activist university, pt. II

BYU reserves the right to curtail an expression of thought that “contradicts or opposes…fundamental Church doctrine or policy.” The issue at hand is how BYU promotes a conservative worldview as fundamental Church doctrine.

What’s wrong with that?

From a personal perspective, my experience at BYU left me feeling alienated from the Church that I love and serve. I got into the habit of constantly second-guessing myself, and felt intimidated into not expressing my own personal convictions. I feel bitter and somewhat betrayed to this day. As if it’s not hard enough trying to overcome selfishness and improve oneself, the things that I saw as my improvements marginalized me from a community which is supposed to exist to support individuals in their betterment.

Some, specifically those on the same side of the Church’s culture war, will say “tough break.” A lack of empathy is defensible in the case that people like myself are genuine enemies of the Church and its mission; maintaining a community inevitably requires some sort of exclusion.

But is it appropriate to equate a particular social philosophy with revealed doctrine? The doctrine of the Church, as I understand it, is unique in relation to other philosophies. While it is in harmony in some instances with other worldviews, it often offends the same worldviews at other points. The social philosophy and political agenda that BYU implicitly endorses and equates to fundamental Church doctrine—limited government, personal responsibility, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-feminism, anti-relativism, and the enshrinement of Western cultural products as morally and aesthetically superior--is exactly in line with this country’s religious right. In fact, by all indications, it appears to be its product.

The threat of communism united two rather divergent groups--fiscal conservatives and social conservatives—under the banner of “American” values. While fiscal conservatives are known for their disdain of government intervention, social conservatives favor the government’s sponsorship of their particular, traditional, Judeo-Christian values. At the end of the Cold War, the undergoing shift in values in America—away from sexual morality and towards emphasizing fairness, inclusiveness, and tolerance—provided conservatives with a new threat of invasion to unite around. The new enemy, seen as corrosive to “American” values as communism was to capitalism, was multi-culturalists, feminists, and so-called moral relativists.

Where the Gospel is an eternal set of principles, the conservative worldview is easily contextualized historically and will likely follow the typical arc of humankind’s ideas, namely overcompensation and correction; one might say that the Republican Party is currently split over the notion that now is the time for correction.

Divine inspiration guides the LDS Church, and so the argument may be made that the Church’s leadership takes into account some knowledge of future events that hasn’t been revealed to the general public. But if this is the case, why isn’t it explained as such? Why do most reconciliations of conservatism and the Gospel, aside from the ones that are purely tautological and rely on the fact that there are few contrary voices, appeal to the scriptures and not to new revelation?

If our current leadership is privy through revelation to something that supports a conservative worldview, why do the teachings of the early leaders of the Church seem to support what are now progressive causes? If those teachings were mistakes, the preferences of men speaking as men and not as prophets, why do the most fervent supporters of LDS conservatism imply the infallibility of our current prophets? Given the logical paradoxes of such a stance, maybe there is a supplementary motive for putting caps on free inquiry.

Why, if support of a worldview that exists in service of a political agenda comes from revelation, doesn’t the leadership acknowledge the problematic relationship of doing so and attempt to reconcile the points at which conservatism conflicts with LDS doctrine? These loose ends suggest to me that the likely explanation is that our leadership, like much of our membership, simply prefers conservatism and, as a result of movement conservatism’s fatalism, attempts to essentialize it as inherently more moral and correct than liberalism in an effort to save our society from some supposed cataclysm (the former BYU president Ernest Wilkinson’s actions were premised partly on a belief that the U.S. was ripe for destruction due to the corruption of the Kennedy administration).

I mentioned the conflicts of conservatism and LDS doctrine. If you’re familiar with this blog, you’ve read some that I’ve outlined before. I’ll run some of them down quickly, for the sake of a self-sufficient post.

The scriptures and the teachings of early prophets are not as friendly to capitalism as conservatives would like to think. Where free-market capitalism values greed as a motive for material growth, greed is roundly denounced in scripture, and material growth is treated more as a temptation than something to vie for. Military aggression is expressly denounced. Self-sufficiency, the primary conservative value, would likely fall under the “lack of faith” or “pride” category. While conservatives fear the company of those with different philosophies, Jesus welcomed sinners and publicans and offered forgiveness to those who offended him. Where conservatives frame multi-culturalists and feminists as rabble-rousers who threaten traditional values, Joseph Smith campaigned for abolition and women’s rights, radical causes of his time. He was a fierce defender of the freedom of religion, while conservatives push for state-sponsored Christianity. Additionally, the spirit of LDS doctrine and of Christianity communicates that there is no need to fear if one is living by certain principles. Movement conservatism promotes fear of societal change and the advancement of historically marginalized groups as a political force, even to the point of abandoning certain principles (constitutional rights, freedom of inquiry) in favor of a political outcome.

While Mormons can relate to the threat of invasive outsiders, we seem to forget that EVERYONE to us is an outsider, as detractors of the Church have come from every religious and cultural persuasion. Joseph Smith held the strongest criticism for other religions, while intellectuals and progressives didn’t draw nearly as much ire. In the contemporary Church, in pursuit of our political goals, we’ve tried to make good with the merchants of religion that Jesus and Joseph Smith derided. (By the way, judging by the Republican reaction to Mitt Romney, we haven’t nearly succeeded.)

Furthermore, what are some of the potential drawbacks to BYU’s close relationship to conservatism? First of all, the alienation of otherwise strong, valuable members like myself; I’ve heard plenty of similar stories. Secondly, the alienation of those to whom we’re supposed to be bringing the Gospel. Walk into any LDS chapel in the country and tell me if you don’t find a predominance of white, middle-class conservatives. It’s not that liberals and minorities aren’t receptive to truth, it’s that we deride the aims of people who don’t share our zeal for preserving the privileged class status of white, middle-class males. The insular mindset, the one bent on preserving the purity of a certain community, does not seem to work well with our mission to bring the Gospel to the lost tribes of Israel.

And aren’t we shooting ourselves in the foot in another way? Conservatives paint fear-inducing pictures of an open, tolerant society, but the old guard that progressives are trying to tear down contains some of our most feverish opponents. A tolerant, pluralistic society, while still fundamentally opposed to the principles of revelation and eternal truth that the Church is founded on, would nevertheless be more wiling to coexist in disagreement than the conservative activists we unflaggingly try to woo.

As a final word, I want to make it clear that I am not trying to tear down the Church, or at least what the Church means to me (I’ll tear down conservatism nearly every chance I get). I debated whether or not I would publish this. It’s cathartic for me to articulate my grievances with what have been very negative experiences for me. But ultimately, I hope that this post will be of some value to those who have felt like myself. Another effect of BYU’s close alliance with conservatism is the co-opting of LDS discourse by conservatives. Those who feel differently are left without a vocabulary, as it were, to discuss their spirituality. As a consequence, we feel alone even though there are many of us. This post is part of an effort to create a discourse for us others.

If you disagree with me and view my perspective as sinful, I would invite you to try to help me through my sin with the same compassion that you might show someone addicted to smoking. I’m skeptical that this would happen, however, as you view me (someone who lives the commandments and standards of the Church and attends church regularly, by the way) as someone who pollutes the otherwise pure LDS community, and I’m better off being excised than allowed to compromise the Church’s integrity. I know the way you think because I internalized this attitude at BYU and almost kicked myself out of the Church.

For everyone else, this post is also an affirmation of my comfort in being a practicing Mormon and in trying to change what being a Mormon means.