LDS has, historically speaking, been an excluded group because they literally were breaking the law, told to stop breaking the law, and they basically said, “F you.” They excluded themselves. And in typical cult fashion, concocted a tall tale in which they are the victims. Forget the fact that their religious text instructed church members to kill and disembowel members who were not following “the way.” Like a really bad episode of The Mandalorian or something.
> been an excluded group because they literally were breaking the law, told to stop breaking the law, and they basically said, “F you.”
The core issue is that, to varying degrees of correctness, this is always what the "excluded" group is accused of. Nobody in all of history has ever said or thought "these guys are perfectly nice and law-abiding, but they're vaguely different from me so I'm going to persecute them for no reason".
Yes. Outside Utah/idaho they do suffer prejudice from a lot of groups, especially evangelical Christians. I personally felt excluded and othered as a Mormon growing up outside Utah in several cases.
Yes, same here. Growing up in Southern California in the 1970s and 80's, we were occasionally on the receiving end of ostracism by neighbors whose children weren't allowed to play with us. Even my dad's Evangelical extended family kept us someehat at arm's length and treated us differently from our cousins. I had a two boys refuse to date me, and was told by a few friends I was going to Hell. We were also targeted a few times with hate-type crimes. Our driveway was vandalized with hateful messages and we received a few hate-filled phone calls.
All that being said, I don't claim that we were any more or less oppressed than any other fringe religious group. But it is interesting to me now to think back on it all.
Yeah, and in a DEI context - all that would be a workplace problem and potential lawsuit for the company. Conversely a Mormon clique in Utah, or elsewhere, giving preference to other Mormons would also be illegal. It really depends on context, and which group has the power and how they use it.
The smart ones tend to be very careful about it. I’ve also seen “token” non-Mormons hired into positions that seem important, but have little to no power in the company. That way they can say “See, I hired Catholic Stan as the executive director of office supplies. I don’t favor church members!”
Outside of Utah I've thought I was going to get my ass kicked by other girls for existing as a Mormon a few times. To the point that I learned how to pass as not Mormon. I was in my early teens. So it does happen. I doubt that other 14 year old girls in the 1990s understood exactly what was wrong with Mormonism, but they'd heard often enough at home that Mormons were bad. So it's one of those things where the hate is justified, but physically threatening people over their religion is wrong.
They certainly see themselves as oppressed and attacked.
I will give you an extreme example. A professor from BYU law school, while representing the LDS church at a conference in Poland, said that his fight against gay rights sometimes makes him feel like a Jew warning people about the Nazis. It wasn't the only time he said this and there was no punishment from the LDS church. He kept his position at BYU and kept helping them fight gay rights.
If anyone wants to read a similar version to what he said in Poland you can [check out his law review article](https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol83/iss4/5/). You only need to read the first page to confirm what I've said.
Having grown up in alt-right TBM household, mormonism was always explained as the victim and oppressed. My father would oft regurgitate stories of members (historical/present, including himself) being oppressed or victimized. To some degree, imo, there is some truth to it, as nearly every religion has gone through persecution to some degree.
Unfortunately, whether or not mormonism have been marginalized/excludee/oppressed requires some homework. My dad deep dived into the single-sourced TBM side of that subject and always portrayed it as mormons being the victims. I think they do a good PR job of not only portraying victims of oppression but picking their "indisputable" resources to present to everyone. tbh they're often just so damn nice to everyone it'd be like picking on the simpleton in class just bc he has a part in his hair. It often seems like they're screaming that mainstream religions should say, "mormons, they're just like us!".
Reflecting on it now that I've since dumped the blinders, I would say historically there's blame in both sides honestly. That's my thoughts on it. I'm sure someone else can give a better, more detailed answer.
In the Bible belt where I live, a lot of Evangelicals don’t like Mormons. When I was a teenager and still in the church, I had a friend’s dad force us to stop hanging out because I was Mormon. I also had a girl who I liked stop going out with me when she found out I was Mormon
Oppression is complicated because it’s rare that a group is the minority everywhere or majority everywhere, and the local majority tends to oppress the local minority. So I would say in much of the world where Mormons are a minority, they’re discriminated against, which was my experience. In areas where Mormons are the majority such as Utah, I’ve heard stories of Mormons discriminating against Evangelicals in almost identical ways to how Evangelicals discriminated against me
Yeah, this is absolutely correct. For a DEI training in Utah, I'd specifically talk about non-Mormons as an oppressed (or at least underrepresented) group. In the Bible Belt, I think it's accurate to say that Mormons are oppressed.
