Silhouetted Figures on a Black Bridge Against a Background of Vibrant Abstract Shapes | The Religious Bigotry Mormons Face

Subtle Bigotry: How ‘Polite’ Society Marginalizes Latter-day Saints

What are anti-Mormon dog whistles? Explore how words or phrases can subtly reinforce bigotry and hinder authentic discourse.

The term “dog whistle” refers to phrases that signal underlying bigotry toward a group without explicitly appearing bigoted. This concept gained prominence during Ronald Reagan’s first presidential campaign with the term “Welfare Queen,” which some believed evoked racial and sexist stereotypes without overtly mentioning them. Such phrases exploit existing biases subtly, influencing those with certain prejudices.

Dog whistles can be contentious because they often address legitimate issues, like welfare reform. So, claims of dog whistles can stifle debate on genuine concerns.

Still, I believe there is value in identifying dog whistles that signal anti-Mormon bigotry. My intention is not to stifle debate but to make people more aware of what might be motivating the arguments and phrases used in discourse around the Church of Jesus Christ and how those phrases are heard by those who do harbor those feelings.

Below is a list of phrases that often function as anti-Mormon dog whistles. This list is not intended to be exhaustive but rather a basic introduction to promote ongoing discussion. 

“Weird”/ “Robotic” / “Secretive”  

The words “weird,” “robotic,” and “secretive” are often attached to Latter-day Saints without referencing the Church specifically. The goal is to associate an individual with the anti-Mormon beliefs they already have without having to specifically reference those anti-Mormon beliefs.

Some have suspicions about the motivations behind their interactions with Latter-day Saints.

Essentially, if your audience thinks Latter-day Saints are weird, you could call a specific member of the Church weird, and it would activate their anti-Mormon biases against that person.

This was most commonly done when Mitt Romney was a major national political figure, and his political opponents hoped to capitalize on anti-Mormon bigotry without being painted as anti-Mormon bigots themselves.

“Weird” tends to refer to the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ that is rejected by other US religionists. “Robotic” tends to refer to the tendency of Latter-day Saints to live up to their high standards. “Secretive” is a reference to nineteenth-century stereotypes of the Church while also suggesting the private temple ceremonies Latter-day Saints participate in. This usage was first identified by the “Washington Free Beacon.”

“Nice” / “Clean Cut” / “Polite” / “Mormon Smile”

These positive descriptions of Latter-day Saints are often used by those meaning sincere praise, but they can and have also been used as dog whistles. 

These descriptions can be used to generate suspicion. As in, why are they so nice, clean cut, or polite? 

These phrases are often used to hint at a perceived insincerity in Latter-day Saints.

Because of the Church’s active missionary program, some have suspicions about the motivations behind their interactions with Latter-day Saints. These comments can activate those suspicions in those listening. 

In other cases, these comments are used to plaster over deeper bigotries, such as, “What they do is great, but what they believe is crazy.” 

These types of comments can also play into benevolent prejudice that seeks to limit the types of ways certain people can participate in society by putting them in a specific box of behaviors they are allowed. 

“Can Take a Joke” 

Latter-day Saints have very little cultural cachet. A 2023 Pew Survey noted Latter-day Saints have the lowest net favorability rating of major US religions, beneath Muslims and Atheists, the only other groups with negative ratings.  

Saying that Latter-day Saints “can take a joke” or similar derivations often functions to remind Latter-day Saints of their position at the bottom of the cultural hierarchy and the fact they can do nothing about it. 

This comment often references the Church’s response to the anti-Mormon play “The Book of Mormon Musical,” in which they ran an ad saying, “The book is better.” It’s a funny joke, but it only exists because Latter-day Saints had no other reasonable alternative in responding. Indeed, any other response probably would have been perceived as “prudish” in the public eye.

“Persecution Complex” 

Describing that Latter-day Saints have a “persecution complex” works to reinforce that cultural hierarchy by preventing Latter-day Saints from taking proactive steps to address the harm done to them.

