I grew up Mormon in Utah and I love the Mormons in my life. Every leader in local congregations is an unpaid volunteer. Everyone in the congregation has a responsibility to carry out in the community (sunday school teacher, youth mentor, clerk to track finances, etc). As a Mormon kid, I was taught to work hard my whole life for the good of others. I served a Mormon mission in Europe, which was an extremely difficult experience, but I learned the value of persistence and diligent hard work.

There are definitely some interesting positive cultural influences from the Mormon church. There are some negative influences however. A few years ago, I decided no longer to participate in the Mormon church because of its harsh policies/teachings about LGBT people and because I found myself agreeing with agnostic atheism. I told my family and friends that I'd always respect them and their beliefs when I decided to leave the church. I was surprised by the harsh reaction: my Mormon loved ones told me that they were concerned about the future of my children, that I was depriving my family of happiness in heaven, and, as one of my own parents told me, they didn't know who I was anymore.

I think Mormons are extremely kind to non-members of the church and to the church's current members. But if you are a member and you want to leave, sometimes they can be extremely harsh. I also think Mormons are some of the most kind people in the world on the person-to-person scale, but on the group-to-group scale, they can be pretty brutal sometimes. Blacks were denied access to the most sacred temple rituals until 1978, and today LGBT people in long-term relationships or marriages are considered apostates and their children are not allowed to be baptized. Weird mix of super kind and super harsh.

> my Mormon loved ones told me that they were concerned about the future of my children, that I was depriving my family of happiness in heaven, and, as one of my own parents told me, they didn't know who I was anymore.

If they believe that you must be religious or else you burn in hell for all of eternity, then their reaction makes sense. They are behaving that way out of concern for your well being.

Mormons do not believe that non-believers will "burn in hell for all of eternity". Mormons believe that the afterlife will be far superior to earth life for virtually everyone.

Only a tiny segment of humanity, who commit "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost", which Jesus described as the unpardonable sin, will have an existence of endless pain and misery. The belief is that very few people are even capable of getting themselves into this arrangement.

Mormons feel serious concern when someone leaves the Church for multiple reasons, but the biggest factor is simple human psychology. Fundamentally, you're rejecting a culture and a belief system into which you've been initiated, accepted, and accommodated for many years, and a set of traditions on which your family has based their lives, potentially for generations.

The fact is, this hurts peoples' feelings, and they're going to have a hard time coping with it, and it's by no means specific to Mormonism. It's applicable to anyone whose religion plays a major function in their lives. If anything, Mormonism's unique redemptive and compassionate doctrine softens the blow.

It should be noted here that, unlike some other groups, Mormons do not have a policy of shunning people who leave. It may be difficult for family and friends to accept the lifestyle change, but the Church preaches nothing but tolerance, outreach, and compassion to everyone, including, and in some cases especially, to those who've left.

Someone leaving an ideology opens the possibility that the ideology may not be founded on solid ground in the minds of those who stay.

Mormons spend a lot of time proclaiming how much they know it's true to each other. I've always believed this to be some sort of a mental trick like "if we just keep saying it we'll make it so". This isn't to bag on Mormons either. Lots of groups do something similar (many of which are not regions). I have to assume it's an essential part of social functioning at some level.

Someone leaving undoes at least a part of this exposing an underlying crack in the carefully constructed reality. Thus it's a threat. Predictably people don't react well (nor understandably are they comfortable around) threats to their essential world views.

There is a lot to admire about Mormonism. But given the theology it has to be a fair amount of work to maintain belief in the face of modern knowledge.

This probably applies to a lot of more intense religions that take dim views of apostates. Or any other belief systems for that matter (i.e. the Silicon Valley echo chamber with apostate Peter Thiel).

A couple of things...