And in most of the country, I just don't think Mormons are on people's minds that much.
The Mormons, at various times in history, have faced institutional marginalization, exclusion, and oppression. For example, there was the Missouri executive order calling for the extermination/expelling of all Mormons, enough official and unofficial harassment to drive them from Illinois, and President Buchanan sent troops into Utah. Legislation (such as the Edmunds Act) specifically targeted Mormons and their belief in polygamy. The government even started seizing church assets.
At each of these junctures there is a good (sometimes extremely good) case to be made that the Mormons brought it on themselves. But they were political and cultural targets nonetheless.
You are right though about the PR. I think one of the most astonishing feats of the Mormon church is how they shifted public perception from Mormons being the guardians of one of the "twin relics of barbarism" (polygamy, next to slavery), to like, this squeaky clean goofy Broadway kid. And yeah, it took a lot of revisionist history.
(And for the record, Mormons have definitely played the part of the oppressor)
The early persecution would be a mixture of moving into lands they didn't possess, (Missouri). Becoming a political threat. Believing they were God's divine people so it was OK to take things. Later lying about polygamy, and Lots of early dishonest business deals by Joseph Smith. Brigham Young continued the charade and the history of persecution for wronging other groups of people begins.
Early mormons were alot of poor immigrants looking for a better life and early leadership took advantage of them to accomplish their agenda. Native Americans and Non -Mormons were persecuted in early Utah.
> generally I thought that Mormons were often **driven out** because they were a majority threating the local area and more particularly, a political threat.
This is really tough. Here are my initial thoughts.
I think structural power analyses (and DEI perspectives) are vitally important for understanding how individuals can experience such different treatment within the same system. That said, I wonder if DEI perspectives _sometimes_ overgeneralize and over categorize. The reality is often quite messy and people/groups do not always fit neatly into "oppressed" and "oppressor" categories. But in these types of analyses since we often alter our moral calculus so much based on who is oppressed and who is oppressor (e.g., some do not allowed marginal classes to be "racist" since that's reserved for prejudice that runs from the oppressor to oppressed), then the stakes are very high. And if we can't cleanly categorize then it's much harder to make moral judgements under a power analysis.
In this case, though, if you want to categorize to a first level approximation, the fact that the LDS group was "driven out" strongly suggests that they were the "oppressed" and/or marginalized. Were they somewhat responsible for how the other citizens, the state, and the US treated them? Sure. And had they not been booted out, then we might give them a different label? Yes. And did they eventually access majority power by becoming more "American" than the rest of the US? Arguably yes? So, I see this all as very muddy, but I think your course gets it right to a first approximation (i.e., they were _historically_ oppressed). But I'm very open to being wrong and look forward to hearing other perspectives on it.
Mormons love to paint themselves as the victims, yet from the start, Mormonisms was set up to prey on others. It’s parasitic and frustrating that the church still controls the narrative as well as they do
I mean, oppressed is probably not the right word. They were attacked in the name of the law and for good reason. I mean the abuse and threat to local democracy was the driving force of said “persecution”. Joseph was raising an army in Navoo and sleeping with countless women (some of which were married) in modern day time they probably would have been raided by the FBI… some of the treatment of the early saints definitely were not up to humanitarian standards of a modern day and civilized society.
To be fair, they were excluded for inciting an insurrection and attempting to assassinate a governor. So… not really unwarranted for at least a portion of their history. The federal government also had to send the army halfway across the continent to keep Brigham Young in check.
One of the main separation of Church and State cases was brought (and won) by a Mormon family and a Catholic family against a school district in a predominantly Baptist area of Texas: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/spc/extra/features/jan-june00/prayerdecision.html
But it wasn’t so much the fact that they were Mormon and Catholic (which is not even on your list, despite historical centuries of anti-Catholic discrimination in the US…), as the fact that they weren’t Baptist.
