack, writes a positive article about Mormon belief and he gets mischaracterized by you for his trouble.
If you had on your agenda an article about overgeneralizations about LDS political bents, you found the wrong example and misrepresented it. There are plenty of others out there, but this one ain’t it.
Ah, but perhaps my reaction wasn’t so much about the implications that I do feel like he was making. It was that many of my conservative friends were also making those implications. As I said above, this article got used repeatedly by conservative Mormons to say, “See? This is why I’m a Republican. It is because of my religious beliefs.” What I wrote was more to address them, than to address Jensen. Which I hope I made clear in the last paragraph.
“See? This is why I’m a Republican. It is because of my religious beliefs.” What I wrote was more to address them, than to address Jensen. Which I hope I made clear in the last paragraph.
I still do not understand how this is troublesome to you? Why shouldn’t they be able to say that? Just as much as you can say “I am a liberal because of my religious beliefs.” I say that I am independent because of my religious beliefs because I will not support a party who favors abortions and I will not support a party who supports the death penalty.
Because of my religious beliefs I simply favor life.
Me saying this does in no way invalidate your opinion or others’ opinions. Nor does it imply that all Mormons must be independent or that anyone who is not is a bad person or not a real Mormon.
Your argument above merely comes across like you want to complain about something.
You write, “He made some implications I didn’t care for, but he’s not LDS and I can only expect so much. It was more to address all of my conservative friends who were using this article to say, ‘See? This is why I’m a Republican. It is because of my religious beliefs.'”
First you wrote that you were concerned because the author assumes that we are all conservative republicans. Then you say you are really concerned that the author confuses our doctrine for advocating small government. When both turned out not be what he was claiming, you write that this was really an intervention for your conservative friends. Really? Wouldn’t writing to them be a less circuitous route than talking about your good friends here? Might that be a better approach than misconstruing this article and then generalizing about the author, like all non-LDS authors, “but he’s not LDS and I can only expect so much”? If you are returning again to a theme of the author misconstruing or generalizing, is there an opportunity for self-reflection about misconstruing and generalizing here?
I hate to see the bent this board is moving towards. Conservative Mormons are less careful thinkers than we are. Conservative Mormons are thoughtless and mean, unlike us, the meditative, thoughtful keepers of the spiritual and intellectual flame who boldly speak truth even though our lessers don’t want to hear it.
If our discourse runs towards conservatives being “less than”, what is this but another ad homonym attack board?
You accuse me of reading into Jenson what isn’t there, and now you’ve done the same to me.
“Conservative Mormons are less careful thinkers than we are. Conservative Mormons are thoughtless and mean, unlike us, the meditative, thoughtful keepers of the spiritual and intellectual flame who boldly speak truth even though our lessers don’t want to hear it.”
I have said nothing like this and I don’t believe it.
I am glad that you do not believe the meme and I hope its undercurrent on these pages is just a figment of my imagination.
I couldn’t possibly care less about Jensen’s political opinions.
To me this is the point:
All LDS people cannot be painted with the same brush.
I wish Jensen knew that. I wish everyone knew it. I wish even all LDS people knew it. Glory that would be blissful.
You can, in fact, have two politically educated, scripturally (that’s so not a word!) educated, devoted, faithful LDS people who have vastly different political opinions.
I suggest you read his article. He in fact does not paint a broad brush across Mormonism and political beliefs. No more than saying that Mormons believe in Christ. All he is doing in his article is explaining the Mormon belief of the war in heaven over agency. He in fact doesn’t even claim that all Mormons are against a tyrannical government but merely makes the argument that after learning what Mormons believe, he sees the battle against a tyrannical government as an eternal principle. I am a registered independent and find nothing controversial about this article at all and am actually kind of surprised that people would be offended by it.
I read it. It was hard to avoid as many times as it showed up in my FB newsfeed. I wasn’t so much offended as annoyed.
Maybe you haven’t had the experience of sitting in Gospel Doctrine as the discussion turns to politics and everyone in the room assumes that we’re all of one opinion? Or while visiting teaching. Or while at an Enrichment activity, etc… Or had your religious beliefs questioned because of your political ones?
I have. I have memories of all those things & more.
So does it strike a nerve? Why yes. Yes it does.
Anytime politics is mentioned in a church meeting I’m quick to interrupt & remind others that politics have no place in church. Because it doesn’t. at all. Even if we were of the same opinion.
I read this article and thought it was a beautiful description of my religious beliefs about the plan of salvation. I was so pleased that Mike Jensen went through the trouble to research it and share it and hoped that it might be the beginnings of a testimony for him, and perhaps others who read it. I was so shocked at your negative reaction to it. Is this how we want to treat people with genuine interest in the gospel? You may say this post wasn’t written for him, it was written to annoy your conservative friends in retribution for their annoying you, but if you think he’s blind to the responses to his article, you’re wrong.
Wow. I just read the article and thought I’d look up a little information on the author when I came across this conversation. Can’t we all just spend our energies and emotions on more productive things? Talk about a mountain out of a mole hill…
Everyone that I’ve seen posting it has only posted it with “This is the best explanation about what I believe as a Mormon, written by a non-member.” Never a reference to their political stance.
