Mormons and Utah Political Partisanship (Part Three). A Crowded Meeting at BYU

This is the third installment in a three-part series on Mormons and Utah Political Partisanship.

Is Partisanship a Problem?: Perspectives for America and Latter-Day Saints.

January 24th, 2012, BYU. Hosted by BYU's Political Science Department.

BYU's Wilkinson Center room 3380 has a room capacity of 128. I'm pretty sure we broke some fire codes the evening of the panel discussion. It's a small room, I wouldn't really call it an auditorium, although the seats are nailed to the floor. The air was stuffy when I walked in. No ushers, no program, just a bunch of young 20-somethings with backpacks, and several community members (at least a dozen with gray hair). In the aisle, I almost tripped over a crew with filming equipment before taking a seat. I arrived at 3:58 p.m. By 4:03, people were still coming in, but it was standing room only. Clearly, the Poli-Sci Department had underestimated the popularity of the event.

Discussion Moderator:
Richard Davis,
BYU Political Science Professor

I looked around for racial diversity, and found very little. All the panelists were white. As I scanned the audience, I observed only two non-Caucasian faces.

The panel sat in folding chairs (without a table) at the front of the room. They wore clip-on microphones. There seemed to be something wrong with the speakers, because the sound was plastic and echoey. Left to right, the panelists sat in this order: Thomas Alexander (historian), Joe Cannon (Republican), Janette Hales Beckham (Republican), Richard Davis (moderator), Karen Hale (Democrat), Olene Walker (Republican), and Scott Howell (Democrat). It was expressed early on that the panel was chosen because of both their significant role in Utah politics, and the tenacity of their LDS faith.

A little history

The discussion started with Thomas Alexander's historical background on Politics and the LDS Church.  He said that in 1891 the Church leadership broke up the LDS People's Party. At that time, most Mormons, he said, joined the Democrats, because of a prior conflict with the Republican party. Then, because they were concerned about too much partisanship, Church leaders started encouraging some church members to join the Republican party. For a while there was a somewhat equal divide. Alexander said that it has only been since the 1960s that Utah partisanship has favored the Republican party.

Friendship and respect across party lines

The other members of the panel took about 5 minutes each to introduce themselves, and say a few words about the topic of the day. Cannon, Walker, Beckham, and Howell each remarked on the congenial relationship they have had with the other members of the panel, regardless of political party. Hale encouraged the audience to remember that there are good people in both major parties.

Joe Cannon, former chair of the
Utah Republican Party,
CEO of Geneva Steel,
and 1992 U.S. Senate candidate.

Before the meeting got started, I anticipated that panel members would be making statements like this--but what I didn't anticipate was the sincerity of it. As they gave opinions and told stories, knowing looks, and comfortable laughs were shared. It was all very refreshing.

Cannon: This panel we have here doesn't fully represent the rivalry or inability to compromise--the personal angst out there in national and Utah politics. . .  I grew up thinking, you don't have to be wrong for me to be right.

Several panelists criticized political bickering and disrespect.

Cannon said that it feels like the philosophical debating we experience now wasn't part of the Utah political scene he observed in the 1960's. "But now when people don't believe the same thing, they're a little stubborn about it," he said.

Olene Walker (Republican),
former Governor of Utah.

Walker said she perceives that Utah is worse than other states currently where partisan bickering is concerned. "We no longer praise people for working well together," she said, "in my view, that is wrong." She talked about national unity and the principle of democracy: the greatest purpose should be to make the state or country stronger; allegiance to country over allegiance to partisan group. She told a story about visiting an elementary school, and asking the children to define democracy. One child answered, "It means the people rule, and everybody's got to do something." She also criticized the recent Republican presidential debates for getting too personal and not being real discussions about policy.

Howell also had some criticism for the presidential race. He said he disapproves of the bitter rivalry and mudslinging between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

Walker, Howell, and Hale each commented on how the two parties actually came together because of the LDS Church's recent involvement in the new immigration law. I assumed they were talking about House Bill 116, the law that will (in 2013) allow undocumented immigrants living in Utah to obtain legal work status through a state guest worker program.

References to LDS Church leaders' political statements

Thomas Alexander, BYU history
professor emeritus and author of
Mormons in Transition, 1890‐1930.

