The Great Mormon Novel

I am going to wade into a conversation that occurred about a year ago but which was rekindled recently by an article in Slate that asked the question:  "Where is the Great Mormon Novel?"  The article was written as a critique of the new novel by Mormon Brady Udall called The Lonely Polygamist.

This article lead back to an article in the Mormon Times that stated that the Great Mormon Novel is impossible for impossibly shallow reasons thoroughly discredited here and here.  The gist was that Mormons are not self-critical enough and not willing to question beliefs enough to write great literature.  The discussion then turned a bit more meta with the proposition that we shouldn't even be worried about creating the Great Mormon Novel because the concept itself is outdated and unworthy of our attention.  This is my incredibly glib recap of the discussion and I encourage you to read through those links and flesh out the arguments for yourselves.  (As a side note, if you haven't spent some time exploring Mormon artistic endeavors at A Motley Vision and Dialogue, it is worth your time to do so.)

I think transcendent literature is something that is universal to our shared human experience.  What makes a piece of literature timeless is that it speaks to people from different backgrounds, cultures, eras, and genders, and can reveal something new to each.  My initial reaction, then, was that a Great Mormon Novel is not very likely, not because we aren't able or willing to question faith and authority and embrace ambiguity and conflict, but because we are pretty weird.  Pres. Hinckley, on several occasions, reiterated the words of the apostle Peter in referring to us as a "peculiar people."  We have always been encouraged to live apart from the world and embrace our peculiarity.

Of course the Gospel is universal, but a piece of Mormon literature is not just a rephrasing of the Gospel.  Mormon literature is about Mormon culture and the internal and external difficulties we face in our quest for faith, individualism, collectivism, and understanding.  There really has never been anything remotely like Mormonism and the culture we've created, I think, and therefore trying to connect it to a wider audience through literature might be a task that cannot be perfectly accomplished (which would, in my mind, be the definition of "Great").

I'm not implying that there is not great Mormon literature out there, there certainly is.  But a novel by a Mormon about Mormonism that is widely regarded as a masterpiece of literature that crosses boundaries might be too much to ask.  We're just too different.

The more I've thought about this, however, the more I think my initial reaction might be wrong and that might be an indication of unhealthy pride more than anything.  A Mormon's journey through life is not so much different than other people's.  Like everyone we are trying to develop stable relationships, confront our internal and external demons, make sense of contradictions, and find peace in a decidedly unpeaceful world.  We're not above any of that, and the ability to illuminate these issues is what makes literature great, and potentially Great, and I think doing so in the context of Mormon beliefs and culture is just as likely as any other culture or point of view.

The lack of the Great Mormon Novel is not an indictment of our literature or beliefs, it's just that there are very few Hemingways, Foster Wallaces, and Jameses and there are really just very, very few Mormons in the world.  But it might just be that very uniqueness of point of view that makes a Great Mormon Novel possible. One of the ways that Great literature is able to provide that freshness and universality that people crave and remember is by providing a new point of view that sheds a slightly different light on an otherwise mundane subject (think of the way Elder Bednar is able to talk about subjects we've heard hundreds of times from a new perspective that sheds some new light on it and gives us a deeper understanding).

I recently came across an idea from Mormon writer Karl Keller that I think expresses all of this well.  His point was that great Mormon art is "not art filling a religious purpose, but religion succeeding in an aesthetic way."  We have this incredibly beautiful and rich religion that can succeed in an aesthetic way, and our literature can reflect that and cross boundaries and be recognized as something Great.

But we, as a religion, really need to do a better job promoting that art.  We need to consume it, demand more of it, and think and talk critically about it.  We need more than the traditional Deseret Book fodder, which only strives to inspire rather than find true understanding through a confrontation of ambiguity and conflict.  There is nothing wrong with inspiration from time to time, but it can't be the principal goal of our art.  

A Lean To The Right?

Bennett is out.

“When it was announced that Bennett had been eliminated from the race, a huge ovation swept through the convention hall and there were hoots and shouts of 'He's gone! He's gone!' Other delegates hugged and tea party members waved their yellow 'Do Not Tread On Me' flags.”

