“I don’t get the anti-Mormonism on this board — against people who would otherwise be held up as examples of conservatism.”
Only under a very shallow definition of conservatism. If conservatism is strictly about being productive, law abiding citizens, then many groups qualify as conservative.
But the roots of our success as a nation go much deeper, being tapped into the fertile belief in a monotheistic Creator who endows us with unalienable rights, wholly unlike the Mormon registry of countless evolving deities swarming to get to the top. This is extremely important to the definition of conservatism, because our system of unalienable individual rights is the basis of our claim to freedom, and it is a direct byproduct of natural law, in which there is one universal, timeless moral code, which is enforced by only one eternal, all-powerful Arbitrator, a concept ultimately impossible in any polytheistic system.
This has been understood by political philosophers for millennia, and it is one of the central reasons even the deists among our founders sided with the traditional Christians in recognizing that our rights are indestructible because they come from our Creator. It is a belief essential to the whole notion of the rule of law, and therefore essential to the survival of our Republic, and it is held by neither Obama nor Romney.
To see how this works, take a look at Plato’s Euthyphro, in which Socrates utterly destroys the idea of universal moral principle IF there exists a multiplicity of ever higher ranked deities, all claiming to be moral authorities in their own sphere of influence, with no single Arbiter at the top of the pile.
That’s the problem with an “evolved” deity. As in Gnosticism, the progression is infinite. NO god ever fully arrives at the top, no matter how long the struggle. Therefore there is really is no way to be certain whether there might not be an even bigger fish lurking about to upset the whole moral order. Monotheism does not have that problem, and we can therefore believe in and function as a society in which the one and only eternal God has created each of us with those famously unalienable rights which define our freedom.
Now this is speculation on my part, but I believe this polytheistic instability in the moral order is directly reflected in the vacillating moral positions of Romney and other big ticket Mormons on, for example, abortion. Gods give life, and gods take away life. If you’re going to be a god someday on Kolob or wherever, with teeming throngs worshipping at your feet, you would be, theoretically, in a position to give or take life.
So if a person really believes that megalomaniacal nonsense about themselves, why would it not affect their attitude toward our puny mortal struggles? We are all so inferior to them, after all, not being on the fast track to deification and all that rot. But if necessary to gain power, a public position on any given subject can always be adjusted to current circumstances. Oh, did I just say Etch-a-Sketch? I think I did.
Wow. Superb post.
Excellent post!
Good post...Here's what I've regularly said re: this...the last part especially winds back to how a no "buck-stops here" god in Mormonism winds up lacking in absolutes:
If people want to understand how Mormonism's approach to the socio-political realm, they may want to read these two articles (the first written by a Mormon; the second by an ex-Mormon):
* Mitt Romney mirrors his Mormon church [Lds writer says Romney flip-flops 'cause Lds church has/does]
* Who is Mitt Romney? [Ex-Lds author reveals why Mitt's wishy-washy culture waffles & flip-flops]
In the first linked article above, Mormon Neal Chandler highlights how in the 19th century...
* Mormons forced communism upon its people -- and then not (United Order)
* Adhered to theocracies under its first two "prophets" -- and then slowly drew back
* Said polygamy was a condition of the highest degree of glory -- and then not
* Encourage its Utah Territory voters to be Democrats -- and then told whole groups of people wholesale to "balance it out" as Republicans as statehood approached
* Excluded blacks -- and then late in the 20th century not
From the second article linked above: What makes Mitt the kind of person he is — ruthlessly opportunistic, dishonest, insincere, willing to say anything for advantage, lacking in conscience, preoccupied with appearance, etc., on the one hand, yet squeaky clean, family-oriented, disciplined, boring, and predictable, on the other? My new e-book, A Mormon Story, sheds light on the culture that produced Mitt Romney.
Good question. (It's one I've raised -- and answered numerous times on various FR threads)
The answer, says this ex-Mormon in the book referenced above is: (From the article): The book reveals a value system that ultimately has no absolutes, other than the need to conform to deep-seated, highly-controlling authoritarianism that pervades LDS culture. That culture emphasizes a Mormon tradition known as "eternal progression" — undoctrinal spiritual evolution in which even God is changing. It also emphasizes the notion that the latest words of governing church leaders trump the Word of God found in the scriptures (including LDS scripture).
IOW, EVERYTHING in Mormonism -- from its theology to its social practices -- is up for potential change at the whim of the Mormon god. Bottom-line: There is no bottom-line in Mormonism! There is no bedrock doctrine that cannot be replaced!
There isn't even an Ultimate god in Mormonism...Nobody knows who the gods are that were part of the council which appointed the god of this world -- a former man, say Mormons.
So there's not even any Ultimate Authority in Mormonism!