Buckeye

Um, are you suggesting all democrats be murdered? If not, maybe clarify what “D” you’re referencing.

Christian Nationalism isn’t about acknowledging that a majority of the population identifies as Christian. That is accurate as you note, though maybe not for long. CN is about placing a specific brand of Christianity above other faiths and even creating a state religion. It’s contrary to the bedrock principles of our democracy and would surely turn out poorly for my faith. Hence the LDS church actively supports not only religious freedom but religious pluralism. FWIW, I’m very pro Christ. I served a mission to teach people about him. All my children have done so too. But our message is an invitation. Christ does not compel.

You beat me to it! Looks like the pentagon took my recommendation and just dropped the “Christian” designation. Smart move, as listing LDS as Christian would have caused even more uproar from those opposed to our inclusion. Here’s some behind the scenes background from DN https://www.deseret.com/politics/2026/06/08/utah-delegation-work-undo-pentagon-religion-change/

He’s a follower of a Christian Nationalist evangelical pastor who teaches women she be excluded from the vote https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260506-hegseth-s-church-brings-its-christian-nationalism-to-washington

All of them. I support including all religious faiths on the pentagon list (and those of no faith). My point is the government should not decide which groups are Christian or not. Just include them all.

If I’m right, I’m happy our faith is excluded as that will lessen the argument for Christian Nationalism. May we continue to stand as a beacon for religious freedom and pluralism. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-statement-religious-freedom-pluralism

Count me not surprised. But I think our focus on being excluded from the “Christian Club” misses the real intent here. Excluding us is a nice cherry on top. The cake is building an argument that the US is a Christian Nation. Step 1 - arbitrarily cut the total count of recognized faiths to 31 Step 2 - add the label “Christian” to a majority (21) of the faiths. Step 3 - repeatedly publish the list, along with the percentage of service members in the Christian conglomeration, to advocate for Christian Nationalism.

Hopefully the church survives the eventual trademark suits. I’ll be quite jealous if the new curriculum for MiaMaids, I mean 14-15 Class, comes to resemble the OG Messengers of Hope https://messengersofhope.com In seriousness, though, I think the biggest challenge with another name change will be convincing members that the change will actually stick. Anything is better than the prior names. I appreciate the effort here and think the names are positive. Time will tell if they stick. My preference still remains a rename to Deacon, Teacher, and Priest.

Good to see you JKW. Short answer, no I would not report anyone who is undocumented, anymore than I would report someone who jaywalked to get to work on time so they could feed their children. Longer answer, my teenage self might have. I was very much a letter of the law kid. Then I got called to serve Spanish speaking in California. Changed my life and opened my eyes. One of my favorite experiences was teaching a man who suddenly disappeared. We assumed he was deported, which happened occasionally. Two months later he called us, confirmed he had been deported and had made the arduous journey back just to finish the lessons with my companion and me. He only worked in the states during each summer and normally would haven’t have made the effort, and he knew there were missionaries in Mexico who he could learn from, but he’d felt the spirit witness during our teaching and wanted to be baptized by us. I’ve rarely felt so loved and honored. As a contrast to the horrors in our country right now, may I offer the hope of a better country - Spain. My daughter has been a missionary there for several months. Hers is very much an immigrant mission, even more than mine. She’s taught and baptized people from Central America, South America (including Brazil), Africa, and even native Spaniards. She’s had more success so far than I ever did in the states, and I had quite a lot. This week Spain passed a mass amnesty law. I haven’t studied it in detail but it’s possible my daughter could even qualify for citizenship 😀. I’m so excited to talk with her this next p-day. The law will be a literally life-changing blessing to her friends and ward. There’s that old proverb - when the Lord closes a door somewhere he opens a window. This week I saw that. https://www.npr.org/2026/01/28/g-s1-107636/spain-legal-status-immigrants

Caveat that I haven’t watched the video. Based on your description of Than’s arguments, it seems to me the fundamental issue is whether some being (God) created the material universe and defines what’s right/wrong verses the belief that the material world and righteousness are eternal realities outside of any specific being and God (better the Gods) choose to align with those realities and help others (us) to do so. If I’ve set out the issue correctly, the disagreement is really about the nature of God. I’m very comfortable disagreeing with Than. The Mormon view is better than his. Righteousness and matter do exist on their own independent of my, your, or any gods actions. Man can achieve a fullness, as have prior beings, and can become gods, by aligning fully with the principles of righteousness. And gods can cease to be gods if they turn away from those principles. I don’t worship any particular being, but rather the principles of righteousness that form godhood. Critically though, I have no ability the learn and accept the principles of righteousness except that existing Gods found me, provided examples and means to become like them, and also provided a savior to perform an atonement so that I can wrestle to attain those principles rather than be damned the first time I stumble. There is no salvation but through our Heavenly Parents and Savior, though the attributes that make them gods are independent and not set by them.

