Can You be a Republican and a Good Sunstoner?
By John Remy on Jul 22, 2006
Do you ever find yourself in situations where you have to explain Sunstone to a non-Mormon in ten words or less? I usually tell them, “It’s a conference for liberal, intellectual Mormons.” Invariably they respond with tired witticisms like the following:
“What, all twelve of you?”
“Isn’t that an oxymor[m]on?”
After their hyuks die down, I subject them to a lecture on the diversity of thought within Mormonism. While some of them grapple with the concept of an ‘intellectual Mormon’, the real doozy seems to be the ‘liberal’ pairing. It’s hard for most people to envision a Mormon hippie. After all, Utah is the only state in which Ross Perot beat out Bill Clinton in 1992. Fortunately, I have examples like Senate Minority Leader, “Give ‘em Hell” Harry to balance out the Orrin Hatches of the world. We need more Mormons with “hell” in their name.
When I attend sessions and listen to environmentalists, feminists, gays and Todd Compton speak, sometimes I wonder if Sunstoners have more in common politically than theologically. For me, Sunstone is a sort of liberal political oasis in my Republican Orange County California (where Ross Perot also took second) Mormon experience. The sainted saints of the Sunstone/Dialogue crowd, like B. H. Roberts, Hugh Nibley, and Hugh B. Brown were Democrats (and possibly still are).
So what do you think? How accurate is my characterization of Sunstone magazine subscribers and conference attendees? Is it bordering on Sunstone heresy to support the Bush administration? Do we need to get Stephen Colbert to be next year’s plenary speaker (or more seriously, Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun)? Can you be a Republican and a good Sunstoner?
I would like to make it clear that I don’t mean to denigrate *right-leaning Sunstone participants. If you are a closet conservative who has strong ties to Sunstone, I hope you’ll respond to this post. Do you feel like you are in the minority? Do you prefer political dialogue in ward settings or in the symposia environs? Tell us what your experience is like, and how you think it is the same/different from the liberal Mormons who attend.
*No Republicans were harmed in the creation of this post.
Not a bad theory, and the Sunstone norm does seem to be liberal. However, I can think of at least three Sunstone- and Dialogue-reading, Republican Mormons off the top of my head. I don’t want to out them here if they don’t want to be outed, but they’re all relatively prominent nacle figures.
Comment # 1 by Kaimi | Jul 22, 2006 | Reply
Hey, if there are Repubs and/or conservatives who somehow manage to be liberal enough about their faith to subscribe to Sunstone…I say go.
But perhaps the question might be turned around? Can you be a Sunstoner and be a good Republican? I guess it depends upon who you ask but my guess is that the majority of Mormon Republicans would answer: “heck no”.
Comment # 2 by Matt Elggren | Jul 23, 2006 | Reply
I am (politically and philisopically) libertarian, not liberal. I can’t stand the mainstreams. In all honesty, I prefer to read Sunstone not because it is ‘liberal,’ but because it offers theological views other than what we usually hear, even if I may disagree (about 40-50 percent of the time).
Personally, I think a Rebublican would make a good Sunstoner, because the idea of Sunstone, as far as I can tell, is debate over theologically pressing issues, rather than tainting religion with politics and vice-versa. Besides, how can you foster true debate if all groups aren’t welcome?
Comment # 3 by Rob | Jul 23, 2006 | Reply
Matt, I’m a died-in-the wool Republican. I’ve been reading Dialogue and Sunstone and books by Signature for decades. Heck, I’ve been called Fawn Brodie’s biggest fan.
johnremy, what strikes me as kind of funny is this (self-aggrandizing) notion that there’s something Democratic (or at least un-Republican) about valuing intellectualism. Am I wrong to think that you’re assertion to this effect exposes how little actually discuss political issues outside of the herd that shares your views?
Comment # 4 by DKL | Jul 23, 2006 | Reply
DKL, “I say go.”
Comment # 5 by Matt Elggren | Jul 23, 2006 | Reply
What the hell is a “good Sunstoner”? If I say hell, does that put me in Harry Ried territory? I sure as hell hope not.
This here dumb conservative finds your rigid and dogmatic conflation of intellectualism and liberalism to be quite amusing. You probably just need to get out more.
