I’ve been thinking about how a couple leaders of the LDS Church have vocalized how they wouldn’t mind the 2009 nondiscrimination laws in Salt Lake City (in housing and employment, on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity) be expanded across the state of Utah.  Specifically, what they’re interested in is duplicating how those laws include “religious exemptions” that let Mormon and other religiously-owned institutions be exempt from the nondiscrimination laws altogether.  The leaders don’t bring attention to this, of course — rather they just voice their support for the “balance” in the laws — but you can bet your breeches that if the exemptions were removed, the Church would not support the nondiscrimination laws whatsoever.

Not all Mormons are convinced these laws are good, regardless of the exemptions.  Many Mormons continue to believe that such laws are a sign of “death by a thousand cuts” to traditional family culture.  This is because it’s possible to imagine the phrase “religious exemption” as a temporary placeholder for when everyone will eventually have to follow the same law, rather than the language setting in stone a divide between “civil society” and “religious institutions.”  When it comes down to it, no Utahn is a member of a religious institution and not also subject to civil society.  I can understand why the dialogue hasn’t moved much in the Utah State Legislature, even as a few more individual cities have followed Salt Lake City’s lead since 2009.

There’s an angle of why the Church feels its exemptions are necessary that I think is worth examining in order to move the dialogue forward.  Let’s take, for example, a teacher at BYU in a same-sex relationship.  Currently, if the school finds out about the relationship, the teacher will be fired on the basis of breaking the honor code:  namely, the rule that students and faculty are not supposed to have sexual relations with anyone other than a married spouse (“married” as defined by the Church must be an opposite-sex spouse).  If that teacher were able to sue BYU for “discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation,” then that would open up BYU’s honor code to legal scrutiny (as it is applied to everyone, gay, straight or otherwise).  Is it possible to protect people from being fired on the basis of sexual orientation/gender identity at BYU, but also not affect BYUs honor code?  I can’t think of how.  Still, does an individual citizen’s “right” to privacy trump a religious institution’s “right” to have knowledge of private affairs and discipline accordingly for the sake of religious assembly?  Perhaps this isn’t the way the legal world would frame the issue exactly, but hopefully I’ve made the contention clear.

Recently, I asked an orthodox gay Mormon (who thinks same-sex intimacy is a “sin”) who supported the SLC nondiscrimination ordinances what is more important to him:  protection in housing/employment, or preventing same-sex couples from being allowed in Mormon spaces.  He told me that he would rather deal with Mormon homophobia than bring “sexual orientation law” into Mormondom.  He feels such law would limit the Church’s right to discriminate on the basis having sex with someone you’re not married to.  He casually added that same-sex couples are allowed at church, “everyone is allowed,” which, well…I’m slightly curious about the current cultural dynamics (that is, how my local ward would respond to a same-sex couple…though my partner isn’t interested in carrying out such an experiment with me, understandably).

Anyhow, I’m not sure how to resolve this protection and/or privacy vs assembly issue other than the exemptions that are in place.  On the other hand, I’m not a fan of the exemptions because I see them as wiggle room for the Church and individuals in the Church to continue to be as homophobic as they want, and not have to be subject to the same law everyone else is.

My wife and I just flew to Utah with our 2 year-old son to spend the holidays with family.  Having lived the last 10 years outside of Utah, we’re quite familiar with traveling to Utah for the holidays.  The many trips over the last 10 years have developed what is probably a stereotype, but as a sociologist, I’d like to believe it is a “generalization” based on my “participant observations”: planes flying to Salt Lake City just before the holidays are largely filled with Mormons and typically have lots of kids.  I don’t mean to imply anything negative about the Mormons traveling back to see family over the holidays, I’m just pointing out that these individuals – if, indeed, they are Mormon – tend to have lots of kids.

