smac97

I'm not really inclined to listen to podcasts. I'm generally only willing to do that if they are posted on YouTube, as I can then copy and past the automated transcript into Grok and ask it to sum up the content. I'm interested in this issue, but not enough to spent 75 minutes listening to the mayor of Fairview why the agreed-upon resolution is not an agreed-upon resolution. See, e.g., here: North Texas mayor revives debate over LDS temple steeple height I wonder how "voluntary" this change will be given that the mayor is apparently attempting to foment public pressure against the Church. And yet in April 2025 the City Council approved the current plan, including the steeple height, and which plan already included substantial concessions by the Church. So do the normative processes for municipal decisions apply to the Church? Or not? If the mayor subjectively dislikes the outcome of the democratic process, does he get to unilaterally disregard that process? I assume this is the "bullying" being referenced. Litigation is how civil society resolves disputes such as these. Also, I would be interested in documentation showing that the members of the City Council, which I think voted 5-2 in favor of the mediated deal, are claiming to have been "bullied" by "the threat of litigation," or if this is just the mayor's characterization/gloss. Hubbard says at this time, any change to the steeple would be entirely voluntary. He's hoping to meet with church leaders in the near future. I think the publicity campaign against the Church sort of taints the notion that "any change ... would be entirely voluntary." See also here: Legal options exhausted, new town leaders launch fresh campaign against Fairview Texas Temple steeple Well, it sure looks like it was. A public campaign against the Church for an "entirely voluntary" change to the previously-resolved dispute. Huh. I am curious about how often Mayor Hubbard resorts to adverse publicity campaigns when he does not get his way via the normative election/voting process. Mayor Hubbard may need to do a bit more legwork here. "Love and respect," plus a public pressure campaign against the Church. If Mayor Hubbard were proceeding privately, I would lend more credence to his characterizations. Actually, "relitigate the past" is exactly what Mayor Hubbard is doing. Again, if these were private communications, I would see them in a different light. As it is, "Do what we want 'cuz otherwise we'll publicly say you are not being a 'good neighbor'" and other public statements along these lines start to sound a bit coercive. "Fallout." I wonder what she means by that. Hm. Thanks, -Smac

A former member of this board (and a classmate of mine) represented FAIR in this lawsuit, and he did a great job. Thanks, -Smac

Is this some type of game for you? No. It's a serious topic. I am treating it with all seriousness. Theoretically, yes. I have repeatedly endorsed concepts associated with situational awareness. I think that is a separate issue from characterizing all men everywhere as "potential rapists." Have the women reserved the tub, or is it open for any guest to use? How big is it? Is the tub in open public view, or in a secluded or closed-off space? How are these men behaving? Are they drunk? Leering? Behaving improperly in some way? Or are they just minding their own business? I'm less sure about this. Is the hot tub open to the public? I live in Provo, which has a Recreation Center, which has a large hot tub open to anyone over 14 years old. If a group of women are in the tub and two men also get in (it's quite large), then - without more - is that a justification to view those men as "potential rapists"? It seems . . . not. Of course, "situational awareness" varies by circumstance. The hot tub I'm describing is in full view from all sides. The lifeguard is about 20 feet away. Plenty of people are walking past all the time. What is the likelihood of those men attempting to commit rape in those circumstances? See above. I don't know what a "battle board" is. Situational awareness is certainly warranted. Should the girl put herself in an isolated circumstance? I think not. See above. I think we ought to be able to have serious discussions about difficult topics. The above comments appear to be an ad hominem. I know a young woman who was groped while on a college campus by a young man who apparently was somewhat autistic. She reported the matter, but nothing was done. This angered her greatly. Fast forward a few years, and she apparently has adopted a posture towards men that is more or less akin to the "all men are potential rapists" sentiment. She does not date, turns down offers, and speaks with contempt (after the fact) about young men who approach her. For me, this illustrates one of the potentialities associated with broad prejudices. Another example: While in college I dated a woman who had served her mission in a European country. On several occasions she expressed her open contempt, even hatred, for all Arab men because she had been accosted by some Arab men while serving as a missionary. She hated all Arab men - everywhere in the world - because she attributed the behaviors of some of them to all of them. I do not understand the reasoning used to justify/rationalize prejudice against a category (all adult males are "potential rapists") from people who would, I think, otherwise shrink from and condemn prejudice against some very large subset of that category (all adult Arab males are "potential rapists," or all Black males are "potential rapists," or all Hispanic males are "potential rapists," and so on). I am sorry you feel that way. I have not spoken to anyone with disrespect or contempt. I am trying to have a civil discussion, that's all. It's a difficult topic, to be sure. I think I am not the only person who is troubled by the "all men are potential rapists" sentiment. And it's not just because of how it affects me, but also how it affects those who subscribe to it, and how it affects society in general. See, e.g., here: I am grateful that I was raised in the Church, which taught me to honor and respect women and girls. I am also grateful for my father and older brothers, who demonstrated such honor and respect in their words and behavior. Here: Here: Here: I think any number of young men are going to be scared about or troubled/demoralized by this sentiment. Thanks, -Smac

