“If I see Harry Reid in the temple, I’m going to hit him.”

Comments (121)

1. They eat their own.

2. Wow. Holy Jesus.

   You know, I always figured it’d be the lefties agitating for change and openness and gay marriage and all the other Evile Lefty stuff that would lead to a mormon schism. It’s now looking far more likely that the Righties are going to cause the more dramatic shift. Being liberal has always been suspect; when it becomes a de facto worthiness litmus test and possibly even a death-threat-worthy condition, is that not a Very Bad Sign?

   Of course, I spent my years in mormonism fantasising about the official smack-down of the righties by the Big 15, so maybe I’m still dreamin…

   But hell, something’s gotta give. No?

3. Oh good god — I’ve also not kept up on my FDM reading. Having just had lunch, I feel a bit nauseated by the McVeigh entry. Seriously.

   My former people continue to break my heart.

4. Frankly, I don’t know why everyone is so shocked and surprised by the reactions of so many Mormons. They vote as a bloc for the GOP. They divide the world into us vs them, black and white, righteous vs evil, so of course they’re going to think Harry Reid is the Devil Incarnate. That’s a no-brainer. And, while it’s sad and wrong that they would deny this man of faith the opportunity to share his conversion story, it’s also not surprising. In their narrow, fearful, self-righteous minds, Harry Reid can’t possibly be a man of faith or God, because 1) he’s a politician and, worse, a Democrat, 2) he supports Obama, and 3) he voted for healthcare reform.

   What I find continually ironic (but maybe I shouldn’t), is how Mormons wear their collective history like a sack cloth of martyrdom and bemoan how persecuted they are as a people, but they fail to see their own insidious, evil discrimination and persecution of others. And, while I’m disgusted with the likes of Glenn Beck and have been wont to come to the defense of Mormonism and say “But Beck doesn’t represent what Mormons believe”, I’m beginning to realize that may not be as true as I’d like it to be. The only difference between guys like Beck and the majority of Mormons is, Beck is actually saying outloud what Mormons believe, but are too chickenshit to own and articulate.

   Let’s face it: Mormonism is misogynist, racist, homophobic, hawkish, anti-intellectual, elitist, and millenialist. As a result, it’s little surprise that Mormons, in general, and Nevada Mormons, in particular, don’t want to hear from someone like Reid. I could go on and on, but I’m stopping there, because the whole thing disgusts me.

5. JM Tewkesbury, thanks. I think your analysis is spot on.

6. Wow! Yep, that’s it, wow! Harry Reid is a Mormon I like…

7. It’s sad. Kudos to Denae and her readers.

8. JMT,
   For someone complaining about the supposed dualism of Mormons making “us/them” and “righteous/evil” distinctions, you sure seem to make a lot of huge generalizations about “them” Mormons.

9. TT,

   Was Reid able to speak? Or was his talk canceled because stake leadership began to fear for the safety of all involved?

   Sometimes, it’s not so much “generalization” as it is “observation” …

   Rather than attack JMT, how about rounding up some fellow believers who are equally pissed off about this latest turn of events?

   Because, thing is, Reid was invited and then it all went to hell.

   The Mormon gal who wrote the original post – who eloquently expressed her disgust at this caving in to thugs masquerading as citizens – got it absolutely right.

   And if you’re right, plenty of her co-believers ought to be lining up to back her up. Are they? If so, where are they?

   Or are they, like you, lining up to attempt damage control by minimizing and dismissing what just happened out in that Nevada stake?

   It’s FUBAR and the best y’all can bring are the same old petty ad hominems? Give me a break. Stand up and be counted for a change.

10. Chino,
    What is it exactly that you expect me to do? Be pissed off about it? Fine. Done. Make a comment on a blog? Fine. Done.

