DiscussMormonism.com

I have noticed how people living outside of Utah will say something like, "Utah Mormons aren't the same as Mormons outside the corridor." Also, people have made comments suggesting that the Mormon religion is "better" when you live away from the Utah culture.

My question is, why is it that Mormonism is better the more sparse it is? Doesn't it make sense that more of a good thing is better? A city chock full of Mormons should be better than a city without any Mormons otherwise, what is the fuss about Mormons? If Mormonism is better when sparsely populated, then why do missionary work? I think the church would love to have another mo'corridor, but wouldn't that just make more trouble? You know, more chapel Mormons who forget to read about the rocks in the hat because they just lazily live the culture?

zeezrom wrote:I have noticed how people living outside of Utah will say something like, "Utah Mormons aren't the same as Mormons outside the corridor." Also, people have made comments suggesting that the Mormon religion is "better" when you live away from the Utah culture.

My question is, why is it that Mormonism is better the more sparse it is? Doesn't it make sense that more of a good thing is better? A city chock full of Mormons should be better than a city without any Mormons otherwise, what is the fuss about Mormons? If Mormonism is better when sparsely populated, then why do missionary work? I think the church would love to have another mo'corridor, but wouldn't that just make more trouble? You know, more chapel Mormons who forget to read about the rocks in the hat because they just lazily live the culture?

Utah has sort of a crazy history. Brigham Young was basically a mob boss. When polygamy went underground Mormons developed a culture of lying for the lord. Leaders imbued with the divine mantles made backwards social positions into doctrines that lasted for far longer than they should have. Etc. So, Utah is a weird place and produces a more unpleasant strain of Mormonism than what you see in areas where Mormonism is highly diluted and its members free of bizarro world Utah culture.

My question is, why is it that Mormonism is better the more sparse it is?

Because they have to fight and struggle for it. In Utah, all is well in Zion which simply means they fall away through lack of exercise.

bcspace wrote:Because they have to fight and struggle for it. In Utah, all is well in Zion which simply means they fall away through lack of exercise.

Having lived most of my life outside of Utah, I honestly don't see that much of a difference in how the church and its members operate here in Zion, other than it is a pervasive presence in just about every aspect of life, from government to social life to work.

I never thought I had to fight and struggle for anything growing up or in my eight years in Texas. Most Mormons that I know have a social life that revolves around the church. Kids go to seminary and YM/YW activities, campouts, youth conferences, etc. Adults spend an awful lot of time in meetings, activities, home teaching, and so on. I don't see that it's that different for people here.

The one thing that Utah Mormons tended to do that annoyed a lot of people outside of Utah was announcing that they were so grateful to be "in the mission field" to help the locals, who presumably couldn't handle running the church on their own.

Other than that, I don't see a lot of difference, as much as people outside of Utah would like to think they are superior to their spiritually flabby Zion cousins.

I have lived all my life outside of Utah and grew up in Texas. But I do live in a predominately Mormon community now (last 20 years) so I think I know what it's like in Utah. The difference comes down to having Mormons in every household on the block and nonmembers in every other household on the block.

In the former case, one worries less about being an example and has less sympathy for the inactive because they are surrounded by Mormons and have little excuse. In the later case, one worries more about how one is viewed by the rest because one is constantly reminded of the differences in lifestyle and belief and that is coupled with the directive to be a missionary to those people. Also in the later case, there can be some real persecution (which I've experienced) and also protection (whcih I've also experienced).

The inactive in the former case do not suffer persecution, but relative malaise on the part of others to reactivation efforts. I think it's because we see them everyday.

My experience echoes bcspace's.
I think it's the same for most religions - people who find themselves in an environment or society notably at odds with their religion.
In California, as a youth, those of us around the same age were pretty tight as friends.
In Utah, things were looser. I didn't feel the same alienation from the general public. I assumed everyone believed like I did. (Remember, I was a 'youth'.) In California, I assumed not only that the general public believed differently from me, but didn't like me (i.e., would "persecute" me) because I was a Mormon. I don't recall so well specifically, but I probably watched my behavior more in California in order not to alienate potential converts and especially not to represent the Church negatively. In Utah, I figured everyone around me was a Mormon, so I had to be careful not to do anything they (as members) might disapprove of.

As a youth, I never had too much Mormonism.

Today, I have sufficient Mormonism, even superfluously so.

bcspace wrote:I have lived all my life outside of Utah and grew up in Texas. But I do live in a predominately Mormon community now (last 20 years) so I think I know what it's like in Utah. The difference comes down to having Mormons in every household on the block and nonmembers in every other household on the block.

In the former case, one worries less about being an example and has less sympathy for the inactive because they are surrounded by Mormons and have little excuse. In the later case, one worries more about how one is viewed by the rest because one is constantly reminded of the differences in lifestyle and belief and that is coupled with the directive to be a missionary to those people. Also in the later case, there can be some real persecution (which I've experienced) and also protection (whcih I've also experienced).

The inactive in the former case do not suffer persecution, but relative malaise on the part of others to reactivation efforts. I think it's because we see them everyday.

I never felt persecution, but I always knew I was a bit of an outsider in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood. I think I would have had to go out of my way to find persecution.

As for lifestyle differences, I guess I always thought I should be an example, not drinking, not smoking, etc., but most of my non-LDS friends had pretty much the same social standards that I did. So, yes, I suppose I did worry about how I appeared to other people, but I don't relate at all to feeling persecuted.

When I moved to Utah, the main thing for me was just feeling like more people understood where I was coming from, which was refreshing.

My personal observation is that when Mormons are in the minority of any geographical area, they tend to see each other as being of a more kindred nature and as such, treat one another in a friendlier and kinder manner. It is less of a question of too much Mormonism and more of a question of too many Mormons.

In the end, Mormons are just people. There are self-righteous one's, there are obnoxious ones, there are arrogant ones, there are kind ones, there are meek ones, there are rough ones. No matter where I've lived or been, I get a distinct impression that Mormons are people no matter where they live and, extraordinarily, they are not unlike most of those non-LDS who they live around. I've heard the complaining about Utah Mormons from LDS outside of Utah. I've seen the attitude among some Utah Mormons (special and privileged) that I dislike had among many outside of Utah, particularly when in areas where LDS are sparse and they assume this very heavy "peculiar people among the heathens" attitude. I think its all a way overplayed distinction.

Runtu wrote:Having lived most of my life outside of Utah, I honestly don't see that much of a difference in how the church and its members operate here in Zion, other than it is a pervasive presence in just about every aspect of life, from government to social life to work.

I never thought I had to fight and struggle for anything growing up or in my eight years in Texas. Most Mormons that I know have a social life that revolves around the church. Kids go to seminary and YM/YW activities, campouts, youth conferences, etc. Adults spend an awful lot of time in meetings, activities, home teaching, and so on. I don't see that it's that different for people here.

The one thing that Utah Mormons tended to do that annoyed a lot of people outside of Utah was announcing that they were so grateful to be "in the mission field" to help the locals, who presumably couldn't handle running the church on their own.

Other than that, I don't see a lot of difference, as much as people outside of Utah would like to think they are superior to their spiritually flabby Zion cousins.

Ditto what Runtu said. Though I grew up in Utah I have been out of Utah for about 29 years or so now. It seems in Utah the Church just invades every aspect of your life. All your neighbors are Mormon, your ward is two blocks big and you really bump up against each other more. And yes the in the mission field thing is annoying.

Out of Utah if you are active the Church still is very encompassing. But in my 25 mile east and west and 20 mile north and south ward boundaries I can go all week without seeing anyone from my ward if I want.