smac97

Grok summary: "The single strongest predictor of whether a young person stays active in the Church is feeling God’s presence in daily life." Thanks, -Smac

Grok summary: The losses are hard. Thanks, -Smac

Do you think there is a difference between religious services in a dedicated building on post versus in the Pentagon's auditorium? Particularly where the Pentagon has a dedicated "Memorial Chapel" intended for facilitate religious services? See, e.g., here: I'm not sure what to make about a "Christian Prayer & Worship Service" headed by the Secretary of War, since he's in the chain of command and all. A chaplain running this, sure, but the SoW? Do you think there is any difference between a prayer meeting or other religious/devotional meeting being conducted by a chaplain versus by the Secretary of War? "Voluntary, but encouraged {by the Secretary of War}." Again, I'd be fine with a chaplain doing this stuff. Not sure about the SoW saying this stuff in the auditorium at the Pentagon, at a lectern "bearing the seal of the Defense Department." Not a chaplain, this fellow. President Trump was "sovereignly appointed"? And this declaration is being made by a pastor (not a chaplain) in the Pentagon auditorium (not in the dedicated "Memorial Chapel)? While standing at a lectern "bearing the seal of the Defense Department"? This is troubling to me. Sounds appropriate in other contexts, but the time, place and manner of this stuff is off to me. I don't agree with much of what Marcotte has to say, but what she describes here is giving me pause. I cherish the religious pluralism of the United States. I'm a bit nervous about organs and representatives of the State to be doing stuff like this. Thanks, -Smac

Right. But is that the case in the United States generally? I asked Grok: "Is there tension/conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the United States?" The response: I wonder if this is accurate. I hope so. My adult daughter befriended a young Muslim woman from Egypt several years ago. She had come to the U.S. to study, and ended up at BYU (we live in Provo). She lives in the U.S., and we have become her informal adopted family. She means a lot to us. Next month we are taking a trip to Washington State to say in a beach house on a cliff overlooking the Juan de Fuca Strait near Sequim. This young woman will be joining us, and we are all quite excited about it. There are, of course, times when cultural / sociological / political ideologies can create disagreements and even conflict. I am glad that the Church has long fostered sentiments of finding common ground and understanding and friendship. Thanks, -Smac