1. I believe leaving an ideology has more to do with the individual that the ideology, especially when the ideology remains consistent. For example, I was born into a Mormon family, baptized into the LDS church, and even served as an LDS missionary in Tokyo, Japan for two years. Then, I rebelled against the religion, for a variety of self-centered reasons, and demanded to be excommunicated. I remained antagonistic towards the Mormon church for many years. A few years ago, I decided to return to it. During all that time, I was the only thing that changed. The Mormon church remained consistent.

2. In my experience, the LDS church does not take a dim view against its apostates. I was one for many years, and they never approached me with anything but love and kindness, even when they were met with my vitriolic attitude. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the LDS church, and their attitudes towards me during my years as an apostate.

I could tell you a very different story but I won't. Vitriol isn't something I have though.

I'm at peace and it sounds like you are too.

You're absolutely right. Whenever I've received a very stern scolding from a Mormon friend or family member over my decision to stop participating in Mormonism, I've tried to respond by saying that I'm grateful for their deep concern, which demonstrates that they care about me.

It would be nice if we could all believe what we want to without consequences to our relationships, but unfortunately that isn't a realistic expectation in many (maybe most) religious communities.

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1.11?lang=eng#10

Isn't it the case with every group with strong identity? Imagine being raised in a long-term Democrat family and declaring that the Tea Party is your thing. (And it's not even about eternal damnation.)

IMHO you got down voted a lot for pointing out an aspect of human behavior many people (including myself) find very troubling.

The "odd" juxtaposition of compassion and community with racial, sexual, and cultural exclusivity and strict taboos is normal. It's how a tribe normally works.

Modern cosmopolitan culture tries to do away with the bad stuff, but many believe this also did away with the good. A major tenet of neo-reaction is that cosmopolitan culture leads to a kind of cold social alienation and lack of identity.

Personally I think there is some truth to this, but I can't embrace it. I find it completely unacceptable. If this is actually hard wired into us then the answer is genetic engineering.

I think that's a very good point. That said, my guess is that, on average, shunning is probably less frequent when family members leave a political party than when they leave Mormonism, but that's just a guess with no backing evidence.

Some Mormon families don't care whether their kids stay in the church or leave. For others, it leads to shunning and disowning. I'd say shunning probably occurs more for Mormon apostates than Catholic apostates, but it probably occurs less for Mormon apostates than Jehovah's Witness or Scientologist apostates.

Let me just make the correction here that "shunning" is not the same as any discomfort/disagreement/broken relationships.

"Shunning" is a real policy advocated by some groups, such as JWs. It's intended to punish the traitor, and the rule is that you are supposed to completely divorce yourself from that person, cutting off all forms of contact. The intent is to cause the person to realize the error of their ways via tough love and come back.

Mormon policy is unequivocally NOT shunning. It could not be more opposite. The Church regularly implores its members to be tolerant and kind to everyone, including family members and friends who've left the Church or quit practicing.

It's true that Mormons are one of the only religious groups in the U.S. that, by and large, continually integrate it into their daily lives and take it seriously. That makes it a bigger deal when someone leaves than in mainstream American Christianity, where "church shopping" is very common, and there is a doctrine of a "priesthood of all believers", i.e., as long as you continue to claim to be Christian you're A-OK. Mormonism does insist that Mormonism is important, and most Mormons believe that.

But I think the parent is correct. This is to be expected whenever you challenge, insult, or disavow the deeply-held beliefs of any group. It's very difficult for everyone when those beliefs are held by close friends and family members.

That many Americans do not care if someone leaves their religion merely demonstrates that they consider religion a non-critical social function instead of a set of core beliefs and practices to guide one's life.

You are absolutely correct. There is no official Mormon policy of shunning. The teachings from the leaders of the church on this matter are very generous and admirable and tend to be along the lines of something like, "reach out in love."

I guess what I was referring to is a kind of informal shunning where close friends or family suddenly cut off contact with you when they learn you have left the church. It would be nice if more people followed the loving teachings from leaders. Many continue to maintain loving relationships, but others want nothing more to do with you, even after years of friendship.