If the data supported it What data supports the declaration that "all men are potential rapists"? How do data measure/assess potentiality in this way? And can those datasets also measure potentiality about women being "potential" sexual predators? Might some women object to being characterized as "potential sexual predators" by dint of their sex? Is that allowed to be part of the conversation? The date has been put up before, and this thread and in other threads. Could you provide a link to a specific post with this data? Candidly, I'm not recalling the presentation of "data" supporting the statement that "all men are potential rapists." I think I will. I'd like to see the data first, and then evaluate whether it I understand. Thanks, -Smac

I hope we hold these two ideas in tension at the same time, as well. For the devout, 1 is pretty straightforward. I find many devout LDS who seem unable to hold onto number 2 -- especially when we are talking about someone who has left the church. Could you elaborate on your perspective relative to item 2? By way of example, I know of a young man who was raised in the Church, and then stepped away from it and did a bit of "riotous living." Drugs and alcohol. Petty crime. And he got a girl pregnant. She has substantial substance abuse/addiction issues, mental health issues, is unemployed and effectively unemployable. She has no family except one grandmother who lives out of state. He also has substance abuse issues. He works, but does not make much money. They have gotten together and split up a few times now. She stopped the drugs and alcohol while pregnant and nursing, but she has been excited to wean the baby so she can get back to using those substances. I know the young man and his family quite well (mostly Latter-day Saints). They are all interested in his well being and that of his son and on-and-off girlfriend. They are all handling things pretty well. I think they believe Heavenly Father "is merciful, and He works with each of His children individually, according to their own needs and timing," and according to their willingness. That said, do you think they are obligated to endorse and ratify what this young man did in setting aside the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom? Is that what item 2 entails? Does viewing the young man's behavior as wrong or sinful amount to rejecting item 2? Or can they view it that way and still affirm item 2? Wow. That's way out of line. I don't think the Latter-day Saints should be viewing anyone as "irredeemable." Does that perspective mitigate, in your view, our obligation to repent in this life? Actually, I think many (most?) Latter-day Saints take a lot of comfort in our brand of universalism. But is it possible that this concept can be misconstrued as an excuse to disobey the commandments, not repent, etc.? Thanks, -Smac

You see this as a difference between polite and not polite? I don't know what this means. I have never endorsed or winked at or rationalized any sort of misconduct toward women. Here I am, listening to you, with no differentiation based on sex. Is it possible that you are equating not listening to you with not agreeing with you? To paraphrase a passage from Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre: “I like to serve {women} and to obey {them} in all that is right.” I find all sorts of problems with the declaration that "all men are potential rapists." I think it's wrong and unhealthy, and even counterproductive and caustice. I think I can express that disagreement to women, in the same ways I express disagreement with men. Thanks, -Smac

If the data supported it What data supports the declaration that "all men are potential rapists"? How do data measure/assess potentiality in this way? And can those datasets also measure potentiality about women being "potential" sexual predators? Might some women object to being characterized as "potential sexual predators" by dint of their sex? Is that allowed to be part of the conversation? Thanks, -Smac

I am listening. I think we have a disagreement. I'm glad to hear that. Could you explain how you reached that conclusion? Could you also explain when "All men are potential rapists" applies to a particular man, and when it does not? That is eminently reasonable. Why not just say that? It doesn't upset me at all. I agree that situational awareness is a good idea. I can affirm that without needing to characterize half of humanity as "potential rapists." I do "get it," I just don't agree with it. I am all for situational awareness, but not for slandering all men everywhere as "potential rapists." Thanks, -Smac

If some men were going about declaring that "All women are potential sexual predators," I think women would be entitled to participate in conversations about that declaration. Thanks, -Smac

