Calm

Yes, we need to shed the conformity in thought image because this is actually a wide allowable range in most of the peripheral stuff. It’s not surprising we are seen as ridiculously high conformists given how our missionaries look and our WoW standards and a certain look at least in the past with hair and clothing among women, the clean cut look for men (the BYU look, is that still a thing?), but it’s unfortunate (especially when members start believing it as well and thinking of good, solid, faithful members as apostate because they differ in politics or evolution, errancy in leaders and other views.

My problem is when remembering our heritage begins and ends with Christianity. It too often ignores the depth and beauty and complexity of our heritage for a semi patriotic commitment to a particular ideology. Not saying Christianity shouldn’t be as valued or isn’t as beautiful, but it’s like listening to a solo of a piece written to be played by an orchestra or a piano version of a classic rock song and sometimes it’s a rather blah adaptation.

Remarkable what hairstyle and makeup can do. Rickman would not have been in the top 1000 actors I would have considered for playing Reagan. He pulls it off though. (Just saw a still, not the performance, knowing him I assume his performance was excellent) Just remember it’s very loosely based on a real man…sounds like his length of service . I get troubled when they take a real person and then stick him with massive troubles or personal weaknesses to make the film ‘more captivating’ because then too many people think they are getting insight into the real person. It is one of my pet peeves. Thankfully they don’t use the real guy’s name so hopefully people won’t assume such in this case. While I think teaching history visually is a great tool, I prefer documentaries to dramatizations as it’s so easy for fiction to replace the nonfiction in our minds because seeing something sticks so well.

Yeah, I get that. I just would expect someone who had the guts to speak up at church like that (I wouldn’t have) would have first considered the likelihood of being disowned for doing so and thus been mentally prepared to go…what he did comes across as much more humiliating to me than just not going with the drama played out behind closed doors…and second, if he hated it so much as to do that to his parents (not saying they didn’t deserve it), it just seems like he would have been angry enough to walk then. But maybe one thing good for him happened on his mission, he was away from his parents for two years (lot less communication back then) and he knew he could survive without them. I feel really sorry for that kid if it didn’t come across before. For any kid who feels they have to hide who they really are from their parents for more than a short time (because it’s likely all kids don’t want to disappoint their parents even or especially if it’s a loving and supportive relationship and it may take a bit to realize even with a very supportive, understanding parent that they would prefer one not to hide). We have taken in a couple of kids who had abusive parents when they were at the legally adult, but not quite ready to be on their own. It was heartbreaking.

He would have been an adult, could have walked out before if he was going to walk out afterwards when he wasn’t any more prepared financially surely. I am surprised he went with his burn the bridges behind him approach instead of declaring his independence right then and there. They could have disowned him for that if they were as bad as you say. Something like that, it’s smart to pack your bags beforehand, empty any savings account if it’s not your name alone on it and arrange with a friend to stay for awhile.

I think a lot have misconceptions about what scholarship is intended to do. Or maybe what the Church or Gospel requires?

He has been consistently saying this for a long time and I don’t see much difference from when he hung out here or other places I interacted with him.

Thanks for the warning. Something to look forward to…and dread a little, lol

Seen in a couple wards in Utah, my own and ones we visited….all in Utah County. Probably been ten years since last we visited except for my son’s ward as I barely get to my ward these days, not up to attending blessings and baptisms, etc anymore. Hopefully that will eventually change (pain levels much better now, hoping fatigue will eventually lift).

If people say “primarily Christian nation”, it is close enough (I would prefer “majority Christian nation” if not using actual stats for precision). Saying “Christian nation” makes all the rest invisible as if they don’t exist and so does not reflect statistical reality unless one specifies average or typical…which often doesn’t happen. It doesn’t seem that accurate to me to say solely “Christian” alone when over a third are not Christian. Too often I see it used to glorify the Christian way as if we sprang full grown from the head of Christ in 30 AD (or whenever he actually started preaching) independent of any other thought or morality that had been taught in the centuries before instead of mankind having strong traditions before that which provided a basis for Jesus to place his more radical gospel on as well these and other faiths having influence on how Christianity developed in the hands of Christ’s followers.

A lot of Christian principles are universal, not unique to Christianity. Even the more unique principles such as love you enemies and a required forgiveness of others tend to have less radical version in many. The only one I am not sure of being very visible or at least reflected in others is Grace and that may be just because I am thinking of the Christian version. One might be better saying Jewish principles since that faith is seen as coming first, therefore roots of Christianity were buried in Judaism. Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism and some more that also contained much of these principles in their teachings existed before Christianity. Then there’s some Greek Philosophers

Don’t most hear we believe humans can become gods? If so, for a good portion of them that’s crossing the line heresy. We don’t only allow the gap between creator and creature to be bridged, we claim it doesn’t exist in the first place.

My memory says most were young missionary age.

Same with the wards I have been in for 30 years, can’t remember Kansas (pre1990).

You might want to reread what I said….as in the last line, which you quoted.

My experience online is a lot of critics (those who come to attack, not understand) don’t want to share that info. The only information they might share is evangelical (from what you have said, they may be misunderstanding what it means or even trying to avoid criticism that often comes with the label of fundamentalist). My guess is because they don’t want criticism turned on them for their beliefs. If they are there to share their beliefs, they often mention their background pretty quickly, which is always nice imo as it helps fill in a broad framework so I don’t need to bug them as much to feel like I have something to remember them by. Maybe the best option is to use Protestant when it’s pretty clear they are Christian, but not Catholic, Orthodox, or another Restorationist faith, but as someone who used to get labeled Protestant in the distant past before they started offering “other”, that just doesn’t seem right.