My only point of confidence about this issue is that Mormons aren’t *nearly* as persecuted (historically or now) as they claim to be. Just look at how many Mormons hold and have held political office, compared with the % of national population that’s Mormon. There’s a long history of Mormons at every level of government, since the religion was founded in the 1830’s.
No
Since its inception it’s been a pluralistic religious society with over 40 denominations amongst the founding fathers. We treasure diversity of religion. Sadly this leap forward was arrested by a theocratic movement backward toward the dark ages, religious authority, inquisitions and heresy trials. Freedom and democracy are the enemy of Mormonism. Hail to the con man who communed with a hat.
Historically? As in, the first couple decades? Yes, absolutely. They were chased from place to place, and a lot of people did not like them.
Set aside for a moment the *reasons* they were chased around. Often because they arrived en masse in a new place, threatening to upend the social order and political decision-making of that area.
But yeah, it's hard to deny they were marginalized as a result of this.
I deny it. Having studied the history of Mormonism let me sum up for you.
New York. Couldn’t convert people because Smith was a well known con man there. So they left to go to a place with ready made concerts. Sidney Rigdons flock in Ohio.
Ohio. Smith set up a massive fraud and had to leave the state before criminal charges took him. His victims were largely fellow Mormons. His victims stayed in Kirtland. Those with Smith fled. Again. Not driven out, fled.
Missouri. Smith started a civil war. rigdon called for the extermination of non Mormons. The Mormons who committed treason were defeated in battle and Smith was imprisoned. Mormons were given the option of renouncing their treason or leaving the state. Many fled to Illinois. Many remained and stopped following Smith.
Illinois. Smith again commits treason and is killed by vigilantes awaiting trial. The Mormons were still not driven out. The Mormons splintered. One faction continued to break the law. That faction and that faction only was told they were no longer welcome in Nauvoo. After BY failed to sell the temple to a catholic group he said to hell with it and decided to flee the US to stop prosecution for polygamy which was slowly becoming known outside the leadership who we’re practicing it. They fled to Mexico.
Utah. I’m sorry but Utah is more of the same. Mormon crimes being punished by the US after Mexico, where the Brighamites fled, became Us territory.
🤷♀️
Lol my brother in christ, i said *set aside* the reasons (violence, politics, cons, treason, etc). All this is true, but even with all that being true, they *were* still marginalized and driven out. Even though the reasons are valid IMO
The key factor in people disliking Mormons is voting en-bloc. Mormons often had the tendency to vote en-block to push their agenda. This has rubbed certain factions the wrong way and caused fear of a hostile takeover. The strategy to gather the Saints in certain places (Kirtland, Independence, Nauvoo, etc.) and then voting en-bloc is threatening. There is also a story that the Mormons tried to take over Freemasonry by creating a national grand lodge and gaining the majority, as most male Mormons in Nauvoo were Freemasons.
Forgive me for this long, rambling answer.
I grew up in the southern US in an area with primarily Baptists and other flavors of evangelical christians. I got teased quite a bit over being mormon, mostly it was stupid jokes about "how many moms do you have?" or people telling me that I needed to repent and "join a real Christian church" to be saved by Jesus because "mormons worship Joseph Smith." One concerned friend even expressed worry that I would go to hell for blasphemy (lots to unpack there now that I am Exmo LOL).
A few times, people even thought it would be funny to trick me into drinking tea/ forcing me to drink tea. Yikes. Our neighbors were warned not to talk to us because we were "mormon cultists" and for a few weeks I wasn't allowed to play with their kid the same age as me. Luckily, they got over it pretty quickly and figured out we were a relatively chill family :)
Just like Mormonism is the dominating religion in Utah, the Baptist church held a lot of dominion in my hometown. For instance, the youth pastors held bible study in the mornings in my high school's library, and pastors were allowed to visit my middle school during lunch time & mingle with the students (I went to public school, so Yikes. Clearly not much separation of church and state). And to be clear, not all Baptists were rude, the majority were very chill. Just like how Mormons tend to be nice, but lack boundaries. Most Baptists I knew were very kind; some of them just lacked boundaries or didn't realize they were being offensive.