    It is obviously incredibly unfortunate that some LDS have reacted this way. Note that it is not the stake leadership or even the ward leadership that is reacting this way, but very likely a small, vocal minority of radicals. It is a tense time within Mormonism just as it is within the US in general. You may have noticed that threats against Democratic politicians aren’t all that uncommon these days. It is of course shameful that these kinds of episodes show up among people of the same religion (as they do among Catholic politicians and lay people over the abortion issues in the Health Care bill).
    I’m not sure that this means that we can deduce from this larger statements about the “majority of Mormons,” “so many Mormons,” and “Mormonism” such as:
    1) They vote as a bloc for the GOP.
    2) They divide the world into us vs them, black and white, righteous vs evil,
    3) so of course theyre going to think Harry Reid is the Devil Incarnate.
    4) In their narrow, fearful, self-righteous minds,
    5) The only difference between guys like Beck and the majority of Mormons is, Beck is actually saying outloud what Mormons believe, but are too chickenshit to own and articulate
    6) Mormonism is misogynist, racist, homophobic, hawkish, anti-intellectual, elitist, and millenialist.

    If you think I have made an ad hominem argument, you might want to look that up and reassess who is making the “same old petty” ones. If you think I’m “lining up to attempt damage control,” by pointing out hypocritical and offensive labels being put on me, my family, and my people that fail to contextualize these reactions to Reid within the larger historical moment of what is going on on the right, than I suppose that I am guilty as charged. I see a lot to condemn here about the crazy reactions to the health care bill from the right. I’m not sure that this proves anything about Mormons that comes close to what JMT said.

11. What is it exactly that you expect me to do? Be pissed off about it? Fine. Done. Make a comment on a blog? Fine. Done.

    Where is this comment of which you speak? Here only?

    I know I’m not in this discussion, but what I would expect of you is that you spend at least as much effort criticizing your own people for behaving in this manner as you expend criticizing the critics for pointing it out.

    Yes, JWT’s comment comes off as a bit of an ad hominem. And yet there is a bit of a difference between prejudice (judging before actions) and criticizing a group’s actual actions. If you don’t want this negative image, you can start by helping convince your fellows to behave otherwise.

12. I would expect of you is that you spend at least as much effort criticizing your own people for behaving in this manner as you expend criticizing the critics for pointing it out.

    Let me state the very obvious: Threats against Reed by other Mormons is incredibly ugly. I don’t support it. If I knew the names of any of those involved, I would happily tell them so. (I doubt they are reading this blog.)

    Let me state the apparently not very obvious: these threats don’t constitute “a groups actual actions” anymore than stomping on crosses,committing suicide because of global warming, or being Bill Maher saying anything about the “group” of No on 8 ralliers, environmentalists, or atheists.

    Frankly, this game of trying to measure how indignant I am supposed to be relative to one wrong versus another is a waste of time. I was simply responding to a pretty silly set of claims about “the majority of Mormons” as deduced from this episode.

13. TT — look, I’ll grant that JMT’s generalizations were a bit more “anti-Mormon” than we usually like to see on this blog. All I ask is for you to help prove him wrong. I would like to see you put up a top-level post on your blog criticizing what happened, explaining what was wrong with it, and helping your own people to understand how they can do better. It’s a perfectly reasonable request that will give you the opportunity to make us here at MSP look like jerks for having thought you would do any less. 😉

14. I expect you to risk everything. But that’s just me. If it’s commiseration you seek, I could suggest a few online grottoes, where plenty of folks apparently find the warmth of close quarters an acceptable substitute for sunlight.

15. JMT is a she (Chanson — you met her at a recent Mexican dinner lol) and she is also a lifelong legacy/royalty mormon and sociologist of religion. So while she may be angry (Prop 8 leaves a lingering bad taste for many people, among other things political and yukky) and expressing it in a ranty way, she has certainly earned her right to talk about the mormons in general.

16. I don’t mind putting up a post on it, and maybe I will. It is not really in the general themes of my own blogging, but I am considering it. But I want to be clear about this. I really don’t think that I am under any obligation to condemn the obviously stupid things of a few out of control individuals to “my people,” whatever that means. Further, if anyone needs me to explain what is wrong with threats and actual violence, I doubt anything I put on my blog will change their mind. These aren’t the actions of rational people, you know.
    But the real issue here is the expectation that I, simply because I am a Mormon, am responsible for condemning every stupid thing some random Mormon does. I’m not. Not my job, not my obligation, and definitely not my interest. Just as you all are not responsible for every stupid thing some ex-Mormon does or says. You’re not. Not your job. I don’t expect a “top level post” condemning the actions or words of JMT from you, just so you know.