An unusual analysis: https://www.rawstory.com/hegseth-white-evangelical-plot-new/ I am curious why this differentiation happened where, for example, Muslims and Jews were consolidated. Do Shia Muslims object to being characterized as just "Muslim" (and, therefore, "folded into" a designation synonymous with Sunni Muslims)? I'm not sure I understand what he means by "ideological consolidation of the military." Um, then why did the original list ostensibly exclude "Mormons" from the ambit of "Christian" groups? I am curious about what role, if any, Sec. Hegseth played in all this. I wonder if the Church would have sent a representative to this event. I suspect not. Perhaps the Church was invited and declined. Hard to say. More information on this event here. I think we as Latter-day Saints can appreciate Graham’s core gospel emphasis — God’s justice, human sinfulness, the reality of divine judgment, and salvation through Jesus Christ — while approaching his framing with caution and doctrinal nuance rooted in restored scripture and modern revelation. Latter-day Saint doctrine strongly affirms that God is both loving and just (e.g., D&C 1:35; Moses 7:26-33). The Book of Mormon and Bible repeatedly show God commanding or allowing warfare in specific historical contexts for righteous purposes (e.g., Captain Moroni’s defensive wars in Alma 43–62, or ancient Israel’s conquests as part of covenant judgment). Graham’s reminder that God “hates” sin and enacts judgment aligns with scriptures like 2 Nephi 9:24 and Alma 42. His call for America to “turn to the God of our fathers” echoes Book of Mormon warnings about pride, secret combinations, and the need for a righteous nation to be preserved (e.g., Ether 2:8–12; Helaman 13–15). The pivot to Christ’s birth, atonement, resurrection, and Second Coming is solidly compatible with LDS teachings. That said, these comments presuppose Americans as Christians. This is predominantly, but far from exclusively, so. I question whether this messaging should be taking place at the Pentagon. Then there are the areas in which we may diverge from Mr. Graham's comments. Graham’s heavy focus on herem (total destruction) warfare can sound triumphalist or overly militaristic in a Christmas setting. LDS theology, informed by the Restoration, views ancient commands through the lens of progressive revelation and the higher law of Christ (e.g., 3 Nephi 12:38–48; D&C 98:23–32 on defensive war and limiting vengeance). Modern prophets emphasize peace, the Prince of Peace, and just war principles rather than celebrating “God of war” rhetoric. Addressing service members, Graham’s words can be seen as encouraging moral clarity and resolve in defending liberty. However, Latter-day Saint teachings (e.g., Articles of Faith 1:12; prophetic counsel on the Constitution) stress defending freedom while upholding the sanctity of life and avoiding unnecessary aggression. Graham represents a conservative evangelical perspective that often blends patriotism, Old Testament literalism, and political application more closely than the nuanced, prophet-led approach of the Church. The scriptures are full of accounts where God commands or empowers His people to defend liberty and righteousness with decisive force. Captain Moroni’s Title of Liberty (Alma 46), the defensive wars in Alma 43–62, and Helaman’s stripling warriors exemplify faith-filled, principled military action. Hegseth’s prayer for protection of troops and victory over aggressors appears to resonate with D&C 98:16–18 and 134:11 (right to self-defense and defense of others). The Restoration affirms that evil exists, that Satan is real, and that there are times when force is justified to restrain wickedness (D&C 101:76–80 on the Constitution and just government). Praying for “wisdom,” “unity,” and protection of righteous causes is, I think, compatible with Latter-day Saint teachings. That said, I have some qualms with Sec. Hegseth's comments: The Spirit of the Prince of Peace: Our should center on the Savior’s mercy, atonement, and invitation to “love your enemies” (3 Nephi 12:44; Matthew 5:44). Heavy emphasis on “overwhelming violence,” “no mercy,” and “eternal damnation” in a public Pentagon service raises concerns for me. The Book of Mormon repeatedly warns against delighting in bloodshed (Mosiah 29:14; Alma 48:11–17). Moroni rejoiced in liberty, not in the shedding of blood. Just War Principles in the Restoration: D&C 98 and 134 teach defensive, measured, and reluctant use of force. Modern prophets have consistently urged restraint, diplomacy, and peace (e.g., President Hinckley’s teachings post-9/11, President Nelson’s repeated calls for peace and against contention). Prayers invoking graphic violence risk crossing into the spirit of vengeance rather than measured justice. Separation of Church and State Concerns: While individuals have full religious freedom, using official government/military platforms for sectarian worship raises questions under D&C 134:4–5 and 98:9–10. The Restoration emphasizes that governments should secure freedom of conscience without establishing religion. Ancient vs. Modern Dispensation: Old Testament herem (total destruction) commands were specific, time-bound, and tied to ancient Israel’s unique covenant role (and, for me, remain one of my great struggles to understand and reconcile with the Restored Gospel). The higher law of Christ and the Restoration temper such applications (3 Nephi 9–10; D&C 98:23–32 explicitly limits vengeance and requires forgiveness where possible). I sense that Sec. Hegseth's comments reflect a sincere desire to invoke God’s help for those defending the nation — a sentiment to which many Latter-day Saints who serve or have served in the military can relate. However, in the fulness of the Restored Gospel, we are called to both uphold justice/defend liberty and cultivate the pure love of Christ. Prayers in such settings are most powerful when they balance resolve against evil with humility, mercy, and reliance on the Prince of Peace. This 2008 talk at BYU-Hawaii does a great job of explaining "war" imagery in scriptures, hymns, etc. in relation to the "Gospel of Peace": Fight The Good Fight: War as a Metaphor in LDS Discourse It's worth a read, but for those with limited time, a Grok summary: We can and should support righteous defense of freedom while rejecting bloodthirstiness or triumphalism. I think the Latter-day Saints should pray for our military, for righteous leaders, for protection of the innocent, and for the conversion and softening of hearts on all sides of conflict. Anyway, back to the original article: "Christian Nationalism" continues to be a troubling topic for me. Per PRRI: On balance, I'm either a "Skeptic" or "Rejecter." Interesting stuff. Thanks, -Smac

