There are really not that many Mormons in America, compared to the whole population. There are 6,321,416 Mormons in America, compared to 315,858,000 people in the whole population. Mormons make up only 2% of the American population.

That is a SMALL number! So Why do so many places seem to be dominated by Mormons? Not only Utah, but parts of Arizona, Idaho, and Nevada.

The percentage of Mormons is much, much higher than the national average.

I haven't noticed all that much dominance. At least not here in the east coast. In fact, I rarely hear about Mormonism except here on this board and members of my family yammering about it constantly.

Ditto. East coast is pretty much free from the cult. My ward boundaries are a 2 hour drive from one end to the other.

Outside of some of DW's family, and the periodic missionary harrassment at my own front door, Mormonism is nothing here where I live. Absolutely inconsequential. Less than 1.7% here claim to be Mormon, and goodness knows how many are active. Mormonism and Romney? No impact on the election, overall...positive or negative. And I know all the TBMs at DW's ward think the Baptists do nothing but plot against the Morg, but they (the Baptists) all came out for Romney...Mo-ism was acknowledged and simply not an issue. Few evangelicals have a personal religious test they apply to candidates. Mo-ism didn't help or hurt Romney, and I think Romney didn't help or hurt Mo-ism, either. Outside the Morridor, it's a fringe sect. Plain and simple. Are there notable Mormons? Sure. Just like there are notable Jews, Catholics, evangelicals, and you-name-it.

edited to fix spelling error. 2nd edit for clarity.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2013 12:04PM by stillburned.

Part of it might be to do with the fact that mormons tend to parade their religion and make it really obvious, talk about it all the time. Whilst people of other religions can keep it to themselves and only talk about it if asked. So that makes mormons seem more common than they are perhaps.

Also, there's probably parts of the US where the percentage of mormons is pretty miniscule.

Outside of the Morridor, I'd say TSCC is irrelevant. I've lived in the south, east, and midwest. Some people have no idea what a mormon even is. The ones who have heard of mormons get them confused with JWs, Amish, etc. As a TBM in these locations, I was often frustrated with how unimportant my religion was.

They are a tool of the Illuminati. They get propped up by the power elites and dance to their tune.

Perfect platform for money laundering and corruption in general.

I put nothing past these assholes. They are a demonic cult whose theology teaches that they will rule the planet. They freely admit they want to take over the government. They must know by now that will never happen but at least they may have a seat at the table if they assist their Zionist masters.

It's like getting a fly in your house. Everytime you sit down, that fly buzzes around you. The house may be big and there is only one fly, but that fly seems to be everywhere. That is a Mormon fly and you need to open the door and shew it out.

If you look at a map showing the population density of Mormons in the US, it looks like a small paint bomb was dropped on Utah and it splattered a little on neighboring states. Except Colorado. The Rockies did a good job of blocking the LDS splatter.

There are Mormons in ID (about 25%), NV (about 12%) and AZ (about 15%) because BY sent people to colonize those places.

This is the United States of America, where money is power. The mormon church is not lacking when it comes to the money in its coffers. The more money you have in this country, the more power you have. It is as simple as that. It is not right, but it is true.

Not meaning to sound like a racist or a conspiracy nut, but there are just as many Jews as Mormons, and look at how influential THEY are.

There are about 7 million Jews in America and about 13 million worldwide. That's essentially the same as the Mormons.

That's a great point. The comparatively greater influence of Jews in the world actually highlights how influential Mormons aren't.

I love to belabor this point, but Utah has less than 1% of the US population, and while surrounding states have a smattering of Mormons, they aren't all that populous either. Outside of the Jello Belt, Mormonism has very little real influence. I've known people who have never even heard of the Mormon church.

Utah has < 1% of the population but enjoys 1.3% of the Congress, because all states get two Senators, and population growth recently awarded a fourth House seat to Utah, so their Congressional delegation now numbers six.

True, Utah has 6 electoral college votes, but Indiana has 11. That's more than Utah and Idaho combined. Florida has 29. Utah is a small time flyover state.

Most states east of Colorado are .02% to .1% mormon. That means most of those states are .005% to .025% active mormons.

And those numbers include a lot of unbaptised children and adults that where confirmed into the church as babies. It also includes a lot of dead people under the age of 110 (when the church takes their lost inactives off their record books.)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2013 04:38PM by homoerectus.

They may be relatively small in numbers, but they are busy little bees, pushing their delusions on everyone in earshot. Think about the millions of people who have been affected by Mormonism is some way. Fortunately the playing field has become somewhat level (thanks largely to the internet) and Mormons are being called out on their BS.

Utah, Idaho, Arizona, and Nevada....

That's not exactly the whole US.

I live in the Great Lakes part of the US and have met only 2 Mormon families (that I know of) in the past 40 years.

I grew up east coast. I was the only mormon in my high school, and the only thing people knew about mormons was polygamy from some textbooks. Its not that big of an influence...