In the present environment, particularly the "all men are potential rapists" milieu, I would never hug any woman except close family members (and, perhaps, one sister (in a church member sense) who used to be in my ward, and who is Latina and hugs everyone)). Handshake or fistbump or high-five, yes. Nothing else. YMMV. His reputation, nevertheless, is tainted. See, that situation probably won't happen if I never have any physical contact apart from a handshake/fistbump/high-five, and if I refrain from any substantive conversation with women other than what I described above. Such precautions, coupled with the near omnipresence of security cameras and smart phones, reduce the risk of "he said/she said" situations arising. I remember years ago thinking Mike Pence and his variation on the "Billy Graham Rule" was overwrought and unnecessary. Now, for other reasons, I have adopted an even more strenuous rule than that one. From the Wikipedia article: Is "all men are potential rapists" part of #MeToo and/or "cancel culture"? I'm genuinely curious. More: My rule avoids this criticism, I think. I don't view women a "potential objects of lust," but rather a category of which some unidentified portion views "all men" as "potential rapists." I have formulated precautions against the furtherance of that characterization. I stay as far away from it as I can by having only minimal interactions with most women. Yes, it might. Fortunately, I own my own business and don't have any employees. I have plenty of female clients, though. Interactions are pretty much all by telephone or online, so not really a problem there. I am curious if this is happening. I suspect Jesus is a special exemption from the "all men are rapists" declaration. I continue to hold doors open to women when I have the opportunity to do so. However, I do not say anything to them, and only smile and nod in response if they say "Thank you." And if I am also going through the door, I wait several seconds to give them a head start. My experience - involving not interacting with women except in de minimis ways - has incrementally become less fear-based and more "Hey, this keeps you and your reputation safe and may help her feel comfortable." It does come at a cost, but one I am finding manageable. I am fortunate in that I spend a lot of time with my wife and we have a lot of mutual friends (with whom I can converse, but not touch beyond a handshake/fistbump/high-five). I also have a big extended family, and also a wonderful ward. Plenty of friends and acquaintances. I previously felt that "all men are potential rapists" is alienating and demoralizing. Now, for me, it mostly just alienating, and in manageable ways. I have been formulating ways to approach my sons and give them some instruction along these lines, as I think they are more susceptible to the "demoralizing" aspect. None of them is married, and to get married they are expected to approach women who may harbor this "all men are potential rapists" sentiment. Encountering such a terrible thought never entered my mind when I was courting my wife. I treated her with respect and decorum, but I never thought that I had some sort of obligation to demonstrate to her that I am not a rapist. I'm glad of that. My sons may not be so fortunate. When women publicly declare that they think that "all men are potential rapists," I think we should believe them. I could frame this declaration as rhetorical hyperbole, as something that should not be taken at face value. Based on this thread and its predecessor, I think men are better off taking it at face value and responding to it in that way. Thanks, -Smac

If I'm not mistaken, they don't see it as a quandary. They are on board with the characterization that "all men are potential rapists." I have actually run this statement by several men of my acquaintance. The responses have been interesting. Thanks, -Smac

"All men are potential rapists." Spencer is a man. Seems like I am part of the group the above declaration is about. Thanks, -Smac

Same here. I agree with these sentiments. And as you note, the "real harm" of this sentiment not only affects the individual, but those within his/her sphere of influence. For my part, I have, in recent years, often withdrawn from having casual conversations with women in social environments. Unless my wife is there, I don't say really anything at all. And when she's there, I keep my conversation with women brief and distant. In hindsight, I think my reservations (reluctance? fear?) about having such conversations largely traces back to this February 2024 thread in which @Calm and @bluebell, among others, not only endorsed and justified this "all men are potential rapists" mindset, they criticized me for objecting to it, and some even ridiculed me for questioning it. And this all happened while at the same time many also acknowledge that this mindset is prejudicial and unhealthy. Some in that thread, and in this one, have tried to parse out what people mean when they declare to the world that "all men are potential rapists." Such efforts are, for me, unavailing. If this message board were to ever have an in-person get-together, I would not attend. As much as I otherwise hold folks like Calm and Bluebell in high regard, I don't understand the societal expectations associated with "all men are potential rapists." I can only withdraw and abstain from interaction. Certainly. Situational awareness is a very important concept, particularly (but not exclusively) for women and girls. I have experienced the same surprise. There's some real irony here. The comments in this thread have, for me, prompted a presumption about women I did not have previously. I did not think that "all men are potential rapists" was a commonly-held perspective among women. Now, it seems, I am supposed to think that this is how many (most?) women view men. Not sure what to do with all this, except to be extraordinarily cautious in interacting with women who presumptively view all men as per se "potential rapists." And since I don't know which women do and do not think this way, I end up projecting my own fear-based prejudice onto all women. If I am going to be viewed this way regardless, purely by dint of my being an adult male, then the safest in-person interaction with such folks is no interaction at all. And that's a bummer, since I have spent many years enjoying online discussions with women on this board. Quite a quandary. Interact with women and risk being viewed as a "potential rapist" (or, substantially worse, risk that something I say might be construed as actualizing that supposed risk). Or abstain from interacting with women and succumb to a categorical prejudice. Thanks, -Smac