I take responsibility for this relationship shifting to some degree. Sometimes I wish I had never told anyone I had left the church so my friends and family would assume I was still part of the tribe. It's not easy to hide it though since various small hints can give it away, like being seen with a coffee or without your temple garment undershirt. It's difficult.

I sympathize. I think that, unfortunately, it is a larger-scale psychological problem. Many people are fair-weather friends and we don't realize it until certain types of storms come in. The sad reality is that a lot of people are simply disappointing when stressors are applied.

I'm a practicing Mormon and I want to let you know that I have a lot of respect for your experience here. I think it's better than the experience of many who've left the Church and allow what often begin as justified frustrations to turn into resentment, hostility, and occasionally even spiteful, hateful obsession (all aboard the /r/exmormon train CHOO CHOO).

Perhaps more surprisingly, I also think it's better than the experience of many who stay in the Church, but decline to probe, or refuse to be intellectually honest with themselves.

We should inquire into these issues and IMO, it's better to spend some time being honest and sorting it out, which can include withdrawal from activity if one feels that's necessary to be consistent, than to continue to do things to keep up appearances and push yourself into a much more dangerous internal conflict.

I find that those who have these unresolved problems with the Church that truly trouble them, but have attempted to repress them for the sake of appearances or congeniality instead of addressing them responsibly, eventually break down and become the bitter, obsessive types referenced above. That's terrible for everyone, themselves included.

So while we clearly disagree on some religious matters, I think intellectual and personal consistency and honesty are much more important than blindly or desperately clinging to something you can't feel OK about (and I would add that it's my opinion that the Church doesn't want people to do this, either).

Thanks for your comments, I really do enjoy your perspective. I don't live in Utah anymore but I'd love to get a bite with you at some point if we're ever in the same place at the same time. Feel free to email @ gmail if you're going to be in Central Florida.

> ...there is a doctrine of a "priesthood of all believers", i.e., as long as you continue to claim to be Christian you're A-OK.

That's not what that means to a non-Mormon Christian. In fact, as far as behavior goes, it calls for the opposite. Reading 1 Peter chapter 2, it's clear that it says that Christians are all responsible for priestly duties, in the way they behave, the way they speak, and the way they care for the spiritual lives of the people around them.

Even more clearly, at the end of James 2, it says exactly the opposite. It says trust in God is empty if your trust isn't influencing your behavior (faith without works is dead).

The notion of a priesthood of believers is significant in a way that contrasts with the Mormon church, though. Protestant Christians believe that the healthy Christian Church enables and supports Christians (and everyone else for that matter) but that no organizational leadership functions as gatekeepers "the saved", godly marriage, or any other special status.

I don't want to derail this into a big theological discussion, but yes, certainly there are mainstream Christians who take their beliefs seriously and seek to practice them. It was not my intention to mean that there aren't.

I was specifically referring to the Calvinist belief that Christ's grace alone provides salvation to the pre-destined, whom are "unconditionally elected", i.e., chosen for a fixed salvation regardless of their past or future conduct. While stating this theological difference, I recognize that many Calvinists believe that living a conforming Christian life is a necessary signal of this election.

As it pertains to the topic at hand, the point was to illustrate that mainstream Christians are less likely to be concerned over changes in affiliation, or even some changes in conduct, due to this doctrine that the "priesthood of all believers" is active and allows good people to re-affiliate freely. Combined with the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election, which is widely but not universally accepted in mainstream Protestantism, specific religious distinctions are of little concern to many Protestants.

I'll agree about the changes in affiliation being generally unimportant in practice and culture. Though that's not very theologically sound, either. We can leave that to the side other than to say that reconciliation, forgiveness, and unity are clearly commanded in the Bible.

I was more concerned about the more popular misconception about protestant Christianity: that it mostly involves claiming a label then going to heaven. This does a lot of harm because a lot of "Christians" are more or less untrained, unaccountable, and frankly bad people. And they are the examples often brought up when discussing hard feelings and distaste for Christianity.