Comment # 6 by Mark IV | Jul 23, 2006 | Reply
I understand where JohnRemy is coming from, and I usually find a liberal political bent at the Symposia. But when I’m at church, I feel more like a socialist. And when I’m at the Sunstone Symposia, I feel more like a republican. Which probably means, that I’m really not either. When I’m at home I feel more like a weird combo of libertarian and communist. I think the conflation (Mark IV’s word) of liberal/conservative politics with liberal/conservative religiousity does a disservice to politics and religion. What do my beliefs about social security have to do with Book of Mormon historicity, or what does my interest in JS money digging have to do with tax reform?
Comment # 7 by Dallas Robbins | Jul 23, 2006 | Reply
Is it fair to say that there is a preponderance of Utahns at Sunstone Sypmosia? (I don’t know, having never been to a Sunstone Symposium.) If so, it’s worth noting that Utah Democrats often do not remain Democrats when they move out of Utah. For example, all the Utah Democrats of my acquaintance who have moved to Massachusetts now vote Republican pretty consistently (or at least, so they tell me).
Comment # 8 by DKL | Jul 23, 2006 | Reply
Dallas, you’re right that I’m conflating the two, but I’m not sure that it’s entirely a disservice. Some people are able to compartmentalize their religious and political beliefs, but I’m not sure this is the norm (e.g., the agenda of the Religious Right, and the the politics of social reformers like Martin Luther King, Jr.). My own politics are heavily influenced by my spiritual experience and theological understanding, but I agree with you that the relationship between politics and religiousity is complex, and the labels in one sometimes are misleading when applied to the other.
DKL (#4) and Mark, I’m playing with stereotypical understanding of intellectualism and religious/political leanings. I see an anti-intellectualism in the rhetoric of the current administration and its supporters and in much of the American Church. Dems seem to have gone the opposite direction, and intellectualized and secularized religion out of the party.
Comment # 9 by johnremy | Jul 23, 2006 | Reply
I am one of Kaimi’s three aforementioned Republicans. There is no question that most Sunstoners I have known are more liberal politically than your average Mormon non-Sunstoner. This never bothered me much, since what first drew me to Sunstone and Dialogue was an interest in deeper theological discussions and, most importantly, LDS historical treatments that weren’t so sanitized. (Yes, I’m using the “sanitized history” cliche here, but it’s the easiest way to say this quickly). I don’t see any reason why Republicans can’t be good Sunstoners, and I second some of DKL’s comments.
Perhaps your average Republican Sunstoner is a bit less likely to suffer the political angst that many liberal Sunstoners experience in the Church. And yet, I have often felt that angst too. The Church is filled with thousands of bone-headed conservatives, and BYU seems to have more than its fair share. I became dissatisfied with the political homogeneity at BYU, and I ended up having much more interesting relationships with Mormon “liberals,” in the political sense of that term.
Your average politically “liberal” Mormon, in my experience, is more well-spoken and thoughtful than his conservative Church-goers, out of necessity. It is easy to follow the herd in Mormonism, and be less than reflective, when your politics are the same as everybody elses. If you’re a politically liberal Mormon, you don’t have the luxury of following the herd, and so on average, you are a bit more thoughtful and interesting as a result.
Yes, I realize I’m a conservative who is invoking a liberal stereotype concerning the differences between conservatives and liberals that many conservatives find offensive. I’m sorry. But in the LDS Church, in my experience, it largely holds true.
Aaron B
Comment # 10 by Aaron Brown | Jul 23, 2006 | Reply
I don’t self-identify as a Sunstoner, but I read the magazine regularlly, have attended symposia, and have some family ties to the magazine. I read the magazine because I am interested in finding intellectually stimulating discussions of Mormonism. Sometimes I find them, sometimes I don’t. I do think that there is something tremendously sanctimonious and off-putting about the notion that liberal and intellectual can be use interchangably, and the way in which this idea gets reinforced in Sunstone circles frequently annoys me. (For the record, I also think that the connection between conservativism and righteousness equally annoying.)