17. Thanks Wry — she just left a comment on my blog, so now I know who she is! I just put up a post about stereotyping on my blog, and I still fall into that trap of “everyone on the Internet is a white male unless they make a point to identify otherwise.” Oy, how embarrassing!

18. Perhaps my arguments are ad hominem, so let me provide my resume, which seems to be the only way a lot of Mormons find legitimacy in other people’s comments.

    Before I do that, though, let me also point out that I chose my language carefully. I didn’t say “all Mormons” or “most Mormons.” I said “many” and “a majority.” These are both adequate and acceptable assessments, based on the political make-up of church membership. Nearly 2/3 of Mormons identify as or vote Republican/conservative. (If you’d like links to recent polls and studies, I’m happy to provide several.)

    Having said that, here’s my resume.

    I was born and raised Mormon.

    I lived 17 years in the heart of Mormonism (Provo/Orem.)

    I graduated from Seminary.

    I served a full and honorable mission to Vienna, Austria, where I taught and baptized eight converts.

    I served for nearly two years as a Temple Ordinance Worker in the Washington, D.C., Temple. (Incidentally, I worked with Orrin Hatch’s wife, Elaine. A lovely, lovey woman.)

    I am a sociologist of religion, who specialized in Mormon culture and sociology. I have a degree (not that matters) from the Graduate Theological Union where I wrote my master’s thesis on the effect of temple participation in the lives of young adult Latter-day Saints.

    A copy of the my thesis is on file at the Church Office Building and has been used as a reference and guide for preparing members of the church to receive their endowments.

    In addition, I am a feminist, an intellectual, and a homosexual.

    While my “attacks” may seem “ad hominem”, I think I have some ground to stand on. Many Mormons, NOT ALL, do see the world in dualities. This isn’t an attack, as much as it is fact based in theology and bolstered by sociological data.

    As for my other assertions, I have met more Mormons, than less, in my day who are homophobic, racist, and fearful. I know that not all Mormons are this way, but I also know that those who are not this way are a very small minority.

19. TT — Here’s my point:

    Either you think that (1) this incident is somewhere between “A-OK” and “no big deal” or (2) you think it is somewhere between bad and deplorable.

    If (1), then it is not an insult or ad-hominem to suggest that Mormonism encourages such behavior. If (2), then unless you’re bothering to criticize the people who did it, bothering to come here to criticize the critics comes off as pretty hollow and disingenuous.

    I suggest you try posting about it. Even if it’s not your blog’s usual theme, it may be interesting. 😀

20. chanson,
    You’re making an assertion, not an argument. You’ve set this arbitrary standard that the only way that I can possibly have any ground to criticize something dumb said about this incident as an example which condemns “the majority of Mormons,” is not if I think threats against Reed are “somewhere between bad and deplorable,” (which I already said) but only if I say such things on my own blog.

    I guess I don’t see the logic of either of the conditions you’ve set. First, I already passed the first standard (in case there was really any doubt that I support threats against anyone!), and I don’t see the point of the extra-high standard you’ve set in order for me to make a comment here.

    I never defended the actions of those making the threats which is the implicit point of the post, one which I also implicitly consented to. Rather, I was making a point about the interpretation of this event by one commenter, JMT. I don’t see why before I can criticize an interpretation of this event, that I am somehow required to pass a test showing that I think that the event was bad in the first place.
    I was responding to a set of generalizations about Mormons that not only go against the facts of the episode (did I mention the stake leadership invited and supported Reed?), but also interprets this issue as something which is exclusive to Mormons and Mormonism without paying attention to broader political climate of the reactions on the right to health care. That some Mormons have been swept up in this says no more about Mormonism than that Harry Reid was a primary architect of health care says something about Mormonism. To make that rather obvious point seems so non-controversial that I am not sure why I have to pass a test in order to make it.