I'd also wouldn't blame predestination for the lack of stress on membership and the consequential toothlessness of shunning. It more has to do with the removal of actual priests (i.e., with collars and robes) from any sort of essential role. You don't have to make any particular clergyman or bishop happy to have a birth blessed, a holy funeral, an honorable wedding, or salvation itself.

>Isn't it the case with every group with strong identity?

It's particularly troublesome in Utah because ~60% of the population is Mormon. It's not difficult to imagine a scenario where you lose your job, or an important supplier relationship because you left the church. Yes, it can happen elsewhere, but there aren't too many places in the US where a single religion is so dominant.

It doesn't even have to involve leaving the church. Choosing not to participate in the mission work that most Mormons do after high school, for example, has some shame associated with it.

>It's not difficult to imagine a scenario where you lose your job, or an important supplier relationship because you left the church.

By the same token, it's not difficult to imagine a scenario where you lose your job because you live in, say, NYC, and you broke with the sacred values of the left. E.g. revealed you voted from Trump.

This happens all the time. We see it on the large scale in the media quite regularly (e.g. Palmer Luckey, Brendan Eich, etc).

Moral communities are often pretty much the same, whether secular or religious.

I've lived both places. Utah was pretty unique. Religion makes for a tighter niche than just "lots of liberals".

Every culture has its own baggage, and indeed it is true that some people will make assumptions, or pretend that they're "better Mormons" because they followed more rules. But my experience is that these people are fairly rare.

I'm Mormon and I didn't go on a mission. It comes up rarely, probably not even once a year. Not going on a mission is not necessarily a signal that anything bad happened; some people have health constraints or personal matters that prevent them from serving. Also, tons of people haven't gone on missions, either because they had those types of issues, or they were not practicing around mission age, or the political/economic climate in their country at the time didn't allow it (especially the case around war time), or simply because they were not members of the Church around mission age.

The only sass I've personally received for this is from people, usually people who've left the Church or are on their way out, who've tried to turn it back around on me when I've tried to correct a misconception about our beliefs or teachings.

The Church does not endorse ANY disavowment or disowning of people who fail to practice, change their religious affiliations, etc.

Families are not only advised but expected to remain open and supportive of their family members, whether they go on missions, leave the Church, or whatever. That doesn't mean endorsing behavioral changes that Mormons believe are immoral, it just means not disrespecting or shunning people over such changes. The Church encourages fellowship, not shunning.

Though it's obviously addressed less frequently, the Church would not support someone cutting off a vendor or changing a normal relationship in any way due to changes in religious affiliation.

Many Mormons went through such an affiliation changes themselves when they entered the Church, and endured their own measure of intolerance by doing so. There is no intent to inflict this disrespect and pain on others, regardless of one's personal level of agreement.

This is not to detract from the fact that the Church has significant cultural affects on Utah and that non-members can sometimes feel out of place. Just to clarify that the Church does everything it can to encourage members to be welcoming, supportive, and tolerant. Unfortunately, it won't always work out that way, but that's the goal.

Southern Baptism is that dominant in many parts of the South.

Southern Baptism isn't monolithic in the kind of way that the LDS church is, though. Individual Baptist churches are relatively autonomous, and often differ from each other on details of religious belief or practice.

Across an entire state or city larger than 100,000 population? (not challenging you...just curious)

Depends. There are some maps around by county.

Do you have kids? It is much harder for non/ex-mormon kids in certain places in Utah. Once the initial effort to convert you fails, you frequently get treated very poorly. Lots of mormon parents won't let their kids play with non-mormon kids, and an even larger percent won't let their kids date non-mormons.

We live in a fairly mormon-heavy part of Utah, and while I really like our neighbors and don't feel like the religion thing is a big deal at all, both my wife and I look back on our experiences in high school and worry a lot about what life in school will be like for our kids when they start going.

