I do think there’s more diversity of thought within Mormon politics than you suggest. Tensions between small government near libertarians and social conservatives are well known for example. Likewise I think breaks over immigration and other issues are reasonably well known. But this is veering from Rachel’s post. (And Rachel, I’ve broke out my Taylor again to give it an other go — so hopefully I can say more next time)

Even if Mormons were strictly following the party platform, you might have noticed that the party platform is only vaguely representative of the Republican electorate as a whole this cycle. There appear to be three different main camps, with very different priorities, different enough that they regard each others’ candidates with contempt. So the relevant question is: Are Mormons just a bunch of typical Republican voters? And the answer is clearly No, because Trump’s numbers everywhere else are pretty strong, and Utah gave him the brush off. My view is that the immigration issue is the biggest point where Mormons differ from other Republicans as a body. Rubio was the most popular among Utah Republicans early this year (defined in voters’ minds as much as anything by his history with the Gang of Eight), well above his typical numbers at the time, and Trump has always been a weak third place. This is not about political participation in general, but about the particular priorities and values expressed in Mormons’ particular approach to political participation.

I would love to see Mormons be even more independent and distinctive, and I think we have grounds to be. I am pretty sympathetic to MacIntyre’s point in general. But MacIntyre is a recovering Trotskyite, and I don’t think independent thought necessarily means one will come to conclusions as radical or out of step as his. Thinking independently doesn’t mean you can’t agree with any of the ideas that are already out there; it all depends on how sound the ideas already out there are. If it should so happen that one party is a lot closer to the truth than the other on multiple important issues, then independent moral insight might just lead one through an independent train of thought to conclusions that roughly line up with those of a particular party.

Considering that church attendance is the best predictor of party affiliation these days, one could argue that the fact that Mormons lean pretty strongly toward the party of churchgoers (as messy as that party is right now) is a sign that Christ is having a big impact on their lives after all.

zjg, Romney has had plenty of success and wealth, but didn’t allow these goals to stop him from doing all the standard Mormon things, with an early and long-lasting marriage, a big, beautiful family, lots of church service . . . I certainly have the impression that a lot of people saw him as being from another planet because of his squeaky-clean values and demeanor, like someone who had stepped out of a time warp from a 1950s TV show, but I don’t think we need to debate that further.

Sure, Mormonism is not the radical departure from immanence that was Christianity before the Reformation (although there was plenty of shady entanglement with immanent structures going on), but I don’t see anyone suggesting it should be. Mormonism implies that faith transforms us without removing us so much from the immanent; it transforms us *within* the immanent. And I think the degree of transformation is pretty dramatic, and will get more so as our culture becomes increasingly secular.

Mormons are seriously different. Look at the far disproportional involvement (hours and dollars) and effect that Mormons had in the campaign for Prop 8 in CA; Mormons were the tip of the spear there, despite being few in number. Look at Trump’s minuscule 14% of the vote in the Utah primary. Where else has he gotten below 25%? Trump got twice that in Ted Cruz’s home state and 2.5 times that in John Kasich’s home state.

Mormonism is a radical break from traditional Christianity (and a radical departure from modern secularity); it is supposed to be.

Ben is right that a transformation is underway, although I think he exaggerates how big of one it is. Even when I was at BYU in the early 90’s from what I could tell everyone used contraception. Maybe in more traditional rural parts of Mormondom that took longer to integrate. But if there was a change, it took place primarily in the 70’s and 80’s and largely just slightly delayed from the country as a whole.

I do think though that Mormons are far more apt to have their children in their early 20’s rather than their 30’s though. I don’t know of any statistics on that to know for sure. I’m just going by what I see around Utah and with friends.

I also think Ben’s completely correct that Mormons are unusual in the degree of charitable service we do. (Whether or critics agree with where we focus our efforts, the amount of time and sacrifice required by even regular members is huge – throw in people in leadership and it’s staggering.) That Mormons are often able to do this and still reach a surprising level of attainment in cultural values is pretty surprising. That is there are lots of successful Mormons even if the number is typically exaggerated by Mormons.

(FWIW, I still think the notion of “higher purpose,” as discussed in psychology and ethics literature, for example, is a nice way to address the immanence-transcendence that is being further developed in this chapter and in some of the comments above. I think Taylor gets at this fairly nicely at the end of his book when he talks more about verticality–though I remember thinking he didn’t quite zero in on what I think is most important regarding this.

What I have in mind, that Taylor kind of gets at, but as clearly as I remember wanting him to, is something like the development of a religious culture that pushes back against “flat” secular culture by fostering narratives, practices and norms that make it possible for individuals and groups to find deep meaning and fulfillment in serving each other–in not merely economic ways–and working toward the larger common good of those outside of the religious community. This, to me, would be a very Mormon way of thinking about immanent transcendence….)