Mormons not Christian (according to new military list)

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

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

I would encourage everyone in this discussion to read this page which explains the purpose of this new denomination. It is a fascinating mixture of Presbyterianism, Orthodox, Catholic, and anti-Fundamentalist teachings while espousing to be Evangelical.  In its doctrine it seems to be more Fundamentalist (the very thing it decries in the text of this page) than anything else. Fascinating. complex, and educational! 

The Story - Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches

Edited Sunday at 03:10 PM by Navidad

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, Rain said:

Both in my husband's mission and in my mission we had Assemblies of God congregations doing so.  They say on their website they are evangelical. A missionary in my mission was a member of that church and grew very concerned about her mormon friends because all of the big classes and anti-mormon things the churches in her area were putting on so she looked into this church and joined it. 

I met so many people who declared themselves baptist and evangelical and would denigrate the church.

i know this is a big thing for you, but I have so much experience with people telling me they are evangelical and then saying so many things about the church. 

if you have a problem with it, then maybe instead of trying to correct those of us with bad experiences, you should try to correct those who say they are evangelical and denigrate members of the church.  

I do the last thing you recommend all the time. That is an important part of my ministry. 

[Notatbm]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t buy it. Does this guy have inside information? So did they reach out to Wiccans and ask them if they wanted to be delisted? Doubt it.

This guy is Staff Sergeant which means he is an enlisted soldier with anywhere from 5 to 15 yrs service. It also means he is regularly told to have his guys pick up trash or clean the barracks or stand around all day in line waiting their turn to do their rifle qualification shoot. It also means he has absolutely no idea and is just guessing. He is very near the bottom of the totem pole. A full bird colonel or a CSM or above MIGHT know what’s going on but even then- I doubt it. Nor will they care.
 

For context of his rank in relation to a normal size infantry company (~120) there would be approx 20-25 staff sergeants give or take. That’s out of 120-160 soldiers. The commander of such a unit is  usually a captain who is about 28-30 yrs old and captains are nobody’s in the army as well. A colonel is where the real power begins. Thats a 40+ year old officer with ~ 22-30 yrs service and in charge of up to 5k troops. 
 

could he be right? Sure but again no because he has inside info.. no one with any rank is telling him anything unless he is in violation of relationship rules with senior officials. If he was a 25 year old blonde attractive female I’d be more inclined to believe. 
 

anyway yea he’s just making stuff up. Kinda like a ward bishop claiming to know what happened at last weeks Q12 meetings 

Edited Sunday at 03:26 PM by Notatbm

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Another perspective. Could this change help better meet the needs of LDS service members? 
 

@Navidad Sorry for my sharp response but it seemed you were denying my lived experience and I had just spent hours (I know…not healthy) scrolling X and reading so-called ‘friends’ tell me we’re not Christian and spreading vile stuff. That’s why I mentioned PTSD. I grew up in a home with religious conflict and my dad’s church’s frequently and often bashed ‘Mormons’ from the pulpit. I was grateful the reverse never happened. 

I am not in any way denying your lived experience. I am suggesting that perhaps it was not at the hands of Evangelicals as much as by Fundamentalists identifying as Evangelicals because of the toxic nature of the Fundamentalist identity. I am sorry you experienced what you did. I speak out against hate messaging and generalizations all the time. 

[3DOP]

16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Understood. Even today, there is much less a stigma attached to Evangelical than to Fundamentalist. I would also guess that anyone under fifty might not even be aware of the differences. It is not widely taught, but it is broader than being "Navidad's 

A hundred years ago, to be fundamental meant that you believed in the Virgin birth, bodily resurrection, and other foundational Christian beliefs. Now it means a dangerous sect. 

A hundred years ago a cult was a particular belief. I have Catholic books that freely express belief in the cult of the Blessed Virgin. Now cult means a dangerous sect.

I haven't kept up. When I was young, we talked about neo-Evangelicals as opposed to Fundamentalists like us. The neos were liberal. These words change meaning with such speed that it is hard to know what people mean by it.

I agree with Navidad, that todays self-identified Evangelicals who have children that badger LDS children are wacky. They can call themselves what they want. I think they want to avoid being classified as what they are. But I truly do not know what word to use except non-Evangelical.

 

 

 

[3DOP]

Heh. Maybe the words change meaning with such speed as I say above, because people like me change views fairly often. I am aware that my own college is very different today than it was forty years ago. Like me, it has softened. A lot of classmates have too. 

I can picture being anti-Mormon in those early days. Maybe we need to give these zealots of hatred a chance to let the Lord work on them a little. In twenty years, they will likely soften up too. Hateful Christianity often comes with an early bitter zeal built on ignorance. And if we will be fair, I think we can see ignorant representatives of this in all of our traditions. 

Above all, don't judge too early. God gives everybody a short life. But we can be thankful that every minute God is giving all of us graces to humble us...including those of us who might have been ignorantly arrogant towards those they did not understand.

