Yes, and I suspect mainly that. Sometimes the mob gets it right.
I think those two things were just fun things to support the real reason: voting block. Those against the LDS did not want their block’s power diminished; they did not want to lose control. It couldn’t have been any real concern about women as at the time women could not vote. And what was the big thing the antis didn’t like? Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! Abolition.
And today many of those white nationalists have no problem with announcing out loud and in public that’s exactly what they are.
You’re ignoring that out on the frontier there were already fewer women than men, and the further west you went the worst the imbalance was. I think men cared that a certain group of men were “hogging” all the women. The occasional situation of two women living with one man might be overlooked if it was kept quiet, but Joseph Smith had how many wives? and it wasn’t just Smith, the leaders were assembling harems and saying the more wives a man had the better he’d do in the afterlife. Oh, yes, the men cared about the women, or at least their availability.
While the church under Smith was originally somewhat abolitionist (probably due to coming from New York) as they moved south and west the position softened, particularly after reaching Missouri. When they moved to Utah they were passing legislation to protect slavery, probably to accommodate the Mormons who’d bought slaves while living in Missouri and didn’t want to give them up.
Nope, it really was the religion and polygamy thing. Well, that and attacking the state militia in Missouri (apparently they mistook them for a different group they were fighting but the militia were not moved by that argument). Hmm… upon reflection in the early days Smith’s group had a habit of brawling with the locals and then the situation usually escalated. The tendency for violence to follow them didn’t help, either, regardless of who threw the first punch. Or fired the first shot. The voting was an additional issue, but it was pretty obvious that was being directed by Smith and his inner circle and was an attempt by a religious sect to gain and consolidate power.
Very true. And those White Nationalists can have some pretty narrow views of religion which they are also pretty free at talking about. Although some of them might be OK with other religions, including Norse derived Neo-Paganism, sufficiently pale-skinned Jews, and even Mormons most of them are not and adhere to a pretty strict King James Bible-thumping creed. That crowd is deeply suspicious of “secret stuff” going on in the Temples and both the theological deviations from their beliefs and the polygamy thing. I realize that mainstream LDS does not do polygamy and hasn’t for a long time, but rumors persist and there’s a suspicion that they want to go back to it.
Personally, as long as everyone involved is adult and voluntary I don’t care what private arrangements people make. When I lived in Chicago I knew several plural groupings (although they were all Pagan and not Mormon) and never had a problem with them. However, situations like Warren Jeffs (who, I emphasize, was NOT mainstream LDS and a pretty evil cult leader) which involved involuntary marriage affecting not only children but adult women being “assigned” or “reassigned” to men other than the one they married, abandonment of young men, some (most?) under age and ill prepared for life outside the cult, abuse both mental and physical, neglect, fraud, and other horrible things that have nothing to do with Mormonism and a lot to do with evil men gaining power over others, get the publicity and form public opinion, not the very ordinary folks living in plural marriages, going to work, raising their kids, and no more oppressive than their monogamous co-coreligionists.
Some White Nationalists, the sorts who are OK with ethnoreligious “homelands”, would probably say Utah is for the Mormons and would tell you to move there. DON’T move into their oh-so-Christian neighborhoods. Good luck with The Turner Diaries crowd, they’ll be a lot less nice.
Between history, narrow world views, and desire for power and control I don’t see the White Nationalists tolerating Mormons any longer than they have to. Any Mormon throwing in with that bloc, voting for what is essentially a state religion, is voting for the LEF Party. It may not happen immediately, but in the end the Mormons will be declared heretics/apostates/Satanists/whatever and kicked to the curb by the White Nationalists.
Perhaps the intent of excluding Mormons from being “Christian” has morphed, bujt back when I discovered this, in the 1980s, it didn’t necessarily feel antagonistic. Certainly the Catholics didn’t intend it that way, and I don’t think the mainline Protestant churches in SLC did, either. There were too many examples of interchurch co-operation. That’s why I say that I think it was (at least then) a classification thing. It may very well have changed since then.
-
The Catholics long ago made their peace with Protestants and everyone else. This was due in no small part to the loss of the church’s Earthly power as politics and governance were sometimes linked to a different sect, were more and more decoupled from the state, and increasing religious tolerance (at least for Christian sects, but some others as well). Nonetheless, these days the Catholic church is tolerant of others in multicultural and non-Catholic settings.
-
“Mainline Protestant” churches are not part of Christian Nationalism and are not driving this sort of legislation.
-
SLC (along with Utah) is heavily dominated and influenced by Mormonism. Any church operating within Utah, and even more so within SLC is going to have to deal with that and if they are there long-term they will be more tolerant than otherwise.