    Perhaps there is an argument to made here in favor of JMT’s thesis. I am willing to engage that argument and consider it. I have instead offered at least two reasons why her assertions are wrong. I will happily (time permitting) engage in real arguments, but I don’t really want to have to pass a test first. Can we move on?

21. Chapel Mormon hatred of all things Reid aside, what I’m also bemoaning is the ridiculous state of affairs that allows the bloggernacle to post all manner of provocative links in its sidebars, with apparently no expectation from readers that a peep (or post) from a faithful blogger might be forthcoming by way of response.

    Apparently, as far as that crew is concerned, simply acknowledging external reality is all the street cred that’s ever required.

    In other words, you don’t want to be seen as misogynist, racist, homophobic, hawkish, anti-intellectual, elitist, or millenialist? Great! Write about how and why you’re so different from your co-religionists on a blog that matters to, well, you know, your co-religionists.

    And of course that’s been done before. But has it been done in this instance? When tensions are so high? In the aftermath of Reid’s and the Stake leadership’s humiliation at the hands of thugs?

    On this particular front, all I’ve seen so far from the LDS A-list is a bunch of protestations that we’re not “all” that bad.

    Such bravery. Seriously. You rock. Blech.

22. Chino,
    Can you please point me to the links of every one of your posts condemning every one of the stupid things done by No on 8 activists, whether toward Mormons or not? Can you please also point me to all of your posts condemning every stupid thing done or said by an ex-Mormon? I need you to prove to me that you’re not all bad, because it is not totally, ridiculously obvious.

23. TT — I’m not playing some sort of rhetorical game with you in order to make you look bad or to “win” a debate, or whatever. I am so not interested in that sort of thing. I sincerely think it would be interesting, constructive, and useful if you’d be as willing to talk to faithful Mormons about this as you are to take it up with us. If you disagree, then c’est la vie.

24. You’ll have to enumerate the badness you allude to before I’ll engage. If you’re gonna call me out, drop the boilerplate, and get specific.

    And even then, I’d like some assurances that you’ve given this explication of ressentiment a once over.

25. I’m kinda with TT on this one in many respects. Critiquing the “anti-Mormons” who might spin this is just as worthy a cause as critiquing the “crazy Mormons.” Both do Mormonism a service (if that’s one goal). The only way I see “Mormonism” itself as encouraging this behavior is that since the Church is more comfortable making sure tomorrow is the same as yesterday, Mormons tend to be more conservative. But it’s not like Prop 8, where the leadership turned a specific issue into a cause. I do agree with wry@2, though, that at some point “something’s gotta give” if Mormons aren’t letting their own attend services.

26. chanson,
    If you’re asking me nicely to address this issue among “faithful Mormons” because you think I would have an interesting take on it, not as a requirement to engage in a discussion about the interpretation of this on your blog, then, well I am flattered. As I said, I will consider it. It is not something that I think I have much interesting to say about, since really the only think I can think about this event is that it is really stupid for Mormons (or anyone) to behave this way.
    Yet, as I have said, I am not sure that real genesis of these feelings behind this event says anything about Mormonism in particular, even if particular Mormons are involved. I think it says much more about the state of political discourse on the right. Since I am not on the right politically, these are not my people to speak to.

27. Chino,
    Thanks for the free psychology session. What exactly do you see me as frustrated about? As I already said, I am not really interested in making sure you condemn everything “your people” (whatever that means) do that is dumb. I just don’t think that you need to require that as a precondition for engaging in the analysis of any particular issue. I’m not sure why you have set this as the bar that one must clear before they can provide some thoughts on what the issue at hand signifies.

28. And I’m kinda still waiting for TT’s parade of horribles. I’m particularly interested in instances where us baddies somehow prevented our political opponents from expressing themselves. I’m fully prepared to apologize and shut up if TT can come up with one instance where anyone – anywhere – called off a religious sermon/talk/appearance because it looked like the angry lefty homosexual mob might invade and inflict bodily harm.

29. TT version 1.0: “Can you please point me to the links of every one of your posts condemning every one of the stupid things done by No on 8 activists, whether toward Mormons or not? Can you please also point me to all of your posts condemning every stupid thing done or said by an ex-Mormon?”