Alexander said that during a 1916 election, LDS Church president, Joseph F. Smith, and member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Heber J. Grant (who eventually became President Smith's successor), had very differing political views. President Smith, a Republican, had endorsed a candidate named Sutherland. Elder Grant, a Democrat, endorsed William H. King, a candidate who was also an LDS stake president. When King won, Grant was pleased, but President Smith said the election was "a huge blunder." He even called King a "pretentious, pedantic, two-faced democratic infidel" (Mormonism in Transition, page 45.)

I believe I caught Alexander telling this story with a smile, as if to say, there's nothing ironic, or wrong with the prophet and an apostle having strong opposing political views--but, my how times have changed! He mentioned that since David O. McKay (LDS Church president 1951-1970) the Church has maintained a politically neutral stance.

He referred to a controversial 1974 statement made by Ezra Taft Benson, a member of the Twelve Apostles, and active participant in the Republican party, who eventually became President of the Church (in 1985). The way I paraphrased Alexander's quotation of the statement in my notes was, "ETB said he couldn't understand how a good Latter-Day Saint could be a liberal Democrat." Alexander followed up by saying that when Benson became the president of the Church, he refrained from endorsements and political statements; a few other panel members nodded in agreement.

Because I was curious to know the original text and context of the statement, I spent some time on the internet looking for an original source. There were several paraphrasals of the statement on blogs and in comment forums, but none of these contained citations. I eventually found a mainstream secondary news source with the full quotation. It's a scan of an April 4, 1976 article titled, Benson: Will Mormons go political? in a California newspaper called The Modesto Bee. Here's my abridgement:

The partisan statement is clearly one of personal political philosophy rather than an over-the-pulpit mandate for Church members. I like his second quotation here, Benson expresses the Church's politically neutral position, but allows for the possibility that God could reveal something of a political nature to the prophet and apostles by revelation.

Finally, I found two respectable sources citing the original article in which Benson's 1974 interview was reported. It's a Salt Lake Tribune article: "Support for Candidate Possible Some Day, LDS Apostle Says," Salt Lake Tribune, Feb. 22,1974, B l.  This is the primary source for the interview according to citations found in a University of Utah master's thesis (History Department), and Chapter 5 of the book, Brigham Young University: House of Faith. I didn't find the text of the SLTrib article online, because their archive doesn't go back that far. However, the way the above sources quote the statement is consistent with the Modesto Bee report.

Scott Howell (Democrat),
former Utah Senate minority leader,
and 2000 U.S. Senate candidate.

There were a couple of personal anecdotes told about Gordon B. Hinckley, LDS Church president from 1995-2008. Walker said at a Christmas party she hosted, she asked Hinckley if he had any advice for her (she was Utah governor at the time.) His response was, "I'll run the church, and you run the state." Howell said that when he was young, he and Hinckley lived in the same neighborhood, and that they used to chat on his porch. He also told a story in which President Hinckley greeted a group of out-of-state Democrats by saying, "I want you to know that we are not a Republican church . . . it does no good to be of one party and against the other."

Jokes

Alexander introduced his opening remarks with a story about a banquet he attended the week prior. A group of Mormons were talking, and a woman told a joke with the presumption that she was in mono-political company. "If Obama and Biden jumped off a cliff, who would be saved?" The answer: "America!" He said he was disturbed by the disrespectful air of the joke.

The other statements I'm putting in this "Jokes" category were statements made by the panelists intended to make the audience laugh. There was certainly a pattern: jokes that turn the tables by suggesting we imagine that it is the Democratic party, not the Republican party that is thought to be the most righteous, or most popular.

Karen Hale, communications director
for Salt Lake City’s Mayor’s Office,
former state senator and vice‐chair
of the Utah Democratic Party.

Hale said, "Olene [Walker] is proof that you can be a Republican and a good Mormon, too." (This got a big laugh.)

Later, Walker told a story illustrating how the nature of political partisanship has changed over the years. She explained that when her father was prompted by friends to run for legislative office, his response was, "I don't think a Republican could win here in Weber county." (Another big laugh.)

When someone from the audience asked the panel, "Do you feel that liberals feel welcome in the Church?" Howell's response was, "I don't know why they wouldn't, it's the most liberal church in the world!" It was a sort of pun meant to increase acceptance of the term, "liberal" by reminding people that it also connotes generosity. Howell said it a little too enthusiastically, as if he was afraid his audience would not be easily convinced. (The audience laughter this time was less energetic.)