Comment # 11 by Nate Oman | Jul 23, 2006 | Reply
Aaron: I actually think that angst is less a function of ideology than temperment. I know angst ridden conservatives, and happy liberals. I think that some people simply do angst well, and some people don’t. Take pride in your happy talent!
Comment # 12 by Nate Oman | Jul 23, 2006 | Reply
I’d say that the liberal is only one of the observed Sunstone species. There are also Sunstoners who are in it for purely academic reasons–whatever their political persuasion. There are also politically conservative yet intellectually independent Mormons who attend/read. I would count myself in the last group.
I think the liberals get more press in relation to Sunstone because the more controversial topics are more frequently ones stated from a politically liberal view. These articles/sessions get a lot of publicity. And they also taint the overall picture of the value of Sunstone among the larger LDS population.
Also, I think it is true that many LDS liberals go to Sunstone for a type of therapy that they don’t get at Church on Sundays. I certaintly don’t go to the conf or read the magazine for that purpose, but my liberal wife does. In that regard, she associates Sunstone with modern day political liberalism (as opposed to classical liberalism).
Comment # 13 by Mike | Jul 24, 2006 | Reply
I consider myself center-left in religion and culture, and center-right in politics and personal morality. This means I am in the interesting position of being able to go to R-rated movies and thoroughly disapprove of the behavior I see depicted. I also wish that some of my fellow Sunstone subscribers would lighten up on the pinko stuff, and occasionally not have a knee-jerk reaction opposing something just because George W. Bush favors it.
Comment # 14 by R.W. Rasband | Jul 24, 2006 | Reply
I think one of the things that causes the most animosity in the church today is “pigeon-holing.” I don’t know how many times I have heard that you can’t be a good member of the church and a democrat, or from California, or whatever. A comment like that is like saying, “You can’t be a good human being and drink lemonade.” It just does not make any sense. And, when President Hinckley was asked a question about whether you could be a good member of the church and a democrat at the National Press Club, his answer was that you most certainly could be a good member of the church and a democrat. So, based on what the Prophet says, the whole goodmember/democrat is a moot point.
The reason we are here on earth is to learn what we need so that we can return to our Heavenly Father. The search for truth can be found in many places and in many forms. Politics is not truth. I think one of the things that members of the church get hung up on is that you HAVE to think a certain way. However you learn truth is the right way to learn truth. I applaud anyone who has the insight to look for truth and friends within a forum like this.
Comment # 15 by Brian | Jul 25, 2006 | Reply
I used to brag to my non-LDS friends that we (LDS) keep politics out of church. I don’t feel like I can say that anymore after multiple members have thanked God in their testimonies for electing (and reelecting) George W. Bush. My ward leaders and stake leaders have felt increasing comfortable with letting their political beliefs known and make references to them in their talks. It is an uncomfortable position for me both as the minority politically and knowing that they should not be doing that.
That complaint off my chest… politics should be completely separate from religion; in fact I don’t think that a person should let their religious beliefs influence how they vote. I was watching The West Wing and there was a scene with Alan Alda where he is being asked if he goes to church and he is trying to decide if he should lie and say yes in order to get more votes or tell the truth and say that he hasn’t gone since his wife died. Approximately he said that if you require religion of your political leaders, be prepared to be lied to, it is the easiest lie they will tell and they will ALL lie to you to get your vote. I was in the same ward with a man (and I believe that I know him pretty well) that is an active political leader; he puts up a different political front than he is in real life in order to garner more votes.
Vote based on issues and ethics, not on religion. Sunstone is religious thing, some may call it liberal, you can also call it intellectual. Whether or not a person is liberal in their political beliefs is purely coincidental. If a person chooses to be intellectual in the decision-making process of choosing candidates - well that is completely independent of political party.
Comment # 16 by Denae Athay | Jul 25, 2006 | Reply
Interesting post, John, and I’m glad to see the comments pushing against some of the ideas.
You acknowledge that you are conflating liberal/conservative political stances with liberal/orthodox religion and spirituality, but then suggest that it might not be a disservice to do so. I actually think it is a disservice in the context of accurately defining and using terms. The problem I see is a political definition of liberal overpowering the spiritual definition - not simply here, but everywhere. (In other words, I’m not pointing a finger at you, just lamenting the conflation that happens on a broader scale)
One can certainly be a liberal believer spiritually and fairly conservative politically, with no need to compartmentalize these views. I also think it is possible to be an Orthodox believer and politically liberal.