I think you are right. The caution I would make is, when you decide to force someone into such a decision, make sure it is an absolutely critical decision. I don't think it is for me to "force someone {else} into such a decision." I meant to say that we each of us individually, and of our own volition, make this decision. I agree with your sentiments here. Strong claims that 80+% of his group sought out someone to talk to, so I can't explain why your sample set doesn't reflect that. My sample is anecdotal, so there's that. Also, several separate personal experiences came to mind when I wrote the above. Each involved people coming to me (most in my capacity as a friend, a few came to me specifically in my capacity as a bishop). In each interaction, there were the following features: Each person had apparently largely already made up his/her mind, and so came to me with what appeared to be a posture of, effectively, "These are the conclusions I have reached, and I am on my way out." The discussions felt more like an "FYI / Heads Up" than a "I'm struggling in my faith and testimony and would like some input from you." One came to the "discussion," only to have it be a one-sided "Why I'm Leaving"-style summary, with no particular willingness to have a discussion. Two others said, in essence, "I have reached conclusions about these, and they are not open for discussion or debate." So the discussion seemed almost an after-the-fact sort of thing, but I could be in error on that point. Each came to the discussion with a substantial list of concerns/grievances that did not really seem thematically linked or likely to have arise organically from an earnest and faith-based study of the Restored Gospel, but rather more from "Gish Gallop / shock value"-style compilations like the CES Letter. One of these folks (the one who came to me in my capacity as bishop) actually brought the list and read from it to me. He/she would not let me see the list, but I caught a glimpse and saw that it was a bullet list printed out from a website. Another, when I asked him/her about his/her list of concerns, admitted that they did not originate from him/her studying the Restored Gospel, but rather came from a large variety of sources including books, podcasts, internet, discussions with believers, doubters, former Latter-day Saints, and so on. None of them seemed particularly interested in discussing the substance of the concerns in their lists. One of them was willing to talk broadly about faith and overcoming doubts and concerns, but not in relation to any of the particular issues he/she had presented. The others presented their lists and declined to have any discussion about any of those topics. In some of these interactions, the individuals did not seem to have given much time or effort to studying sources that address difficult topics from a faithful perspective. For example, two of these individuals specifically mentioned in their lists concerns about the Book of Abraham. I asked each of them if they had ever reviewed any materials from John Gee or Kerry Muhlestein, and both said no. I then asked them if they knew who these men were, and they both said no. Another individual, the one with the longest list, was the most vitriolic. In his view, he said, the only way to stay in the Church is to be very ignorant or very dishonest, or both, because nobody could encounter the topics he had and come away with an intact testimony. I asked him if he had ever read anything by Daniel Peterson, and he said no. I asked him if he knew who Daniel Peterson was, and he again said no. I made similar inquiries about Bill Hamblin, John Tvedtnes, John Welch, Michael Ash, Jeff Lindsay, Matthew Roper, and several others. His response was the same. In most of these interactions, there did not seem to be a willingness to attempt a "Go Back to the Beginning"-style approach. That is, to read The Book of Mormon, utilizing a "Seed of Faith" (from Alma 32) and Moroni's Promise (from Moroni 10:3-5), and seek out inspiration and revelation from God about the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel. Of these various experiences of mine, only one seems to have given what I would call "a fair hearing" to the Church. Most seem to have been influenced by the Gish-Gallop-style sensationalized lists of controversies and difficult topics, and did not do much independent investigation/research. Alternatively, I have had several experiences where there was a greater willingness to, as then-Pres. Uchtdorf put it, "doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith." Reading, praying about, and seeking inspiration about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon seems to be an important component of that. The "keystone of our religion" characterization really seems apt. I would like to understand this better: I wonder if some (many? most?) of these conversations arise, and end up being ineffective or even harmful, because the listener is not prepared (either in the moment, or else is not really equipped to address controversial/difficult topics), and/or because the listener is "reacting out of fear, anger and frustration" (of course, the posture of the person expressing the concerns also matters a lot). As for the invented "narrative" where "disaffiliation is a sudden, 180-degree change that comes out of nowhere," I can see how that happens. I have tried that approach as well. I quite agree. I could be reading to much into this. One thing I feel like I encounter among devout LDS is the underlying assumption (I'm not sure it is even conscious) that anyone who "makes a real effort" or "gives the church a fair hearing" will inevitably come to the same conclusion as the other devout members of the church. I can see how you could read that into my comment, but that was not my intent. This particular individual ended up becoming less active (though in recent years I think he has returned to activity). My comment here was also about those who appear to have mostly based their "Why I'm Leaving" narrative on lists of grievances (such as those presented in the CES Letter), as in my experience they seem to have taken these grievances/criticisms as both facially valid and fatal to maintaining a testimony of the Restored Gospel, and so did not really seem to have made a "real effort" or given the Church "a fair hearing." That's my subjective perspective, so take it for what it's worth. Yes, one of the above examples was like that. He told me to my face that the only way to stay in the Church is to be very ignorant or very dishonest, or both, because nobody could encounter the topics he had and come away with an intact testimony. Alas, I'm not sure I can adopt such an impartial posture. I feel I am better of if I acknowledge my partiality, but at the same time emphasize that I can and do separate my personal affection and regard and respect for the individual from his/her decisions relative to the Restored Gospel. I can also adopt a sincere perspective of "Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things." I can respect whatever conclusion they come to and still maintain regard and affection and respect for them. I think that door needs to swing both ways, though. I have a very good friend who has strong feelings about same-sex marriage, and so has declared to me that anyone who does not accept and endorse it is "morally defective" (his/her phrase, not mine). He/she also said that he cannot identify any way for a Latter-day Saint to avoid this "moral defect" except by embracing and endorsing same-sex marriage (but that in so doing, they almost certainly must leave the Church). He/she has also told me that since I remain a Latter-day Saint, he/she considers me to be morally defective. He/she simply refuses to consider the possibility of people having a principled, good faith perspective on same-sex marriage that varies from his/hers. He/she has refused to let me lay out my reasoning/analysis on this issue (which includes my acceptance and recognition of same-sex marriage under the laws of the land and my willingness to attend same-sex weddings). This has been going on for a while now. I don't know why same-sex marriage became the litmus test of our friendship. I had never discussed it with him/her, and he/she has never asked me questions about it, and has only assumed that I disagree SSM because of my affiliation with and regard for the Church. (While I do disagree with same-sex marriage, that disagreement is fairly nuanced, and based on quite a bit more than religious sentiments.) This has been a hindrance to our relationship, but I'm still working on it. A very fair and valid point. In the end, each of us must do what we think is right. I think you're right. I wonder if we can allow that being active in the LDS church may not be the best thing for all of His children. That is certainly a sticky wicket. I think Latter-day Saints who believe the Church is what it claims to be feels that membership in, and receiving and honoring covenants administered through, the Church is an extension of John 14:6: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." From a Latter-day Saint perspective, Jesus Christ is the Way. There is no other Savior. But He has clearly established a Church, given it His authority, and commanded us to receive specific ordinances and make covenants. These are not substitutes for Christ — they are the very means He has ordained for us to come to Him fully and receive all that the Father has. Just as Naaman had to wash in the Jordan River (not some other river) to be healed, we must come the way the Lord has appointed. That said, I appreciate your perspective. We agree that God’s highest priority really is His children. He knows each of us perfectly and is working with us right where we are. At the same time, I do believe that being actively engaged in the restored Church, receiving its covenants, and striving to keep them is the best path the Lord has provided for His children — not because the Church is perfect, or because every member is at the same place spiritually, but because that is where His full authority, ordinances, and guidance are found. I also recognize that for some people, at certain seasons of their life, being actively involved in the Church right now may not feel like the healthiest or most helpful thing. Life is complicated. Some carry deep wounds, others are wrestling with serious questions, and others simply need space. God knows all of that. His love and patience are much bigger than any of our current activity levels. My hope is that we can hold two ideas at the same time: The restored gospel and its covenants truly are the Lord’s appointed way for us to receive the fulness of what He offers. He is merciful, and He works with each of His children individually, according to their own needs and timing. I’d be interested in your thoughts. Under what circumstances would you feel that the Church might not be the best thing for all of His children? Thanks, -Smac