Certainly these panelists meant well. But personally, I find this type of humor awkward. I think Hale and Howell intended to encourage their audience members to think outside the box, and consider their point of view, that, as Howell put it, "I am a Democrat because of my faith, make no bones about it." However, the fact that they were expressing this in joke form, highlights the truth that the GoodMormon=Democrat idea is still considered so culturally backward, it's ironic enough to get a laugh.
  
Do liberals feel welcome at church?

I want to go over the full response to this question from the audience.

The panelists seemed generally unprepared for it. Walker responded first by remarking that it's hard to know at church who's a liberal and who isn't. She said that as far as she knows they generally are accepted, and that she certainly hopes so.

That's when Howell threw in his "it's the most liberal church in the world" joke. But afterwards, he changed his tone, and shared a story about the teacher of an LDS Sunday school class who used his teaching position to make anti-Democrat statements, and even railed against Howell specifically. Coincidentally, Howell's parents were in that class. They told him what happened, and then told the ward (congregation) leadership. The teacher was released from the calling.

Janette Hales Beckham,
former Utah state representative
(Republican),
and General Young Women’s
President of the LDS Church.

Beckham said she has LDS friends in another state who were belittled by their church peers for supporting President Obama. She expressed her disapprobation.

The panelists didn't spend much time on this subject, because they became pre-occupied with the term, "liberal," itself. Joe Cannon started telling the other panelists that they're not truly liberal. "No, no, you're not a liberal," he said to one of the Democrats. I found this confusing. He said some vague things about Utah and Mormons and liberalism--I think he was trying to say that he thinks Utah Dems are only liberal enough that they would be considered moderates by the rest of the country's standards. I didn't like the way he pronounced the word. It seemed to me he felt that "liberal" meant something bad that he'd never want to accuse his fellow panelists of. I kept waiting for him to define it, but he never got around to a clear definition.

The other panelists seemed just as confused by Cannon as I was. Walker, and Hale responded to in some way defend liberalism, but I marked their hesitant manner. I wondered if they were trying to find a way to disagree with Cannon without sounding argumentative. Olene said that while she's fiscally conservative, she uses the term "liberal" to describe her position on education. And Hale quoted a New Testament scripture about how in answering prayers, God "giveth to all men liberally" as she explained what the term "liberal" means to her. 

The meeting ended, and I was a little disappointed that the issue of liberals/Democrats feeling accepted in Mormon culture wasn't discussed with more depth. (After all, questioning cultural paradigms is the focus of this blog.) But in other ways, I was perfectly content with the manner of the meeting. I was fascinated that unlike the UVU partisanship meeting two weeks prior, this panel discussion had not broken out in debate. It was very pleasant to see both Republicans and Democrats sit and cheerfully agree with each other (for an hour and a half) about the political neutrality of the LDS Church.


This is the third installment in a three-part series on Mormons and Utah Political Partisanship.
Read Part One
Read Part Two

Mormons and Utah Political Partisanship (Part Two): UVU panel discussion becomes debate

This is the second installment in a three-part series on Mormons and Utah Political Partisanship.

Doug Fabrizio

The UVU meeting was called, LDS Values and Political Partisanship. It took place in the Ragan Theater, a large, 400-seat auditorium with a 40x30 foot stage. The 5 panelists sat behind a long table center stage.  At a podium stage right stood Doug Fabrizio, panel moderator, and host of KUER's weekly RadioWest program. The theater was large, but the audience wasn't packed. As I looked around I noticed most audience members looked like students seated alone. There were about 3-5 empty seats between each audience member.

Four of the panelists currently are, or recently were members of the Utah State legislature. The two Democrats were Representative Carol Spackman Moss, and Senator Ben McAdams. The two Republicans were Representative Holly Richardson, and Senator Howard Stephenson. All four said they actively practice their faith. The fifth panelist was Quinn Monson, Associate Director of BYU's Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy.

Education

Senator
Ben McAdams (D)

McAdams started out by saying, "I'm a democrat not in spite of my LDS faith, but because of my LDS faith." Then he spoke about how the LDS value of education makes him want to promote more government funding for public education. "The glory of god is intelligence," he said, quoting LDS church founder, Joseph Smith. Charity doesn't take care of everything, McAdams said, government needs to step in; it's about providing an equal starting point for people. He also mentioned that receiving government-funding help for his own education (a Pell Grant, and a Stafford loan), making it possible for him to go to college.

Richardson said that she values education just as much as McAdams or any Mormon does, and that she doesn't think her fiscal conservativism contradicts that.

