If the United States were to collapse

[Brude]

Once freed of the U.S. Constitutional constraints, Utah is likely to develop into a Church-run state, like the old Tibet or the Taliban-era Afghanistan.

As Tormund said, probably more like Iran but more liberal...I think significantly more liberal in that they wouldn't maintain control with goon-squads riding motorcycles wielding truncheons.

No, their sub-class humans list is currently occupied by the gays. I think our lease for that spot is up in 2187, so talk to us then.

The original Mormon teachings about blacks are pretty bizarre and racist, but I've yet to meet a Mormon who actually sees the world in those terms. In 1978 the LDS President had a revelation that overturned a lot of these old ideas and now blacks can even be priests in the church.

One thing the LDS has going for it is the idea of continuous revelation from God to all members. It makes their beliefs almost infinitely mutable, so as "new revelations" by prominent members occur, they can change church policy to fit better with the times and changing ideas of their membership over time. The policies of the LDS church and the government of Deseret would depend a lot on public opinion in that state, and conservative as they may be in many ways, they are still liberally minded, Westerners by most world standards.

I didn't say I was worried about violence from the new Utah. My worry stems from seeing a country run as a theocracy, particularly when that the germane religion in question is one that's hostile to women's independence and to gay people. I fear dogmatism and theocratical governments more than I fear xenophobia/nativism backed by guns.

There would be would be areas where there are rights limited or even violated. Gay rights would be limited, gay marriage certainly would not exist, but I suspect it would be more like in recent times where states have had ordinances against sodomy, as an attempt to discourage homosexuality or sexual acts deemed unsuitable. When I was growing up in Maryland in the 1980's it was illegal to have oral or anal sex in the state but it went all-but unenforced. There was one bizarre case back then where some cop caught a couple (male-female) in a car; the woman was fellating the man and the cop actually arrested them and charged them with sodomy. That's what you'd probably see in Deseret, however they may be more inclined to arrest people for that stuff than was the case in Maryland 20 years ago.

Now, over time it's hard to say where this would all go. Deseret could either become more repressive or less repressive. They will be in contact with te rest of the world, the goals and purpose of the LDS preclude them from becoming a closed off and secretive society (they are a secretive church, though). They will have free trade, contact, travel, emigration to and from their country and will try to maintain relations and alliances with friendly nations (probably most of the former US if they can manage it). I think over time, the pressures will be towards greater liberalization rather than less. Would they ever have full gay rights? No, I seriously doubt it, but I don't think you will see gays being executed or thrown in prison for the rest of their lives, like you might in many other religious theocracies.

I don't know how deep feelings run on the abortion issue there. Not sure what laws against that could be like. They may well equate it to murder and have similar penalties. I think it would definitely be much more stringent than vs. homosexuality.

[Guardian of the North]

No amount of anecdata really can be as meaningful as the LDS Church's organized effort to defeat gay marriage, and their stranglehold on state politics in Utah.

Are the vast majority of politicians in Utah members of the LDS chuch most definitely yes.

But many people seem to have the mistaken impression that the reality in Utah is that the President/Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can make some proclamation like we should ban R-rated movies in Utah and that the Utah legislature is sitting there waiting for every word he says and by the next day if you try to show an R-rated movie in Utah you get slapped with a $5,000 fine.

The actual reality is that just about every election the leadership of the Church sends out a letter to congregations expressly stating the Church's neutrality in advocating specific political parties or candidates. Instead encouraging individual members to pray and thoughfully consider specific issues and political ideas and then vote for the candidate each individual feels would best represent the individuals ideals of good government.

Well, seeing as how about 2/3 of the population of Utah is Mormon is it surprising that most government officials are Mormon? So the argument that the LDS church is dictating government policy in Utah is not true (historical example: Utah was one of the states that voted to repeal Prohibition despite the Mormon teaching to avoid consuming alcohol).

I'm not sure why this is an such issue, I don't know what to compare it to exactly. Sort of like being surprised and shocked that that people in Nashville like country music.

It is very true that laws and culture in Utah are very much influenced by the Mormon church but that again is because of the large Mormon population not because the actual Mormon church is dictating policy. In an independent state of Utah would gay marriage be legal? Almost a 100% guarentee of no. Would there be actual specific legal penalties for being gay? If Utah were actually being ran as a theocracy I honestly think not, I could easily see some de facto cultural penalties of being excluded both intentionally and unintentionally.

[Guest Raidne]

Hey, guess what? I'm learning how to resolve conflict in my marriage from the LDS's official website!