This year we had an interesting experience.  At our origination airport, which is my favorite airport ever, there are play areas in every terminal for kids.  And they aren’t like the really crappy play area in the Salt Lake City terminal.  We’re talking padded slides, cars, planes, and tunnels in massive glass enclosures with plenty of seating around the edges for parents.  They are really, really nice!

Never knowing how long it will take to get through security with our son in tow, we arrived almost 2 1/2 hours before our flight, which left us with lots of time to for him to play in the play area.  We’d been in there maybe half an hour when another young couple arrived with a child about our son’s age – right around 2.  As we were the only people in the enormous play area and our kids started interacting, we struck up a conversation.  One of the first questions was where we were traveling.  It turns out the other couple was going to Utah, too, and we were going to be on the same two flights.  They live in Utah (Lehi; they are BYU alums, which is where they met) and were in our neck of the woods for a wedding.  Once we told them we were from Utah and visiting family there, the negotiation of Mormon identity began.

I don’t mean to come across as either arrogant or demeaning, so bear with me if I do.  But what ensued was fascinating.  They started dropping hints and using language that is only understandable by Mormons.  They mentioned their ward.  We acknowledged that we knew what a ward was by nodding our understanding and asking for details.  They mentioned their nursery and noted that there were 5 nurseries in their ward, but virtually no young womens – all the people in the ward were young couples like they are.  Again, we illustrated our “insider” status by commenting on how remarkable 5 nurseries and no young women was in a ward.  We even prompted them with several questions that reflected our “insider” status by asking about how many “old” men were in the High Priest Quorum and asking about various other aspects of their ward.

But here’s where things got weird: We didn’t reciprocate.  They talked about their callings.  We nodded our understanding and asked the appropriate questions, but we didn’t do what they were expecting – talk about our callings.  They talked about the oddities of their ward.  Again, we expressed our understanding and asked the appropriate questions, but we didn’t describe the oddities of our ward.

It took the other couple a little while, but they eventually realized that there was something different about us.  Since we didn’t come right out and tell them that we are former Mormons, they had to try to figure it out.  Our lack of reciprocation gave them a clue.  But we don’t think they quite figured it out.  We think they eventually concluded that we were inactive Mormons.  And once they arrived at that conclusion, the conversation became even more interesting.

As we continued chatting with them in the first airport, on our flight (they were in the seats directly behind us), in the next airport, and finally in Salt Lake City waiting for our bags, various topics came up.  One was the TV shows we watch.  We mentioned that our current favorite is Dexter.  They had heard about it, but obviously didn’t watch it – it’s on Showtime and clearly R-rated, but they didn’t say that.  Since they believed we were inactive Mormons, they simply said, “Yeah, that one seems a little too gory and violent for us.”  When the husband volunteered that they like Modern Family, here’s how he said it, “We love Modern Family.  It took us a while to get into it.  The hardest part was the homosexual couple.  We have a hard time with homosexuality…”  At that point, the husband looked at us to see how we would respond.  By this time, my wife and I were having so much fun with this that we just stared at them blankly, waiting to see what he would say.  We gave him no indication of where we stand on homosexuality (obviously we are sympathetic and advocates for equality).  He continued, “I mean, given my beliefs about homosexuality, that was hard.  But we eventually got over it and now we think they are the funniest couple on the show.”  Since we haven’t seen the show, we really couldn’t comment, but we loved how he extended us an invitation to indicate our beliefs but floundered when we didn’t accept the invitation and do so.

A little later the husband and I were talking and I asked him about his parents and his wife’s parents.  His wife’s parents live in the southeastern U.S.  As he started describing them, he made another attempt to gauge our “Mormonosity”.  He said, “Well, my wife’s parents aren’t good Mormons… Er… I mean… they are inactive.  They are good people, they just aren’t, you know, good… um… They don’t go to church anymore.”  I was eating this up.  Again, I gave no indication of where I stood on this, but since we hadn’t told them about our callings and ward, they had to assume we were inactive and therefore couldn’t speak to it.  So, when he started calling inactive Mormons “bad Mormons” it was all I could do to not laugh my ass off.

