I agree wholeheartedly.

“One could focus on the secularization and streamlining of the American culture, the flattening and homogenizing of our society and indeed our whole world under the force of the free market and modern technology, and the resulting collapse of local exceptions to dominant cultural mores . . . the increased difficulty religious communities had in preserving their cultural “borders” against temptations and corruptions available just down the road.”

The world outside the Church is a market place for stuff and ideas. Some good and some not so good. Authority is establish by them, who own the gold and establish the value for the acquisition. You were correct in asking, what future does it have?

Matthew [NT] wrote that Jesus Christ compared our days to a fig tree, who has young and tender branches and no fruit. At one point in His travels, He cursed such a tree and it shriveled and died.

Our modern technology and free market is bringing many the blessings and prosperity, which may not be deserved. And in the process it causing the collapse of competing religious communities. Of course, as Mormons we are not exempt, just remember the parable of the twelve virgins and their oil lamps. I also remember, that He is a jealous God.

Which is a deep disagreement between us. (Our deepest, perhaps?) Not that I deny what you say in terms of strategy, to say nothing of basic civility: pursuing comprehensive models of existence so to, implicitly, distinguish oneself those who don’t attain such completeness is not only rude, but also a crummy way to build a political movement. However, you can be a perfectionist without acting in ways that are rude or unnecessarily counterproductive. I think a politics which doesn’t aim for a kind of perfectionism (using the term in a specific, theoretical way here) is a politics that, in the end, makes principles subservient to externalities which will generally be controlled by others.”

Russell,

we’re defining ‘perfectionism’ differently. Of course one should politically *aim* for the the true, the good, and the perfect. But one should settle for half a loaf rather than none, and one should be just as concerned with preserving the half-loaf one already has as one is in extending it. Don’t make the best the enemy of the good, and etc. Dreher is a perfectionist in *my* sense, and it manifests itself for his relative unconcern with people who have nothing at all in common with him and his disgust and hysteria for people who have lots of things in common with him but not all.

An interesting post. Certainly, crunchiness is a loose political/sociological movement that is ill defined, but somehow easily recognized. This makes answering the question, Are Mormons crunchy? somewhat difficult.

While Mormons often share some of the outward trappings of crunchiness, we do so for non-crunchy reasons. At times we have the form of theological, institutional or social principles that may look crunchy, but we have very different sources and purposes for these forms. At the core of crunchiness I see three principles that could be Mormon, but are not: a deeply spiritual and emotional connection to mother earth; a profound sense of community; and a distrust of hierarchical authority. While we sort of share these principles with the crunchy community, our understanding of each of them is very different.

I see a deep, profound connection to mother earth, which is both spiritual and emotional, as central crunchiness. The omnipresent, benevolent earth goddess provides the origin of crunchy health and well-being. We may be the only Christian religion with the potential theology of a female god, but she remains a distant, almost patriarchal, isolated entity. Our poorly defined understanding of Heavenly Mother is very different from the crunchy relationship to the ever present and ever benevolent mother earth from whence all goodness flows. Our relationship to the earth is likewise paternal rather than the maternal, nurturing crunchy relationship. This may be the result of generations scratching out a living off the land as dirt farmers or our creation mythology. We left the benevolent Eden to live in the lone and dreary world where we are the superintendents of a world that must be dunged about and continuously worked. Our relationship to the earth is antagonist and hierarchical, with us on the top of the hierarchy. I see the crunchy earth-relationship exactly opposite: the earth is the source of all goodness and we are blessed when we live close to her and nestled in harmony with her natural order. Mormon culture (more specifically Utah culture) is very outdoorsy. But our outdoorsiness is not often of the Ed Abby sort. We like to experience nature through machines: Jeeps, snowmobiles, mountain bikes, ATCs, guns, bows, rods etc etc. Outdoor Mormon events are not about becoming emotionally attuned to mother earth through the scents of juniper smoke and the taste of wild berries.

We share the institutions of community with the crunchy folks, but somehow miss the social importance of it. Crunchy people go to PTA and local city councils because they want to bring their community together as a functional collective. They buy local produce because it gets them closer to mother earth and enables their local community spirit and culture to flourish. There is a deep hostility to globalization because this threatens local community and local traditions. Mormons have the theological and institutional structure of community, but somehow I don’t think we understand the importance of community like our crunchy neighbors do. We home teach and visit teach because we are supposed to. We go to church because its what we do on Sunday. I don’t think many of us see these activities as building a collective community that is integrated and amiably unified. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t see Mormon culture sharing the vision of building our ward into an emotionally fulfilling commune, even though we think this is what Brigham City should have become and that this is what Zion will be. As for anti-globalization, well, we have visions of a global church reading the same Ensign every month and receiving the same Sunday school lesions every week. We simply don’t share the same sense of sanctity of local culture even though our wards are structured to help us build a functional community out of disparate peoples.