    TT version 2.0: “As I already said, I am not really interested in making sure you condemn everything ‘your people’ (whatever that means) do that is dumb.”

    You lost me there, TT. Did I miss a retraction?

30. Chino,

    Yes, comment 16: “Just as you all are not responsible for every stupid thing some ex-Mormon does or says. Youre not. Not your job. I dont expect a top level post condemning the actions or words of JMT from you, just so you know.”

    This is not really the issue here, and I don’t want to be baited into rehashing Prop 8 backlash with you. I’m just going to stick to my point that you are under no more obligation to blog about every instance where someone with whom you share a particular identity as I or any other Mormon is to blog about what any random Mormon does.

31. As much as I hate these back-and-forths, there’s one subtle point that I think is being missed here:

    I have not gone over to faithful Mormon blogs to criticize them for criticizing particular (bad? stupid?) exmormon actions. Sure, people aren’t responsible for every stray action of every fringe person in their group/category. But I wouldn’t criticize the critics — without equally criticizing the original action — unless I thought that analyzing/criticizing was worse than the original action.

32. I’m starting to lose the thread in this conversation, but I am a bit ADD, so it’s perhaps not too surprising. While I understand the fervent hope that reasonable people will/should do more vigourous eschewing of the wingnuttier folks in the politico-religious realm, I still don’t think TT is required to defend or attack (told ya I’m lost) “his (her?) people” here. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick entirely?

    Well anyhow, I did learn something new today. I like that word ressentiment — I was not familiar with it. Kinda like a cross between cognitive dissonance and fundamental attribution error, with a dash of the bogeyman. 🙂

33. Chanson,
    thank your for he concession on the issue of whther or not I must login this topic. But now I’m not sure what you’re saying. I did not criticize the critic JMT for criticizing this particular action, a criticism with which I would agree, but for the absurd interpretation of this action she offered.

34. iPhone typing while driving. You get the idea.
    Thank wry.

35. If I gave a toss about random Mormons, I’d be blogging elsewhere about John Yettaw, David Archuleta or whoever. Yawn.

    So your 16 supersedes your 22. Got it. This is me letting it go.

    And I understand that you feel you’re under no special obligation in this instance. Rest easy, it’s a shared feeling among your fellow Mormon believers and bloggers. Accountability is obviously something we ought to be requiring of those other people. Over there. Wherever that may be.

    And please don’t mind me, but I’m going to copy-and-paste something from another forum that for some reason struck a chord:

    There may only be a small minority of conservative nutjobs in the Mormon church, but the rest of them let the conservative nutjobs have their way.

36. Chino — good call. I thought GD’s quote was quite apropos. I tend to believe lifelong Democrat Mormons’ stories, as they have lived the marginalisation way more than I ever have (I wasn’t really ever politically and religiously active at the same time [or ever really politically or religiously active at all lol]). Their experiences all have a remarkably similar plot, and it’s not a warm, friendly one.

    I just think there is this time-honored die-hard bit of semi-paranoid, anti-government fundamentalist DNA in even mainstream mormonism that sort of winks and nods at the rightwing nuts amongst them, while really questioning the essential righteousness and character of the liberals in their midst (or rather, on their margins). They just collectively lean very hard (even if not collectively very *far*) to the right. The people who do attempt to decry this are often granted just a tidbit of “help, help, I’m being oppressed!” condescension and then it’s back to your regularly scheduled programming. This whole situation just seems like a more extreme example of that.

37. It seems that we all agree now that 1) JMT is wrong. 2) Mormon bloggers don’t need to blog about these issues on principle or as a precondition for
    discussing their interpetation here or anywhere. That leaves Chinos last point about 3) the desirability for LDS bloggers to blog about these issues and/or engage in specific attacks against wignut conservatives. This is an interesting issue. I’m interested in thinking about the efficacy and ethics of such an approach. While I think it would be hard by any measure to think of the bloggernacle as complicit with conservative Mormonism, I do wonder about the ways that it can raise these issues more effectively. At least for me, being effective over the long term is more important than short term alienation for the sake of principle, prioritizing sincere committed dialogue.
    All that said, I’m not sure that me blogging about this somehow crosses the magical moral line that Chino has drawn for what counts as standing up to consevstives. As someone who blogs about ancient Christianity, religious studies, and feminist/queer theory, I doubt my blogging indignation about these episodes has any effect whatsoever.

