Sometimes it doesn't matter what you say, but what people want to hear you say

A friend of mine is a brand-spanking new Presbyterian minister who is setting herself up in a small rural congregation in Utah. Her church has been previously pastored by men so naturally her first order of business was to clean the joint up. As she was clearing out the clutter in a closet she found two old boxes of 12-gauge shotgun shells.

That was a curious discovery. But even more curious was the remark by a Mormon woman who heard about the old ammo and asked Pastor Cindy, "Are you going to start shooting Mormons again?"

The irony of that odd question lies in the fact that among Pastor Cindy's predecessors in that same church was the Reverend Duncan McMillan. Back in 1875 Pastor Duncan received enough threats to life and limb from Mormon bullies that he started wearing a sidearm to protect himself and his family. The Rev. Duncan McMillan may have been the first pistol-packing Presbyterian pastor in Utah.

As a note here, since those rugged frontier days both the Presbyterian church and the Mormon community around it have built cordial and mutually affirming relationships. And my pastor friend fearlessly gave the ammunition to her duck-hunter Mormon neighbor.

Still, the point is that concern about persecution is always close the surface with Mormons. People often forget that in the middle 1800s Mormons were literally driven out of the United States of America into Mexico. But eight months after the Mormons arrived safely in Utah, the United Stated concluded the Mexican-American war with the treaty of Hildalgo and the Mormons were back in the good ol' USA again. And the persecution started again, but thankfully anti-Mormon persecution in Utah was mostly legal wrangling and far less violent than the bloody strife in Missouri and Illinois.

Mormon sensitivity to persecution persists into the 21st century. These days you can't even make an honest and critical remark about Mormonism without triggering the reaction that you're some kind of antagonistic Mormon-hater. I should know, I make a living telling people and institutions to repent. The Mormon church has occasionally attracted my critical attention in this column. I have often had to deal with knotheads who missed my point and stupidly accused me of persecution.

This justifiable apprehension about persecution was a subtext in President Dallin Oak's speech at BYU-Idaho two weeks ago. That speech has provoked the usual vitriol from the usual suspects. Most of their attention has focused on not understanding a single incidental sentence in Oaks' speech. He merely pointed out that California Mormons have been catching heat for how they voted, which he compared to the voter-intimidation of the civil-rights struggle a generation ago. He drew no other parallels. His point was clear, people in a free country, including religionists, should not suffer consequences for how they vote. Period. Even the piece about Oaks' speech in this newspaper a week ago missed that point.

The fact is, Oaks' speech was a 4,300-word lecture on constitutional law as it applies generally to freedom of religion and particularly to the freedom of Mormon in 21st century public discourse. The transcript even includes footnotes. You see, Dallin Oaks is not only a Mormon executive leader, he's an attorney and expert on constitutional law. He worked as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. He was even on the short list of possible Supreme Court nominees 25 years ago.

So, agree with President Oaks or not, when he has something to say about the law, particularly constitutional law, he has an informed point of view.

The theme of his speech was very simple and straightforward: religious people have constitutional rights to free speech and political activity. But he also included the warning that religious people also have to be more cautious and prudent in political discourse than others because, well, they're religious. If you're conservative and religious, you have to be even more careful. And if you're Mormon, you have to be extra, extra, extra careful.

He has a point. But it's old news for Mormons.

The good news for Mormons is that the vast majority of religious people in this country agree with their position and actions on maintaining the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

The bad news for Mormons is that they will be hammered more than most for their stance.