It was one of those days. No matter how fast she ran during the day, Della was not able to keep up with the demands of her family. Her neighbor, with even more children than she, seemed so cheerful that Della began to doubt her own ability as a woman, a wife, and a mother. Ben felt hungrier than usual on his way home. An extra eighty miles to deliver farm equipment had been necessary, but now he was tired. Being home sounded better all the time. Peace. Food. Rest.

Della heard Ben's car in the driveway and glanced at the clock. Oh no! Almost 7:00 P.M.? Now what? She had wanted to have dinner ready, but. ... She heard the door open as she hurriedly placed the last biscuit on the baking sheet.

Ben strode through the door, leaned around the corner, and smiled at Della. She looked tense, and he noticed the empty table. He paused and took a deep breath.

If Ben's concern is for his wife, how might he respond?

If Ben's concern is only for himself, what might happen?

Ben exhaled, smiled at Della, and said, "Looks as if I got here just in time to help." Her tension disappeared. Relieved, she kissed him and said, "It's good to have you home, Ben. You've had a long day, and I wanted to have dinner ready for you!" She gestured toward the empty table.

"We'll finish it together," he said, placing his arm around her. They then began to share the different challenges each had faced. While Ben set the table, Della put the biscuits in the oven and told him how rushed she had felt—even overwhelmed—all day. Ben forgot about how hungry he was and thought about ways to make her days easier.

Is it realistic to be so interested in your spouse's welfare that hunger seems unimportant?

ETA: I almost forgot: :ack:

[DanteGabriel]

GotN, I notice you haven't addressed the LDS Church's organized effort to affect the political process. They spent millions influencing an election in a state that doesn't even border Utah. That doesn't really square with your insistence that the LDS Church doesn't get involved in politics.

The actual reality is that just about every election the leadership of the Church sends out a letter to congregations expressly stating the Church's neutrality in advocating specific political parties or candidates. Instead encouraging individual members to pray and thoughfully consider specific issues and political ideas and then vote for the candidate each individual feels would best represent the individuals ideals of good government.

Do you believe everything you read in a pamphlet?

Back when I used to go to Catholic mass, there were always pamphlets distributed around election time encouraging parishioners to do the same -- examine your conscience, pray, etc. Still didn't stop certain Catholic prelates from doing things like, oh, threatening to excommunicate John Kerry for his support for abortion rights. The point is a pamphlet is dim proof -- the actions of the church are much more telling.

[Guy Kilmore]

I don't think they are the same, but there are similarities. I do think people in the Midwest tend to be much more practical about things like their faith and I believe in my write-up I suggested they would go pretty differently, largely because of that. The Midwest would NOT be a theocracy, whereas I think religion is the overriding force that would shape the South. They may make Christianity an "official religion," but I don't think they'd give up on rights of others to worship as they please.

I think New York and L.A. are far more alike to each other than is the South to the Midwest. I've lived in both LA and NYC (currently still here), and while there are differences, you quite literally have many of the same people living in both. There's a lot of people like me who came from one and went to the other (or like me, live in one, went to the other, then went back when they decided they didn't like it).

Thanks for the clarification! I agree with you about LA and NYC, I think there are some significant cultural differences between the East and West coasts, but there has been alot of intermingling between LA and NYC espicially with those employed in industries involving finance.

[Shryke]

How can anyone look at the situation in California with Prop 8 and the LDS Church's funding of it and not figure out where a Mormon state would head rather quickly.

This isn't rocket surgery people.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

), except that the difference is that I am actually deeply offended by something you wrote that fundamentally disrespected a major world religion,

Far more offended than anything written about Mormons. Right?

Mormons have pretty much kept to themselves in this country, more or less out of self-preservation. The wisdom of that is apparent when the bigotry against them as a group gets exposed. Assuming a theocratic Utah, which I don't think would be the actual result but it's not worth arguing, the threat to anyone outside Utah is pretty minimum. There just isn't a modern history of violence from Mormons. At all. And even within Utah, you wouldn't see gay rights, but it wouldn't be oppressive, either.

Right now, unfortunately, you can't say the same about Islam, and it would be the height of politically correct insanity to argue otherwise. That does not mean that a majority of moslems are murderous thugs. But it does mean that there is a violent strain of radicalism inside modern islam that presents a real risk of harm to people who don't even live in moslem majority countries.

And that's why it seems so odd to see the intolerance towards Mormons coupled with the outrage at any perceived dig towards moslems, which is exactly why I made the comment about flying into buildings. It's an incredible double-standard. Of course all moslems aren't terrorists or religious freaks. But neither are all Mormons wacky religious extremists, either.

