Mormon Exclusivism

[jwhitlock]

I live in the South and I have had only limited observation of how LDS treat other members.. my wife's local church isn't large enough to be considered a Ward and they call it Branch. Dunno the difference really. The people there have always been happy to see me when I come and I hear no of no members berating members directly.

Glad that your experience in the south has been good, overall. Southern religious culture can be "interesting" at times; some of the meetings I've been to in the south when we've visited relatives there have been followed by some rather animated discussions about what we heard.

[selek1]

I have worshipped with Latter-day Saints in Texas, Florida, Virginia, Connecticut, Michigan, Colorado and Utah.

I have worshipped with them in Israel, in Spain, and a thousand miles at sea.

I have worshipped with them while single, divorced, disfellowshipped, and discombobulated.

I have worshipped with them while happy, sad, suspicious, mistrusting, doubful, suspicious, hostile, penitent, and even (occasionally) while enthusiastic.

In every instance, I was welcomed among them with open arms as a fellow sinner and supplicant kneeling before Christ.

I cannot say the same thing about many of the Nazarene, Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, and Epsicopal denominations with whom I visited- but I must (in fairness) resist drawing conclusions about those faiths as a whole based on a limited sample size.

In every instance where I've dealt with the LDS (more than a dozen wards and branches now), I've been welcomed and fellowshipped.

Some of the Saints welcomed me with genuine offers of friendship, others were less eager, but no less happy to worship alongside me, and at least one Bishop met me for the first time while rubbing his hands with a glint in his eye and a calling in mind.

In every instance, however the Latter-day Saints took me on my own terms- welcoming me for who I was (warts and all).

For every complaint that the Saints shunned those who believe or behave differently (drinking, smoking, skirts-too-short, etc.), I can point to at least one Saint who has behaved differently.

Any indifference, intolerance, insensitivity, and (on a singular occasion) hostility I encountered in a Latter-day Saint community was the direct result of my own attitude and behavior.

For those reasons, I think the complainers are painting with far too broad a brush.

I also suspect that (given that they have all expressed disagreement/resentment with the Church on other doctrinal or policy matters) that they are succumbing to the temptation of confirmation bias.

Any honest observer of the Latter-day Saints (or of any other group, for that matter) must remember that we are talking about human interactions, not merely reactions.

The accounts offered imply the the Latter-day Saint reactions were automatic and monolithic, rather than the result of one flawed, mortal human interacting with another flawed, mortal human.

This approach ignores the central truth that you take into a conversation will inevitably affect what you take from a conversation.

In the accounts offered, there is nothing said about how the complaintants presented or represented themselves- nor of any mitigating circumstances.

Or to put it more bluntly: the complaintants are offering us only one version of the event, rather than an objective analysis- and are drawing broad conclusions about the Latter-day Saints as a whole from the narrowest of subjective opinions.

In most circles, such conclusions are considered prejudiced.

[Libs]

I've been in a lot of churches (recently) and have to say, as far as being "welcoming", my Ward members were some of the most welcoming people I have ever experienced in a church. That might have had something to do with the smallness of the congregation, more than with the fact that they were LDS, because my second best experience was in a small Reformed Christian Church..very nice and very welcoming people there, as well.

Bad experiences (as far as feeling lost and left out) were in the big mega Christian Churches. It was kind of like living in a big city. Everyone keeps to themselves or have their own little cliques. There are so many people coming and going, with like five or six different services over a weekend, that no one even knows (or seems to care) if you are new or not. Very hard to break in and feel "at home" in those places, IMHO. My Ward was extremely friendly, by comparison.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

I have worshipped with them while single, divorced, disfellowshipped, and discombobulated.

Selek, you are disturbing my image of you, as this hardcore Mormon, who never, ever strayed or did anything wrong.

[Jeff K.]

I've been in branches most of my life. The two main differences are that branches are smaller than wards and are headed by branch presidents rather than bishops.

If I am correct (haven't been in a branch in quite a while), branches report to districts who report to the Mission President, while ward report to Stakes who report to regional leadership.

[Storm Rider]

I live in the east. There are significant LDS cultural differences between members of the Church in Utah and the immediate surrounding areas, and elsewhere. Members here seem to be far less stand-offish about others here.

There is a significant difference between Utah culture and LDS culture. I have always lived in the "mission field"/outside of Utah except for my college years when I lived in Provo for a year and then SLC (I woke up and went to THE real university in Utah - Go Utes!). Utah Mormons are a separate breed of people and culture. Though we share the same church the difference in how we express that religion is dissimilar.