I wonder if we are better off setting aside notions of "blame" and "onus" and instead focusing on what we individually and collectively can do to improve retention. Pretty much anything the institutional church does, or fails to do, can alienate some Latter-day Saints. For example, I remember my father telling me that he had a number of friends and acquaintances who separated from the Church prior to 1978 due to the Priesthood Ban, and others who left when the Bad was eliminated. I have two friends whose sociopolitical views are strongly to the right, and who have left the Church because they don't see the Church's stance on certain issues as sufficiently congruent with their individual views. Conversely, I have a number of friends and acquaintances whose sociopolitical views are strongly to the left, and have left the Church for the same reasons. As individuals, we all need to do what we can to refrain from being stumblingblocks to the faith of others. But that can only go so far. For example, I have a friend who has deemed the Church's doctrinal disagreement with same-sex marriage to be morally abhorrent, such that he both left the Church and brands anyone who stays and/or shares the Church's position on same-sex marriage to be morally defective. He also heavily implied that the only way the Latter-day Saints of his acquaintance can return to his good graces will be for them to leave the Church and endorse same-sex marriage. For my part, I am very sad that my friend has left the Church, but I cannot "blame" the Church or its members for having views that are incompatible with his. Sometimes we have to make a "Choose Ye This Day"-style decision. I would like to better understand this. My general experience is that many of my friends and acquaintances who "disaffiliate" have done so by having gone through a faith crisis quietly/secretly, nursing doubts and voicing them online, but not really communicating with "faithful" friends and sources. For these folks, I think it's difficult for "devout church members" to address concerns when they don't know the concerns are there, or are not aware of the severity of those concerns. Alternatively, there are some who do make a real effort to maintain/salvage their faith. Several years ago a fellow contacted me privately (I think he may have done so through this board initially), and we had an extended email conversation in which he expressed doubts, concerns, frustrations, etc. and asked for input/feedback. It was clear that he was striving to maintain his faith while still addressing these issues. He had sought out faithful sources of information (FAIR, etc.), and was really trying to give the Church and its advocates a fair hearing. I don't know where he ultimately ended up, but I admired his effort. I agree with you here. For my part, I tend to focus and re-focus, when needed, on the foundational events of the Restoration, and really give the Gospel, and the Church that houses it, a "fair hearing." I have articulated this in a few different ways. See, e.g., here: In an ultimate, when-all-is-said-and-done sense, yes. The Church makes some very bold claims about itself. In a similar sense, we can consider Jesus Christ in a "very black and white" way, too. He was either the Son of God, or else he was a fraud. He either performed miracles by the power of God, or He did not. He either suffered and atoned for our sins, or he did not. He is either "the way, the truth, and the life," or he is not (John 14:6). Either He was correct in stating that "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me," or he was not. However, all these are conclusions that, I think, cannot be made by skipping to the end. We need to give Jesus Christ a fair hearing. Similarly, I think we need to give the Church a fair hearing. I am concerned that this isn't happening. I am concerned that people, including members, are relying on online materials (the the "Letter to a CES Director") that are hostile to the Church, and are designed to make the Church look as bad as possible, and are certainly not intended to give the Restored Gospel a fair hearing. In other words, this stuff a shortcut. It is a replacement for rigorous, systematic, thoughtful research and effort (and yes, prayer, and pondering, and exercising faith). Here (regarding the SEC issue) : Here (re: the "Inspired Fiction" theory) : ddj And here (same topic) : So . . . he was lying or deluded. That's your position? Either Joseph Smith saw an angelic being named Moroni, or he did not. Either Joseph was instructed by that angel to go to a particular location, a drumlin in upstate New York, or else that did not happen. Either Joseph went there at the instruction of the angel and located the burial site of the plates, or else that did not happen. Either Joseph had further interviews with the angel at that site for years afterward, or he did not. Either Joseph eventually recovered the ancient plates (and other items buried with them), or he did not. Either the Three Witnesses saw the plates under the circumstances described in their testimony, or they did not. Either the Eight Witnesses saw the plates under the circumstances described in their testimony, or they did not. As I see it, the only plausible explanation for these various "or not" alternatives is that Joseph Smith was A) profoundly dishonest, B) profoundly mentally ill, C) profoundly tricked by unknown persons, or D) some combination of A-C. Also, the Witnesses were likewise either A) profoundly dishonest, B) profoundly mentally ill, C) profoundly tricked (by Joseph and/or others), or D) some combination of A-C. And here: Disaffiliation is a choice. God gave us agency, the right to choose. That said, to be "complicit" means "helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way." However we frame an issue, I don't think we can do so by attributing misconduct to God. I think the Lord helps all who seek and accept it. Lots of scriptures about this. There will be all sorts of variations as to what "wrestling" means in this context. I think the Church's ultimate focus it to encourage and facilitate individuals, families, communities and nations to turn to and accept Jesus Christ, and to keep His commandments. "God's highest priority" is, I think, His children: "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). That work and glory is wrought through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, who in turn has established His Church to facilitate faith, repentance and obedience: "Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day" (3 Nephi 27:20). "And even so I have sent mine everlasting covenant into the world, to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me" (D&C 45:9). Thanks, -Smac