I am exceptionally curious about what, specifically, Bennett did that resulted in this level of vitriol. Even more, I am interested in what the Republican delegates see in Tim Bridgewater that has him as their nominee. If anybody out there has an answer better than “Bob Bennett was too liberal to represent Utah,” I would love to hear it.

My greatest fear is that democracy is slowly being smothered by popular media. Do “democrats” understand “liberal” policy? Do “republicans” truly agree with “conservative” ideology? Are “independents” and party swappers (and everyone else for that matter) simply opportunistic snakes, waiting for the chance to strike?

I don’t live in Utah, but I found a recent article from The Salt Lake Tribune that I felt brought up some excellent questions for conservatives. Naturally, one could make a similar, polarized list for “liberals”. What I struggle with is that the major gripe of the Tea Party movement is that the incumbents are not conservative enough, and as such, I thought it would be interesting to point out what “ultra-conservative” really means. Here are the ten questions from the recent article I cited above:

1. Do you oppose or support socialized medicine? If you answered "I oppose socialized medicine," will you introduce legislation to repeal Medicare for seniors -- socialized medicine brought to us by Great Society liberal Lyndon Johnson? If not, explain why you support socialized medicine for seniors and but do not support Obamacare for working families.

2. Will you introduce legislation to repeal all agriculture, grazing and mining subsidies? If not, please explain why you support socialized agriculture, grazing and mining.

3. Will you introduce legislation to sell off all federal lands in Utah to the highest bidder? If not, please explain why you think the big federal government, not the private sector and private landholders, should own Utah's lands. (Note, giving the land to the State of Utah just transfers the socialism to a different level of government, so that is not a valid answer).

4. A major criticism of Sen. Bennett was his support of the TARP in 2008. Will you pledge to oppose all government bailouts, even if that means a freezing of the credit markets and the failure of small businesses across the United States?

5. Which federal regulatory agencies will you eliminate? The Securities and Exchange Commission? The FDIC? The Consumer Product Safety Commission? The Federal Mine Safety Administration? The Environmental Protection Agency? The Agricultural Inspection Service? The Food and Drug Administration? If you support these agencies, please explain why we need big government in these areas, none of which are expressly provided for in the U.S. Constitution.

6. Do you support repealing the Small Business Administration? If not, please explain why you think big government bureaucrats know better than the free market which small businesses deserve help and support (and what a bureaucrat could possibly do to help a free market capitalist business person).

7. Do you support the National Weather Service? If so, please explain why big government can track the weather better than the private sector.

8. Will you oppose all appropriations earmarks for Utah?

9. Will you pledge to oppose government interventions to bring jobs to Utah? If not, please explain why you think you, and not the market, should determine where jobs are located in the United States.

10. Will you introduce legislation to repeal the Federal Communications Commission and the work of its nanny state, liberal, politically correct bureaucrats who regulate the words people can say on the television and radio and the images shown on TV? Or do you think bureaucrats, not the free market, should decide what is appropriate to air in America?

I’m sincerely curious about people’s responses to these questions. I will never suggest that a party member must adhere to all of said parties’ ideology; however, considering the cry that the GOP needs to be more conservative, I wonder how many people out there are ready for what that really means. Comments?

Moderation In A Crowded World

In 1800 just after the United States was formed and the Constitution ratified, the world population was about 978 million, just under 1 billion.  North America had about 7 million people.  If you had suggested to them at the time that they really should consider moderating consumption and conserving natural ecosystems, they probably would have laughed you to scorn.  "The world has more natural resources and available land than we ever could possibly develop," they would say to you with a condescending chuckle.  "Why on Earth should moderate anything?"

Today the world population is approaching 7 billion and North America has about 340 million people.  In a hundred years we'll be pushing 10 billion people.  It is a crowded world we live in now and it is not difficult to imagine running out of oil, chopping down the Amazon rain forest, and polluting our entire atmosphere and oceans to near sterility.  For thousands of years leading up to now humans have never had to moderate because the world was so big and we were so small.  So it is not altogether surprising, then, when so many people today, Americans in particular, continue to scoff at the idea of moderation, at the idea that we have to pull back in order to preserve what we have.