Also, it's fine to throw these little barbs about there about losing just because you're replying (world's smallest violin)

You know perfectly well what I was referring to. I've tried to do you the courtesy of not responding to your posts after you said you didn't want to have anymore discussions, and I followed that until today. That was my fault, and both of our losses, because it was a completely non-productive conversation on both ends.

Missed this:

That stands in stark contrast to the stories I've heard from gay (ex)Mormons. In one case, J. was in college, and he was not allowed to go back home once he came out. He also had to find his own financial support to finish school (he didn't). In another case, B. is still in the closet. His wife found out (she caught him with pr0n), and she told the Elders in their congregation, and they gave B. the choice of leaving the community or go through aversion therapy. That was 10 years ago. To this date, B. gets a talk from the Elders if his wife suspects that B. is in lapse. In a third example, K. was told that if she insists on being a lesbian, she would no longer be able to go visit her nieces or nephews, and she could not show up when they're around.

I think all that crap is stupid. I saw my ex's family torn apart because one cousin was gay, and it was asinine. But, all of those things are private actions. Not the law, not part of a theocracy, but simply a voluntary private association deciding who could and who could not be a member. I don't agree with those values or the ostracism, but I don't see them as a threat to liberty, either. You don't have a legal right to be accepted socially by other people if they don't want to associate with you.

[Shryke]

Mormons have pretty much kept to themselves in this country, more or less out of self-preservation.

Prop 8 would like a word with you.

Please do be learning before posting in the future time.

[The Progressive]

Prop 8 and the millions of dollar spent by the Mormon Church is the elephant in the room that's consistently being ignored by Flow while he went on and on about "voluntary private association".

Truthiness trumps fact to some people, I guess.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Prop 8 would like a word with you.

Please do be learning before posting in the future time.

If your definition of interference is political contributions across state line, then you should read up on all the various out of state groups involved in that campaign. Tons of churches and religious groups other than Mormons took positions on that issue, on both sides. Apple corporation even donated $100,000 on the "No" side.

When the Mormon hordes come down your street to stone someone, let me know.

[Guardian of the North]

I suggested neither. You made the same mistake that FLoW did, which is to think that I believe Mormonism shares similar views on women and homosexuals as the Taliban. I don't think that they do. I do think that just like the Taliban was eager to enforce public policies based on their religion, so too, would the Mormons, even if the policies they'd enforce would be different.

My apologies for misunderstanding your intent. This all started when it seemed to me it was implied (whether or not it was the actual intent) that "Utah Mormons" would create some sort of totalitarion regime that would be full of bigots that hate outsiders. I felt that was untruthful and blatantly unfair statement to both Utah and Mormons. And merely commented how it wouldn't really be fair to make a general statment like that about any other group (I used New York Jews).

To others and other points about Mormons brought up, yes we can spend all day and all week arguing about the correctness of beliefs and doctrines both religious, political, philsophical etc. etc. If you want to dislike or hate Mormons that is fine, it is your right to have your own opionion.

But why is it that if Mormons should happen to believe in something and put their money where their mouth is (Calfiornia is the state with the second highest population of Mormons - and yes the majority of the money spent on Prop. 8 came from Utah) they are portrayed as intolerant backwards bastards who don't have a right to an opinion? At least of few Calfornia Mormons were forced out of jobs and threatened for supporting Prop. 8. Does this mean all people who opposed Prop. 8 are xenophobic backwards idiots who are out to get Mormons? Of course not.

So yes both individual Mormons and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints supported something they believe (not what their opponents who have a right to differing opinion believe) that marriage means between a man and a woman. Would you have more respect or less for them if they say they believe one thing and then do the opposite?

I can't and won't continue this argument because I'll admit it now, if you want to find fault with Mormons you definitely can beacause they aren't 100% perfect. And defending every single action or belief of every single Mormon or the Church as whole is an exercise in futility.

[DanteGabriel]

So yes both individual Mormons and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints supported something they believe (not what their opponents who have a right to differing opinion believe) that marriage means between a man and a woman. Would you have more respect or less for them if they say they believe one thing and then do the opposite?

I'd have respect if they held their beliefs among themselves and didn't try and fuck with other people's civil rights. They're free to deny marriages to gay people within their own church, but I lose respect when they start trying to influence secular law.

The Catholic Church's increasing interference with US politics is a large part of the reason I no longer call myself a Catholic, and even had the difficult conversation with my mother about why I wouldn't be going to Mass with her any more when I visit Los Angeles.