Is this a problem? If I presented myself as a Latter-day Saint with intimate insider knowledge on the inner-held beliefs of Catholics, and if I were to write an article directed to other Latter-day Saints, and if I were to state: "Catholics claim to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the only path to salvation" and "they claim to believe that he is divine and that we must follow his teachings," I think Catholics might think that, in this particularized context and to that particular audience, I am imputing something onto them different from actual belief, namely, only claimed belief. Yes. "Factual" might work, but it's harder when the "fact" is something about me and what is between my ears. I am the world's leading authority of what I think. To say that I "claim" to believe Jesus is the Son of God, the only path to salvation, that He is divine, and that we must follow His teachings, can come across as expressing skepticism about whether I actually do believe these things. That is quite possible. Thanks, -Smac

Thank you for the thoughtful reply and for engaging with the history. I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective. You’re right that human conflicts are rarely simple. Resource scarcity, land disputes, water rights, and cultural prejudices have fueled tension in almost every frontier setting — Missouri, Idaho, Mexico, and many others. Those factors are real and often make already difficult situations worse. I’ve also seen how migrant groups (of any background) can unintentionally bring insular attitudes that heighten friction with those already living in a place. At the same time, from the records left by both Latter-day Saints and outside observers, religious belief was a central driver in much of the violence they faced. Many of the worst episodes (Haun’s Mill, the Extermination Order in Missouri, the driving out of Nauvoo) were explicitly justified by religious difference and fear of “Mormon theocracy.” That doesn’t mean economic or cultural factors were absent — they rarely are in history — but for the Saints, the persecution often felt deeply religious in nature. I think both realities can be true at once: people are complicated, and conflicts are almost always multi-causal. Mutual prejudices (Anglo toward mestizo, mestizo toward Anglo, religious insider vs. outsider) have poisoned wells on all sides throughout history. My hope is that by trying to understand the full picture with charity — including the real pain felt by those on every side — we can avoid repeating old patterns of suspicion and division. I’d be interested in any specific examples from your research in Mexico or elsewhere that have shaped your view. I’m always trying to learn more. Largely, yes. I am glad to hear that this worked out. Thank you for your comments. Thanks, -Smac