By my own witness and by seeing the fruit of the doctrine. Polygamy as we practiced it necessarily excluded the majority of men. The fruit was bad.

I hope you get to ask him someday.

Answering for myself …. By not believing that polygamy is part of the restoration, and by not promoting that polygamy was/is false. If someone asks me I’ll answer truthfully that I don’t believe polygamy was ever Gods will. But I don’t actively go around trying to teach members it’s false. FWIW, I find it interesting that you’d cite question 7 here, considering the original purpose of that question was to root out polygamists.

And on the other end of the spectrum, remember when you visit Kirtland that it’s THE Ohio State University.

Going back to my mission years would be a negative for me too. Not a nightmare, but certainly a step backwards. Kind of like my high school years - I enjoyed them and grew immensely but would not want to go back. Now, if the dream we’re about serving a couples mission with my wife, that would be a happy one.

I was very sad to leave initially because there was an amazing family I was teaching who was preparing for baptism and I left before it. But I was also happy to move on to my next life stage. I’m not suggesting that there’s a magic number of months perfect for every missionary. 18 could be best for some; 24 for others; maybe even longer. What I’m saying is that if 24 months is good for young men, many young women may find it the correct length as well and they should have that opportunity. ETA: I’ve had three sons serve. One served the full 24. One a few months less due to COVID. One served only 12 months. It was the right amount for him even though some in our ward were surprised to see him home “early”. I have a daughter serving now. I don’t know if she’d take it but I know she’d like to have the same opportunity for 24 months as her brothers.

Sacrifice means to make sacred. It’s to take something - time, talents, resources - and put it to a higher, more godly, purpose. The act always requires a loss, an investment, giving up something. Examples include crops and flocks in OT physical sacrifices, a broken heart and contrite spirit in NT sacrifices, and on and on. For purposes of this discussion, missionaries sacrifice their time (some of the best years of their life), relationships (leaving family, missing weddings, etc), education and earnings opportunities, and much more.

All good things involve sacrifice that is outweighed by the blessings. I’ve heard those jokes too but push back (nicely I hope) on why they’re serving in the first place. If someone really feels the call and loves the work, they’d want to stay another six months or more (noting again that all missions must end sometime). Likewise, while pregnancy certainly brings sacrifice and downsides, the women in my life have all said that -on net- it is a positive experience and they’re grateful to have had it. Personally, while I have no expectation it could happen as I’m male, if I could experience pregnancy I’d take the opportunity based on the recommendation from the women in my life who say it’s a net positive. I guess I view missionary service for sisters the same way. if you’re just out there to check a box fine, the sooner you’re done the better. But if the work is joyful I’d welcome more time in it.

I agree with your sentiment in general. A lot of youth would benefit by living a year or two away from home before serving. Mission presidents I’ve talked with absolutely love getting “older” missionaries who tend to have fewer challenges and hit the ground running. When I discussion missions with my youth I emphasize that for all of them 18 is just an option and not an expectation. Still, most all go then because their friends are doing the same, they don’t want to feel left behind, and the mission is sort of a clean divider between HS and college years.

Yep, the length of service has moved around a bunch over the years.

Why would they hate an additional six months? Granted, you have to draw a line somewhere (it was 18 months for all missionaries at a time in the past) but if someone feels called to the work and engages for 18 months I don’t understand why they’d be opposed to a few more months. Especially for foreign language missions the last months can be the most rewarding and productive.

I’m nearly 50. I don’t doubt that marriage was a consideration before my time, but it’s not the impression I had as a young missionary in the late 90s or in my time working with youth in the church since then. Here’s a very helpful dialogue article on the subject. It could use a refresh to account for the last couple decades but is thorough in recounting the history of policies on sister missionaries through the turn of the century. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/not-invite-but-welcome-the-history-and-impact-of-church-policy-on-sister-missionaries/

Great news. I wish they also increased the length of missions to 24 months for sisters, but every positive step should be applauded. FWIW, I don’t think the limitations placed on sisters service (past or present) stems from a desire to push them to marry at a young age before missions so much as a belief among church leaders (misguided in my view) that brothers should take the lead and make up the majority of missionaries in the field.

I don’t know but that’s my guess too. It’s a neat touch in an otherwise fairly uniform approach to visitor centers. FWIW, the San Diego center has some cool animatronics that feel like a Disney tech consulted with the church.

click through the pictures on the church website. You can see the exterior of the Italian home in the tenth picture. Unfortunately none are of the interior. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/locations/rome-temple-visitors-center?lang=eng#d