-
There has always been a hostile anti-Mormon crowd among hard line Christians, along with antisemitism, anti-atheism, and anti anything that isn’t them. They’ve been quiet for a few decades but they’ve always been there. These groups view the ascendancy of Donald Trump as a silence to come out of the shadows but they’ve always been there. The Turner Diaries were published in 1978 as just one example of how they’ve been lurking in the corners - this is nothing new.
So yes, for some people it was a “classification” thing. For others it is, and always has been, the sort of religious intolerance that can escalate into violence of the worst sort.
It’s a classification thing up to the point when the legislature declares Idaho to be a “Christian state” at which point being classified as non-Christian means “You don’t belong here.”
That map includes the Navajo Nation in its “Mormon Corridor,” which can’t be right.
No it is - the Navajo nation was at one time deeply entwined in the Indian Placement Program and there are definitely Mormon Navajo, though the numbers actually practicing (as opposed to just baptized) is uncertain. A Mormon take on Navajo outreach.
[Moderating]
Split from the “Leopards eating faces” Pit thread.
[/Moderating]
Thank you. I was tired of scrolling through all of that to see if there were any faces being eaten mentioned in the thread.
I mean clearly this exactly what the founders had in mind when they wrote the first amendment. You can argue they might not have meant it to apply to a Wiccans or Satanists or whatever (not that it matters IMO). But this is an exact example of what they wanted to prevent when they wrote the 1st amendment, if it doesn’t prevent this it doesn’t exist in a meaningful form (for that reason i can’t imagine even if this does become law, even the current lame excuse for a judicial branch would strike it down ASAP)
Though how are they proposing wording the law to exclude LDS? I mean by the commonly accepted definition of Christian, i.e. believing that Jesus is the son of god, they are Christian.
That’s simple. Their religions’ leaders say our Jesus is a different Jesus than the one in the Bible; therefore, we are not real Christians. Mind you, these are the same people who freaked out over JFK running for president (“He’ll take orders from the Pope!”) and Romney running for president (“He’ll take orders from Salt Lake City!”).
That is not really the common definition among Christians who care about Christianity. They usually look to the Nicene Creed.
And honestly, those people are right.
I say this as an outsider (a Jew) who has a strong interest in religion and who has studied many religions. I don’t think the Mormons are lesser than traditional Christians. Honestly, in many ways i feel the LDS creed is an improvement. A lot less fire & brimstone, for starters. But… It’s just really different. More different from traditional Christianity than Judaism is from Islam, for instance.
Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints here too. I’m married to a Lutheran, and as a result of talking to various Lutherans about theology, I can rather see that a church that said that the Apostles’/Nicene/Athanasian creeds “were an abomination in [God’s] sight” doesn’t really count as Christian by general Catholic/Protestant lights…
On the other hand, I don’t think your run-of-the-mill evangelical Christian church really goes by all those creeds either, so idek. At least they don’t repudiate the creeds, I don’t think? If all you need is to believe in “the Jesus in the Bible,” we ought to count for that as long as it is translated correctly
@puzzlegal, was writing this at the same time that you were, but yes, mostly agreed.
Yes. They certainly meant to include people of faiths that weren’t the current orthodoxy, including Jews, Quakers (also not exactly Christian), and deists. They would certainly and unambiguously have included the Church of Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ in their intended protection.
The crux of the matter is that there is no way to objectively define what a “Christian” is, there will always be differences of opinion and there is not “Christ-meter” you can use to get out of subjectivity.
Therefore separation between religion and state is the only way to avoid having judges deciding (subjectively!) on religious matters.
NM. Going for a cheap laugh, and borderline offensive.
[For background, I guess you could call me a Skeptical Agnostic: I don’t deny the existence of any or all gods, but I’ll need some kind of proof.]
I have a friend and former co-worker who is a pretty devout fundamentalist Christian. On our daily commutes (an hour each way), we talked a lot about religion. The way he dumbed it down for me was to explain that his particular brand of god-ism believes that Jesus is The Prophet of god’s word. (Imagine capitalization where your beliefs indicate it should be.) Conversely, Mormons, Jews, and Muslims may (or may not) believe Jesus was a prophet, but not the onliest one, and their guy (or guys) were just as good as if not better than Jesus. IOW, Jesus was god incarnate to walk the earth. The others are just messengers.
I’m sure Don simplified it a lot for me, but this distinction was one I could grasp. Doesn’t mean I agreed with him, though.
Ya know, he’s been saying that to me for nearly 30 years, and it wasn’t until I actually wrote it for this thread that that exact thought occurred to me!
Thats historically how a lot of churches define it but I’d argue very few Christians today would consider someone a godless apostate because they don’t believe the Son is precisely in one substance with the Father. I think most would agree the key factor is the whole believing christ is the son of God thing.