Maybe because your introduction to the article was through political posts from friends you instantly saw it as him only talking about “American Mormon Republicans”. But, you say what gets you “is that he refers to these generalized American Mormon Republicans as the ‘most political wise human beings on the planet.’ (GROAN!)” I guess in your irked state you missed what he put directly before that statement “that I think makes them perhaps…”. We know the article is about what he thinks since it’s an opinion piece. But, he even throws in the word “perhaps”- an adverb that is used to express uncertainty, knowing that he could very likely be WRONG.
Just a thought.
Indeed we each observe the world from differing perspectives. My observation, from my limited different perspective is, as you stated: Christ admonished us and showed us. He did not compel anyone to do anything. He taught, He showed, He invited. He loves like none other can. Individually we are each accountable to His example.
Indeed we each observe the world from differing perspectives. My observation, from my limited different perspective is, as you stated: Christ admonished us and showed us. He did not compel anyone to do anything. He taught, He showed, He invited. He loves like none other can. Individually we are each accountable to His example.
The concept of agency, as important as it is, is very misunderstood. Take the very phrase, “free agency”, which is not doctrinal and could suggest that the freedom to chose comes without cost. That is not true. As noted, Lucifer choose not to follow God’s plan and chose to rebel. Now he cannot return to God’s presence. We chose God’s plan and we can return to God’s presence, if we continue to choose His plan.
The scriptures teach we can choose to be humble or compelled to be humbled. Both are blessed, but to choose is more blessed. Why? The pursuit to become like God is not a pursuit of agency (that war was won), it’s a pursuit of charity – the pure love of Christ. Remarkable societies came about because of the “love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people”. When the people love God more than anything else, economics change. People are administered to according to their “wants”, unlike “needs” today. This is because those who have more than enough provide to those who don’t. Those who don’t have enough (as well as those thst do), also have wants that reflect a love of God and their fellow man more than things.
This kind life has to ultimately be our choice if we want to be like God. He will not force us to live this way. However, we are all on different spectrums of this mortal journey. I see governments like casts or braces that can enable a broken society to heal. They reflect a society’s progression toward having a love of God in it’s heart. When government seeks to replace God, society is set up in a perpetual dependency of being compelled to be humble. History shows that is not sustainable for a people pursuing the love of God in their hearts.
When we don’t understand the role of agency in God’s Plan, we run the risk of missing the entire point. Agency should enable us to choose to serve and love one another. The scriptures are clear that pursuing the attribute of charity, the pure love of Christ, is the most important thing we can do as individuals. In other words, love God and thy neighbor, as thyself. In my opinion, any individual, church, business, organization or government should be 100% driven by this objective. Our actions should reflect our love of God, ourselves, and others.
Mike Jensen’s article was spot on, sound doctrine, and well written. Some may not want to accept what he said, but our church leaders would agree with him…and have. To see such and article from a non-LDS person is wonderful and encouraging. It shows that truth can/will win out…and that there are some very nice open minded people in the world.
While some folks can have different perspectives, it is only their opinion since there is eternal truth and that truth comes from God. It is up to us to embrace it…or use our own opinion/perspective to disagree with God…and that is called agency…as Leah Marie demonstrated as she was writing about her own opinions/perspectives in response to Mike. And that is certainly her right to do so…although unfortunate in style and substance.
And it is sad and discouraging to see Leah refer to “Mormonism” as part of her blog’s main menu. There is no such thing as “Mormonism” because there is no Mormon Church (that I am aware of) and no one who worships Mormon (that I am aware of).
Example: My wife and I are both members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Notice the “Church of Jesus Christ” and we also believe in Jesus Christ. Hence, we are Christians. And our church has its own specific doctrine in which we also believe. But, we don’t worship Mormon, our church name has no reference to Mormon. Hence we are not Mormons, nor believe in Mormonism. So I would think that Leah may be a Mormon…but her writing doesn’t sound like a loving Christian especially towards Mike Jensen. Then again…she does have her agency to say, do, and write what she wishes.
Thank you Mike for a great article placing our church in a good light with accurate information. Now, if we could just get you lined out with the correct name of our church 😉
As a convert to the church at 14 years old, in 1964, (yes, a very long time ago), in Australia (yes, I am an Australian Mormon), I was vey impressed with the thought and desire to get things right and in perspective by this young man. I am now an American citizen, and neither Republican or Democrat, as I was an outsider looking in for many years before I finally applied for citizenship. The first thing that really made me appreciate this young man and his article was, the he, unlike SO many others, referred rightly, to the fact that we are a Christian religion, not a cult, and that we believe in the scriptures. It does give a full description in the Bible, about the war in Heaven, Christ and Lucifer. I have lived, as a military wife, and civilian, in many countries of the world. We all have the same fundamental beliefs, teach from the same manuals and read the same scriptures, at every single one of the Wards I have been to around the world, and within the US. Leah, it is people like you who turn people interested in finding out what we believe, away, hurt and disillusioned. To what purpose, so you can have your words published here in Social Media?
Where I joined the church, I was the only member in my school and my community. I was the only member of my family who joined the Church back then. I had been studying all the different religions since I was six years old, and got my father up on Sunday mornings, to take me to whichever church I was looking into at that time. I had dad the Bible three times through, by the time I was nine, and read the Book of Mormon through in the first week I had it at age 14. Your opinions of this young man’s article are very disturbing to me. Please keep your negative thought and ideas on something so positive about our religion, by a non member, to yourself. All they do is cause dissension.