38. This conversation is pretty interesting – not.

    It got sidetracked from the original issue. That is that Mormons are overwhelmingly right-wing and have a surprising number of extremist, angry nitwits amoung their ranks. Forcing “brother” Reid out of a nonpolitical fireside testimony is stupid, petty, ridiculous – but exactly what I expect from cultish fringe lunatics. I include my whole Mormon family in that broad brush.

    Once upon a time the Mormons used to teach that one could be a member in good standing regardless political affiliation – and that all members deserve the respect and Christ-like love from every other member. I guess that’s no longer true. Of course, if it is true, then there are a lot of fucking hypocrites filling those pews – which also wouldn’t surprise me.

39. Yeah, let’s get back to this issue as evidence for the insidious evil that is Mormonism!

40. You won’t be getting any agreement out of me re 1) and 2), and I probably also disagree with your last bit re 3). If you suspect that your blogging indignation about these episodes has no effect whatsoever, I have to wonder: why continue?

    If you’re truly interested in efficacy, you might want to ponder Medawar’s observation that:

    Just as compulsory primary education created a market catered for by cheap dailies and weeklies, so the spread of secondary and latterly tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought.

    And not because Sir Peter was right. Rather, the point is to understand Medawar’s POV as someone accustomed to having access to the data that an informed analysis requires.

    It’s an almost universal bias wherever people are divided by class and information is hoarded.

41. Chino,
    I’m sorry but I interpreted your letting go as a signal that you were out of arguments. I think I’ve shown you the willingness to engage in a real discussion, but often you’ve opted for passive agressive psychologizing and then randomly changing the subject. Just what exactly is your point of disagreement with me, and if you wouldn’t mind giving some, any, rationale, I’d appreciate it.

42. Yeah, lets get back to this issue as evidence for the insidious evil that is Mormonism!

    Let’s? Who’s “we” kemosabe?

    As far as passive-aggressive games go, I suspect you’re on your own.

43. So, is that a ‘no’ on having any substantive point to make?

44. TT – My “letting go” was a polite move to set aside your 22 for the purposes of discussion.

    To no avail, apparently.

    You haven’t even begun to engage in discussion, other than to suggest that when/if the topic casts a dim light on Mormon behavior, your meager blogging skills are no remedy and no match for reality.

45. Ugh. I see. You still think I’ve contradicted myself at some point on the issue of whether or not I’m responsible to blog about bad things Mormons do simply because I am a Mormon blogger. Because of this grave sin on my part, you can’t seem to be anything but a jerk to me since I have already proven to be so illogical as to contradict myself. Let’s see if we can remedy this issue and then move on to the discussion, if you don’t mind.

    Let’s recap: You say (9) I need to stand up and be counted.
    I say (10) what do you want me to do exactly?
    Chanson says that I need to spend and equal amount of time critizing “my people” before I can criticize JTM (11). You say I need to put everything on the line (12).
    I say I will consider writing a post, but I don’t think I’m under any obligation to do so simply because I’m Mormon (16). (The discussion about why I need to post on my own blog before I am allowed to make a critical comment here continues with chanson).
    You come back in and restate an earlier point that Mormons are obliged to condemn these things on their blogs (21). I sarcastically reply that by that logic you would need to be responsible for every negative thing done by No on 8 or ex-Mormons to prove that you are not all bad, which I say is “ridiculously obvious” that this not be the case (22). (Everyone but you seems to agree with this point after that) You then ask me to point out examples, blah, blah, blah. I state that this is not the point I am making, since I have argued that it is a silly burden to require that anyone belonging to a group need to be held accountable for everything anyone else in that group does.
    From here you somehow imagine an inconsistency, when there never was one, and cease to engage with any substance. If you would like to get past this and discuss any of the substantive issues at stake, such as 1) whether this episode says something about “Mormonism” or “the majority of Mormons; 2) whether I or any other Mormon is required to blog about these issues; or 3) the issue that I would like to discuss more is how Mormons could better address radical conservatism within their ranks. While I suppose that on this last point asking a bunch of people who’ve opted to give up on that particular issue may yield some skewed responses, as someone who does actively care about these issues and deals with them on the ground as a participant in this community, I am definitely willing to listen to just about anyone at this point.