It is not a unique problem in society. Where there is an overwhelming majority of a single religion it is easy for people to have a wide variety of degrees of participation. Some are just cultural LDS, some in name only, some without any understanding of the true meaning of the gospel, some that follow the letter of the law without any understanding of the Spirit; it is just a diverse group. When you live in a location where you belong to a small minority it is more difficult to find this diversity. Both groups have very different challenges and they respond to them in their own way resulting in separate cultures.

Can LDS have an exclusive culture? Yes. The Church and the Gospel are 24 hour-a-day practices. It is not something that can be done on Sunday and then put away for the week. This degree of commitment demands a degree of exclusivity. We don't mix well with others easily. There are some social mores we just don't do and never will do. It is foreign for us to serve alcohol at social events. Outside of Utah, this is the norm and when it is not present, people are just not there as often. We focus our time on family, church activity, and what is left over is for personal hobbies (often neglected).

[Jeff K.]

I wonder what non US members feel about members in the US?

[volgadon]

I wonder what non US members feel about members in the US?

Attending church in Utah has been a bit of a rough exprience for my my wife and me. It really does feel a lot different, not just ecause it seems more aloof.

[Grundelwalken]

Raised in the church in Arizona. Lived in the west. Cliques in all but great folks everywhere. Mormons seem snobby because we do so much together. But we try to love and include all, if they let us. I now live i'm Utah and there are only 4 members on my street. Still have lots of friends, just can't talk as much until I learn more of their language. I could be snooty but I really like friends.MW

[silvermoon383]

If I am correct (haven't been in a branch in quite a while), branches report to districts who report to the Mission President, while ward report to Stakes who report to regional leadership.

This is true, but there are branches inside of Stakes who report to the Stake President. The only real difference is the size of the unit. A full ward requires more priesthood than a branch (which I think only needs 2 elders, or maybe just an elder and a priest minimum).

[jwhitlock]

There is a significant difference between Utah culture and LDS culture. I have always lived in the "mission field"/outside of Utah except for my college years when I lived in Provo for a year and then SLC (I woke up and went to THE real university in Utah - Go Utes!). Utah Mormons are a separate breed of people and culture. Though we share the same church the difference in how we express that religion is dissimilar.

It is not a unique problem in society. Where there is an overwhelming majority of a single religion it is easy for people to have a wide variety of degrees of participation. Some are just cultural LDS, some in name only, some without any understanding of the true meaning of the gospel, some that follow the letter of the law without any understanding of the Spirit; it is just a diverse group. When you live in a location where you belong to a small minority it is more difficult to find this diversity. Both groups have very different challenges and they respond to them in their own way resulting in separate cultures.

Can LDS have an exclusive culture? Yes. The Church and the Gospel are 24 hour-a-day practices. It is not something that can be done on Sunday and then put away for the week. This degree of commitment demands a degree of exclusivity. We don't mix well with others easily. There are some social mores we just don't do and never will do. It is foreign for us to serve alcohol at social events. Outside of Utah, this is the norm and when it is not present, people are just not there as often. We focus our time on family, church activity, and what is left over is for personal hobbies (often neglected).

Good points; cultural-only Mormons outside of Utah seem to be very scarce.

On another note, Elder Ballard's October 2001 conference talk addressed this very issue. He talked about both the good and the bad inside Utah as far as being inclusive goes.

[Messenger]

Lets face it, everyone, Mormons or not have the same problem. Pretty much everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, tries to compare themselves with everyone one else. That person doesn't have enough kids to be a bishop, They live in a trailer and that just isn't right, they aren't married and must be gay, Why do they drive that car it could break down anytime?..... I mean the list goes on and its a very boring list.

The only thing I can say is be an example of how to be irregardless of everyone else's really bad example and behavior. When you home teach, don't give a lesson on the merits of having 20 children simply because you do. Don't give a lesson on why members of the ward shouldn't live in a trailer when you are visiting someone .... who lives in a trailer. Don't give a talk in church about why God blessed you with a Mercedes-Benz and how much its better than the Ford Pinto.

Instead of putting someone down, try and lift them up. complement them on doing what they have and what they are doing right. And then YOU learn a bit about humility. Cuz, God has a Ford Pinto with your name on it, and I'm sure he's been thinking of putting you into it anytime. All it would take is a little disaster of your career and you'd be in a trailer too.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Messenger

[Storm Rider]

Lets face it, everyone, Mormons or not have the same problem. Pretty much everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, tries to compare themselves with everyone one else. That person doesn't have enough kids to be a bishop, They live in a trailer and that just isn't right, they aren't married and must be gay, Why do they drive that car it could break down anytime?..... I mean the list goes on and its a very boring list.