Former Representative
Holly Richardson (R)

I would say I value education very highly, but I don't think it's the government's responsibility necessarily . . . I'm for educational choice. Over the years, I've had my kids in private school, public school, charter school, and I've home schooled for a dozen years.

She also connected her fiscal conservatism to the LDS value of family budget balancing. She teased McAdams by saying that based on his values, it would make sense for him to switch parties, "Come on in, the water's fine," she said. At a later point, McAdams mentioned his great respect and friendship with Richardson over the years.

Charity

Senator
Howard Stephenson (R)

The issue of Charity for the poor was pounced upon thoroughly. As expected, the Democrats argued that their LDS faith compels them to support government social programs like welfare. Stephenson argued that his take on social programs is informed by his adherence to LDS doctrine of "free agency," the belief that God doesn't want mankind to be forced to do good, that it must be by choice. "The idea that we are to act, and not be acted upon." After stating that he was grateful for LDS Democrats, he offered them this criticism.

Stephenson: In their bleeding heart liberalism, they want to take care of people, rather than enabling people to suffer the consequences of their actions.

Fabrizio: Wait--and that's not a Mormon value? Taking care of people?

Stephenson: No, it is. But it's a voluntary taking care of, not compulsion. When we exercise compulsion to get people to be good, we are not only hurting the recipient of the benefit, but we are hurting the giver as well. We have created an entitlement mentality, rather than the idea that private charities would take care of people.

Fabrizio: So, for you the clincher is that the problem obstacle is, I suppose, that difference between what is public and what is private. Absolutely be charitable, be compassionate, but don't let the government impose these kinds of ideas. 

McAdams responded by saying that charities can't take care of all the needs in the country. Howard's rebuttal was that he believes private charities would be the ones stepping up and helping people with all their needs it they hadn't been displaced by government getting in the way. And he added, that charities would be able to give care in a way that ensured recipients felt grateful, not entitled. I found it interesting that this assumed attitude was so important to him.

How does he know recipients of welfare feel entitled rather than grateful, or that recipients of charity feel grateful rather than entitled? I thought to myself. Did he conduct some interviews? The sociologist inside of me was skeptical.

Richardson took up the subject, too. She said that at her LDS Stake President recently emphasized, over the pulpit, the doctrine that God wants us to work by the sweat of our brow. She said that even the LDS Church welfare program expects something in return from recipients, and that government welfare is problematic, because it does not do so.

Freedom of Choice

At a later point in the debate, Doug took questions from the audience. One question-asker quoted Joseph Smith, "Teach the people correct principles, and let them govern themselves." McAdams and Stephenson returned to the question of whether the government should compel people to be good, or step aside so people can choose to be good.

Representative
Carol Spackman
Moss (D)

Moss said she felt it was ironic that Republicans emphasize freedom of choice on fiscal issues (lowering taxes so people can choose what they will do with their money), but not on social issues (like abortion, and gay rights). "I can't reconcile that," she said.

McAdams said he felt government's role should be limited if it's getting in the way of people's freedoms. Unless, of course, those people are infringing on the rights of others. He used the alcohol example, that is that government shouldn't get in the way of a person's right to drink alcohol in their house or in a bar, but if their choice to drink puts someone else in danger (drunk driving) that's when the government should get involved.

There was more banter about taxes and charity. Stephenson pointed out that tithing is optional, whereas taxes are not. McAdams answered by saying, actually tithing isn't any more optional than taxes: there are consequences for not paying tithing, such as not being allowed to enter the temple. He explained that if he didn't pay tithing he wouldn't be permitted to attend his daughter's wedding, then said that similarly there are consequences for not paying taxes--but if I wanted to, I could move to a different country, he added.

Moss was right, there was an irony, but it wasn't just a Republican one. One question-asker put a name on it. He called it, "the switch in the dichotomy." This conceptual summary outlines it. While all faithful LDS members ascribe to the doctrine and values listed below, LDS Republicans emphasize freedom of choice on fiscal issues, and LDS Democrats emphasize freedom of choice on social issues.

Conflicting LDS Political Philosophies
"the switch in the dichotomy"

Moderatism

Doug Fabrizio asked Monson for his analysis.

Fabrizio: Quinn Monson, what are you hearing? In some ways, I'm not hearing a lot of distinctions. I mean, they're sort of parsing some particulars, but . . . they're from pretty extreme sides of the spectrum, I have to say, but it seems like they're saying the same things in a lot of ways. What are you hearing?