Huh. I might have laughed too. This is the sort of "whatnot" banter/commentary I was referencing. I was occasionally teased for my teetotaling ways, but almost always in a caustic/vulgar-but-still-good-natured ribbing sort of way. I have a hard time recalling someone expressing genuine contempt at me for not drinking for religious reasons. Same goes for my abstention from swearing. Thanks, -Smac

In your experience in the National Guard in the MI community may be a little bit more skewed towards favorability for Mormons. That being because of the language capability in the higher population of Mormons in the unit, especially since it’s based in Utah or at least that’s what I believe. I was thinking a bit more of my time at DLI (12 months) and at Ft. Huachuca (4 months). I got ribbed a bit for being Mormon, and certainly a few pointed digs, but in the main I did not feel like an outsider. Ah. You seem to be referencing "cachet" in the context of idle "Smoking and Joking"-style conversations/banter in the barracks and whatnot. Am I on track with that? My experience in that regard, in Basic Training, and DLI and at AIT at Ft. Huachuca, was a bit of a mixed bag, but largely positive. Questions and comments leaned toward curiosity (polygamy, horns, Book of Mormon, etc.) and ribbing (about me not swearing or drinking, going to church on Sundays, no sex outside of marriage, polygamy, that sort of thing), with denigrations being more an occasional/isolated sort of thing. I could see discussions with or involving Latter-day Saints being potentially markedly different from discussions about Latter-day Saints (and in their absence). I recall one fellow at DLI who was a devout Evangelical Protestant. He asked me some questions about the Church's teachings that were headed toward pointed/barbed, but when I pulled out my Bible and flipped to the index, he was quite surprised (apparently he had never used an indexed Bible before). He asked where he could get a copy, but then recoiled a bit when I told him the one I had was published by the Church. The conversation sort of ended with him being surprised that I both had a Bible and was familiar with its contents. We were never best buds, but he was thereafter more cordial than before. Thanks, -Smac

Another Deseret News article: Midnight phone call: Why Glenn Beck asked Trump to change Pentagon Latter-day Saint label It looks like there were a few voices that made a difference here. I think that was a good move. I wonder what intersection, if any, this has with "Christian Nationalism." Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac

Thank you. I misspelled the word when typing it on my phone. I'm familiar with the word, but not with the statement that "Mormons have zero cachet in the army" and its predecessors (that "the Mormon church has less than zero cachet in the military" and that "{n}o one is gonna care if they are labeled as Christian’s or not"). It seems like some, perhaps many, Latter-day Saints would care. I can understand that most who are not Latter-day Saints do not care one way or the other, but I was not sure how that works out to the Church having "less than zero cachet in the military" and its members having "zero cachet in the army." Thanks, -Smac

The zero cache part.