I’ve only been aware of Sunstone for the past decade, but I understand that the early days of Sunstone boasted a broad participation from both Orthodox (conservative) and liberal believers, from institutional participants (including BYU and CES) to independent academics and part-time scholars. That changed with some unfortunate events in the late 1980’s/early 1990’s, and today Sunstone has the image of a liberal or fringe gathering.
In the past several years much has been done to repair the divide, and much remains to be done. I think it would dramatically benefit our community to see all aspects of both religous and political thought represented in the magazine, on the blog, and at the symposia. That is slowly happening, but to the extent that we perpetuate the image of Sunstone as a liberal oasis (even if it might be a reaction to the conservative oasis we experience each Sunday) we do a disservice to this community and the organization.
Comment # 17 by Rory | Jul 25, 2006 | Reply
John,
As several folks point out above, there are many reasons folks come to Sunstone, and perhaps having a Mormon space where politically liberal Saints feel they can speak out in a way they can’t in their home wards and stakes is one of them. I’m glad that Sunstone can provide a forum where they feel a bit more comfortable in their political skins, though I’ll admit that some of the moments that have made me as Sunstone executive director cringe more than any other times are when I hear outright Bush bashing (as Martin Luther King III did late in his 2003 plenary speech, and as happens occasionally in other sessions) and other forms of ridiculously uninformed and sarcastic leftish rhetoric during a symposium session.
Concerning your question about whether your characterization of Sunstone as primarily consisting of political liberals is accurate or not, I suspect that it is somewhat close in terms of how folks might vote. But I sure hope Sunstone never becomes a place where politics becomes even close to the dominant unifier for folks (your question about whether Sunstoners have more in common politically than theologically). What I think is now dominant and hope will continue to remain the primary thing attendees have in common is an affection for and interest in Mormonism coupled with a conviction that individuals and institutions are ultimately best served through open inquiry and intelligent discourse.
Sunstone can never measure up to its mission statement about encouraging “honest inquiry and responsible interchange of ideas that is respectful of all pepole and what they hold sacred” if, when it comes to political topics, we forget to extend similar respect.
Thanks for the thought-provoking post.
Dan
Comment # 18 by Dan | Jul 25, 2006 | Reply
“It’s a conference for liberal, intellectual Mormons.”
I love how all liberals (regardless of education or training) consider themselves “intellectual” and in general somewhat eliteist. Does this mean that stupid liberal Mormons cannot read sunstone? Regardless of political party, the real question should be: “Can You be a Good Sunstoner and a Good LDS Member?”
Comment # 19 by Doug | Jul 31, 2006 | Reply
Doug,
We at Sunstone have certainly heard the “elitist” charge many times before, and we on our staff and board work very hard to avoid publishing statements and to discourage attitudes among those who associate with Sunstone that would further that stereotype.
As for your rephrasing of the question, the answer certainly is yes–as consistently shown by our surveys through the years and the continued regular participation of former LDS mission presidents (three that I know of on the symposium program this year, and two on our current board of directors), as well as former and current BYU faculty, CES instructors, and so forth.
I hope you’ll attend the symposium and read Sunstone yourself! We always welcome feedback that is specific to particular sessions and/or things in the magazine. It’s very hard to know how we can change things for the better when critiques are only general in nature.
Thanks for posting.
Dan
Comment # 20 by Dan | Jul 31, 2006 | Reply
I suppose the most significant reason I rarely read Sunstone and am often somewhat put off when I do, is that in most cases the writers equate being liberal with being intelligent and open minded - implying that to be conservative is to be unintelligent and close minded. Until that attitude is left behind, your publication will always be considered as someplace where self-agrandizing LDS quasi-intellectuals can get together and pat each other on the back. Im not saying that the publishers are in this mode, but a great deal of your readers and supporters seem to be.
