Yeah, I'm most familiar with Utah/Idaho Mormons who tend to be on the more extreme spectrum. The problem is that these are the guys who hold the power in the Church.

Something that hasn't been mentioned is that Mormons give 10% of their income to the church. AFAIK, the vast majority goes into building and maintaining churches and large, extravagant temples, and a very small portion actually goes to real charitable work. If you could convince a Mormon to leave the church but still donate 10% of his income to a more effective charity, I think you'd end up doing a lot more good from a utilitarian perspective.

It's also pretty well-known that the state of Utah has an abnormally high rate of mental illness, and a lot of people suggest that Mormons often claim that they're a lot happier than they really are. I tend to agree: as a Mormon, you're taught all the time about how the Church is so great and how it's the best path to happiness, so you're naturally going to want to appear happy to other people.

My hunch is that Mormonism tends to make certain people a lot happier and other people more depressed. I definitely fell into the latter group--when I was Mormon I was constantly wracked with guilt because I--gasp--masturbated. At the same time, because I held the Mormon priesthood, I was essentially told that I had magical powers, and that I had more authority to act in God's name than the Pope. So I think for some people Mormonism is a big guilt trip, and for others it's a big power trip. Both are unhealthy.

Obvious caveat: the above is for "socially affordable" minority behavior. "Socially affordable" means basically "the kind that doesn't in its essense hurt other people too badly". Gays don't, (many) Muslims don't, weed smokers don't, psychopaths do. There are borderline cases, but the harm principle is pretty easy to use here overall.

I might be, but that's basically throwing rocks at a mob to protect/avenge the "whore" they're stoning. This said, I'd defend their right to be bigoted or Nazi or pedophiles or whatever in their own minds and in conversations between ideologically similar folks - just as long as the problematic meme doesn't harm a real person or spread its poison.

See my other reply; it's aggressive influence by people in a position of emotional power - influence that has no justifiable social goal.