Quinn Monson, BYU

Monson: Well, you have four very intelligent people up here, also very religious, and all LDS who are expressing very different political views.

Fabrizio: Is this what we do, we sort of take our ideology, and make it adapt with our religious world view? Is this just human nature?

Monson: I don't know if the causal error is that way, or the other way around, but I guess the summary point I would make is it's clear to me that if you take a political ideology in it's pure form, conservatism or liberalism, neither one is gonna be perfectly consistent with the teachings and theology of the LDS Church, that you're gonna find reasons to justify or reject both . . . maybe the answer is that Latter-Day Saints ought to be fierce moderates in some way, and pick and choose. 

Although each panelist clearly felt his or her political party was the right place for a good Mormon to be, there were quite a few moments when they emphasized moderation.

Moss said it was important to look at individual issues. Richardson and Stephenson mentioned their support of moderate bills regarding immigration. Stephenson mentioned that he sponsored the bill that makes it possible for the children of undocumented immigrants to be eligible for in-state tuition, and Richardson said it was a spiritual decision for her to support HB 116, the guest worker program that will allow undocumented immigrants living in Utah to obtain legal work permits, and eventually become citizens. "I prayed over that bill," she said.

Elizabeth's question

The second audience member to come forward and pose a question said her name was Elizabeth.

Elizabeth: I have a question, generally, how to foster this community we've been talking about today that seems very supportive of both Republican and Democratic views within the Church. As a life-long liberal and a life-long member of the LDS church, I've had plenty of opportunities to reconcile my faith with my politics, but it seems to me, y'know when I sit in Sunday School, and I hear references to Glenn Beck, and to conservative politicians, and frankly, it was difficult for me in 2008, to see the Church's involvement in Proposition 8, like, how, how do we foster more trust and love, and support within the religious community so that we [non-Republicans] can feel comfortable holding these different views?

Fabrizio: Can I ask you,  before you get to that question, is the atmosphere that you're seeing, do you ascribe it to this sort of nasty political atmosphere right now. That it's so, the partisan bickering? Is that the milieu that you're talking about?

Elizabeth: Well, the partisan bickering also kind of trickles down to the religious bickering about these partisan issues, and so how do we take out the bickering? And also people to have, and express, not just have, I mean you can have whatever beliefs you have, but as soon as you express them, and perhaps act on them, then you're seen as a threat, or not part of our community.

The panel's response, uncensored.

Monson answered that it would help if LDS people stop equating their political views with their religious views. Then McAdams and Stephenson gave responses. I wanted to quote that entire portion of the conversation, but now that I'm going back to the online recording of the meeting on the KUER website, I'm finding that that part of the conversation was edited out. I did take careful notes, however, so I can summarize what happened.

McAdams said, "I need to be a better Mormon." He said he feels as a democrat that there's extra pressure for him to prove he's a good Mormon, even if it means doing all the little Mormon things that are more cultural than doctrinal, like wearing a white shirt and tie to church. The implication was that there's a stereotype in the community that Mormons who are Democrats are probably not good Mormons.

Elizabeth added a comment, that she and other Democrats feel like they're supposed to keep their political views secret in order to be accepted by the community. She said she had LDS friends in her neighborhood who would not continue to let her kids play with their kids if they knew she was a Democrat.

Stephenson gave a long response, in which he said some Mormon Republicans need to "stop being bigots" about it. He said that it's important for Mormons to better understand what it means to have real love for all people. Then he described a hypothetical situation in which a person who smells like tobacco smoke comes to church (Mormons follow a health code that includes refraining from tobacco and other drugs). He said it would be important for the LDS congregation in that situation to respect, and welcome that person

The smoker-comes-to-church scenario is one I've heard before. It's commonly used by LDS Sunday school teachers to teach the importance of making newcomers, inactive church members, and potential converts feel welcome. But I thought it was a patronizing response to Elizabeth's question. Comparing LDS democrats to a newcomer who smells like cigarette smoke at church is illogical, and counter-productive. The very problem Elizabeth was trying to address is that many faithful, righteous LDS Dems feel that if they made their political feelings known they would be treated as outsiders who need to change in order to be accepted by the Mormon community. I think Stephenson meant well, but by using the smoker-comes-to-church analogy, he was perhaps inadvertently suggesting that LDS Dems should be welcomed with love, and then expected to change their political philosophy.

