Have LDS members changed?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

It's okay you can type STFU here. Then you'll be up to my level.

I noticed you lobbed a bomb at SU earlier today. I chalked the frustration up to you having a lot on your mind lately. Also, from having spent time in Checotah.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You don't think that most temple recommend holding LDS do what the prophet says in terms of how to vote?

Do you deny that disagreement with Sister Beck's talk numbers in the hundreds?

Does the history re the prohibition vote surprise you? Would you expect such wholesale rejection of the prophet's directive today? Do you agree this represents a shift in LDS's relationship with leaders?

Answer the questions.

I'll answer:

1. No.
2. Don't know. I don't worry about it.
3. No, it doesn't surprise me, because Mormons think for themselves. Yes, because Mormons think for themselves. No, there is no shift that I see.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You don't think that most temple recommend holding LDS do what the prophet says in terms of how to vote?

Do you deny that disagreement with Sister Beck's talk numbers in the hundreds?

Does the history re the prohibition vote surprise you? Would you expect such wholesale rejection of the prophet's directive today? Do you agree this represents a shift in LDS's relationship with leaders?

Answer the questions.

No this doesn't surprise me and those of us who have studied LDS history knew it long before you. In fact, MX missile was about the only time recently it worked.

[SeattleUte]

You guys are sweet, always trying to convince me you're the new LDS norm., over here in this maligned, lonely place.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Now, what I think you're challenging is my conclusion that because LDS do whatever the prophet tells them to do they don't think for themselves. I think that is more of a value judgment than anything else, and I agree I couldn't get you to agree with me that my conclusion follows inexorably from my predicate fact.

President Hinckey apparantly wasn't as convinced of his control over the Saints as you are.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16268

For real though, I think there are a few different factors at play for what is an apparant shift in LDS political behavior in response to direction from leadership.

The first has to do with the political climate in Utah at the time prohibition was repealed. If you recall, Reed Smoot (of the infamous Smoot-Hawley tarriff) was an apostle and Senator from Utah. In 1932 he lost his bid for re-election. This is really a pretty big deal when considering the status apostles are given in our church. It was just a year later when Utah cast the deciding vote for repeal in 1933. It is likely that the failures of Reed Smoot as a Senator created a credibility shortage for the LDS leadership on political issues.

Throughout the next twenty years, Utah was a pretty solid state for the Dems, voting for Roosevelt and Truman. Then came President Benson. After his stint as Ag Secretary he published a book called The Red Carpet, a scare book about communisim and atheism. There were also other anti-Reds in positions of authority, both cultural and actual. People such as Cleon Skousen and Ernest Wilkinson. When you combine the religious implications of anti-Communism and the culture wars of the 60's, the church membership was constantly being pushed to the right. The key here is that there philosophy was both religious and political, so members felt as if there were a religious duty to fight communism and secularization. This was also happening across the country as conservatism was being defined as an economic and social philosophy with ties to religion.

This battle culminated in the battle over the ERA in the late-70's. This map is telling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:E...ndment_Map.svg

Of the states that opposed passage of the ERA, there is a solid opposition in the Mormon states of Idaho, Arizona, Utah and Nevada. The strongest block outside the bible belt. It is likely that this opposition was the first political victory the church had seen. Did this embolden leadership? I'm not sure. But they have been more vocal on social issues since that time.

Another factor is the fact that the opportunity cost of doing what the prophet says by voting is relatively small compared to other counsel. It's a helluva lot easier to vote for Prop 8 than it is to be charitable or not have unclean thoughts. It's also something tangible, easy to do and visible.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You guys are sweet, always trying to convince me you're the new LDS norm., over here in this maligned, lonely place.

And you're tiring thinking you have cornered the market on enlightenment.

The truth is, that you have no idea what Mormons are like because you chose to leave the church 20 something years ago.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by YOhio

President Hinckey apparantly wasn't as convinced of his control over the Saints as you are.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16268

For real though, I think there are a few different factors at play for what is an apparant shift in LDS political behavior in response to direction from leadership.

The first has to do with the political climate in Utah at the time prohibition was repealed. If you recall, Reed Smoot (of the infamous Smoot-Hawley tarriff) was an apostle and Senator from Utah. In 1932 he lost his bid for re-election. This is really a pretty big deal when considering the status apostles are given in our church. It was just a year later when Utah cast the deciding vote for repeal in 1933. It is likely that the failures of Reed Smoot as a Senator created a credibility shortage for the LDS leadership on political issues.

Throughout the next twenty years, Utah was a pretty solid state for the Dems, voting for Roosevelt and Truman. Then came President Benson. After his stint as Ag Secretary he published a book called The Red Carpet, a scare book about communisim and atheism. There were also other anti-Reds in positions of authority, both cultural and actual. People such as Cleon Skousen and Ernest Wilkinson. When you combine the religious implications of anti-Communism and the culture wars of the 60's, the church membership was constantly being pushed to the right. The key here is that there philosophy was both religious and political, so members felt as if there were a religious duty to fight communism and secularization. This was also happening across the country as conservatism was being defined as an economic and social philosophy with ties to religion.

This battle culminated in the battle over the ERA in the late-70's. This map is telling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:E...ndment_Map.svg

Of the states that opposed passage of the ERA, there is a solid opposition in the Mormon states of Idaho, Arizona, Utah and Nevada. The strongest block outside the bible belt. It is likely that this opposition was the first political victory the church had seen. Did this embolden leadership? I'm not sure. But they have been more vocal on social issues since that time.

Another factor is the fact that the opportunity cost of doing what the prophet says by voting is relatively small compared to other counsel. It's a helluva lot easier to vote for Prop 8 than it is to be charitable or not have unclean thoughts. It's also something tangible, easy to do and visible.

Thank you. This factual and insightful analysis confirms my thought. Mormons have become more beholden to their leaders' admonitions and injunctions in secular affairs.

[RC Vikings]

Originally Posted by Solon

This shocked the hell out of me too. The vote wasn't even close, and Utah was probably more heavily LDS, percentage-wise, 75 years ago than it is today.

The percentages of LDS may have been higher but I bet the percentage of active members was much lower.

[SeattleUte]

YOhio, dare I ask? Was Utah a democratic state before Nixon for the same reason the Southern states were?

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

YOhio, dare I ask? Was Utah a democratic state before Nixon for the same reason the Southern states were?

I don't think so. Utah was really only strong Democrat for the Roosevelt and Truman years. If racism was a factor, it had to be very, very minor. I think it had more to do with the fact that Utah was once a stronger labor state than it is now. The party loyalty and deep-seeded resentment of Lincoln and Republicans just didn't exist in Utah like it did in the South.