The only thing I can say is be an example of how to be irregardless of everyone else's really bad example and behavior. When you home teach, don't give a lesson on the merits of having 20 children simply because you do. Don't give a lesson on why members of the ward shouldn't live in a trailer when you are visiting someone .... who lives in a trailer. Don't give a talk in church about why God blessed you with a Mercedes-Benz and how much its better than the Ford Pinto.

Instead of putting someone down, try and lift them up. complement them on doing what they have and what they are doing right. And then YOU learn a bit about humility. Cuz, God has a Ford Pinto with your name on it, and I'm sure he's been thinking of putting you into it anytime. All it would take is a little disaster of your career and you'd be in a trailer too.

Tell me you have never really heard about a hometeacher teaching those kinds of lessons, please. I can't imagine how they could fit into a lesson and I hope you are just creating a talking point.

Americans are notorious for keeping up withe Jones'. It is not surprising that LDS are not immune to such behavior. However, I don't think those are main issues withing the body of the saints.

[jwhitlock]

Lets face it, everyone, Mormons or not have the same problem. Pretty much everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, tries to compare themselves with everyone one else. That person doesn't have enough kids to be a bishop, They live in a trailer and that just isn't right, they aren't married and must be gay, Why do they drive that car it could break down anytime?..... I mean the list goes on and its a very boring list.

The only thing I can say is be an example of how to be irregardless of everyone else's really bad example and behavior. When you home teach, don't give a lesson on the merits of having 20 children simply because you do. Don't give a lesson on why members of the ward shouldn't live in a trailer when you are visiting someone .... who lives in a trailer. Don't give a talk in church about why God blessed you with a Mercedes-Benz and how much its better than the Ford Pinto.

Instead of putting someone down, try and lift them up. complement them on doing what they have and what they are doing right. And then YOU learn a bit about humility. Cuz, God has a Ford Pinto with your name on it, and I'm sure he's been thinking of putting you into it anytime. All it would take is a little disaster of your career and you'd be in a trailer too.

You lost me with the Ford Pinto comparison.

No one should have to drive a Pinto.

[Kenngo1969]

I don't complain about the Brethren delivering Utah-centric messages ...

Good, because if you did, you'd be complaining about something else which doesn't occur. Complaining about one such pheonomenon is too much.

... If President Hinckley saw the need to tell the members there to repent and be more inclusive of non-members both in their neighborhoods and in their schools, then it's just an indication to that it is a problem in Utah.

That sentence is a fragment. You should really consider revising it so as not to sound unintelligent (although resorting to the broad generalizations that you have doesn't do you any favors in that regard, either). And you've asserted twice now that President Hinckley has delivered some sort of message specially tailored to those Damn Utah Mormons without backing it up. My CFR still stands. Perhaps my Special XFR-700 Brain Chip hasn't been tuned to the correct frequency to allow me to receive the message correctly. And I think it's interesting how you and others have said, essentially, "I know how Utah Mormons are; I used to live there, but of course I was never that way." It smacks of, "Lord, I thank Thee that I am not as other men and women, especially those Damn Utah Mormons ... [among whom I used to live, but Thank Thee That It Never Rubbed Off!]"

I watch enough General Conference to know that this theme continues to come up from time to time, and that it's directed to areas where the Latter-day Saints have a significant presence.

So you just turn your TV down/off for the next 15-20 minutes whenever somebody starts delivering "that message" to "those people." Gotcha.

It's tough to be a religious snob in your neighborhood or school where your LDS minority status is measured in fractions of a single digit, percentage-wise.

The only religious snobbery I've seen in this thread has come from you and those of your ilk whose position is, essentially, "Lord, I thank Thee that I am not as those Damn Utah Mormons."

That you seem to be unaware of not only this problem in Utah, but of the fact that it is mentioned from time to time in General Conference is not particularly impressive.

Well ... I beg your humble pardon for absolutely, utterly, and completely failing to impress you. Having failed to do so, I must say that I've almost completely lost my will to live! I'll have to be sure to add "Thoroughly Lick JWhitlock's (Whoever The Hell You Are) Boots" to my To-Do List so that I might possibly regain it ... You will, of course, have to provide me with some IRL information to facilitate my licking of your boots, but I won't hold my breath!