Interesting tidbit: Captain Bennion's father-in-law was J. Reuben Clark. Thanks, -Smac

I bet telling the board you are MOH material because you were Mormon would have resulted in a dq and the most brutal smoke session of your life. I think his point is that he could "perform in combat" as a Latter-day Saint, as tens of thousands have done, with some of them even earning the highest awards for valor in combat. I don't think he did, or that this was his point. But I'll let him address it further if he likes. I was never deployed. I served out my 8-year term in the National Guard, then left. My old NG company was deployed to, I believe, Afghanistan after 9/11, including the Russian and Chinese sections into which I was slotted (I had attended DLI for Russian before my mission, and served a mission in Taiwan). Could you elaborate on what you mean here? Thanks, -Smac

Thank you for your thoughts on this. It is my understanding that both Thailand and Egypt have official "state" religions (Theravada Buddhism and Islam, respectively). Do you think that is a material distinction between how those countries are "Buddhist" and "Muslim," as compared to the U.S., which does not have a state religion? For my part, though, labeling a country as a "[Predominant Religion] nation" (e.g., “Christian nation,” “Muslim country,” “Hindu nation”) is still reasonable and useful when used as a cultural, demographic, or sociological descriptor, and not necessarily because it has a state religion. Religion often shapes a country’s culture, laws, holidays, social norms, values, and identity even without an official state religion. It reflects statistical reality (e.g., the U.S. is ~65–70% Christian; Indonesia is ~87% Muslim). People use this shorthand all the time in everyday conversation, journalism, and scholarship because it conveys meaningful information quickly. I have struggled with the concept of Christian Nationalism. On the one hand,"Christian Nationalism" is currently a highly polarized and often weaponized term. In much of the media and academic discourse, it is frequently used as a broad brush to smear any Christian who believes faith should have a public voice or that the country has a Christian cultural heritage. This rhetorical move can feel like an attack on Christianity itself. On the other hand, though, some versions of Christian Nationalism that are being advocated by various Christian groups and individuals do appear to go beyond simple cultural recognition and advocate for a more formal, privileged relationship between (a particular kind of) Christianity and the state. This raises legitimate worries for Latter-day Saints and other groups: It can undermine the pluralistic religious liberty that has allowed the Church to thrive in the United States. Many proponents of stronger forms of Christian Nationalism view Latter-day Saints as outside the bounds of "orthodox Christianity" (sometimes explicitly). Historically, this has led to exclusionary attitudes. Restoration doctrine strongly emphasizes agency, the U.S. Constitution as inspired, and the principle that God does not force belief or establish one church by state power (D&C 134 is particularly relevant here). There is a legitimate debate happening in the U.S. about whether aggressive secularism has gone too far in pushing religion out of the public square. Many Christians (including some Latter-day Saints) are rightly concerned about that cultural shift. That said, I think the solution is not to have a formal Christian establishment or "Christian nation" in the legal sense. A healthier approach would, in my view, be: Strong protection for religious liberty for all faiths. Cultural recognition of America's Christian heritage without legal privilege for one tradition. Moral engagement in the public square while respecting pluralism. I would be interested in hearing from others about these matters. It would be interesting to see how the "200 faith codes" came to be. Thanks, -Smac

.

Thanks! I took them with my cell phone. No filters, no adjustments, just point and click. This spot - Moonscape Overlook - is about 9 miles from the RV park, down a dirt road and then off that road onto another that is more "wishful thinking" than anything else, but it gets you there. "Steamboat Point" is about 1/2 mile behind our park. Our guests all get a beautiful view at sunset. I'll get back to you on that. My wife is from Washington State, and I have always liked "green" more than desert. But this area of Utah, near Capitol Reef, is pretty spectacular. I took my wife and two of our kids down there a week+ ago, and we had a great time. Thanks, -Smac

Deseret News: Pentagon rethinks policy that omitted Latter-day Saints as Christian. Here’s how Utah lawmakers got involved This seems better. I prefer to have the State stay out of such delineations. I am gratified that the matter has been resolved. Thanks, -Smac

Looks like Sen. Lee and Rep. Curtis were heard on this (and others) : Pentagon revises religious classifications amid backlash from LDS Church Hmm. Perhaps that is the better way, as the State ceases to be seen as an arbiter of which groups are "Christian" and which are not. I'd like more than innuendo before concluding that this issue arose because of Pete Hegseth's religious affiliation. Interesting. Thanks, -Smac