I know a couple of LDS kids from active families who chose military instead of missions and their parents were proud of them. My grandson was seriously thinking about it as his aunt is in the military. No one rented garments in our house or his (what a waste of money). We know quite a few older members who went military instead of missions. No one in the ward cares as far as I can tell, we like them as much as return missionaries. Not saying it doesn’t happen, but not as much as you seem to be claiming.

JW would be requesting discharge surely since they don’t serve in supporting military either, such as other pacifists might, so it still seems unnecessary because easily handled on a case by case basis….except perhaps veteran’s benefits, but would there be that many and do they use the same list. Are chaplains assigned to veteran programs based on adherents involved?

Goggle’s AI came up with this, but the source didn’t refer to it, so need to see if there is an actual source: Conscientious Objector Status: The military officially recognizes various faith-based stances on warfare. The records help identify individuals who hold sincere religious objections to combat, allowing them to request non-combatant duties or honorable discharge. [1, 2] Prior Service Converts: Some individuals enlist in the military before converting to the faith. When they formally become Jehovah's Witnesses, their military records are updated to reflect their new religious affiliation. [1] Veterans and Benefits: The military maintains records of all past and present service members, including their religious preferences, to determine eligibility for military benefits, pensions, and specialized chaplain care during and after their service. [1, 2]

If so, it’s not specifically detailed apparently. But Plan 2025 is supposed to increase religious liberty and practice by protecting chaplains in preaching, counseling, etc, increase the role and influence of chaplains and emphasize religion in general. To me it looks like they have chosen to emphasize this for only some faiths and not minority ones, so I don’t see it as likely being that supportive of religious liberty and practice since it’s pretty much shifted accommodation responsibility for the minority faiths on to individual service members asking for and pursuing such…and from what little I read the military hasn’t a great record in this area in the not so distant past. It’s local leaders roulette. It sounded like Trump’s first term might have improved things if the follow through was effective, but now it’s been walked back. Certainly gives the impression that a faith has to have lots of members to be seen as important enough to pay attention to, imo.

How did they accomplish this? Serious question. If they did not have the level of technology we have, how did they learn of the physical nature of such?

What do you call all those who claim to follow Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon? And what do you do if a Fundamentalist identifies as an Evangelical, wants to included under the Evangelical umbrella and gets offended when you call them a Fundamentalist (since Fundamentalist is sometimes used a a derogatory label from what I have seen). Serious question. I try and be respectful by calling people what they choose to called in most cases, but I try to be accurate as well and will typically add qualifiers to more global terms to differentiate. I ask these questions not to question your beliefs or nomenclature because I do believe Fundamentalists should be differentiated from others who do not share their world view as I do believe LDS should be differentiated from FLDS. I am trying to figure out the most respectful, effective, and accurate way to do so.

Hopefully that will be the result.p (more LDS chaplains, it is a good point). But as far as acting to avoid lawsuits, not sure that’s a guarantee with this administration and they are likely to get plenty of lawsuits now with the removal of previously approved faiths.

While not all members of MRM are offensive, I have encountered at least one who was. Unfortunately over 20 years ago and his name eludes me. They identify as Evangelical. https://mrm.org Not impressed with Walter Martin’s kingdom of the cults. He is identified as an evangelical apologist. Pretty sure Ed Decker identified as evangelical. Google does identify him as such. Same with James White. I definitely do not classify the vast majority of evangelicals as anti-Mormon. I don’t even classify ministries that target Mormons all anti-Mormon. If they focus on disproving our faith as opposed to converting us to theirs, I would think that qualifies, especially if they sensationalize stuff. Thus a number of them are and all of those so far I have seen identify themselves Evangelical iirc, though perhaps they would identify themselves also as fundamentalist. I would describe fundamentalist as a subgroup of evangelicals, but understand why some evangelicals see them as a separate branch of Christianity. I try to be careful not to use evangelical for its more fundamentalist version to respect evangelicals who do not denigrate the LDS faith. wiki appears to see it as a subset as well: Richard Abanes was certainly one of the nicer anti-Mormons I’ve met, got to know him pretty well for an online acquaintance as well as meeting in person as he hung out on this and the other board I was a part of. Gave me two of his books (maybe just the Harry Potter one, but I had his One Nation Under Gods….may have purchased it as part of my dissection of his claims…he challenged us to do it and we had quite a few lively discussions). Also a CD of his songs. Liked his voice. Wished he had stuck to singing. We talked privately as well. He asked me to help edit one of his books to make it more accurate, but I think we had a different definition of accurate. I turned him down as I didn’t see him altering much from criticism already given him. He identified as evangelical, he also pretty much intentionally misrepresented some LDS beliefs and definitely sensationalized it and admitted to using language LDS often found offensive ( “celestial sex” was the clearest example we discussed) so it would be more appealing for other Protestants rather than accurately present LDS beliefs.

I and others on this and another board as well as in stuff written to FAIR have been denigrated by individuals who identified themselves as Evangelical. Most of them never identified what denomination they belonged to and actually it was difficult to get them to speak of their own faith. Their focus was on telling us they were wrong. The few I have meant in person also called themselves Evangelicals. Given your distinction I try to speak of them as Fundamentalist, but if it happens again and they share they are Evangelical, I am not going to insist they call themselves Fundamentalist and depending on the context, I just might stick with the name they choose to call themselves.