It certainly isn't worth my while to respond any further to a CFR that is based on that kind of ignorance.

"You're so ignorant that I'm not going to bother responding to your CFR!" Hi-freaking-larious!! You're right. I've never seen a General Conference message directed specifically toward us Damn Utah Mormons ("they" and "them" rather than "we" and "us.") But you just go right on turning your TV down or off when you begin to hear one of those "they" and "them" messages, intended for us Damn Utah Mormons!

I do find it ironic that Brigham Young, as stated in your own tag line, saw the saints kicking themselves to hell. Part of the reason for that was pride, and where there's pride, there is also exclusiveness. In effect, your tag line recognizes that this very problem would be present in Utah, and you, in turn, deny that it is a problem.

Instructive, indeed.

That's wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin. First of all, I'm not even sure of the complete context of President Young's statement, even though I do use it in my sig line. I would laud you for your ability to divine that context, but I think, rather, that you just might be full of ... Well, never mind! Secondly, it's true that President Young was the man the Church needed in his time (or I think it's quite possible that the Church wouldn't have survived). However, you assert without evidence that President Young's statement was directed toward the members of the Church for being needlessly exclusive of others. I feel entirely comfortable in saying (and I won't bother to back it up, since we're not bothering with CFRs) that even most of today's Damn Utah Mormons would be appalled at the level of exclusivity encouraged by Brother Brigham.

[Messenger]

Tell me you have never really heard about a hometeacher teaching those kinds of lessons, please. I can't imagine how they could fit into a lesson and I hope you are just creating a talking point.

Americans are notorious for keeping up withe Jones'. It is not surprising that LDS are not immune to such behavior. However, I don't think those are main issues withing the body of the saints.

Storm Rider,

Last night I was home taught by the Stake Sunday School President..... I am the 2nd assistant in the high priest group. I had just been assigned a new home teacher and he showed up last night. This is the actual letter that I was going to send to the high priest group leader ....

"I just wanted to give you a heads up from my first home teaching visit now in 5 years from Brother XXXXX last night.

Before I start, I wanted to let you know I am having a day off due to my ADHD conditions this morning. So, I do tend to get hyper-critical when it happens. So, while I don’t have very much that I can say was good from the visit, realize that I probably wont feel this way in 24 hours. At least I hope I feel different.

The good: The visit was cordial and a matter of fact. There was no anger, and nobody got invited to leave early.

The bad: Perhaps I should approach this from the point of view as a 2^nd assistant. I sure hope that when we visit someone, especially on the first visit, that we aren’t catering to all the highly judgmental things that are our first impressions incorrectly tell us, without doing the due diligence and the work of being a Home Teacher first. One of the things I learned when I was in outside sales for MCI is don’t show up and throw up. While its very nice to have a lesson, try to cater that to the person you are home teaching. Instead, I got a million questions about my thoughts on being gay & viewing computer porn. You know that’s probably the most stereotypical thing people think about a non-married person. And why in the world would a home teacher want the first and last names of the last people I dated? I'm not ready to have that as a home teaching lesson in my home. I mean, this is the Stake Sunday School President …. and this was his message? Please tell me we are better than this.

Well, I'm still amazed at the ignorance. I cant believe I was forced into answering really demeaning questions about his subject. I got to say, I’m not happy at all. I just wish he had a companion that could have stopped him from saying all that crap. Please remove him from home teaching me.

Thank you. Sorry it couldn’t be good news. Sunday was a really great day in church. Its just a shock to have the opposite from a home teacher a few hours later."

So, yep, that's as real as it gets. Very sad. And to think I've spent no less than 5 hours in visiting him and his wife consoling him about is wife's medical issues, he comes into my home and spews this. Deep breath. I mean, really really deep breath. I'll get over it for sure. But he's done being in my house. And now I get to deal with the stake and wonder about their agenda. Where's my "here's your sign" poster when I need it? HAHA, well, at least I am finally laughing. Life is full of surprises all the time. Wow!

Edited February 20, 2012 by Messenger

[Kenngo1969]

Raised in the church in Arizona. Lived in the west. Cliques in all but great folks everywhere. Mormons seem snobby because we do so much together. But we try to love and include all, if they let us. I now live i'm Utah and there are only 4 members on my street. Still have lots of friends, just can't talk as much until I learn more of their language. I could be snooty but I really like friends.MW

You're an outlier. You need an XML-700 Chip Adjustment. You've forgotten the Fourteenth Article of Faith: "We Damn Utah Mormons believe in being snooty, snobby, and standoffish."