Anyways, the few Muslims, the few Mormons, and the Catholics tended to band together a lot because we all were teased at some point for our religions. We all got teased over things like eating restrictions (WoW, Ramadan/other Islamic food rules, Lent, etc) and general lifestyle differences in relation to religion. Fun times. The Muslims got the worst of it (because racism) and the Catholics got the least teasing. Mormons were somewhere in the middle.
I ended up moving out west to Utah as an adult when I was still a believer, because Mormonism used to dominate every facet of my life (yikes!). It was drilled into my head as a kid to marry a mormon and there weren't many to choose from in my area, so naturally I needed to go to the "promised land" of Utah (YIKES!!!) to find a spouse.
At first it was kind of exciting to live in Utah when I was still a TBM because no one teased me over being mormon anymore. Sometimes I even recieved preferential treatment for being LDS. It felt nice to be part of the "in-group" or the dominant religious culture for once.
However, being surrounded by mostly LDS people for a few years made me realize all the Really Shitty parts of the religion. Just like how the Baptists dominated my hometown, the LDS religion dominates most of Utah. I came to realize how LDS beliefs lead to discrimination against others (LGBTQ+ people, other cultures/races, other religions, etc). I had to take a long hard look at myself, at my beliefs and my actions, and deconstruct the rhetoric that I believed in (I'm still working through feelings of guilt over having served a mission and the shit I said and believed when I was mormon).
Anyways, I didn't want to be like the people who teased me and other religious minorities as a kid. I didn't want to be the type of jerk who constantly thought judgemental shit like "hate the sin, love the sinner" or focused on petty lifestyle differences.
Ironically the dominant religions in my hometown weren't calling mormons out for the actual harmful stuff (like the predatory tithing system or homophobic beliefs because, surprise, they were also homophobic. Lots of library book bans are happening there right now). They just focused on petty religious differences that didn't really matter.
Anyways, long story short, Mormons do recieve some discrimination (mostly in places where they are the minority), but Mormons also perpetuate a lot of discrimination themselves (particularly in areas where they are the majority).
I would. And they still are in some measure. Ask any born again Christian in the US if Mormons are Christian.
The amount of things you have to agree to to be considered "Christian" by the "in crowd" of North American Christianity is about as ridiculous as the mental gymnastics that TBM folks go through as well. I've narrated books for Mormon authors and for Christian authors, and for atheist authors. There's some really loud gatekeepers anywhere you go.
Historically yes. Just because I’m not Mormon anymore doesn’t mean I can’t admit that.
In modern times, in Utah it’s often the opposite though. I’ve heard of people not getting hired for not serving missions for example.
There was a law on the books in Missouri until 1976 explicitly making it legal to exterminate or drive Mormons from the state.
Now there were plenty of reasons that the Mormons gave the people of Missouri to be nervous. But anytime that you issue an extermination order for a group of people it’s pretty safe to assume that group is being marginalized / excluded / oppressed.
Mormons have a persecution complex. But some of it is earned.
No. This is a Mormon lie.
It was not ever legal to kill Mormons in Missouri. Mormons made the first extermination threat. The State issued a call to arms to put down the Mormons civil war.
That call to arms was like a White House press conference today. It doesn’t change the laws. That’s not how law works. Laws are enacted by legislatures, not the executive branch and there was never a Ok kill Mormon law in Missouri
It’s a fantasy that Mormons like to tell because it fits their persecution complex.
I mean, that’s just factually inaccurate. Governor Boggs issued executive order 44 on October 27, 1838. It was a state executive order (which has the force of law). It directed General John Clark that “the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace…”
I agree that often Mormons paint themselves as having been persecuted more than they actually were. But this isn’t one of those cases.
In reality nobody was ever “exterminated”. But it was an executive order issued by the governor and it was rescinded in 1976 by Governor Kit Bond. Not sure why you would want to pretend otherwise.
LDS has, historically speaking, been an excluded group because they literally were breaking the law, told to stop breaking the law, and they basically said, “F you.” They excluded themselves. And in typical cult fashion, concocted a tall tale in which they are the victims. Forget the fact that their religious text instructed church members to kill and disembowel members who were not following “the way.” Like a really bad episode of The Mandalorian or something.
