Mormons and Pew

I wonder if that exuberance of optimism isn’t due to the constant messages of hope and optimism we hear at Gen. Conference. I was always amazed at how Pres. Hinckley–and now Pres. Monson–would insist on being optimistic for the future. I think that’s good in a lot of ways–hope is Christian virtue–but perhaps we’ve gone too far and need a correction towards a more sober perspective? Personally, I don’t know many Mormons that are totally blind to the problems of the world–unless they are REALLY insulated–but we want to believe that things will work out, even if that means waiting until the Millennium.

Well of course Nibley was the big one preaching the “Wo be unto him that crieth: All is well!” I do think there is a real danger of complacency because of our optimism. That is we turn a blind eye to real problems. (I think you can see that in the whole Iraq situation of the past few years)

That said I also think that our optimism shows that one can achieve a lot. That said though I think our optimism misses big areas. So, for instance, therapy for special needs kids in Utah really sucks. There’s only limited government programs and only a few private programs which often are pretty expensive. So the quasi-libertarian self-help view works to a point but people aren’t self-critical enough to try and see where the gaps are.

Please note that I’m not promoting a kind of heavy government involvement. (I’m pretty conservative) I think non-government community action could help here. And if I ever become very wealthy I plan on setting up a lot of programs in these areas. My complaint is just that complacency means we don’t try and see where there are real gaps because we assume everything is going great. That allows incompetence to get a stronger foothold than it should.

While I’m extremely skeptical of the socialist “solutions” to many of these problems I think that the following (attributed to Brigham Young) is worth keeping in mind.

“The worst fear that I have about this people is that they will get rich in this
country, forget God and his people, wax fat, and kick themselves out of the Church and go to hell. This people will stand mobbing, robbing, poverty, and all manner of persecution, and be true. But my greater fear for them is that they cannot stand wealth; and yet they have to be tried with riches, for they will become the richest people on this earth” (Quoted by Gordon B. Hinckley in his address, “These Noble Pioneers.” See also Salt Lake City, George Q. Cannon & Sons, 1900; New York: AMS Press, 1971, pp. 11923, cited by Preston Nibley in Brigham Young: The Man and His Work, Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1936, pp. 126-28).

That said Mormon optimism in the midsts of persecution and suffering can’t be ignored. Further this is regularly socially ingrained from how the idealized versions of our own past history is told. The best example of that being the quintessential Mormon hymn, “Come, Come, Ye Saints” talking about the sufferings early in our history. What is the refrain? “All is well.”

Clark, Re: Iraq, it’s clear the Bush administration was WAY too optimistic: ie, that Iraq would become a functioning democracy, that it would eventually take over its own security, that violence would decrease, that al Qaeda in Iraq would be defeated or at least contained, that Iraq would be a good example for Iranians who might follow suit, that Iraq would be a warning to other tyrants such as Qadafi, that we would reach the conditions where troops could be pulled out, that we would overthrow one of the worst tyrants in history, etc, etc. Oops, ALL of those things have happened!

Sorry for the threadjack — couldn’t resist. But your larger point that the Iraqi invasion was based on some misplaced optimism (ie, WMDs) is valid.

RE: optimism, I think Catania put it beautifully:

“Optimism doesn’t mean that we are blind to reality – that would be idealism. Optimism sees the world as it is – both the beauty and the ugliness – and chooses to be grateful for that which edifies and uplifts.”

As I have written elsewhere, you can be the type of person who goes through life concentrating on all of the negatives around you (and there are plenty everywhere) or you can be the type of person who chooses to concentrate on the positives. Concentrating on the positives will bring you more happiness, help you befriend more people, uplift the people around you and give you hope for the future. That seems exactly in line with the attitude we Latter-day Saints should have, which is why modern-day prophets repeatedly say they are optimists.

Clark: I would argue – is this truly optimism? I agree that many Mormons or other staunch conservatives are looking at Iraq and instead of seeing a peasant woman, they see Dulcinea. I just think that we need to make sure we are calling these Mormons and others aredoing what it is – a blind idealism.

It is okay to be optimistic, in fact, I kind of believe that optimism helps us to see reality and survive it well. When we look at any situation through Rose Colored lenses – which I would, again, argue is Idealism, then we are never going to make a situation better – we can’t see it clearly. However, When we look at a situation optimistically – we see the glass half full – and it is half full – we recognize what is there, and that we have room to improve – we are then better able to handle situations like Iraq and the economy in a more responsible way.

I’m not arguing with you on the Mormon Perception. In fact, I agree that it is a problem. I just would like to suggest we call it Mormon idealism rather than Mormon Optimism. (I know, i tend to get stuck on semantics)…

Clark, one small point on this and then I’ll shut up: when you say, “we definitely lagged in recognizing problems with the Bush administration,” I have to agree and disagree. I think most of us thinking Mormon conservatives were aware of the problems (ie, too much spending, a bad early strategy in Iraq, etc), but we were also aware that the alternatives were not any better. Does anybody think Gore or Kerry, for example, would have spent LESS than Bush? If you look at the stimulus bill filled with Democratic pork (pork that has been on the Dem wish list for years), I don’t think anybody can make a cogent argument that Bush was necessarily worse than the alternatives. I think you’ve made some good arguments on the competence issue in the past, and I tend to disagree with you on it, but I understand it, and it is certainly a cogent argument. But leaving that aside, Mormon conservatives must ask themselves, “what are the alternatives?”

There is another extremely important point: once the president is in office, regardless of who he is, he deserves some respect and support. You will notice that I have not been bashing on Obama in any way on M* — even though I disagree with the direction he is taking the country — because I think it is more important that we offer the president a measure of respect and support. So, what you may perceive as Mormon passivity on Bush’s many errors (and we would probably agree on at least half of the errors), I perceive as a people doing the decent thing, ie, offering the president some respect and support, especially because there’s not much you can do about it once he’s in office after 2004. Would it be wiser and kinder for them to spend all of their energy raging against their president?

I think I speak for many Mormon conservatives when I say a perfect president would have been a combination of Ron Paul on the economy, Mitt Romney on social issues and Joe Lieberman on foreign policy, with the speaking ability and political skills of Barack Obama. But the reality is there was no such candidate in 2000 or 2004 — and in 2008 Utah Republicans overwhelmingly voted for the candidate closest to that in Mitt Romney but the rest of the country saw it differently.

OK, Clark, great blog, btw! Very thoughtful comments (except for mine :)