> Meanwhile, why are people placing a harsh light on Mormons?

In most cases I would agree. For instance, knowing Clayton Christensen is a Mormon should have no impact on someone's opinion of disruption theory. And there are cases, like Mitt Romney, where the media placed way too much of a focus on his family being Mormon.

In this case though, the fact that the tycoon is Mormon plays a central role. His plans are literally based on drawings by Joseph Smith he found in researching mormon history. These are literally plans by the founder of Mormonism being implemented in the state where he was born (which is mentioned in the article as the reason why the tycoon is familiar with Vermont and thus chose it for his communities).

This isn't an article making fun of Mormons and "their sacred underwear" or other "let's point and laugh" material. It is an article about a man who studied Mormon history and decided to implement the vision of its founder. Mormonism is a key element to the story.

> the media placed way too much of a focus on his family being Mormon.

You're telling me. Four years later I'm in London and the city buses are still advertising the "Book of Mormon" musical. (admittedly that wasn't 100% a Romney thing, but the timing was no coincidence, either.)

What? The advertisements or the play itself? If you are attributing the play itself to the presidential race, I think you are mistaken, because the play was in development long before the Romney was a candidate, and is by the creators of South Park (Trey Parker and Matt Stone), which have often featured the Mormon religion in their works[1].

1: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124819/

2: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0705893/

Wow and did you see that model community? All about work and money; no place whatsoever for recreation or privacy. A warren of worker bees farming and sweating - his "utopia"

I tend to not be a fan of ideologues or zealots, no matter their persuasion. If a Jewish entrepreneur were basing their real estate development plans on Talmudic scholarship, I would be similarly skeptical.

It's not the word "Mormon" (although South Park comes to mind) but the concept of founding communities designed according to religious ideology and the implicit idea that anyone of a different religion (or of no religion) would not be welcome.

> and the implicit idea that anyone of a different religion (or of no religion) would not be welcome.

Historically, it's always been the other way around. Mormons have always tried to reach out to connect to their communities (vs. making an impenetrable fortress/cult community like FLDS), and were met with hostility due to differences in culture (i.e. polygamy, different bible beliefs, etc.). Most of the time it was the community that was not welcoming of the mormons.

This seems to be the case again here in this article with Vermont.

There's a difference between integrating into the community and redefining it.

I'm surprised how kindly people are treating this plan.

Ignore any mention of Mormonism and talk about a planned community where to participate people must give up all of their net worth to that community, work for a 'business' that gives up all profit to that community for a 'dividend' from the shared resources, all under an explicit and rigid hierarchy and see how people react.

I think the key is that it would be completely voluntary. Not many people are going to complain if you want to go off do your own thing.

Having a theoretical option to do a thing is not the same as having the freedom to do it.

Do you think the community is going to give that person's net worth back so they can start a new life? Do you think someone is going to spend time building a business just to walk away with nothing? What about the friends and family left behind who will no doubt be encouraged to shun you.

Cults are completely voluntary, too, if you think only in theoreticals and ignore the practical implications of their policies.

Scientologist? Jehovah's Witness?

Yes, why would we place a harsh light on a group that has tried everything it can to strip rights away from LGBT folks and until recently had explicitly racist restrictions on who could do what within the church.

Are people not aware that black men were banned from being pastors until 1978? Or that the Church funded huge campaigns against gay marriage? And continues to use its influence over the Boy Scouts to slow progress there as well?