[Messenger]

You lost me with the Ford Pinto comparison.

No one should have to drive a Pinto.

I'm sooo glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read that! LOL

[Kenngo1969]

I've been in a lot of churches (recently) and have to say, as far as being "welcoming", my Ward members were some of the most welcoming people I have ever experienced in a church. That might have had something to do with the smallness of the congregation, more than with the fact that they were LDS, because my second best experience was in a small Reformed Christian Church..very nice and very welcoming people there, as well. Bad experiences (as far as feeling lost and left out) were in the big mega Christian Churches. It was kind of like living in a big city. Everyone keeps to themselves or have their own little cliques. There are so many people coming and going, with like five or six different services over a weekend, that no one even knows (or seems to care) if you are new or not. Very hard to break in and feel "at home" in those places, IMHO. My Ward was extremely friendly, by comparison.

You're an outlier. You, too, need an XML-700 Chip Adjustment, and you, too, have forgotten the 14th Article of Faith.

[jwhitlock]

The only religious snobbery I've seen in this thread has come from you and those of your ilk whose position is, essentially, "Lord, I thank Thee that I am not as those Damn Utah Mormons."

No one has actually said this or even intimated this. All that was stated is that some people (not all, as you have misrepresented it) in Utah have a particular problem with not being inclusive, and the brethren are aware of it and address it in General Conference (see Elder Ballard's October 2001 talk for an example). It's directed at Utah, because the problem is amplified due to the concentration of Latter-day Saints there. It doesn't occur at the same level anywhere else.

And you as a Utahn have planted your head firmly up your butt because you think someone made some kind of generalized attack on everyone in Utah. Here's a clue for you since your meter basically reads zero: it never happened. Your knee-jerk, inane sarcasms, along with your shallow denials about what's really going on, do more damage to the perception of Utahns than anything I could say.

You're correct in one thing. There are Damn Utah Mormons, and you are clearly one of them.

Jwhitlock has left the building.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Minos
vulgarity

[LeSellers]

If I am correct (haven't been in a branch in quite a while), branches report to districts who report to the Mission President, while ward report to Stakes who report to regional leadership.

This is the usual case, but not always.

A branch may exist in a stake, where geography is such that traveling to a ward might take the entire day. These report to the stake.

There are (or were) "Dependent Sunday Schools", even smaller than branches, where one or two families might meet together, but have no ecclesiastical authority physically in their congregation, the presiding Priesthood meeting with them more or less regularly, but not frequently. The ward or branch is the next hierarchical level, in most cases, but I don't know what kind of records actually exist.

Or so I recall—it's been more than a little while since I had contact with these smaller entities.

I've worshiped with the Saints in Utah^†, California*^†, Washington*^†, Idaho^†, Arizona^†, Kentucky^†, Indiana^†, Texas*^†, Georgia*^†, Virginia^†, Colorado^†, Nevada*, New Jersey*, South Carolina*, France^†, Italy*^†, Germany*^†, Switzerland^†, England*, and Spain^† (although it was just French-speaking missionaries).

* These were in military wards or branches.

†

These were in local wards or branches.

Lehi

[Kenngo1969]

No one has actually said this or even intimated this. All that was stated is that some people (not all, as you have misrepresented it) in Utah have a particular problem with not being inclusive, and the brethren are aware of it and address it in General Conference (see Elder Ballard's October 2001 talk for an example). It's directed at Utah, because the problem is amplified due to the concentration of Latter-day Saints there. It doesn't occur at the same level anywhere else.

I figured it out! I listened to Elder Ballard's talk, and all I was hearing was this general message about inclusiveness. What I was taking from it was, "If you're not reaching out to other people who are different from yourself as you might, wherever you are (and regardless whether the difference is political, racial, socioeconomic, or what have you), you should reach out more." Then I realized what my problem was, and the talk finally started making more sense. I just needed mentally to add the phrase "If You're A Mormon In Utah" after every sentence Elder Ballard spoke. You have given me the key of understanding! Thank you, JWhitlock! Thank you!!

And you as a Utahn have planted your head firmly up your butt because you think someone made some kind of generalized attack on everyone in Utah.

And here I thought you were tarring Utah Mormons (of whom, ironically, you apparently used to be one, but Thank God It Never Rubbed Off!) with the same brush. I'm soooooo relieved that you're tarring not only Utah Mormons, but Utahns period! That's sooooo much better! I'm sooo relieved!