In retrospect, we probably should have made their lives a lot easier and simply told them that we are not Mormons.  But the opportunity to watch them negotiate Mormon identity – both theirs and ours – was too good to pass up.  I’m obviously writing about this here, in part to remember it, but also because it was so interesting.  I’m also wondering what they thought of the encounter.  Were they as aware of what was happening?  And are they going to tell their LDS friends that they met an inactive Mormon family in the airport?  I can only imagine how that conversation will go…

As difficult as it may be for some to believe, this is a statement I can agree with. It is/was an LDS statement originally said by David O. McKay**. From my understanding, it was meant to encourage Mormons not to feel as if they had to “move back to Utah”.

My own ancestors flouted this doctrine, but it was common prior to David O. McKay becoming President of the LDS church. A person might convert to the Mormon faith, and then attempt to move to Utah, Idaho or Alberta. It’s part of the reason many people came to Utah from the British isles and Scandinavian countries.

I think there is an element of choice and control over where one is employed, where one lives, what career one chooses. And yet, those elements are not always present, not completely. A person may want to live in a particular geographic location, like San Francisco or New York City – but there are all sorts of advantages and disadvantages to those communities. The cost of living in San Francisco is very high. Finding a job that can support you and/or your family can be challenging. I know people who would love to live in either place, if circumstances allowed. A person might want to work in a particular field, but there may not be the ability or demand for that skill set in that particular location.

I live in a mid-sized mid-western city. I have some ambivalence about where I live. My state is a more conservative state. At times, legislation is passed with which I vehemently disagree. It’s true, I could move to another state. That would involve a lot of logistics; selling my house, finding another job, moving expenses, finding another school for my kids. That’s not including all the nice to haves in my community: my friends here, a network of doctors and dentists, babysitters, neighbors and family.

All of this is to say, while there is some element of choice in location, there isn’t always the ability to easily move or change locations (and jobs or careers). My current location isn’t perfect, but it’s good, it is good enough. I can be a voice for change exactly where I am. I’m not sure another location wouldn’t have similar advantages and disadvantages. I don’t have to agree with legislation passed in the state legislature, I can protest against the legislation and freely campaign for the opposition.

I am drawn to the notion of making the most of any situation in which I find myself. I think it’s a worthwhile concept. I embrace the idea of living among people with whom I may disagree religiously or politically. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

This concept is not unique to Mormonism. Each religion seems to be made up of common sense philosophies that are shared that may or may not be unique to that religion or faith. Just because I no longer identify as an active Mormon, doesn’t mean that there aren’t philosophies that some Mormons believe that I agree with.

**Or, I was told David O. McKay said it, but I can’t find the exact quote. David O. McKay is rumored to have coined this phrase. It may be included in David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism but I can’t confirm that.

Ever wonder why it’s OK for Mormons like the Marriotts to profit from porn?

Now you know.

As someone elsewhere noted: “I think this new PSA from the Mormons is much more helpful than some of their older, more boring stuff.”

The Utah State Senate is adding to the list of “state symbols” a “state gun” – the Browning M1911. I’ve taken the liberty of redesigning the state flag for Utah as a result of this change:

it's just a bird

First off, a tip o’ the hat to WestBerkeley Flats for the heads up and humorous title.

And a nod to Joanna Brooks’ “Dark” Skin No Longer a Curse in Online Book of Mormon:

Chapter headings in the online version of the Book of Mormon have been changed by LDS Church officials, eliminating vestiges of racist theology that linked dark skin to spiritual accursedness.

Actually, more than a nod; a little head scratching, too. Because her final graf struck me as maybe a wee optimistic:

The present change is very much in keeping with a strong LDS institutional preference for quietly leaving historical missteps behind as it matures from an American faith with ties to a complex of Anglo-American folk beliefs into a global religion.