> Lots of mormon parents won't let their kids play with non-mormon kids, and an even larger percent won't let their kids date non-mormons.

As a Mormon, I'd like to let you know something: Those people are assholes. That kind of behavior is rude, and uninviting (literally); two qualities that are opposite what LDS people (Mormons) are taught to be.

Unfortunately, this is a common problem in the Utah bubble. Those parents are well meaning - they just want their kids to fit into a mould they believe to be a better life - yet go about it in entirely the wrong way.

I was lucky enough to grow up in an enigma inside the Utah bubble (an Army base), where that behavior was just not even viable, and therefore scarcely exists (if at all). On behalf of Mormons all around the world, I would like to apologise for that kind of behavior.

I always wonder about the Mormon missionaries.

Did you actually convert anyone? Or is that not even the point?

I was a Mormon missionary.

Each missionary memorizes this to drill in their purpose: "My purpose is to invite others to come unto Christ by helping them receive the restored gospel through faith in Jesus Christ and His Atonement, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end." https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missi...

Most of our activities were finding people interested in the LDS church and teaching those people about the LDS church.

I would have 20-30 45 minute in house meetings a week with people that were interested. We spent most of our time knocking on doors and meeting new people to fill up those teaching slots.

For service, probably 5-10 hours a week. Usually set up by the local LDS congregation or people we met on the street (ex. "I'm not interested but I could use help power spraying my roof).

I had an awesome mission experience. It was a lot of fun. I met a lot of interesting people, with tough backgrounds, looking for something new in their lives. Made me really grateful for my middle class upbringing and want to help people less fortunate than me.

Just wanted to thank you guys, met a lot of Mormons all over the world. Great people, can always talk snd discuss things, always recognize you by the n cell clothes you wear and the fact you always speak the local language :)

Hey thank you very much! Very kind of you.

>Did you actually convert anyone? Or is that not even the point?

It does happen, but it's not the point.

A mission is the ideal maturing experience. You get dropped off in what is essentially a random place, anywhere in the world where Mormons are allowed to go (most places). My brothers went to Philly and Auckland. My dad went to Japan. You have to pay a few hundred bucks a month to go, which means you have to save up through your teen years. The missionary program will pay for your apartment and give you a little bit of money for groceries, they'll provide transportation (which is frequently bikes, not cars), and that's it. The rest of the experience is committed to volunteer work; missionaries cannot have other employment.

Once you're there, you're expected to go out and talk to as many people as you can. You spend your time helping people, dedicated to teaching them religion and providing service. Every day. For two years. And you pay for the privilege.

You meet all kinds of people this way, literally anyone who is willing to talk to you. You learn religious fundamentals well and see how it affects peoples' lives. You learn to be persistent and diligent. You learn how to handle rejection; most people don't want to talk to you, and will slam the door in your face. Sometimes people will even spit on you. You develop toughness.

Making a generation of hard-working, committed, and grateful adults, with at least some perspective on something outside of their own comfort zone, is the true point of the missionary program. Utah is an underappreciated testament to how well it works.

I was sent to Europe. On one hand, it was an uplifting, wonderful experience. I taught the missionary lessons to very kind people. Three or four of them joined the church. I became extremely close to the other missionaries.

On the other hand, it was an excruciating experience. Common daily routine for me (I followed the missionary handbook with my whole heart): 6:30am: wake up, exercise. 8am: read Book of Mormon and Bible, take notes. 9am: study the scriptures with your companion. 10am: Study the language. 10:30am - 8pm: Proselyting. This consisted of stopping people in the street, knocking on doors, and going to appointments to teach lessons. Since interest in Mormonism is low in Europe, we taught few lessons, so we spent most of our time talking to people in the street and knocking on doors. We spent most of the day facing rejection. We were yelled at probably daily by someone calling us a cult. Once we were interviewed by a local newspaper who wanted to know more about Mormons. The interview went well, but in the article they called us a cult. It was highly discouraging. We weren't allowed to read any non-church material, listen to any non-church music, or watch any movies or television. Internet access was limited 30 minutes per week to email family. You write down goals for how many appointments you will have each week and how many baptisms you will have each month. There was some pressure to get good numbers. (All of this said, I deeply respect Mormonism and do not consider it a cult at all.)