Comment # 21 by Doug | Aug 1, 2006 | Reply
Doug, I wonder if that’s not an “outside looking in” view. Where you’re admitting that you “rarely read Sunstone”, I’m not sure you’ve given it enough of a try to be sure about any smug elitism.
If you’re in the area, you should come attend the symposium next week in SLC. I’m often surprised that, although I’m fairly conservative, I’m frequently the MOST liberal person in the room instead of the least.
Comment # 22 by Rick | Aug 1, 2006 | Reply
Doug, I don’t share the sense that “liberal intellectual” excludes “conservative intellectual” any more than “Mormon intellectual” excludes the possibility of there being Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim intellectuals. But I’m glad that you pointed this out–maybe many others share your perception.
Your comments made me consider why I use the labels “liberal” and “intellectual” to describe Sunstone. First off, they’re convenient–I sacrifice nuance for brevity. Second, I think that they’re based on my personal experience. They describe how I feel connected to Sunstone. As a political and theological liberal, I often feel isolated (even villified) in American wards, but completely at home at Sunstone. I’ve heard “intellectual” used as a perjorative across the pulpit a number of times, which pains the intellectual in me. At Sunstone, my earnest questions and sincere doubts are welcomed in a way that they are not in other LDS settings.
This is not to say that Sunstone doesn’t have conservatives, or that conservatives are by default non-intellectual. One of my personal missions is to blow away shallow stereotypes and expose people to the complexity and diversity within groups like the Church and even Sunstone. I chose a provocative title in order to challenge conservatives to respond. As I read through the thoughtful responses, primarily from conservative intellectuals who associate with Sunstone, I’d like to think we’ve whittled away at the old stereotype.
After this post and your comments, I think that I may do away with “liberal” and just keep “intellectual.” I’m not sure I can get rid of that adjective, since it seems to be too closely tied to Sunstone’s mantra of “faith seeking understanding.”
Comment # 23 by johnremy | Aug 1, 2006 | Reply
Yes, and I’m the one who called DKL her biggest fan.
#15 Brian, I agree.
I am intrigued by the discussion of differences between politics/government, religion/morals. I call myself a liberal orthodox mormon. Kirby calls himself something interesting, but I forgot what it is.
Comment # 24 by annegb | Aug 6, 2006 | Reply
Why is it that the topics of “From the Archives” often relate to things I’ve been thinking about lately? Great minds thinking alike, maybe? I wish…
With all the political discussion going on around the debates and primaries and upcoming (if only it were sooner) election, I’ve been thinking about what makes individuals choose to be liberal or conservative or in the middle. From my wide and unscientific observations of individuals around me, I’ve come to the conclusion that most people who identify themselves as “liberal” want to be seen by others as being smart (thus the LDS stereotype of the “liberal intellectual”), while so-called “conservatives” want to be seen as being right (clean-cut, Book of Mormon-thumping Young Republicans at BYU). The vast majority of people, however, just want the liberals and conservatives to shut up already so they can get back to the latest episode of “Survivor,” which neither liberals nor conservatives deign to view (at least not regularly), and so everyone keeps talking over and through everyone else because we just can’t relate to each other. Too bad, I say.
By the way, if anyone cares and if it matters, I identify myself as a mostly Libertarian Undeclared Party Affiliate (in my state, the LIbertarian Party is not officially recognized for voter registration purposes, though candidates may identify themselves that way on the ballot - weird, I know). I don’t consider myself particularly “intellectual” (though people I know seem to have this impression that I’m really smart - I think it’s because I talk so much ha ha), but I enjoy reading Sunstone and Dialogue because the topics addressed therein are mentally (I won’t use the i-word) stimulating and cause me to re-evaluate my opinions. I also get very angry at being fed false or pre-digested factoids and interpretations and prefer to get other views and mull them all over myself. That said, I am pretty firmly conservative on “moral issues” - gay marriage, gambling, abortion, etc. - though my political beliefs sometimes do not match my moral beliefs; for example, I think casinos should be allowed if people are foolish enough to waste money in them, abortion should remain legal, and the government shouldn’t be requiring people to pay it in order to say that they’re married. And I don’t like “Survivor” - I’m hooked on “Supernatural.”
Comment # 25 by Villate | Oct 3, 2007 | Reply