Why? Well, let’s call this today’s Exhibit A:

Source: Latter-day Designs

Lemuel’s example in The Book of Mormon teaches us what happens when we do not choose the right.

What happens is you wake up with a permanent tan. That’s no Anglo-American folk belief. It’s 100% Mormon and remains received truth for nearly the same percentage of LDS adherents.

In terms of LDS institutional preferences, let’s call this Exhibit B:

The original headings remained in most English editions until 2004, when Doubleday published the first trade version of the LDS scripture and implemented the editing.

Until this month, the 1981 headings remained in the church’s online version at lds.org. When the church upgraded its website, the Doubleday changes were included online. The former version will continue — for now — in the printed English versions.

The Mormon church is leaving its historical missteps behind so quietly that they’ve decided to let a gentile book publisher lead the way.

Further reading: You can change chapter headings, but you cannot change history … the only way to remove the racial implications of Book of Mormon teachings is to change the text of the Book of Mormon itself.

On December 4, 2010, the New York Times published an editorial praising the Utah Compact, a statement of five principals concerning the state’s immigration discussion. The Compact was signed by several current and former elected officials, including current the Mayors of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County as well as former Governor Olene Walker, showing support across party lines. The most peculiar addition of support comes from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which did not sign the Compact, but did release a statement in support of it.

What the New York Times failed to indicate, however, was the current state of the immigration debate in the State of Utah, and its causes.

On August 18, 2010, Representative Stephen Sandstrom of Orem submitted his already controversial “Arizona-style” immigration bill to legislative committee. In the months leading up to the bill’s submission, draft copies had already created quite a stir among Utahns. While the final draft did make some alterations to its original iteration, such as stipulating that law officials could not arbitrarily ask for proof of citizenship without an initial unrelated cause, much of Sandstrom’s original bill remained intact. In other words, much of the so-called “Arizona-style” influence remained.

The day that the bill was submitted to the legislature, Sandstrom encountered groups of supporters and protestors at the state capitol. The event became something of a yelling match, and a clear indication that there were two very vocal sides to the immigration issue.

In July of this year, KSL and Dan Jones & Associates conducted a poll concerning the many facets of the state immigration issue. Among the clearest statistics, 61% of those polled believed that immigration was a serious issue for the state. 65% believed that illegal immigrants should be deported, regardless of how they’ve lived since coming to Utah and the United States. Amongst the strong support for legislation such as the bill drafted by Rep. Sandstrom, pollsters noted that many of the people they polled spoke with “sweeping generalizations” about immigrants, illegal or not, as a problem for Utah. In addition to these sentiments, many people did express concern about bias towards Hispanics, breaking apart families, and how the nation would perceive Utahns in all this.

But none of this has been mentioned in the New York Times editorial. As far as the editorial is concerned, Utah seems to be Arizona’s friendly neighbor to the north, with little debate concerning illegal immigration.

Because the editorial has completely omitted not only the continuing immigration discussion within Utah, as well as the source of that discussion, the editorial also makes no mention of the LDS Church’s true influence on this topic.

The LDS Church issued a statement in support of the Utah Compact, citing the need for elected officials to create laws that “properly balance love for neighbors, family cohesion, and the observance of just and enforceable laws.” The Church is opposed to the “forced separation” of families, and notes that such separation “damages society.”

On some occasions, the LDS Church strays from the popular sentiment of Utah’s elected officials, 80% of which are estimated to be members of the church and publicly maintain LDS-based beliefs. For many people in Utah, Rep. Sandstrom’s immigration bill was a reflection of conservative, Mormon-inspired beliefs. And when the LDS Church indicated that it was in support of a “responsible approach” toward immigration reform, it strayed from the sentiments of many of the conservative LDS Utahns who were in support of the “Arizona-style” bill. What the New York Times editorial doesn’t show is the unusual circumstance of the LDS Church siding in opposition to the overwhelmingly Mormon legislation’s support of Republican views on immigration.