    If you just want to think of cheap shots and change the subject, I’m as experienced as anyone in that department, but I’m bored with it. I’d rather discuss real issues than make up perceived offenses.

46. JMT (18),
    Please excuse me but I seem to have missed your response earlier. I apologize for the oversight.
    FWIW, I’m not that impressed by resumes for a variety of reasons, and an MA in the sociology of religion isn’t as great as you make it out to be, and really adds zero “legitimacy” to what you’ve said. Rather, I am interested in arguments. Let’s leave resumes out.
    I appreciate the attempts to qualify your original claims, and I think that emphasizing that nuance is very helpful, but I’m afraid that your final claim that only a “very small minority” of Mormons aren’t racist and homophobic undoes any claims to nuance. Just because 2/3 of Mormons identify as republican doesn’t automatically make them all racist homophobes.
    While your claim that many Mormons see the world in dualities, I’d question whether or not such a claim is exclusive to Mormons. I’d bet that one of the basic elements of any cohesive group identity is dualistic thinking between us and them, as exhibited by your own barely qualified depictions of “them” Mormons.

47. Whether or not JMT is right or wrong is an empirical question.

    What she is describing is certainly reflecting my own concerns. I am afraid that the LDS Church is an extraordinarily authoritarian organization, especially, when you compare the Church to other organizations in the western world.

    Mormon authoritarianism is an observable and measurable phenomenon. JMT has acknowledged that there is variance within the Mormon experience.

    People who think that JMT is wrong can reasonably respond in two ways.

    1. They can present evidence that JMT’s claims are false.

    2. They can challenge JMT to present reasons and evidence in support of her claims.

48. I’m glad you agree, TT. Mormonism is a religion based on hypocrisy and lies and it’s not surprising that it’s adherents keep that tradition going strong.

49. And after all the back-and-forth, the fact remains that the U.S. Senate Majority Leader was prevented from delivering a private talk about his faith to fellow believers … by members of his own church.

    Maybe fair-minded fellow Mormons might think that rates a mention. If not, nevermind. My bad. Nothing to see here. Move along. And stay tuned for the next installment from Dallin Oaks about how religious freedom is under threat in this country.

50. Helmutt,
    I’m not sure that this is an empirical question, but rather an interpretive one. The question is not, as I understand it, whether or not Mormonism is “authoritarian” (that claim certainly fails here where the conservative members rose up against Stake leadership!), but what this episode signifies. Does this specific LDS backlash against Reid tell us something about “the majority of Mormons” feel, or about something deeper about “Mormonism,” as JTM suggested, or not?

    I have offered two reasons why it does not, which I think are arguments against interpreting this episode as revealing something about Mormonism, which I don’t believe anyone has yet answered: 1) LDS leadership supported Reid, and it was a vocal subset of Mormons who behaved in this way, which is not indicative in any way of what official Mormonism (represented here by the Stake) or even close to how a “majority of Mormons” reacted.

    2) This event is better understood in the context of the protests against, and in some cases minor violence against Democratic officials by the radical right. Had this event taken place 6 months ago (as it has, many times before in many stakes and wards), or 6 months from now when the Tea Party rage has died down a bit, Reid would not have received this reaction. That is, this episode tells us about the level of political discourse on the right (I’d be willing to bet that none of the events around the country such as breaking windows or spitting on politicians have been done by Mormons) which harbors a great deal of anger right now. This event doesn’t reveal anything about Mormonism as a whole or really even in signficant part, but rather about the political tactics of a very few right wing activists.