The phrase “persecution complex” is most often used by those within the Latter-day Saint community. Some of those who use the phrase want to maintain their Latter-day Saint identity but prioritize how they appear to those in power. This phrase signals that they’re not like “other” members of the Church because they believe other members deserve the harm done to them. 

Describing Latter-day Saints’ complaints about their treatment as a persecution complex erases both historical and present discrimination that exists.

This dog whistle is particularly insidious because it insults Latter-day Saints while rhetorically stopping them from standing up to the insult because doing so would only reinforce the insult. It’s a silencing technique.

“Cult” 

Cultic studies, which were prominent in the 1980s, sought to describe anything other than the dominant religious tradition as a cult. This description was used to describe everything from Catholics to Muslims to Latter-day Saints. 

Today, the phrase means little beyond “I don’t like your religion.”

However, during the 1980s, there was an effort in the Evangelical community to create “cultic studies.” This was a pseudo-academic discipline that attempted to delineate between legitimate religion and cults. 

These studies conveniently described everything outside of Protestant Christianity as a cult in an effort to delegitimize their participation in the public square on the same terms as other faiths. 

“LDS Inc” / “Too Much Money” / “Tax Churches” 

Many complaints about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolve around their money management. 

Like the term “welfare queen,” which refers to legitimate public policy, some of these issues can hint at legitimate public policy questions. But oftentimes, these phrases seek to avoid rather than engage these questions. 

These types of epithets are often focused on the Church and not on other non-profit groups with similar non-profit status and money management techniques. 

So, in practice, these issues often rely on invoking anti-Mormon bigotry to justify their conclusions because of how rarely they are brought up in contexts with organizations that do not face the same kinds of bigotry.

“Tapir” 

The tapir has become a kind of inside joke among ex-Mormons. The reference refers to scholarship around The Book of Mormon.

Critics of the Church of Jesus Christ often frame themselves as the victims.

The Book of Mormon references the presence of horses. Based on the current archaeological evidence, and because the horses in the Book of Mormon are never ridden, some scholars have suggested it may be a translation issue for a deer or tapir.

Some ex-Mormons find this argument unconvincing and use the tapir to represent their dissatisfaction with the Church.

The tapir, as an anti-Mormon dog whistle, even appeared in a report to the IRS, but journalists reporting on the subject missed the reference and were thus unaware of the anti-Mormonism that motivated the report.

“Force your religion on others” / “Stay out of Politics” 

Critics of the Church of Jesus Christ often frame themselves as the victims of the Church. This criticism often comes from the political left looking for approaches to discredit critics of state-recognized same-sex marriage.

But this criticism has been repurposed as a dog whistle. The critique to “stick to yourself” often hints at the Church’s missionary program. 

Given how many churches are much more involved in politics, breaking the Johnson rule with impunity, and how frequently non-profit organizations of every stripe engage in political lobbying, the use of this critique against the Church of Jesus Christ often relies on activating the anti-Mormon bigotry of those listening. Because the listener does not want the Church involved in politics because of disagreements, they rely on these claims even though they would not apply them to others.    

These and other forms of criticism are ways for those higher in the cultural hierarchy to try to control the terms under which Latter-day Saints are allowed to participate in the public square. While seemingly innocent on a superficial level, the use of dog whistles ultimately seeks to undermine the credibility of a minority faith and its adherents.

About the author

C.D. Cunningham

C.D. Cunningham is a founder and editor-at-large of Public Square magazine.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Do We Still Need Religion+ Today’s Digest