The oil gushing into the Gulf Coast at a rate of 210,000 gallons a day, which we are apparently powerless to stop any time soon, is a fitting example of how we are failing to be proper stewards of the Earth because we are not willing to moderate our thirst for oil.

But the idea of moderation in an ever more crowded world doesn't just pertain to the environment and consumption of goods.

As world population increases so does our proximity to other people.  As infrastructure increases and improves information is more easily shared, goods are more easily shipped around the globe, people travel more easily and are not confined to their ancestral land, and divisions based on ideology, race, national origin, habits, ways of life, and religions are no longer easily maintained.  We are forced to live and interact with people and ideas that before were easy to avoid.

It was easier to take more extreme positions because we could easily insulate ourselves from the consequences, but that is no longer the case.  In order to survive we have to find common ground.  We can't elevate the rhetoric against immigrants like we used to because there is no longer any buffer between Us and Them.  We can't demand that our government be Christian because there is no longer any buffer between Us and Them.  We can't demonize people of other political ideologies because there is no longer any buffer between Us and Them.  We are crowded together on the same subway train now and it does no use yelling at the person standing next to you to make more room because more room doesn't exist anymore.

Which brings us to two things:  Pres. Obama and the Gospel.  As for the president, he has been a liberal disappointment.  The far-right wing wants to paint him as a dangerous liberal, a socialist, a communist, a fascist, extreme in every way.  The reality is much different.

His newest nomination to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, is a safe choice meant to avoid any sort of conflict or strong statement about what liberals believe.  Liberals wanted a single-payer health system, or a strong public option at the very least.  Universal health care was never on the table and the public option was bargained away before the bargaining even started.  Instead we got a bill that amounts to a give-away to private health insurance companies.  Liberals wanted Guantanamo Bay shut down, full light shed on the torture issue, the Bush Administration torturers prosecuted, and the end of executive power overreaching.  Instead Guantanamo remains open, torture was swept under the rug, and the president is not letting go of unconstitutional executive powers like the right to indefinitely detain terror "suspects" without any evidence.  Don't Ask, Don't Tell has not been repealed.  The energy bill is going to be another give-away to private industry instead of hard choices in reducing climate change.  And I could go on.

I let this bother me for quite a while, but I'm starting to come around.  It's okay to hold liberal and conservative views, but it's not okay, in my opinion, to hold them at the exclusion of compromise and mutual respect.  Our nation is simply too big and diverse to cling to extreme ideas.  Partisanship is good and healthy, America needs to debate the different positions and fully explore all good ideas, but in the end we have to move towards each other and work together.  Despite what the anti-government movement and other far-righties might try to tell us, I think Pres. Obama is doing a good job trying to bridge differences and moderate.  He'll never hear that from those groups or Washington politicians, but it's true and I think America sees that.

And I think the Gospel is the perfect vehicle for this sort of moderation and is more and more relevant as the world grows more and more crowded.  It teaches us that all people are children of God and have a common divine heritage.  It teaches us to love and respect everyone, regardless of race, politics, age, sex, religion, or any other Earthly distinction.  And when we are able to love and respect anyone, looking beyond arbitrary differences, we are able to find common ground and moderate our more extreme impulses.  I think members of the church need to employ the Gospel to bridge differences instead of widen them and to promote peace instead of conflict.  I don't think polarization, whether it be my country against yours, my politics against yours, or my religion against yours, is in line with what the Savior taught.

Approaching Immigration With A "Spirit of Compassion"

Perhaps you heard that Arizona passed an immigration law that is controversial.  Most of the controversy centered around the following language from the bill (read it here in pdf), Article 8 paragraph B:

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.

As for the legal side of the thing, first, "lawful contact" may be the most broad language ever written in the history of American legislation.  It encompasses almost anything apart from an explicitly illegal traffic stop (which almost doesn't exist anymore: one mph over the speed limit, faulty tail light, "you looked like you were swerving within you lane", you vaguely fit the description of an alleged malfeasor, etc.) or the police barging into your home without a warrant.  Basically, lawful contact is not a limitation at all, let alone a reasonable one.