In fact, all is not as the New York Times sees it, which states “people of good sense and good will band together to say no [to partisan extremism and government].” Following the announcement of the Utah Compact, one KSL/Dan Jones & Associates poll showed that 64% of Utahns agree with the Compact, while the same poll showed that 42% believed that the LDS Church’s statement made no difference to them. That means that a large number of people are unaffected by the LDS Church’s less conservative view on immigration reform. This is a rare case where conservatism wins over religious influence, which is hard to find in a state that often associates “being Republican” with “being Mormon.”

While I was elated to read the New York Times’ editorial on this issue, and glad to see the LDS Church siding with civility and compassion rather than popular Utah conservative sentiment for a change, I’m afraid that this view of the Utah Compact does nothing to calm the many sides of this discussion. The editorial brings light to a more hopeful, compassionate, and moderate voice among the many involved in this debate. But the editorial also does nothing to show that there is an active debate in Utah. Nor does it demonstrate the opinion that the majority of Utahns appear to hold, the juxtaposition of the LDS Church’s support of the Utah Compact, or the source of everything – the bill proposed by Representative Stephen Sandstrom.

Perhaps the New York Times will have the chance to comment on the results of Utah’s immigration bill in January, when the Utah legislature will convene and consider the Utah immigration bill. Utahns – both legal and illegal – will be waiting to see if the Utah Compact, it’s supporters, and the LDS Church have some effect on the final results.

Resources:
Original editorial:
NY Times Editorial: The Utah Compact
Related articles:
Deseret News: Latin leaders praise new immigration compact, wonder about impact
Deseret News: Official text of Utah Compact declaration on immigration reform
KSL: The Dream Divided: Illegal immigration poll draws emotional response
Some general information:
Fox 13 on Sandstrom

h/t Natalie R. Collins

Nebo School District official Lana Hiskey:

“We’ve actually had a boatload of phone calls coming in and they’re very concerned about the content … [but] it’s not that his beliefs are different than other people’s beliefs, it’s not that at all …”

Read Natalie’s commentary at Gay awareness signs too “adult-themed” for Utah County

The Salt Lake Tribune reports: Deseret Book won’t carry Utah author’s latest novel

“This latest book from James Dashner contains language some of our customers would find offensive,” said Gail Halladay, managing director of marketing at Deseret Book …

The Scorch Trials, the story of teenagers trekking across a dystopian landscape …

includes words such as “damn” and “this sucks,” as well as the phrase “shuck it.”

So far, 38 44 readers like this Trib comment:

“But they’ll carry Glenn Beck’s bound toilet paper?”

Cue facepalm* and what the holy scrud? … soundtrack courtesy of the Sons of Provo (available at finer Deseret Book outlets everywhere):

*Then again, Dashner attended BYU and currently lives in South Jordan City with his wife and four children. How the heck could he not know the G-rated lexicon of permissible Utah non-profanities? Whatever. His bannination is still shuckin’ bullfit (say that ten times fast).

We may not be able to prove that language like that expressed by Boyd “homophobe” Packer leads directly to suicides of homosexual Mormons (like this one), but here’s some interesting correlational data that suggests his anti-scientific, ignorant, bigoted views are filtering down to the members, at least those in Utah:

A statewide poll shows 44 percent of Utahns agree with Mormon apostle Boyd K. Packer that it’s possible for homosexuality to be overcome.

The Salt Lake Tribune poll found 31 percent disagree and 25 percent were unsure whether same-sex attraction can be changed.

The poll also found that 55 percent of Mormon respondents said it’s possible to change same-sex attractions compared with 20 percent of non-Mormon respondents.

The good news: 45% of Mormons disagree with a senior apostle!  The bad news, this is really what the Mormon Tabernacle Choir looks like:

55% of the choir members in the photo have been "modified" to reflect the percent of Utah Mormons who are bigots, like Boyd (click for full size)

Views: 1459