Our daily rundown of the articles from around the web that we feel our readers would enjoy and appreciate. We hope to highlight the best of what’s around. Public Square Bulletin recommends: Do We Still Need Religion Robin Dunbar – The Guardian In our increasingly secular age, does religion still have a place? Robin Dunbar argues that a vibrant religious life is essential for society, and plays a foundational role in the arts and sciences. The Constitutional Roots of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Public Faith Justin Collings & Hal Boyd – Religion & Politics Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson’s faith played a prominent role in her recent confirmation hearings. Her answers, which echo the feelings of most Americans, place personal faith and religious freedom as among the highest of our civic virtues. The Rise of the ‘Umms’ Mike Moore – Christianity Today COVID-19 reshaped our national religious landscape. Mike Moore turns his focus on a group—individuals of strong faith who don’t currently have a church—and asks what happens to them next. Looking for God in Our Everyday Lives Wallace Goddard – Meridian Magazine One of the great promises of the Restoration is the accessibility of Heaven. Are we doing enough to look for God’s influence in our lives? Religious Liberty Tested in Finland Anders Lundberg – Law & Liberty Two Finish Christians have been brought up on charges for advocating for a traditional Christian view of marriage. Swedish lawyers, Anders Lundberg looks at how religious liberty is developing in the Nordic nations.    

Barry Keoghan shines in weak star vehicle

“Bring Them Down” is a careful small-town drama about Irish sheep farmers. The film stars Christopher Abbott as Michael after his acclaimed performance as the villain in “Poor Things,” and titular role in “Wolf Man.”  Barry Keoghan plays opposite as Jack, the son of neighboring farmers. Keoghan also made his mark in a Yorgos Lanthimos film, “Killing of a Sacred Deer.” He is as up-and-coming as an actor can be, set to star in the highly anticipated Beatles biopic.  The film is mostly a showpiece for the two talented leads to luxuriate in the acting moments that the revenge plot affords them. Abbott builds a character suspended in tension between his guilt over his mother’s passing, his deference to his strong-willed father, his honor, and his self-sufficiency. Keoghan has a slightly more complicated job, as he needs to find the motivation to start the feud inside a character that is juvenile and slight. As a showcase, the film is a success. Not many people will see it, but it will certainly help burnish the reputations of Abbot and Keoghan as formidable actors. And the plot is good enough to serve that purpose. Caroline, Michael’s ex-girlfriend, and Jack’s mother, has decided to leave Jack’s father because of their financial problem. A bridge is out, and Michael’s father is reluctant to let Jack’s family cross his property. So Jack hatches a plan to steal two prized rams from Michael’s family. When Jack’s dad catches him, he makes him kill the ram and get rid of it. The woman they sell it to offers them good money for sheep legs, offering what Jack sees as a solution to his family’s problems. But rather than tell the story in a forthright way, the edit tells the story twice, first from Michael’s point of view, and then from Jack’s. So during the first half of the film things move so fast and with so little context, you struggle to know what’s going on. Then when it restarts, the audience doesn’t know the device yet, and doesn’t figure it out for about twenty minutes when plot points begin to repeat themselves.  Once we figure it out, the idea isn’t terrible. When we were strictly in Michael’s perspective the feud seems meaningless and is cast in strictly moralistic terms. When we revisit it through Jack’s perspective, we can begin to appreciate the complicated factors that led to Jack’s decision.  But the edit doesn’t tell the story clearly enough. So the main emotion I felt while watching the film was confusion. I’m certain that the film would improve on a rewatch, but the ultimate story that a feud develops because Jack steals Michael’s sheep to keep his parents together doesn’t have enough heft to draw me back. It’s a pastoral film, and it does a good job of capturing the place. Colm Meaney, who plays Michael’s father, Ray, does a particularly notable job speaking Irish at length. First-time director Chris Andrews has some interesting ideas. He is clearly capable of letting talented actors do what they do best, a skill that will serve him well in his directing career. The film is also shot in a subdued way that highlights the natural light and natural beauty of the setting, but without ever drawing attention to itself.  The use of fire in the film’s back half is particularly notable.  “Bring Them Down” is R-rated for its violence and language. The domestic violence where Jack’s mother beats Jack’s father is particularly harrowing. But I found the film’s moral message to be largely in the right place. Jack’s theft leads to nothing but suffering. And revenge is shown as almost entirely futile. The film even offers a glimpse at honest redemption. Still, I wouldn’t watch this with my kids, at least until they were adults.  Two and a half out of five stars. “Bring Them Down” releases in theaters nationwide February 7, 2025.

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!