WHEN BY was establishing his kingdon,ah territory. he sent pioneer out to neveda,cali. arz.the lower west coast. LV.,San bernadino ca. were mormon settlements. Knowing that they re politically active,Have a conservative,family image and have been know to vote in unison. they have quite an influence. Nonmormons see them as "safe" conservatives,so I think conservatives & undecided's vote for them.

Why do Mormons dominate politics when their numbers are low, say 10% of the population?

I have an hypothesis.

Mormons think they should be in power. You don't win if you don't run. Mormons are much more likely to run.

Mormons have a nice outfit to wear. Mormons put a lot of emphasis on appearances.

Mormons are trained to speak in public.

A lot of Mormons have been on missions and know how to lie (or spin) really well.

A few years back AZ was only about 6% Mormon, but they had 20% of the Legislative seats, and more importantly they controlled ALL the chairmanship and leadership positions. Nothing came to a vote without the LDS members approving it.

Mormons tend to get a foothold in an agency and then bring other Mormons on board. Some school districts are predominantly Mormon, as are some police departments.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2013 08:15PM by crom.

Dominate politics? There's Romney, Reid (whew, good Mormon he is), and Hatch (Utah...well, no kiddin')... and a few non-descript Congressmen. Influential in a measure disproportionate to their numbers? Perhaps. But I don't buy it. I think you have some good points on the others. Of course, the speak in public part...guess the training hasn't made it to DW's ward!

Each state has only two Senators, regardless of population. So California, with more than ten times the population of Utah, has the same number of Senators. So there are always two LDS Senators from Utah. Currently, Nevada, AZ, and Idaho each have one LDS Senator, for a total of five (more than CA and NY's Senatorial count combined). Sen. Tom Udall is technically LDS, but clearly does not take orders from SLC, so that makes six, counting Udall and Reid (both of whom have taken stands opposed by TSCC).

So a group with 2% max of the population gets 6% of the Senators, because they either control or play a dominant role in five states. Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado (cousin to Sen. Tom) was raised LDS, but now describes himself as having no religious affilation (his father Mo Udall also bolted from TSCC over their racial and ERA stances).

In the House, the numbers are more in line with their numbers as a percentage of the population, because House seats are apportioned by population to have roughly similar numbers of inhabitants (exceptions for states with only one House member, but none of the single Congressman states have an LDS House member. CA has one (down from three: Herger and Doolittle are gone, leaving McKeon), AZ has Matt Salmon (again), Nevada has one (Heller), Utah has four, Idaho has two (Raul Labrador and Mike Simpson).

I must be omitting one,because the article below states 17 total (6 Senators plus 1 nonvoting delegate leaves 10 LDS Representatives, unless the article's math is wrong). Some people "count" Rep. Tom Udall as LDS, but the article below does not mention him in their count of 17. Even if one says there are 11 LDS members of the house, that's 11/435 or 2.5%, very close to their actual % of the nation's population.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/55286186-90/congress-elect-faith-idaho.html.csp

oops I just found "#10":

http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/11/09/mormons-in-congress-2012-final-results-2/

The above article claims that Kersten Sinema, who is openly bisexual, is LDS. Her Wikipedia article states she was raised LDS but now claims no religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrsten_Sinema

and I think it's safe to say she is not in the running to make her Stake Relief Society presidency. So the SL Trib article was in error by claiming her as LDS. Therefore:

6 Senators (two who are quite independent of TSCC and are Democrats)

1 non-voting House member (American Samoa)

9 Members of the House, plus Kersten Sinema who is at best VERY, VERY inactive. Not counting Sinema, 8 of the 9 are Republicans, with Jim Matheson D-Utah as the lone Democrat.

More on Sinema:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2012/01/openly-bisexual-and-non-theist-woman-who-rejected-parents-mormonism-runs-for-u-s-congress/

Her sleeveless dress in the video removes any illusions some might have that she still clings to her LDS upbringing.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2013 04:25AM by PtLoma.

Of course they are influence disproportionate to their numbers.

MONEY talks, people, and Mormons buy a lot of influence.

That's why they exercise such power.

Imagine their influence as "constituents" when they hold the kind of real estate they do in, say, Florida.

It's one of the reasons they plant temples everywhere and buy real estate. It makes them stakeholders.


Anagrammy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2013 08:30PM by anagrammy.

Some say that nothing happens in America without the approval of the big corporations. Since they received personhood, their power is demonstrated by the fact that the voter's overwhelming preferences are not honored when they run against the interests of big business.

One big example is how the LDS church influences lawsuits because they can pay huge settlements so that their illegal bribes and threats never reach the nightly news. They have the money to sue you into oblivion if you cross them.

The LDS church exerts its influence to keep movies from being made and also to attract businesses to Utah. In Utah, when businesses are being sued, the LDS church can step in on their behalf in exchange for those businesses establishing headquarters or branches in the Morridor. They can sweeten the pot for businesses considering relocating to Utah by solving their problems elsewhere.