I spent a lot of time writing code with pencil and paper because I missed it. Some of my companions rebuked me for it, but some were compassionate and encouraged it. I often thought about leaving the mission, but there is immense social pressure not to come home early. It can bring shame on you and embarrass your family.

I think Mormon missionaries have a tough life. I love them dearly and always wish them well. It is a difficult situation to be placed in, and many of them behave beautifully and admirably in the face of adversity.

I hope no Mormons here feel that my words are trying to attack them or things they love. I love the Mormon church and find many of its teachings beautiful. However, I'd like to convey what it's like to be Mormon, struggle with the experience, and recognize a desire to follow a different path.

Yes they do, and that is their main purpose. They also do service projects, etc.

Yes, and a lot of them take wives from whichever foreign land they were in too. Part of the plan to grow the religion.

Do you have a source for both of those claims?

As a Mormon, I can say that from my experience, "a lot of them take wives from whichever foreign land they were in too", isn't true. In fact, if someone does it's uncommon enough that it's noteworthy.. but it's not terribly surprising if it does happen. Also, there's women who serve missions too, and have for a while.

With "Part of the plan to grow the religion.", I've never seen that in the church's plan.

Hmmm, maybe my sampling size is biased, but I do know two from the same family who did. Also a lot of religions have implicit plans for growth. For example, not eating swine could be tied to pork being less sanitary back in the day.

oh wow, i didn't know 25% of missionaries were women...

Anyway, I don't have anything against Mormon missionaries. Just missionaries in general.

Ah, yes. I have heard similar experiences from ex-Mormons i've come across. Just shows that things are more complicated in real world and you can't take some anecdotal evidence to judge a group/person in any meaningful way. Your side of the story is not something people looking from the outside would normally see.

> I am not sure why Utah has such an odd reputation outside of the state

Part of it is that Mormon influence. As you mention, there are a lot of positive things they bring to the table. Like any other church, though, it's not all positive.

Because they are a dominant proportion of the state (~60% of the population), their religious views leak into politics, public schools, law, business relationships, media, and so forth.

If your values match theirs, it's terrific. If not, you'll run into issues. The Mormon view on LGBT rights isn't terribly progressive, for example. They also didn't allow black males to "hold the priesthood" until the very late 70's. Note that almost all adult males in the religion "hold the priesthood". Not quite enough time has passed for that stigma to have cleared away.

Isn't that the case anywhere in the U.S. though? Don't local politics always reflect the cultures and opinions of those doing the voting? Isn't that by intentional design?

60% of the population being of one religion in an entire state is unique in the US.

Perhaps, but having 60% of the local populace embracing the same ideology isn't.

Boise, ID has the same problem with air quality (and it's also in the Mormon heartland). As a non-Mormon growing up in Southern Idaho, it's hard to argue the church isn't very influential politically and also good at social works.

Hard to combat weather and geography. The inversions in SLC are pretty powerful effects.

> I've met Mormons who have asked me where I am from and not only know where that country is but spoke to me in my NATIVE tougue. I was very impressed.

That's because they send missionaries all over the world to convert people to Mormonism. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but they aren't really interested in other countries, languages, or cultures beyond using that knowledge to impose their own culture and religion on others.

Oh please. Most missionaries return with a real love for their assigned countries, languages, and cultures. Just because you disagree with their beliefs, you don't have to dehumanize them.

All the Mormons I've met are the nicest people you could ask. I've met a lot, in different places. It's a hobby of mine talking with them. I'm an atheist b t genuinely believe if all the people would act like this, world would be pretty damn close to being a heaven.