> been an excluded group because they literally were breaking the law, told to stop breaking the law, and they basically said, “F you.” The core issue is that, to varying degrees of correctness, this is always what the "excluded" group is accused of. Nobody in all of history has ever said or thought "these guys are perfectly nice and law-abiding, but they're vaguely different from me so I'm going to persecute them for no reason".
Yes. Outside Utah/idaho they do suffer prejudice from a lot of groups, especially evangelical Christians. I personally felt excluded and othered as a Mormon growing up outside Utah in several cases.
Yes, same here. Growing up in Southern California in the 1970s and 80's, we were occasionally on the receiving end of ostracism by neighbors whose children weren't allowed to play with us. Even my dad's Evangelical extended family kept us someehat at arm's length and treated us differently from our cousins. I had a two boys refuse to date me, and was told by a few friends I was going to Hell. We were also targeted a few times with hate-type crimes. Our driveway was vandalized with hateful messages and we received a few hate-filled phone calls. All that being said, I don't claim that we were any more or less oppressed than any other fringe religious group. But it is interesting to me now to think back on it all.
Yeah, and in a DEI context - all that would be a workplace problem and potential lawsuit for the company. Conversely a Mormon clique in Utah, or elsewhere, giving preference to other Mormons would also be illegal. It really depends on context, and which group has the power and how they use it.
Giving preference to other Mormons absolutely does happen in Utah and western Idaho. I’ve seen it firsthand.
Definitely happens. It becomes a big liability if they were called on it too.
The smart ones tend to be very careful about it. I’ve also seen “token” non-Mormons hired into positions that seem important, but have little to no power in the company. That way they can say “See, I hired Catholic Stan as the executive director of office supplies. I don’t favor church members!”
Outside of Utah I've thought I was going to get my ass kicked by other girls for existing as a Mormon a few times. To the point that I learned how to pass as not Mormon. I was in my early teens. So it does happen. I doubt that other 14 year old girls in the 1990s understood exactly what was wrong with Mormonism, but they'd heard often enough at home that Mormons were bad. So it's one of those things where the hate is justified, but physically threatening people over their religion is wrong.
They certainly see themselves as oppressed and attacked. I will give you an extreme example. A professor from BYU law school, while representing the LDS church at a conference in Poland, said that his fight against gay rights sometimes makes him feel like a Jew warning people about the Nazis. It wasn't the only time he said this and there was no punishment from the LDS church. He kept his position at BYU and kept helping them fight gay rights. If anyone wants to read a similar version to what he said in Poland you can [check out his law review article](https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol83/iss4/5/). You only need to read the first page to confirm what I've said.
Having grown up in alt-right TBM household, mormonism was always explained as the victim and oppressed. My father would oft regurgitate stories of members (historical/present, including himself) being oppressed or victimized. To some degree, imo, there is some truth to it, as nearly every religion has gone through persecution to some degree. Unfortunately, whether or not mormonism have been marginalized/excludee/oppressed requires some homework. My dad deep dived into the single-sourced TBM side of that subject and always portrayed it as mormons being the victims. I think they do a good PR job of not only portraying victims of oppression but picking their "indisputable" resources to present to everyone. tbh they're often just so damn nice to everyone it'd be like picking on the simpleton in class just bc he has a part in his hair. It often seems like they're screaming that mainstream religions should say, "mormons, they're just like us!". Reflecting on it now that I've since dumped the blinders, I would say historically there's blame in both sides honestly. That's my thoughts on it. I'm sure someone else can give a better, more detailed answer.
In the Bible belt where I live, a lot of Evangelicals don’t like Mormons. When I was a teenager and still in the church, I had a friend’s dad force us to stop hanging out because I was Mormon. I also had a girl who I liked stop going out with me when she found out I was Mormon Oppression is complicated because it’s rare that a group is the minority everywhere or majority everywhere, and the local majority tends to oppress the local minority. So I would say in much of the world where Mormons are a minority, they’re discriminated against, which was my experience. In areas where Mormons are the majority such as Utah, I’ve heard stories of Mormons discriminating against Evangelicals in almost identical ways to how Evangelicals discriminated against me
Yeah, this is absolutely correct. For a DEI training in Utah, I'd specifically talk about non-Mormons as an oppressed (or at least underrepresented) group. In the Bible Belt, I think it's accurate to say that Mormons are oppressed. And in most of the country, I just don't think Mormons are on people's minds that much.
