"Utah Mormons"

[Solon]

"Utah Mormons" draw a lot of criticism as being stereotypically more closed-minded, provincial, and conservative than their non-Utah counterparts. But, having grown up in Salt Lake, traveled extensively overseas, lived in DC and Pennsylvania, and married a Californian, I've run into both kinds of people everywhere I've gone.

I think we need new nomenclature.

I think it's easy enough to distinguish between North American LDS and the most of the rest of the world. The cultural forces that shaped Mormonism have, to some extent, originated in the USA and Canadia.

So, in terms of North American LDS, I often read about the "Utah Mormons" who are uptight, judgmental, etc. . . . and the more easygoing, accepting "Mission Field Mormons" from everywhere else. It's not that simple (obviously), but I propose a new division along the lines of "blue-collar Mormon" and "suburban Mormon". (or something better, if you can come up with it; maybe it has more to do with socio-economic status than city-size.)

I know a lot of small-town-Utah Mormons who chew tobacco, drink occasionally, and have a generally more relaxed approach to LDS worship. They wear wranglers to church, and you can forget about the white-shirt manifesto. While they may be provincial in certain respects, it's not a result of their religious outlook. I just can't consider these people "Utah Mormons" in the traditional pejorative sense.

"Suburban Mormons" (in this case) are the stereotypical balding-pudgy-guy-with-BYU-t-shirt-cutoff-jean-shorts-to-the-knee-with-braided-belt. He's married to his BYU sweetheart that he met at the Wilkinson center, and she has bleached hair and drives a big SUV, drinks lots of diet cola, and probably has a prescription for anti-depressants. These are the holier-than-thou consumerism-driven LDS hardliners who are sometimes the targets of so much contempt from those who often call themselves "Non-utah-mormons."

In my congregation in PA, we have the small-town, mostly blue-collar folks who sometimes sport cheap tatoos, their kids wear shorts and t-shirts to church, and they're generally good, humble, salt-of-the-earth accepting types. We also have many of the "suburban" types who mostly went to the BYU and now have professional jobs. These so-called "utah mormons" are (to me) more identifiable by their neighborhoods and professions than by their birthplaces. I've run into plenty of these "Utah Mormons" who were born in Idaho, California, and here out east.

So, all you self-styled "non-Utah Mormons," if you're trying to claim some moral high ground because you were born somewhere else, you need to re-think your position. Tell me the size of someone's hometown, or how much the average income of the hometown was - not which state it's in - and I'll be much better prepared to recklessly jump to conclusions about that person's inclination towards provincial judgmentalism or liberal acceptingness.

PS - This post is not a slam on the BYU. There are plenty of both types everywhere (my overall point).

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by Solon

"Utah Mormons" draw a lot of criticism as being stereotypically more closed-minded, provincial, and conservative than their non-Utah counterparts. But, having grown up in Salt Lake, traveled extensively overseas, lived in DC and Pennsylvania, and married a Californian, I've run into both kinds of people everywhere I've gone.

I think we need new nomenclature.

I think it's easy enough to distinguish between North American LDS and the most of the rest of the world. The cultural forces that shaped Mormonism have, to some extent, originated in the USA and Canadia.

So, in terms of North American LDS, I often read about the "Utah Mormons" who are uptight, judgmental, etc. . . . and the more easygoing, accepting "Mission Field Mormons" from everywhere else. It's not that simple (obviously), but I propose a new division along the lines of "blue-collar Mormon" and "suburban Mormon". (or something better, if you can come up with it; maybe it has more to do with socio-economic status than city-size.)

I know a lot of small-town-Utah Mormons who chew tobacco, drink occasionally, and have a generally more relaxed approach to LDS worship. They wear wranglers to church, and you can forget about the white-shirt manifesto. While they may be provincial in certain respects, it's not a result of their religious outlook. I just can't consider these people "Utah Mormons" in the traditional pejorative sense.

"Suburban Mormons" (in this case) are the stereotypical balding-pudgy-guy-with-BYU-t-shirt-cutoff-jean-shorts-to-the-knee-with-braided-belt. He's married to his BYU sweetheart that he met at the Wilkinson center, and she has bleached hair and drives a big SUV, drinks lots of diet cola, and probably has a prescription for anti-depressants. These are the holier-than-thou consumerism-driven LDS hardliners who are sometimes the targets of so much contempt from those who often call themselves "Non-utah-mormons."

In my congregation in PA, we have the small-town, mostly blue-collar folks who sometimes sport cheap tatoos, their kids wear shorts and t-shirts to church, and they're generally good, humble, salt-of-the-earth accepting types. We also have many of the "suburban" types who mostly went to the BYU and now have professional jobs. These so-called "utah mormons" are (to me) more identifiable by their neighborhoods and professions than by their birthplaces. I've run into plenty of these "Utah Mormons" who were born in Idaho, California, and here out east.

So, all you self-styled "non-Utah Mormons," if you're trying to claim some moral high ground because you were born somewhere else, you need to re-think your position. Tell me the size of someone's hometown, or how much the average income of the hometown was - not which state it's in - and I'll be much better prepared to recklessly jump to conclusions about that person's inclination towards provincial judgmentalism or liberal acceptingness.

PS - This post is not a slam on the BYU. There are plenty of both types everywhere (my overall point).

So you're saying that professional, upper-middle class, suburban Mormons tend to be more close-minded and judgmental than blue-collar, lower-middle class, rural Mormons?

I've met plenty of both types of Mormons and I disagree.

When I think of "Utah Mormon" I think of a guy from Vernal I knew at BYU who told me after he went on job interviews that the people who interviewed him "weren't LDS, but seemed like good people."

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Solon

In my congregation in PA, we have the small-town, mostly blue-collar folks who sometimes sport cheap tatoos, their kids wear shorts and t-shirts to church,

Overall, a lame, non-noteworthy post. But I have to comment on this. Letting your sons wear shorts to church is the gayest thing you can do. Shorts with a t-shirt...maybe. Shorts with any type of formal looking short, yuck. There's not a worse look than a kid with shorts, knee length socks, dress shoes, and a collared shirt.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Overall, a lame, non-noteworthy post.

thanks for that.

I was .02% serious.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Overall, a lame, non-noteworthy post. But I have to comment on this. Letting your sons wear shorts to church is the gayest thing you can do. Shorts with a t-shirt...maybe. Shorts with any type of formal looking short, yuck. There's not a worse look than a kid with shorts, knee length socks, dress shoes, and a collared shirt.

Read his post again. He mentioned the kids were wearing t-shirts with the shorts.

Strike one!