Here's a clue for you since your meter basically reads zero

Well, that's gotta go down as one of the Cleverest Putdowns in the History of Cyberspace Interaction! I'm flattered!

It never happened.

That's seems to me to be the equivalent of peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining, but since you're muuuuuch smarter than I am, I'll defer to you.

Your knee-jerk, inane sarcasms, along with your shallow denials about what's really going on, do more damage to the perception of Utahns than anything I could say.

Your appeals to authority have about the same weight as someone who says, "I know what's really going on in Utah. I lived there for a few months back in 1950!"

You're correct in one thing. There are Damn Utah Mormons, and you are clearly one of them.

True Blue, Dyed in the Wool, Born, Bleed, and Bred, and Proud Of It! Thank you!

[Kenngo1969]

This is the usual case, but not always.

A branch may exist in a stake, where geography is such that traveling to a ward might take the entire day. These report to the stake.

There are (or were) "Dependent Sunday Schools", even smaller than branches, where one or two families might meet together, but have no ecclesiastical authority physically in their congregation, the presiding Priesthood meeting with them more or less regularly, but not frequently. The ward or branch is the next hierarchical level, in most cases, but I don't know what kind of records actually exist.

Or so I recall—it's been more than a little while since I had contact with these smaller entities.

I've worshiped with the Saints in Utah^†, California*^†, Washington*^†, Idaho^†, Arizona^†, Kentucky^†, Indiana^†, Texas*^†, Georgia*^†, Virginia^†, Colorado^†, Nevada*, New Jersey*, South Carolina*, France^†, Italy*^†, Germany*^†, Switzerland^†, England*, and Spain^† (although it was just French-speaking missionaries).

* These were in military wards or branches.

†

These were in local wards or branches.

Lehi

Help us pin down the chronology, there, Lehi. Did you worship with us Damn Utah Mormons first, whereupon you saw the light and fled to points hence, or are you Currently Trapped in "Zion"?

[LeSellers]

Help us pin down the chronology, there, Lehi. Did you worship with us Damn Utah Mormons first, whereupon you saw the light and fled to points hence, or are you Currently Trapped in "Zion"?

I reject the "Damn Utah Mormons" label for any of my brothers and sisters (both temporally and spiritually—five of my sibs and their families live in the Salt Lake Valley). I was born in the LDS Hospital (although I wish my grandmother had delivered me, as she almost did anyway), lived there until I left for France and my mission, and again for a couple of years until I joined the Army.

Among my summer jobs, the military and my wanderlust, we've been relatively unstable, although we have lived in three places for 3, 7 and 19 years.

Lehi

[jwhitlock]

Well, we'll leave Exhibit A for cultural Utah Mormons to froth at his screen on his own.

Back to the point of the thread, I think that Elder Ballards talk sheds some significant light on the problem. He specifically addressed the problem using Utah examples, both of the good and of the bad. While it has been noted that the problem of inclusiveness can exist anywhere in the church, the problem is more pronounced in Utah because of the concentration of members there. The talk is a good read for understanding the particular level of the problem in Utah, along with other areas of the church.

Generally, as selek noted, when you go to church, you're typically welcomed by the majority of members of the church no matter where you are. This is as true of Utah as of areas outside of Utah. There are, however, some members that have exclusivist attitudes, which Elder Ballard counsels against. In geographic areas where church membership is not dominant, having an exclusive attitude tends to get rooted out and disposed of over time, out of necessity. In Utah, however, it can and does become somewhat entrenched among some members - despite the efforts of faithful members in Utah. Hence, leaders of the Church such as Elder Ballard, President Hinckley, and Bishop Burton have addressed it directly in the context of Utah and with Utah examples both ways in their talks.

This problem is not unique to Latter-day Saints. Other religious groups, when they are concentrated in certain areas, tend to do the same thing. For instance, a small minority of Mennonites in my area are notorious for their attitudes in not associating with people who are not members of their churches.

As has been noted, Mormon culture is very different outside of Utah from the culture within Utah. I suspect that the culture in Utah directly contributes to an attitude of exclusivism in some members of the Church. The poll a few years ago that put Salt Lake City at the top of the list of the most "vain" cities in the U.S. was quite interesting, and perhaps was an indicator of an underlying cultural problem there.

Anyway, just some thoughts. It may be that someone will purposely misconstrue them as has happened previously on this thread, but hopefully more thoughtful people will see it as an opportunity to think outside the box about something that the Brethren recognize as a problem.

Edited February 20, 2012 by jwhitlock