Is it possible to be Pro-Choice and be a good Mormon?

At the very end of the discussion, Doug brought up the issue of abortion.

Fabrizio: Representative Carol Spackman Moss, Is it possible to be Pro-Choice, and a good Mormon?

Moss: Yes, I believe you can, and I think the Church has made it very clear in terms of when they believe that abortion is acceptable, and I ascribe to those tenets, but there are those now, who would do away with even [exceptions for] situations of rape and incest, and the life of the mother. 

She said it was also about having rights and responsibilities that the government shouldn't interfere with. Then Richardson was asked about abortion.

Fabrizio: Holly Richardson, what do you say?

Richardson: This is an area we totally disagree on. And I believe that all life is valuable, and that life begins at conception, and that choosing to kill an unborn baby is killing an unborn baby.

Fabrizio: [So you're saying], if you're Mormon and you believe in abortion rights, that's problematic, you don't think you're a worthy Mormon?

Richardson: Y'know, I'd really have real struggles with that, my views are very stridently on the side of Pro-Life. But I think when you take into account the [free] agency component . . . I can understand the Church's position of saying rape, incest, and life of the mother, that, that changes the component of choice, the mom did not have a choice to get pregnant, or perhaps has to make a value judgment on whether one life is more valuable than the other, but other than that, absolutely not.

I thought her response was surprising because she seemed to be assuming that people are only Pro-Choice if they are personally okay with abortion. By saying, "this is an area we totally disagree on . . . I believe that life begins at conception," she assumed that Moss was in disagreement with that point. Monson noticed. He responded by saying, "I think there's a real distinction to be made here between what you do as an individual . . . and what you advocate in the policy world." Regardless of political philosophy, all faithful LDS members believe that abortion is morally wrong.

A Conversation in the Hallway.

Following the program, I chatted with one of the event ushers. He was tall, white, and in his early 20s. His wife was there with him, but she showed little interest in our conversation. He said was taking a class from the event organizer, David R. Connelly, UVU associate professor and chair for the Department of History & Political Science. After I told him I had driven down from Salt Lake, and that I blog about Utah culture, his smile and tone of voice sweetened. It wasn't flirtation. I've sometimes seen this happen when recently returned missionaries meet someone with whom they hope to share the gospel. I don't know if that's what was going on, but it felt like he was making an unusually altruistic gesture to welcome me to Utah County. I decided not to tell him that I was LDS, or that my degree was from BYU.

I remarked that moderatism was a surprisingly significant theme during the discussion, and that it was interesting that the politicians volunteered examples of issues where they stood on more politically moderate ground than their party colleagues. I wondered out loud if the panelists were emphasizing their most moderate views because they were in mixed political company.

The usher didn't recall there being anything in the meeting about moderate positions. He asked what my political position was. I told him that I usually vote for Democrats. He didn't seem surprised.

Eventually we were talking about marriage and gay rights. I said something about how I thought it was interesting that even though the LDS Church encouraged members to support Prop 8 in California, the reason they gave wasn't about whether or not gays should have that right, but about protecting the rights of religious groups to refuse marriage ceremonies to homosexual couples. 

The usher questioned me, "I don't know, I think the Church has been very clear about their position on this." His face told me he thought I had it wrong. That's when I told him that I'm LDS, and that my understanding of the reason given for the Church's support of Prop 8 is based on the words of Elder Dallin H. Oaks (LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) in the LDS Newsroom article, The Divine Institution of Marriage.

That's when he sighed, and with an expression I interpreted to mean you're LDS, you should know better, he said, "Well, all I know is the Church is in favor of family." He seemed satisfied with his rebuttal, and I was speechless. I refrained from saying, "Well, buster, I'm pretty sure gay and lesbian couples are in favor of family, too. That's why they want the right to marry in the first place."

But I knew that by "family" he meant something that only another LDS person would understand. He meant eternal family. He was referring to the LDS belief that in the temple, families who make a covenant of obedience to God can receive the promise of eternal life, in which they will continue to be a family unit forever. The rite includes the marriage covenant between the mother and father of the family, it's for heterosexual couples only. This doctrine is part of my belief system, but as far as public policy is concerned, I don't think it's fair to impose my beliefs on others. I wish I had had the courage to say so right then. Instead, I let the issue go, thanked the usher for the chat, and said goodbye. I shyed away for the same reason many LDS non-Republicans do: because being a minority is uncomfortable, and in Utah sometimes it feels like people think of you as unrighteous.