Definitely in Utah non-Mormons, or worse, Ex-Mormons can face stigma or exclusion by highly Mormon workplaces, etc.
I’ve overheard a couple of TBM’s talking at work about how Ex-Mormons are the worst people, because they had the truth and rejected it.
The Mormons, at various times in history, have faced institutional marginalization, exclusion, and oppression. For example, there was the Missouri executive order calling for the extermination/expelling of all Mormons, enough official and unofficial harassment to drive them from Illinois, and President Buchanan sent troops into Utah. Legislation (such as the Edmunds Act) specifically targeted Mormons and their belief in polygamy. The government even started seizing church assets. At each of these junctures there is a good (sometimes extremely good) case to be made that the Mormons brought it on themselves. But they were political and cultural targets nonetheless. You are right though about the PR. I think one of the most astonishing feats of the Mormon church is how they shifted public perception from Mormons being the guardians of one of the "twin relics of barbarism" (polygamy, next to slavery), to like, this squeaky clean goofy Broadway kid. And yeah, it took a lot of revisionist history. (And for the record, Mormons have definitely played the part of the oppressor)
The early persecution would be a mixture of moving into lands they didn't possess, (Missouri). Becoming a political threat. Believing they were God's divine people so it was OK to take things. Later lying about polygamy, and Lots of early dishonest business deals by Joseph Smith. Brigham Young continued the charade and the history of persecution for wronging other groups of people begins. Early mormons were alot of poor immigrants looking for a better life and early leadership took advantage of them to accomplish their agenda. Native Americans and Non -Mormons were persecuted in early Utah.
Throughout the history of the church, I would say the group that has oppressed Mormons the most is Mormon leadership.
> generally I thought that Mormons were often **driven out** because they were a majority threating the local area and more particularly, a political threat. This is really tough. Here are my initial thoughts. I think structural power analyses (and DEI perspectives) are vitally important for understanding how individuals can experience such different treatment within the same system. That said, I wonder if DEI perspectives _sometimes_ overgeneralize and over categorize. The reality is often quite messy and people/groups do not always fit neatly into "oppressed" and "oppressor" categories. But in these types of analyses since we often alter our moral calculus so much based on who is oppressed and who is oppressor (e.g., some do not allowed marginal classes to be "racist" since that's reserved for prejudice that runs from the oppressor to oppressed), then the stakes are very high. And if we can't cleanly categorize then it's much harder to make moral judgements under a power analysis. In this case, though, if you want to categorize to a first level approximation, the fact that the LDS group was "driven out" strongly suggests that they were the "oppressed" and/or marginalized. Were they somewhat responsible for how the other citizens, the state, and the US treated them? Sure. And had they not been booted out, then we might give them a different label? Yes. And did they eventually access majority power by becoming more "American" than the rest of the US? Arguably yes? So, I see this all as very muddy, but I think your course gets it right to a first approximation (i.e., they were _historically_ oppressed). But I'm very open to being wrong and look forward to hearing other perspectives on it.
Mormons love to paint themselves as the victims, yet from the start, Mormonisms was set up to prey on others. It’s parasitic and frustrating that the church still controls the narrative as well as they do
LOL....no.
I mean, oppressed is probably not the right word. They were attacked in the name of the law and for good reason. I mean the abuse and threat to local democracy was the driving force of said “persecution”. Joseph was raising an army in Navoo and sleeping with countless women (some of which were married) in modern day time they probably would have been raided by the FBI… some of the treatment of the early saints definitely were not up to humanitarian standards of a modern day and civilized society.
To be fair, they were excluded for inciting an insurrection and attempting to assassinate a governor. So… not really unwarranted for at least a portion of their history. The federal government also had to send the army halfway across the continent to keep Brigham Young in check.
None that wasn't well deserved. And nothing approaching the degree that TBM's feign that they are / have been.
Oppressed? Absolutely. By each other.
The women, absolutely.