Which comes to authority. Crunchy authority is derived from the collective. It is a grass roots movement that is always uncomfortable with hierarchical structure and authority. Mormon authority is always absolute (there is both a Truth and an order in which truth is disseminated). We thrive on organization and top down leadership, it’s just how things are ordered and there is order in the Lord’s house. It may be our order, but it’s not a crunchy order. Again, we have this vision of Zion as a diffuse, congenial collective where Christ acts as the single authoritative source and organized authority (legislative, executive, judiciary) are superfluous because of the collective good will of all. Sounds crunchy, but I don’t see a 15-year plan to convert each ward into the City of Enoch. Maybe we should have such a plan? Maybe I misunderstand Zion? Anyway, just because some of us wear Birkenstocks doesn’t mean we’re crunchy.

“I think ‘crunchy conservatism’ is a form of perfectionism, which is one of the banes of a decent politics.”

Which is a deep disagreement between us. (Our deepest, perhaps?) Not that I deny what you say in terms of strategy, to say nothing of basic civility: pursuing comprehensive models of existence so to, implicitly, distinguish oneself those who don’t attain such completeness is not only rude, but also a crummy way to build a political movement. However, you can be a perfectionist without acting in ways that are rude or unnecessarily counterproductive. I think a politics which doesn’t aim for a kind of perfectionism (using the term in a specific, theoretical way here) is a politics that, in the end, makes principles subservient to externalities which will generally be controlled by others.

Edward,

A lot of deep thoughts there; thanks for the contribution. I think there’s some important arguments to made along the lines you suggest–that collectively we are not really all that crunchy; it is only on a person-by-person basis that the gospel today is experienced in a sufficiently “burdensome,” authoritative way as to lead to “crunchiness”; on the whole, we are a people that mostly go along with the world. I would also say, however, that even if that is so, one cannot necessarily intuit what the full ideological realization of a Mormon way of life would look like simply by assuming an inverse of the world. For example, just because the world teaches egalitarianism, I don’t think one should assume that the gospel doesn’t teach it. I think you’re wrong to believe that gender and role divisions can’t be experienced in an egalitarian way.

Dangermom,

“Whenever I got into some ‘crunchy’ activity like food storage, gardening, or homeschooling, I would find that half my friends and information was coming from super-conservatives, and the other half was from complete leftist hippies.”

Far out–you’re Dreher’s perfect reader! This is exactly the phenomenon he’s interested in–the fact that lifestyles that have been stereotypically associated with the loony left have in fact, over the last twenty or thirty years, ended up being embraced by and even producing from within their own ranks numerous conservative Christians.

I don’t know many LDS homeschoolers in real life–my best homeschooling friend is a leftist unschooler with no religion and the rest are all evangelicals–but the ones I’ve met online are about half and half with regards to ‘crunchiness.’ The only one I know IRL is pretty soggy. I myself am medium–I’m a terrible gardener (I try!) and I don’t bake bread, but I’m boycotting WalMart and had cloth diapers.

I thought your observations, particularly in the last two paragraph, were instructive. Of course, I have not read Rod Dreher’s new book, so I don’t have an opinon of it, yet. But I thought your ideas were insightful. However, I’d like to expand on one of your observations, i.e. “Mormonism, by contrast is an authoritarian movement.” Yes, it’s right at the personal level, but wrong in the larger community level.

We have become a part of the masses, who are guided by mass approval [polling]. One quality that stands out here is, that things change all the time and each new ruler has his own agenda. Opportunity is always first and rightness comes last, thereby creating a stream of poor and unstable economies. Under this we all have [theoretically] the opportunity for gain, but most of us don’t live long enough to realize it.

The central support for all that “crunchiness” is our creative structure, which through a few centuries developed from industrial to a knowledge based society. It has liberated us and given us increased choices and time. We also the ability to connect and reconnect with others. As you noted. Today we live at a faster pace than those 200 years ago. This brittleness [crunchiness] reflects the bifurcation, that Mormonism faces as a movement.

Egalitarianism is not the Lord’s ideal. We were created as man and woman. We are divided by Priesthood – deacon, teacher and priest elder, high priest. The story of the creation was a process of separating, light from darkness, water from dry land, etc. Nevertheless, we as Mormons are united under One God by One Covenant.

On the personal level Mormonism is like a yoke, the one Jesus Christ asks us to put on. Mormonism is like a bridle limiting our movement and making us manageable to be led away from the abominations in the world. We’re either with Him or we become one of His lost sheep. The law of free agency does not operate within His doctrine. The Lord’s ideal is righteousness.

However, as members of the USA or the world, we operate under the laws of the communities, such as democracy or free ageny and our constitution. Our Church has maintained complete and absolute political neutrality, except as it relates to certain personal issues.

The brittleness you describe is our experience with the fruit of good and evil. It is a double edge sword. I don’t think brittleness is the reason for abominations. What hurts is our inability, as a Mormon “mass” movement, to see far enough ahead into the future, independent of the prophet. And our affiliation with movements in the larger community, are frequently based on our personal economic rather than spiritual need.

Of course, we are not a mass movement. However, the world is repeatedly informed by them, who proclaim their interpretation of one doctrine [plural marriage] or by them, who differ with our General Authorities. The doctrine of Jesus Christ has not yet made it into an ideology before the world. We still are Republican or Democrats. We are enjoying the sweetness of the fruit, but when the Lord’s reduces His blessings to the larger community, then we also will taste the bitterness.