Proposition 8, Mormons, and the New Statesman

What interest does Proposition 8 and the “Mormons” hold for the New Statesman, “Britain’s award-winning current affairs magazine”? Why would a current affairs magazine based in London track what’s happening half way around the world in the state of California?

The other night I visited a web site that had links to Google News stories about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The title of one of the news stories caught my eye – it was entitled “California’s Mormons Split Over Gay Vote”.¹ I hadn’t read too many articles about Proposition 8 recently, other than the one that appeared in Meridian Magazine a few days ago², so I decided to check it out.

The New Statesman’s Characterization of Mormons

Here is how the New Statesman characterizes members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

• The tag line to the article – “A bid to ban gay marriage in California has divided the Mormon Church in two – one side favouring a conservative vision the other backing equal rights” – implies that the Church is divided due to Proposition 8. However, as President Ezra Taft Benson once pointed out, “the Church is not divided. It simply means that there are some who, for the time being at least, are members of the Church but not in harmony with it.”³ The tag line also confuses “equal rights” with “equality.”
• The article gives the impression that the Church is meddling in political affairs without recognizing the fact that members of the Church have political rights, namely free speech, and that the Church can and should speak out on moral issues.
• The New Statesman put in a favorable light those like Bishop Bennion who take a “Switzerland” approach to Proposition 8 and stand up to “higher ups”. This appears to be an effort to create division within the Church. In contrast to this statement, President Henry B. Eyring recently spoke about a “great day of unity [which] is coming”⁴ and the blessings of being unified.
• The New Statesman considers “moderate” those Church members who reach out to the gay community “after receiving the metaphorical cold shoulder from their brethren”. This erroneously implies that faithful or believing members of the Church have not and will not continue to reach out to gay family members and friends in a spirit of love and support Proposition 8.
• Bishop Bennion is shown as a man with an “open mind” because he ignores the counsel of Church leaders and is “little more than a spectator” in the debate. Apparently, at least according to the New Statesman, only “close minded” people support Proposition 8 and support Church leadership.
• According to the article, Bishop Bennion is undecided about the issue – “It raises a lot of questions to which there aren’t a lot of crystal clear answers”. Perhaps Bishop Bennion was not aware that the Church published The Divine Institution of Marriage on August 13th and followed that up with additional information about Same-Sex Marriage and Proposition 8 on October 16th. He may also be unaware of additional sources of information at the Preserving the Divine Institution of Marriage web site.
• In stating that “Mormon leaders” are “gung-ho” in efforts to preserve traditional marriage, the New Statesman tries to position the Church – and members of the Church – in a “fight against gay marriage” (emphasis added). In stark contrast, the Church’s statement The Divine Institution of Marriage is completely devoid of inflammatory language (e.g. “fight”) and seeks to “reduce misunderstanding and ill will.”

What is the New Statesman?

When I first saw the title of the site, I seemed to remember reading something about the New Statesman that at first I couldn’t quite place. But when I clicked on the About New Statesman link and read the first sentence, I knew immediately what the site was about:

The New Statesman was created in 1913 with the aim of permeating the educated and influential classes with socialist ideas. Its founders were Sidney and Beatrice Webb (later Lord and Lady Passfield), along with Bernard Shaw, and a small but influential group of Fabians.

“Of course, that was it” I thought. The New Statesman was merged with an earlier publication of the Fabian Society which was founded by the Webbs and others. I had read about the publication in an excellent book about the Fabian Society entitled The Great Deceit: Social Pseudo-Sciences which contains an introduction and epilogue by Archibald B. Roosevelt, President Theodore Roosevelt’s son.⁵

The Fabian Society

So who are the Fabians and why did its founders have the “aim of permeating the educated and influential classes with socialist ideas” you ask? Let me try to explain.

The Fabian Society was founded on 4 January 1884 in London as an offshoot of The Fellowship of the New Life.⁶ The society was named after the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator – “the delayer” – who advocated a war of attrition rather than direct confrontation against the Carthaginian army under the renowned general Hannibal Barca.

Early on, it appears the society was directly influenced by the English Historical School in opposition to the Classical Political Economists such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill. It was built upon the utopian socialist ideas of such men as Sir Thomas More, John Locke, Robert Owen, Étienne Cabet, and Franςois Marie Charles Fourier.⁷

The Fabians believed that social reform could be achieved by gradual and patient argument and by “permeating” their ideas into the circles of those with power. In fact, “the inevitability of gradualism” was an early slogan.⁸

At its inception, the society sought to become an alternative in Britain for the more dominate Marxist Social-Democratic Federation. They sought to “accomplish socialism through a very gradual process using the voting booth and representative democracy as their instrument of change.”⁹

The ideology of society members is encompassed in a famous quote, “Fabianism feeds on Capitalism, but excretes Communism”.¹⁰ The motto of the society was captured by Edward R. Pease, but unlike communists who seek to achieve their objectives via violence and revolution, Pease wrote that Fabians must wait for the “right moment . . . [then] strike hard”:

For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently,
when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays;
but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your
waiting will be in vain and fruitless.¹¹

What Do You Think?

This recent article begs the question: Why do you think a story about Proposition 8 and the “Mormons” made it to the front page on the New Statesman web site?

Sources:

1. Quinn, Tom. “California’s Mormons Split Over Gay Vote“. New Statesman. 30 October 2008.↩
2. Brown, Lowell C. “California’s Proposition 8: Open Season on Mormons“. Meridian Magazine. 27 October 2008.↩
3. Benson, Ezra Taft. The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988. 88-89.↩
4. Eyring, Henry. B. “Our Hearts Knit as One“. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 31 October 2008.↩
5. Dobbs, Zygmund, ed. The Great Deceit: Social Pseudo-Sciences. West Sayville, New York: Veritas Foundation, 1964.↩
6. “Fabian Society“. Wikipedia. 24 October 2008.↩
7. “The Fabian Socialists“. The History of Economic Thought. 24 October 2008.↩
8. “The Fabian Society“. London School of Economics and Political Science. 24 October 2008; “Fabian Society”. Wikipedia. 24 October 2008.↩
9. “A Fabian Socialist Dream Come True“. Nolan Chart. 24 October 2008.↩
10. “Fabian Society”. Wikipedia. 24 October 2008.↩
11. Motto of the Fabian Society, as printed at the head of Fabian Tract No. 1. The wording of the motto was supplied by Frank Podmore; see Cole, Margaret. The Story of Fabian Socialism. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1961. 1.↩

Related posts

• Strachey on Keynesian Economics
• Socialism a Transition Stage for Communism
• Keynesian Economics and Savings
• History of Socialized Medicine in America
• Bacevich on Reinhold Niebuhr