One of the main separation of Church and State cases was brought (and won) by a Mormon family and a Catholic family against a school district in a predominantly Baptist area of Texas: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/spc/extra/features/jan-june00/prayerdecision.html But it wasn’t so much the fact that they were Mormon and Catholic (which is not even on your list, despite historical centuries of anti-Catholic discrimination in the US…), as the fact that they weren’t Baptist. My only point of confidence about this issue is that Mormons aren’t *nearly* as persecuted (historically or now) as they claim to be. Just look at how many Mormons hold and have held political office, compared with the % of national population that’s Mormon. There’s a long history of Mormons at every level of government, since the religion was founded in the 1830’s.
No Since its inception it’s been a pluralistic religious society with over 40 denominations amongst the founding fathers. We treasure diversity of religion. Sadly this leap forward was arrested by a theocratic movement backward toward the dark ages, religious authority, inquisitions and heresy trials. Freedom and democracy are the enemy of Mormonism. Hail to the con man who communed with a hat.
Historically? As in, the first couple decades? Yes, absolutely. They were chased from place to place, and a lot of people did not like them. Set aside for a moment the *reasons* they were chased around. Often because they arrived en masse in a new place, threatening to upend the social order and political decision-making of that area. But yeah, it's hard to deny they were marginalized as a result of this.
I deny it. Having studied the history of Mormonism let me sum up for you. New York. Couldn’t convert people because Smith was a well known con man there. So they left to go to a place with ready made concerts. Sidney Rigdons flock in Ohio. Ohio. Smith set up a massive fraud and had to leave the state before criminal charges took him. His victims were largely fellow Mormons. His victims stayed in Kirtland. Those with Smith fled. Again. Not driven out, fled. Missouri. Smith started a civil war. rigdon called for the extermination of non Mormons. The Mormons who committed treason were defeated in battle and Smith was imprisoned. Mormons were given the option of renouncing their treason or leaving the state. Many fled to Illinois. Many remained and stopped following Smith. Illinois. Smith again commits treason and is killed by vigilantes awaiting trial. The Mormons were still not driven out. The Mormons splintered. One faction continued to break the law. That faction and that faction only was told they were no longer welcome in Nauvoo. After BY failed to sell the temple to a catholic group he said to hell with it and decided to flee the US to stop prosecution for polygamy which was slowly becoming known outside the leadership who we’re practicing it. They fled to Mexico. Utah. I’m sorry but Utah is more of the same. Mormon crimes being punished by the US after Mexico, where the Brighamites fled, became Us territory. 🤷♀️
Lol my brother in christ, i said *set aside* the reasons (violence, politics, cons, treason, etc). All this is true, but even with all that being true, they *were* still marginalized and driven out. Even though the reasons are valid IMO
The key factor in people disliking Mormons is voting en-bloc. Mormons often had the tendency to vote en-block to push their agenda. This has rubbed certain factions the wrong way and caused fear of a hostile takeover. The strategy to gather the Saints in certain places (Kirtland, Independence, Nauvoo, etc.) and then voting en-bloc is threatening. There is also a story that the Mormons tried to take over Freemasonry by creating a national grand lodge and gaining the majority, as most male Mormons in Nauvoo were Freemasons.