This is very helpful to me. Thank you for explaining it. Yes, that disagreement is apparently not going away any time soon. Very interesting! Thank you for sharing this. I should have looked into this years ago. You are clarifying a lot. Regarding "large doctrinal differences on the nature of God," what differences are there besides divergent views on the trinity? The "original sin" concept does seem incompatible with the 2nd Article of Faith: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." Fascinating. I need to better understand this part: From Google's AI: I was only peripherally aware of this distinction until now (hadn't really thought about it at all, that is). I will look into it more. Thanks! One Latter-day Saint source: A very worthwhile toopic, this. From what I have read, it appears to be both facially accurate and well-intentioned. We differ in conclusions and some omissions, but overall I value the effort that went into this. I too am grateful that we collaborate with each other as much as we do. Our commonalities outnumber our differences. Thanks, -Smac

This is my sentiment as well. Your (and, apparently, the Catholic?) view of heresy (here, not accepting creedal trinitarianism) is an important issue, but does not define the parameters of Christianity. I agree with that. Wikipedia has articles for the Latter Day Saint movement and Restoration (Mormonism) However, I don't think the Latter-day Saints came up with these names, nor we use them much. I focus overwhelmingly on Joseph Smith and those we believe to be his successors (Brigham Young, etc.), and so generally don't have much reason to discuss Strangites, Community of Christ, FLDS, etc. When we do discuss them, I don't sense much in the way of feelings of affinity or identity. A good question. You noted above a "greater umbrella of Christianity." If Christianity were to be characterized taxonomically (akin to the hierarchy of biological classification's eight major taxonomic ranks), where would the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints land? Perhaps something like this? Abrahamic Religions --> Christianity --> Restorationist Christianity --> Latter-day Saint Movement --> Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Where would you put Roman Catholicism? Something like this? Abrahamic Religions --> Christianity --> Nicene / Chalcedonian Christianity --> Western (Latin) Christianity --> Roman Catholicism (The Catholic Church) It is interesting to me to see where the paths diverge (Nicene / Chalcedonian Christianity or Restorationist Christianity). I am reminded of this quote from LeGrande Richard's book, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder: No name is given in this source, but it has been located in Elder Whitney's autobiography: The source is Orson F. Whitney’s autobiography, Through Memory’s Halls: The Life Story of Orson F. Whitney, as Told by Himself (Independence, MO: Zion’s Printing and Publishing Company, 1930), 222-23. The Catholic theologian’s name is John M. Reiner. This stance predates the Vatican II counter-reformation and may not reflect general Catholic sentiment. See also here. Mr. Reiner shared with the Latter-day Saints a perspective on "authority" that varies quite substantially from that of most of Protestant Christianity. It varies from the Latter-day Saints in that he believed that authority was retained and is now housed within the Catholic Church, whereas we believe it was lost and then restored through Joseph Smith. In the end, it is a mystery of faith. It's often easier to say what it is not (the Trinitarian heresies). For example, modalism is the idea that there is one God who shows up in three different modes/forms (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) rather than three persons in one God. Yeah, complicated stuff. Candidly, I do not fault Christians who profess belief in a concept that is difficult or impossible to comprehend and parse out. As a Latter-day Saint, I profess belief in some things that I cannot really claim to comprehend. The Atonement. Animal sacrifice. Polygamy. The command to the Israelites to conquer Canaan and “utterly destroy” its inhabitants (Deut. 7:1-2, 20:16-18; Joshua 6–11; 1 Samuel 15). The apparent ambiguous treatment of slavery in the scriptures. I can mitigate these, sort of. For example, Paul Bryner's 2025 FAIR presentation was, to me, quite illuminating and helpful in regards to the herem conquest of Canaan. Still, I struggle. Thanks, -Smac

Thought this was interesting:

I would be interested in your assessment of this statement from the Peterson/Ricks book I cited above: For my part, I acknowledge that don’t really "understand the Trinity." I find the concept difficult, even impossible, to parse out. I am glad we agree on this. Thanks, -Smac