This is the second installment in a three-part series on Mormons and Utah Political Partisanship.

Read Part One

Read Part Three

Mormons and Utah Political Partisanship (Part One)

This is the first installation in a three-part series on Mormons and Utah Political Partisanship.

Mid-January I attended two political discussion panels in Utah County, one at Brigham Young University, the other at Utah Valley University. The topic: Mormons and Utah political partisanship. But before I get into what was said at those meetings,

here's some background.

According to a 2009 Pew Research Center report, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) make up 58% of Utah's population.

A new 2012 Pew Research Center study, found the following information on U.S. Mormons and Politics:

U.S. Mormons Political Lean

 Nearly three-in-four Mormon registered voters (74%) either identify as Republican (52%) or lean toward the Republican Party (22%). Far fewer (17%) identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party. By comparison, the general public is much more evenly split between the two parties, with 45% of all registered voters favoring the GOP and 48% favoring the Democratic Party in Pew Research Center polls conducted September-November 2011. White evangelical Protestants (68% of whom identify with or lean toward the GOP) are the only other large religious group that rivals Mormons’ level of support for the Republican Party.

Mormon women . . . are less Republican (67%) and more Democratic (22%) than Mormon men (81% Republican vs. 12% Democratic). Mormons who live in the West are somewhat more Republican (77%) than Mormons from other regions of the country (66%). (PRC)

Obviously, the partisanship of American Mormons has an effect on Utah politics. According to a source called the Utah Election Atlas, in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election 62.24% of Utah voters voted for a Republican and only 34.22% of Utah voters voted for a Democrat.

Here's an interesting insight into Utah partisanship from Utah's own Jon Huntsman in an October 24th, 2011 interview with Stephen Colbert:

Colbert: How can you be a moderate in today's Republican Party?

Huntsman: I ran for reelection as [Utah] governor in 2008. I won Republicans, I won independents, I won a whole lot of Democrats, more Democrats than my Democratic opponent. That's not carrying a label, that's being a leader. You tell the people what you're gonna do, and you deliver for the citizens--that's all. They just want straight talk.

Colbert: Well, why not run as a Democrat? If you got more Democratic votes, shouldn't you run as a Democrat?

Huntsman: Because I think that's a rare thing in the state of Utah, so I like to fly that [Republican] flag.

Audience: (Big laugh.)

Jon Huntsman on The Colbert Report

It would seem that this partisan trend in Utah is only a few decades old. All 5 of Utah's governors since 1985 have been Republican. However, since statehood, Utah's first 12 governors were a more bipartisan group: between 1896 and 1985 Utah had 6 Republican governors and 6 Democratic governors. It switched back and forth in this order: RRRDRDDDRRDD (Wikipedia).

The Panel Discussions:

LDS Values & Political Partisanship: A Discussion of Faith and Politics

January 11th, UVU. Hosted by KUER, University of Utah's public radio station.

Is Partisanship a Problem?: Perspectives for America and Latter-Day Saints.

January 24th, BYU. Hosted by BYU's Political Science Department.

Both meetings were focused on the same topic. Both were panel discussions featuring significant Republican and Democratic political figures. But the similarities ended there.

The UVU discussion had the mildest title, but was easily the most intense of the two meetings. A few minutes in, panelist, Holly Richardson (Republican, and former Utah House representative) said, "I don't know how much bantering you want us to do here . . . I have some comebacks for Senator McAdams . . ." That set the tone for what then became a debate between panelists about which political party is the best match for LDS values. It was a friendly debate, mind you, but at the same time, it was clear that each panelist felt he or she had something to prove. The only non-legislator panel member, Quinn Monson, Associate Director for BYU's Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy, gave his analysis: that neither political party is a perfect fit for LDS values and beliefs. They took questions from the audience, and addressed controversial issues like the problem of LDS Democrats feeling like they have to keep their political views secret for fear of being rejected by the mainstream LDS community.

In contrast, the BYU panel discussion evolved into a group consensus that because the LDS church maintains political neutrality, there isn't one political party or philosophy that "good Mormons" are expected to adhere to. In other words, you don't have to vote Republican to be a good Mormon. The panelists' approach was fairly diplomatic, generally evading controversy.

Further meeting details appear in Parts Two and Three of this series on Mormons and Utah Political Partisanship.

Read Part Two
Read Part Three