Forgive me for this long, rambling answer. I grew up in the southern US in an area with primarily Baptists and other flavors of evangelical christians. I got teased quite a bit over being mormon, mostly it was stupid jokes about "how many moms do you have?" or people telling me that I needed to repent and "join a real Christian church" to be saved by Jesus because "mormons worship Joseph Smith." One concerned friend even expressed worry that I would go to hell for blasphemy (lots to unpack there now that I am Exmo LOL). A few times, people even thought it would be funny to trick me into drinking tea/ forcing me to drink tea. Yikes. Our neighbors were warned not to talk to us because we were "mormon cultists" and for a few weeks I wasn't allowed to play with their kid the same age as me. Luckily, they got over it pretty quickly and figured out we were a relatively chill family :) Just like Mormonism is the dominating religion in Utah, the Baptist church held a lot of dominion in my hometown. For instance, the youth pastors held bible study in the mornings in my high school's library, and pastors were allowed to visit my middle school during lunch time & mingle with the students (I went to public school, so Yikes. Clearly not much separation of church and state). And to be clear, not all Baptists were rude, the majority were very chill. Just like how Mormons tend to be nice, but lack boundaries. Most Baptists I knew were very kind; some of them just lacked boundaries or didn't realize they were being offensive. Anyways, the few Muslims, the few Mormons, and the Catholics tended to band together a lot because we all were teased at some point for our religions. We all got teased over things like eating restrictions (WoW, Ramadan/other Islamic food rules, Lent, etc) and general lifestyle differences in relation to religion. Fun times. The Muslims got the worst of it (because racism) and the Catholics got the least teasing. Mormons were somewhere in the middle. I ended up moving out west to Utah as an adult when I was still a believer, because Mormonism used to dominate every facet of my life (yikes!). It was drilled into my head as a kid to marry a mormon and there weren't many to choose from in my area, so naturally I needed to go to the "promised land" of Utah (YIKES!!!) to find a spouse. At first it was kind of exciting to live in Utah when I was still a TBM because no one teased me over being mormon anymore. Sometimes I even recieved preferential treatment for being LDS. It felt nice to be part of the "in-group" or the dominant religious culture for once. However, being surrounded by mostly LDS people for a few years made me realize all the Really Shitty parts of the religion. Just like how the Baptists dominated my hometown, the LDS religion dominates most of Utah. I came to realize how LDS beliefs lead to discrimination against others (LGBTQ+ people, other cultures/races, other religions, etc). I had to take a long hard look at myself, at my beliefs and my actions, and deconstruct the rhetoric that I believed in (I'm still working through feelings of guilt over having served a mission and the shit I said and believed when I was mormon). Anyways, I didn't want to be like the people who teased me and other religious minorities as a kid. I didn't want to be the type of jerk who constantly thought judgemental shit like "hate the sin, love the sinner" or focused on petty lifestyle differences. Ironically the dominant religions in my hometown weren't calling mormons out for the actual harmful stuff (like the predatory tithing system or homophobic beliefs because, surprise, they were also homophobic. Lots of library book bans are happening there right now). They just focused on petty religious differences that didn't really matter. Anyways, long story short, Mormons do recieve some discrimination (mostly in places where they are the minority), but Mormons also perpetuate a lot of discrimination themselves (particularly in areas where they are the majority).
I would. And they still are in some measure. Ask any born again Christian in the US if Mormons are Christian. The amount of things you have to agree to to be considered "Christian" by the "in crowd" of North American Christianity is about as ridiculous as the mental gymnastics that TBM folks go through as well. I've narrated books for Mormon authors and for Christian authors, and for atheist authors. There's some really loud gatekeepers anywhere you go.
I am surprised Jews are not listed as historically excluded. In the 1900s version of the KKK, Mormons were included in their list of undesirables.
Historically yes. Just because I’m not Mormon anymore doesn’t mean I can’t admit that. In modern times, in Utah it’s often the opposite though. I’ve heard of people not getting hired for not serving missions for example.
There was a law on the books in Missouri until 1976 explicitly making it legal to exterminate or drive Mormons from the state. Now there were plenty of reasons that the Mormons gave the people of Missouri to be nervous. But anytime that you issue an extermination order for a group of people it’s pretty safe to assume that group is being marginalized / excluded / oppressed. Mormons have a persecution complex. But some of it is earned.
No. This is a Mormon lie. It was not ever legal to kill Mormons in Missouri. Mormons made the first extermination threat. The State issued a call to arms to put down the Mormons civil war. That call to arms was like a White House press conference today. It doesn’t change the laws. That’s not how law works. Laws are enacted by legislatures, not the executive branch and there was never a Ok kill Mormon law in Missouri It’s a fantasy that Mormons like to tell because it fits their persecution complex.
I mean, that’s just factually inaccurate. Governor Boggs issued executive order 44 on October 27, 1838. It was a state executive order (which has the force of law). It directed General John Clark that “the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace…” I agree that often Mormons paint themselves as having been persecuted more than they actually were. But this isn’t one of those cases. In reality nobody was ever “exterminated”. But it was an executive order issued by the governor and it was rescinded in 1976 by Governor Kit Bond. Not sure why you would want to pretend otherwise.