smac97

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

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