WI: Liberal Mormonism?

So a thought came to my mind what if Mormonism was more associated with the left and liberalism in America. This is not that strange since Joseph Smith jr, was an abolitionist and over his life IIRC he became more and more similar to hostile to slavery. So what I am curious what if that strand became dominate within Mormonism from the earliest beginnings and how would that change the nature of the faith.

whom would be a good alternative leader? As I imagine you would need someone other then Brigham Young. As IIRC he was responsible for a lot more of the conservative elements during his time as president. Though I imagine a different leader would also shape the faith differently as well due to their influence. The question is then how would that look like?

Assuming that the Mormons still move to Utah. What would be the political effects both on Utah and the country as a whole if due to the influence of the LDS church in Utah it was more left leaning or liberal? I can imagine that some Presidential elections could go the other way if Utah voted in an opposite direction compared to OTL.
 
Last edited:

Maoistic

Banned
"Liberalism" wasn't really associated with the left in the 19th century. Only monarchists thought that, but in general, liberalism by the 19th century had established itself as right-wing (and in fact, it remains this way in Latin America). Nor was liberalism back then anything like the liberalism of the Cold War and current War on Terror which is the "left-leaning" liberalism you mention. Liberalism in the 19th century was associated with free trade colonialism, parliamentarism, republicanism and forms of popular voting, as well as anti-Catholicism. In this, Mormonism did start as liberal with its concept of "theodemocracy", which broadly shared all the elements mentioned. But it is anachronistic of talking about "left-leaning" liberalism in this period, since this kind of liberalism doesn't really arise fully until John Rawls' publication of "Theory of Justice", although we start seeing some elements already with John Maynard Keynes and his controlled market economic model around the time of the Great Depression.
 
"Liberalism" wasn't really associated with the left in the 19th century. Only monarchists thought that, but in general, liberalism by the 19th century had established itself as right-wing (and in fact, it remains this way in Latin America). Nor was liberalism back then anything like the liberalism of the Cold War and current War on Terror which is the "left-leaning" liberalism you mention. Liberalism in the 19th century was associated with free trade colonialism, parliamentarism, republicanism and forms of popular voting, as well as anti-Catholicism. In this, Mormonism did start as liberal with its concept of "theodemocracy", which broadly shared all the elements mentioned. But it is anachronistic of talking about "left-leaning" liberalism in this period, since this kind of liberalism doesn't really arise fully until John Rawls' publication of "Theory of Justice", although we start seeing some elements already with John Maynard Keynes and his controlled market economic model around the time of the Great Depression.

Okay maybe to rephrase. I was thinking more what if it kept that element of abolitionists radicalism, and that aspect was kept within the Church and over time just became more and more stronger; similar to the radical republicans maybe? Then maybe as time goes on it becomes more associated with what we would consider liberalism in the U.S?

maybe that is a better way of phrasing it? :)
 
You don't necessarily need a 1847 PoD to achieve this - as before mentioned, modern American liberalism evolved over the 1900s, so it wasn't relevant during the 1800s. As it is, Utah was one of the first territories to legalize women's suffrage in 1870. Along with other western agricultural states, it overwhelmingly supported Williams Jennings Bryan in 1896. It was safely Democratic on a presidential level during the New Deal Era, but came around to conservative Republicanism during the Eisenhower administration.

If you want a politically liberal Utah, I think the best place would start is during the Progressive Era. According to the Utah History Encyclopedia, "By the turn of the century, the LDS Church and Utah were in the process of joining the United States politically and economically. The transition meant the ascendancy of capitalism, with its anti-unionism. Mormon leaders, who had not been exactly comfortable with unions, became increasingly supportive of capitalists and more and more critical of unionism." So you need the church to adopt a less pro-business attitude. I'm not entirely sure how this could be achieved, but the article also mentions people like Robert Gibson Sleater who attempted to unionize Mormons; if they were more successful, maybe the church would be more cautious about adopting an anti-union stance, as that would alienate many of its followers?
 
Incidentally, Utah's voting patterns seems pretty much in line with the Rocky Mountain region as a whole, whether Mormon or not.

Only twice since statehood, in 1900 and 1912, has Utah been in the minority among those states, while in 1992 the RMS divided 4-4. In the other 28 elections it has voted with the majority of its fellow Mountain States. So perhaps environment rather than ideology has been the determining factor.
 
A good catchall version would be to remove the "black people are lesser than white people spiritually" thing. Ultimately you wouldn't have to change much (as of course that isn't church doctrine since the late 1970s) but that would go a long way towards making the church more liberal by the time the liberalism you mean comes about.
 

Maoistic

Banned
A good catchall version would be to remove the "black people are lesser than white people spiritually" thing. Ultimately you wouldn't have to change much (as of course that isn't church doctrine since the late 1970s) but that would go a long way towards making the church more liberal by the time the liberalism you mean comes about.
Not just "Blacks" but dark skinned people in general. In fact, the scriptural passages mentioning this referred to Native Americans, not Blacks. And liberalism correlates highly with mistreatment of Native Americans and Blacks as well as other "colored" pepole. Reservations, Jim Crow laws, ghettoisation. The Democrat strongholds of Ilinois and New York are famous for their racist inequality and another Democrat stronghold, Oregon, continues its reservation apartheid system, so it should be pointed out that anti-racism isn't really an essential element of liberalism. It may be in rhetoric (somewhat), but not in practice. Native Americans and Blacks in Utah are discriminated as well, to be sure, but this is systemic to the entire US, and it's not because of Mormon theology as horrible as it may be (and it certainly is).
 
Not just "Blacks" but dark skinned people in general. In fact, the scriptural passages mentioning this referred to Native Americans, not Blacks. And liberalism correlates highly with mistreatment of Native Americans and Blacks as well as other "colored" pepole. Reservations, Jim Crow laws, ghettoisation. The Democrat strongholds of Ilinois and New York are famous for their racist inequality and another Democrat stronghold, Oregon, continues its reservation apartheid system, so it should be pointed out that anti-racism isn't really an essential element of liberalism. It may be in rhetoric (somewhat), but not in practice. Native Americans and Blacks in Utah are discriminated as well, to be sure, but this is systemic to the entire US, and it's not because of Mormon theology as horrible as it may be (and it certainly is).
Oh sure, but I think not having had that doctrine would have appealed to a more liberal crowd. It was the big barrier for my grandfather joining the church, and he never forgot it when they reversed it.
 
Top