For those who don't have the time or inclination to watch the hour-long video, I thought a written summary would be useful. Thanks, -Smac

Here is a Grok summary of the video: A few thoughts: 1. A very good presentation. Pragmatic. Doctrinal. Authentic. 2. It may be helpful in the future for the Brethren to address the biases that appear to be written into AI platforms. Some examples: AI Bias: 16 Real AI Bias Examples & Mitigation Guide And this: New research from BYU-led multi-institution consortium finds all major AI models ignore faith, religion in responses 3. I really like this: "AI’s environmental costs and excessive screen time can disconnect us from God’s creations. Reconnect with nature for perspective and gratitude." I think Elder Gong is making a solid point here. A while back my wife and I, and another couple, purchased an RV park in almost direct response to the burgeoning effects of AI. AI is yet another powerful inducement to sit in front of a screen. I think more and more people are finding extensive screen time eventually wears out its welcome, and even have some substantial downsides. An RV park situated in a beautiful area (just outside one of Utah's "Mighty Five" RV parks) is, we hope, a venue for people who want to get away from the ultimately unsatisfying trappings of the digital world and experience the beauties of the real one: Moonscape Overlook (I took this picture) Moonscape Overlook (Again) (I took this picture also) Steamboat Point These pictures, though I think are very pretty, don't really do justice to actually going and experiencing them. Anyway, kudos to Elder Gong! Thanks, -Smac

Thank you for sharing. If it is not intrusive to ask, would you be willing to explain which "truth claims" you found you could no longer accept, and why? It sounds like losing faith in "the Divine" came at the end, and so was it "the effect, not the cause" as well? If these are improper questions, please disregard. Thanks, -Smac

I think this is too shallow. People stop attending because they don’t believe. Many do turn to secularism but this treats secularism as a cause instead of a symptom. A fair point. There are likely many factors in play. Secularism may well be both a cause and an effect, depending on the individual. Thanks for sharing your thoughts — I really appreciate you engaging with this. You're right that at the most immediate level, sme (many?) people stop attending because they no longer believe. That's the core issue, and I don't want to downplay it. I also agree that we're living in a new kind of information environment. With so many competing ideas, worldviews, and critiques available at our fingertips, many sincere people encounter things that challenge rigid religious claims. It makes sense that in a pluralistic society, people would evaluate options and choose what seems most reasonable to them. I respect that process — I've tried to do the same in my own life. Where I see it a bit differently is on the question of secularism as cause or symptom. To me, secularism (especially the modern emphasis on the autonomous self as the ultimate authority) isn't just a neutral outcome of pluralism — it's become the dominant default worldview in the West. It shapes the very lens through which people evaluate religious claims in the first place. What counts as "making the most sense" or "withstanding scrutiny" often depends on assumptions that prioritize material explanations, personal authenticity, and self-expression above transcendent ones. That doesn't mean every person who steps away is consciously choosing secular humanism, or that there are not valid intellectual and personal struggles. Many are just trying to make sense of a complicated world. But I do think this broader cultural current makes it harder for religious belief — any religious belief that demands submission, sacrifice, or trust in things "not seen" — to compete on its own terms. I'd love to hear more about your perspective. What do you think are the strongest factors that lead people to find secular explanations more compelling? I'm genuinely interested. Thanks, -Smac

No worries. I took it as benign. Thanks, -Smac

Grok is an AI platform. I figured it would be easier/faster to have it summarize the content. That's a very valid point of view. Thank you for sharing this. I have seen a number of loved ones leave the Church under similar conditions. Some others have left by way of vilifying the Church as corrupt and terrible. That's an interesting perspective, and perhaps involves some presuppositions about the Church that are understandable from an "on the outside looking in" perspective. "Navel gazing" is an interesting characterization. It "refers to pointless, excessive self-contemplation or self-absorption. It describes a state of being so intensely focused on your own thoughts, feelings, or internal problems that you become oblivious to the outside world." If the Church is what it claims to be, then joining it and leaving it are important, even momentous, decisions. The frequency at which disaffiliation occurs is, in my view, not a particularly helpful metric relative to importance. Lots of people get married and divorced, both of which are important decisions. Thanks for sharing! -Smac