The LDS church "owns" people who are not members because of favor exchanges in politics. The LDS church became a corporation because corporations are more powerful than religions in America.

They are the ultimate survivor and will feed on whatever is there, change whatever doctrines need changing (without any announcements of course), and do whatever it takes to maintain their own power because, like Tom Ferguson said, "it is not a true religion, but it is the best brotherhood ever, isn't it?"


Anagrammy

What the Mormons have been working for, for the last 150 years at least is clout.

They sent representatives to Washington back in the old days
to keep tabs on what was happening and to bribe the right
people to make things happen their way.

One thing that I think was interesting is that there have been
many movies about crimes that happened in Utah. The Bradshaw
murder, the shooting at the alta hospital. The standoff with
Adam Swapp at Marion, Utah. Ted Bundy's escapades, and
others. But there NEVER was a movie made about the Hoffman
forgeries and bombings. Why? There were at least 4 books
written about it. It had all the earmarks of a blockbuster.
Why make a movie about a deranged husband who shoots a nurse,
but not about the Hoffman affair? My only guess is that
Mormons pulled strings to make sure that it didn't happen
since it would have looked VERY bad for them.

That's clout.

From "On This Day in Mormon History:"

Jan 7, 1886 - U.S. Supreme Court sustains Utah judges'
definition of "cohabitation" as not requiring proof of sexual
intercourse but rather of marital relationship. Justices
Miller and Field dissent on grounds that Congress intended law
to prohibit "unlawful habitual sexual intercourse" with more
than one woman. Justice Field is on secret payroll of First
Presidency.

Feb 3, 1890 - U.S. Supreme Court rules in DAVIS VS. BEASON
that it is constitutional for Idaho to disenfranchise all
Mormons. The decision is written by Justice Stephen J. Field
who had previously been on the list of federal officials
receiving bribes from the Church.

Dec 15, 1892 - First Presidency informs apostles that "our
success in the Church suits was in a great measure due to the
fact that we have a partner of Justice Field of the Supreme
Court of the United States in our employ, who is to receive a
percentage of the money if the suits go in our favor, and the
property is returned to us." Aside from Justice Field
(1863-97), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Blatchford
(1882-93) has also been bribed by the church's intermediaries,
even though he is inconsistent ally.

Jan 25, 1913 - DESERET NEWS favorably reviews "One Hundred
Years of Mormonism," first commercial film about Mormons made
with cooperation of church officials. The 6-reel, 90 minute
silent film features one of Brigham Young's grandsons in role
of his grandfather. During Joseph F. Smith's presidency,
Hollywood produces other silent features which portray
Mormonism less favorably: "A Trip to Salt Lake City" (1905),
"The Mountain Meadows Massacre" (1912), "The Mormon" (1912),
"Deadwood Dick Spoils Brigham Young" (1915), Cecil B.
DeMille's "A Mormon Maid" (1917), and "The Rainbow Trail"
(1918).

Jan 22, 1988 - The WASHINGTON POST reports that the filming of
the CBS mini-series based on the book THE MORMON MURDERS of
the Mark Hofmann murders/forgeries had been postponed due to
script rewrites as a result of pressure from wealthy West
Coast Mormons.

There's a term for this, and I can't remember what it is. Basically, once you are aware of something you see it all the time.

LDS dominance of Utah is a given, other than in some enclaves of SLC.

The math is different in states like ID, NV, AZ, where they are not a majority but are decent-sized minority groups. Let's consider Nevada, with say 10% LDS. Assume that 90% of the Mormons vote for a Mormon candidate (Mitt got 90-95% of LDS primary caucus votes in AZ and NV). Assume that I am the non-Mormon running against a Mormon in a NV statewide race. Assume there are 100 votes (each vote = 1% of the electorate). The Mormon candidate has a lock on 9 of those votes as mentioned above. This means that for me to reach 51%, I need to win 51/91 of the remaining voters (the 90% who are not LDS plus the 10% of LDS voters who did not automatically vote for the Mormon) in order to reach 51%. That means I have to win 55% (i.e. must win by 10% or greater margin) among the non-Mormons to win----and winning by > 10% is normally considered a landslide margin.

In Idaho, it's worse because they have 25%, with much of it concentrated in SE Idaho where they may be close to a majority (or over 50%). The LDS % in the western district (includes Boise) is lower, but was still enough to elect Raul Labrador, who ousted one-term Democrat Stan Minnick. Given the state's GOP tilt, Labrador will keep getting elected for as long as he chooses to stay in the seat. He is the first Mormon to represent Idaho's 1st District.

California almost gained another LDS Congressman in 2010, but incumbent Jerry McNerney prevailed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Harmer

David Harmer is the son of former CA Lt Gov John Harmer (appointed by then-Gov. Reagan to a vacancy---he never won a statewide election).