[DanteGabriel]

If your definition of interference is political contributions across state line, then you should read up on all the various out of state groups involved in that campaign. Tons of churches and religious groups other than Mormons took positions on that issue, on both sides. Apple corporation even donated $100,000 on the "No" side.

When did Apple become a religious group? I mean, yeah, their fanboys can be cultlike, but...

Oh wait, right, it's just another nonsense comparison you're throwing at the wall to see if it sticks.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'd have respect if they held their beliefs among themselves and didn't try and fuck with other people's civil rights. They're free to deny marriages to gay people within their own church, but I lose respect when they start trying to influence secular law.

Unless you support those changes to secular law, right? I mean, I assume you wouldn't have condemned churches and religious figures in the 60's who pushed for enactment of the Civil Rights Act.

[DanteGabriel]

Unless you support those changes to secular law, right? I mean, I assume you wouldn't have condemned churches and religious figures in the 60's who pushed for enactment of the Civil Rights Act.

One group fought to get rights granted for a segment of the population that did not have equal rights. The other fought to repeal rights that had already been granted to a segment of the population.

Yet another bad comparison. Keep 'em coming. You do seem to have an endless bag of this bullshit.

ETA: Okay, if you do what you always like to do and ignore one part of my comment in order to poke holes in an isolated part of the comment, like how you ignored TP's mention of Tibet in order to have an attack of the vapors about the Taliban, my objection is not merely to influencing secular policy, but to actively work against the civil rights of others.

[Shryke]

If your definition of interference is political contributions across state line, then you should read up on all the various out of state groups involved in that campaign. Tons of churches and religious groups other than Mormons took positions on that issue, on both sides. Apple corporation even donated $100,000 on the "No" side.

When the Mormon hordes come down your street to stone someone, let me know.

So basically, you don't consider Mormons pouring money into ANOTHER STATE to deny the gays in that other state the right to marry interference?

And you can say this without irony?

I'm not questioning what other people did, that's an irrelevant distraction you are trying to pull.

You claimed that Mormons "kept to themselves". Prop 8 proves this wrong. QED

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

my objection is not merely to influencing secular policy, but to actively work against the civil rights of others.

I get that. I was just trying to figure out how consistently you apply the principle that religious groups shouldn't get involved in politics.

[El-ahrairah]

I just think it's funny that whenever a post-U.S. America is discussed, the Empire of Deseret always seems to figure so large. Like in the Emberverse. But I must admit if any nongovernmental organization will last the storm, our good friends in white shirts and ties stand the best chance.

So: What will the bounds of this sinister Mormon theocracy be? Certainly Utah, but do you think they could absorb Idaho (26% LDS) and Wyoming (11.5% LDS) as well? And I wonder what the chance of them restoring the New and Everlasting Covenant of Plural Marriage would be. With so many righteous women to raise up seed for the Prophet, soon the legions of Nephi will grow until they tread the godless wastelands of California underfoot and tear down the foul Sodom of San Fransisco!

[Eponine]

I just think it's funny that whenever a post-U.S. America is discussed, the Empire of Deseret always seems to figure so large. Like in the Emberverse. But I must admit if any nongovernmental organization will last the storm, our good friends in white shirts and ties stand the best chance.

I don't think they'd necessarily be a huge factor in the overall division of America. However, they might be the only group of their size in America with such a clear identity, location and organization. They have a lot of the necessary infrastructure already in place to be self-governed. The only other group that would probably be capable of regrouping so decisively is Texas - or at least it seems like Texans regard their state the way that other people regard their country, religion and mother put together.

Almost any other group or state lacks sufficient central organization or uniformity to be able to predict exactly what would happen with the degree of certainty that I have about Utah.

[AndyP]

Prop 8 and the millions of dollar spent by the Mormon Church is the elephant in the room that's consistently being ignored by Flow while he went on and on about "voluntary private association".

Truthiness trumps fact to some people, I guess.

The only elephant in the room that is being ignored are African American and Latino voters. L A Times Their votes are the ones that put Prop 8 over the top. Of course placing the blame at their feet would be political suicide for any liberal/Democratic politician so blame had to be found elsewhere. The Catholic church is to powerful, the religious right is to obvious and they would proclaim any blame pointed their way as proof of their strength and would seize the propaganda victory. The LDS is other. Christians are supicious of them and a lot, don't see them as fellow Christians, the secular don't like religious groups in general and conservative ones in particular, and the LDS is so closely associated with Utah many see them as foreign. They make the perfect "other" for the left to blame, rather than protest outside of the local AME Church. The truth is that President Obama drove up minority voters most of whom voted for Prop 8. Without them it more than likely would have failed.