I think it is best encapsulated in the 11th Article of Faith: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." See also here: See also here: We have, fortunately, overcome the above-referenced religious tests and disenfranchisement issues. I appreciate you sharing your perspective. Religious pluralism allows us as individuals and groups to live amongst and work with each other without being obligated to sacrifice our religious beliefs. In an ultimate, "at the end of the day" sense, you disagree with some tenets of the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, correct? The exclusivistic truth claims regarding priesthood authority and other matters appear to be a key point of disagreement. Is this an accurate characterization of your perspective? If so, we are speaking and getting along today, in large part, because of religious pluralism. The U.S. Constitution has a substantial "trickle down" effect on laws and regulations, and ultimately on society and individual and personal interactions. I can be a Latter-day Saint and serve in the military, and vote, and run for public office, and hold real property, and on and on and on. I can then, if I choose, dissociate from the Church and still retain these rights. I can become a Catholic and retain them. I can become an agnostic or atheist and retain them. I can accept, or not accept, religious precepts from the Church, or from you, or from any other individual or group, and not be punished or deprived of my civil rights. Latter-day Saints cherish U.S. religious pluralism primarily because it is grounded in the First Amendment and the inspired U.S. Constitution, which guarantee religious liberty for all. Here are, I think, the core reasons: Historical Protection: Early Latter-day Saints faced violent persecution (expulsions from Missouri, martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, etc.) precisely because of religious intolerance. Pluralism and the separation of church and state provided a legal framework that allowed the Church to survive, regroup in the West, and eventually flourish. Agency and Free Exercise: It aligns with core gospel principles of moral agency and the right to choose one’s faith without coercion — a freedom we see as divinely protected. Enables the Restoration: The open religious marketplace allowed Joseph Smith’s First Vision, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and ongoing revelation to occur and spread without state-sponsored suppression. Benefits All Faiths: Modern leaders of the Church consistently teach that religious liberty must apply equally to everyone. They defend the rights of other religions (and even non-believers) because the same principles protect the Church’s missionary work and existence today. In short, U.S. pluralism is viewed as a providential blessing that prevents the kind of religious tyranny their history taught us to oppose, while creating space for truth to be freely shared. We seem to be agreeing in substance. Consider this 1978 First Presidency statement: And this 1921 statement by Elder Orson F. Whitney (same link) : I would be happy to hear any further thoughts you have on these matters. Thank you, -Smac

An interesting article by a former Latter-day Saint who converted to Catholicism in 2018: Are Latter-day Saints Christians? A few excerpts: I wonder how accurate this is. Per this 2007 Pew Research article: I would like to see more current data. "{C}laim to believe." From "they claim to believe..." to "I can personally confirm they believe these things" in the space of two sentences. Okay. But it the claim accurate? "I can personally confirm they {Latter-day Saints} believe {that Jesus is the Son of God, the only path to salvation ... and that he is divine and that we must follow his teachings}." "Even the LDS Church’s specific affirmations—that Jesus is divine, that he is our only Savior—aren’t enough." I'm not sure what to make of this. This fellow seems to be undercutting his thesis. So Latter-day Saints "mean something very different" in their affirmations of Jesus's divinity? What is that difference? I would like to better understand this. As a Latter-day Saint, I think some boundaries do matter. For example, I think many (most?) Latter-day Saints do not "acknowledge" polygamist offshoot groups to be Latter-day Saints. But I don't think we deny their believe in Jesus Christ. I sense that most non-Latter-day Saint Christians have a generalized sense or need for boundary maintenance about the broader category of "Christian," but that this maintenance is really quite hard to do. The Peterson/Ricks book, Offenders for a Word, does a very good job of laying that out. I quite agree with this. So is Mr. Christiansen saying that Latter-day Saints do not ground their faith in the "real person" known as the "Jesus" of the New Testament of the Bible? Is he, in the end, advancing the "another Jesus" concept? It appears so: Is he saying that the "Jesus" the Latter-day Saints profess to worship is numerically distinct from the "Jesus" of Catholicism? The reference to Arius is interesting. "Claim 2" cited in the Peterson/Ricks book addresses this: The entire response is worth a read. The concluding statement is something of a zinger: Interesting stuff. This is an interesting point. The Church similarly does not recognize or ratify Catholic baptisms, but in doing so we do not deny their status as Christians (rather, we claim they lack the requisite authority to baptize). Hmm. This sort of sounds like a utilitarian "the ends justify the means" justification. Thoughts? The article is surprisingly oblique about this principal issue, namely, "orthodoxy regarding who Jesus Christ is" and the previous "Latter-day Saints mean something very different when they baptize their members 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost'" claim. This is apparently about creedal trinitarianism, and that the Latter-day Saint rejection of it, in favor of the "Godhead" or "Social Trinitarianism," means we are not "Christian." I think this is confirmed in the article's concluding comments: "{B}elief in the Triune God is positively non-negotiable to the Christian faith." Again, from the Peterson/Ricks book: Thanks, -Smac

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