Saw these yesterday and today (YouTube videos on the "A Thoughtful Faith" channel) : Why People Leave The Church - Part 1: The REAL Problem Why People Leave The Church - Part 2: The REAL Solution Grok summary of Part 1: Grok summary of Part 2: Also saw these this morning (Deseret News) : Opinion: Moving from a deficit-oriented to a data-driven perspective on Latter-day Saints Latter-day Saints continue to demonstrate uniquely high religiosity, according to a new BYU report Very interesting reads, both of these, Here is a consolidated Grok summary of all four of the above items: I would be interested in your thoughts on these items. Thanks, -Smac

https://lds-theology-quiz.vercel.app/ Interesting exercise. It allows the respondent to type as much as you like, rather than select from A, B, C or D. More nuance and clarity is possible. I was interested in how my doctrinal/theological outlook contrasts with others. I was found to be aligned with BH Roberts (72%), Blake Ostler (72%), Joseph Smith (72%), Terryl Givens (67%) and "Progressive Mormon" (53%). Nearly 8,000 respondents so far. Here's how I compare to the other respondents: Divine Foreknowledge / Open Theism: You 90 · Avg 58 God's Nature Relative to Humanity: You 75 · Avg 25 Infinite Regress of Gods: You 40 · Avg 52 Nature of Eternal Intelligences: You 55 · Avg 56 Mechanism of Spirit Birth: You 50 · Avg 46 Nature of Human Free Will: You 100 · Avg 61 Atonement Model: You 5 · Avg 39 Scholars vs. Living Oracles: You 55 · Avg 39 Nature of Canonized Scripture: You 32 · Avg 35 Centrality of Heavenly Mother: You 30 · Avg 60 Nature of Exaltation: You 95 · Avg 59 Godhead model: You 40 · Avg 41 Evolution Compatibility: You 100 · Avg 73 Orthopraxy vs. Orthodoxy: You 50 · Avg 66 Brigham Young's Theological Legacy: You 45 · Avg 40 Gay Sealings: You 0 · Avg 18 Female Ordination: You 0 · Avg 43 Progression Between Kingdoms: You 50 · Avg 53 Priesthood/Temple Ban Origin: You 100 · Avg 62 I'm not sure how accurate this is, as my "scores" on several of these don't seem to reflect well what I wrote. Also, I was surprised that I swing pretty wildly between being close to the "average" response and departing substantially from it: Close to Average: Infinite Regress of Gods: You 40 · Avg 52 Nature of Eternal Intelligences: You 55 · Avg 56 Mechanism of Spirit Birth: You 50 · Avg 46 Scholars vs. Living Oracles: You 55 · Avg 39 Nature of Canonized Scripture: You 32 · Avg 35 Godhead model: You 40 · Avg 41 Brigham Young's Theological Legacy: You 45 · Avg 40 Progression Between Kingdoms: You 50 · Avg 53 Far from Average: Divine Foreknowledge / Open Theism: You 90 · Avg 58 God's Nature Relative to Humanity: You 75 · Avg 25 Nature of Human Free Will: You 100 · Avg 61 Atonement Model: You 5 · Avg 39 Centrality of Heavenly Mother: You 30 · Avg 60 Nature of Exaltation: You 95 · Avg 59 Evolution Compatibility: You 100 · Avg 73 Female Ordination: You 0 · Avg 43 Priesthood/Temple Ban Origin: You 100 · Avg 62 Also, I find it interesting that substantially more respondents are open to female ordination (43) than to same-sex marriage (18). Anyway, thoughts? Thanks, -Smac