Second, the Constitution’s equal protection clause forbids the government from differentiating between anyone, including illegal immigrants, on the basis of race. Under the Arizona law no one has suggested any other potential grounds for the police to reasonably suspect someone is an illegal immigrant besides the fact that they have Latin American-colored skin.  What else could possibly fall under "reasonable suspicion"?  I can't think of anything.  Governmental racism is, bluntly, unconstitutional.

Third, being an illegal immigrant is a crime of status. There are no other real objective facts besides skin color that would indicate that a person is here illegally, unless a police officer actually saw them sneak across the border. Without objective facts beyond skin color, any time a police officer stopped someone asking for proof of legal residency would be an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment.

All of this was impressed upon Arizona in fairly strident terms and, as a result, they decided to change the language a little to read, instead of "lawful contact," "lawful stop, detention or arrest."  Slightly, but not much, better.  This change may or may not improve the legal side of the bill but it doesn't improve our basic approach to immigration.

It is important to first dispel a nasty bit of false information and state that immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are less likely to commit crimes or be incarcerated than U.S. citizens.  These are not inherently violent people.  They come here, almost universally, to get a job and, more often than not, to send the money to family back home in Latin America.  This makes for a complicated economic issue.

One the one hand businesses love illegal immigrants because they provide cheap labor.  They cannot avoid paying sales tax and gasoline tax and the like.  On the other hand they are likely taking jobs away from legal Americans, likely suppressing wages overall, likely not paying any income taxes while likely taking advantage of things like public schools and hospitals, and likely not spending very much money in our economy as they send a huge amount back home.  This last point, euphemistically called remittances apparently, is fascinating because it represents Mexico's second largest form of income behind the oil industry.  It's a mixed economic bag but probably mostly negative.

The moral bag, on the other hand, is less mixed, in my opinion.  I think we fail to take into account how much of this is our fault.  I cannot abide arguments that we, the United States, should never admit our weaknesses, and here is a pretty glaring one.  The reason illegal immigration is mixed up in our minds with violence is almost completely related to the drug smuggling.  Guess what, America, if we weren't so addicted to heroin, cocaine, and, to a lesser extent, marijuana, there wouldn't be drug smuggling problems.  We have created a huge market for illegal drugs and, as a result, a huge problem with violence.  Mexico's number one problem, and the number one reason regular old non-drug related immigration is at the levels it currently is, is tied directly to our insatiable appetite for drugs.  The corruption and violence in Mexico, leading to a depressed economy and emigration to the United States, is caused by the drug cartels.  Take away America's need for drugs and we take away the immigration problem.

No amount of harsh language and unconstitutional legislation will fix this problem.  We will only fix the problem by partnering with Mexico to reduce drug trafficking.  And racist laws like Arizona's will make it more difficult to work with Mexico, exacerbating the problem.

But more than that we have to ask ourselves how moral our general attitudes are regarding immigration.  And the church has made clear that this is a moral issue more than a political one.  The church's stance on illegal immigration was given by Elder Marlin K. Jensen:  "The church's view of someone in undocumented status is akin, in a way, to a civil trespass.  There is nothing inherent or wrong about that status."  He stated that immigration legislation should be enacted in a "spirit of compassion."  In response to criticisms of this position church spokesman Mark Tuttle said, "I wonder how they'd feel about the second great commandment, to love thy neighbor as thyself. It's not an answer to your question, but it's another question."  Actually, it seems like a perfect answer to those criticisms.

Now go back and look at Arizona's approach to illegal immigration, and the anti-immigration rhetoric being spewed throughout Utah and the United States, and members of the church.  Does it seem infused with a spirit of compassion?

Additionally, should we be morally satisfied by arbitrarily drawing a line on the map and telling the people below that line that they must live in poverty while we above that line live in wealth? Especially considering that they did not choose where they were born any more than we did?  Would we treat Canadian or English immigrants like we treat the darker-skinned Mexican immigrants?  Knowing how successful the church is in Latin America, should we really be looking down on these immigrants and wanting nothing more than to put them in prison or send them back from whence they came?  Are we truly treating them like equal children of God?

It is an incredibly complicated issue.  I understand that there are national security implications, economic implications, and counter-moral implications.  None of this is lost on me.  But it seems that too many of us are staking out dubious moral and ethical positions that are not in harmony with the Gospel's spirit of compassion.