 

 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 03:40 PM by 3DOP

[Notatbm]

We need to remember where the majority of us military personnel come from:

“Where Service Members Enlist From

While the military draws recruits from all 50 states, the American Southdisproportionately supplies the most service members. The top states producing the highest volume of new recruits (often making up over 40% of all enlistments annually) are: [1, 2, 3, 4]

• Texas
• California
• Florida
• Georgia
• New York [1]

However, on a per capita basis (adjusting for state population sizes), states with deeply rooted military cultures and localized economies send the highest proportion of their populations to serve. These include South Carolina, Hawaii, Alaska, and Georgia. [1, 2]”

 

we also should remember that Utah has an enlistment rate that is near dead last in terms of people joining the military as enlisted soldiers.  Officers in the military also originate from mostly the same states as the enlisted. 
 

what that tells us is it ain’t Mormons who are serving in and running the us military… participating? Sure there’s about 36k Mormons combined in all branches of the us military, but again. It is run by those who hail from those few states mentioned above. Many of these people have a very dim view on Mormons. Some of them may even be from Fairview Texas… lol there are about 280 us military members from Fairview fyi. I bet there are not more than two from there who are Mormon. I wonder what those folks from Fairview think of Mormons?? 

 

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

I think they want to avoid being classified as what they are.

Amen! Preach it! 

Edited Sunday at 04:23 PM by Navidad
typo

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

But don't you recognize that the LeBarons call themselves Mormons? As do the Strangites and many in the Community of Christ? The Assembly of God is a giant denomination, one of the fastest growing in the world. There are Assembly of God groups (churches, and sub-groups) that are Fundamentalist, that are Evangelical, and that are Mainstream). The latter three classifications exist in all branches of Christianity, perhaps even in the Mormon community as a whole. Yet there are major differences between them.

Yes it is a big thing for me. That is not reason to dismiss it as also being theologically correct. It is a big thing for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not to be identified as the same as the FLDS, is it not? Should I dismiss the reality of the differences because it is a "big thing?" I think not. I could go even further (farther?) and suggest that the LDS Church is just one church among the many restorationist churches in Christianity. I could suggest that the Mennonites and Moravians were restorationist churches that existed hundreds of years before the LDS church. Therefore, they (LDS, Mennonites, and Moravians) are all the same "thing." I think that would bring howls of protest from certain members of this forum. They would propose I don't know what I am talking about. You know what? They would be right . . . if I claimed that. But I have studied the differences, so I don't claim that. So, yes, it is a big thing for me; that does not, however, negate the accuracy of my thing! Study the history of 20th century Christianity in the USA, you might notice the big thing! Take care. 

Yes, I'm aware. But this is not like LDS Mormons not wanting to be identified as FLDS Mormons. It's FLDS Mormons not wanting LDS Mormons and Lebaron Mormons and Strangite Mormons as Mormon.

[telnetd]

Are Mormons Christian?

Yes. Mormons, more properly referred to as Latter-day Saints or members of The Church 
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, unequivocally affirm themselves to be Christian, 
or in other words, followers of Jesus Christ.

https://faq.churchofjesuschrist.org/are-mormons-christian

[Okrahomer]

For what it’s worth (admittedly not much) my reaction to this kerfuffle is that it tends to confirm that the Church and its members are viewed as peculiar people. I understand why some find it offensive that a department of government classifies us as something other than “Christian” when many of us are deeply convinced that we are sincere followers of Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless, there are aspects of our beliefs other Christians find (sometimes jarringly) different. So while I may disagree with this classification, there is a significant internal voice that embraces the “peculiar people” side of our identity. I’m hard-pressed to understand why this development should be viewed in a purely negative light. Our very peculiarity is a major reason many choose to investigate and join us.

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Are Mormons Christian?

Yes. Mormons, more properly referred to as Latter-day Saints or members of The Church 
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, unequivocally affirm themselves to be Christian, 
or in other words, followers of Jesus Christ.

https://faq.churchofjesuschrist.org/are-mormons-christian

I agree Mormons believe they are Christian’s..and I believe they are. Problem is that one has to convince others that Mormons are Christian. Mormon leaders are on record throughout church history being dishonest so why should anyone believe what they say… esp when access to the temple is restricted.. who the heck really knows what goes on in there lol? 

[Notatbm]

35 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

For what it’s worth (admittedly not much) my reaction to this kerfuffle is that it tends to confirm that the Church and its members are viewed as peculiar people. I understand why some find it offensive that a department of government classifies us as something other than “Christian” when many of us are deeply convinced that we are sincere followers of Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless, there are aspects of our beliefs other Christians find (sometimes jarringly) different. So while I may disagree with this classification, there is a significant internal voice that embraces the “peculiar people” side of our identity. I’m hard-pressed to understand why this development should be viewed in a purely negative light. Our very peculiarity is a major reason many choose to investigate and join us.

Definitely a peculiar people. Also within the DOD one will find high ranking chaplains who have zero use for Mormons. They are probably partially responsible for how this list was constructed. 
 

 

 

[bsjkki]

People and other faiths can believe what they will but please don’t tell me what I believe. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

t is identical to what I would be doing if I simply used the term Mormon to refer to all the branches that have sprung up of the followers of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

What do you call all those who claim to follow Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon?

And what do you do if a Fundamentalist identifies as an Evangelical, wants to included under the Evangelical umbrella and gets offended when you call them a Fundamentalist (since Fundamentalist is sometimes used a a derogatory label from what I have seen).

Serious question.  I try and be respectful by calling people what they choose to called in most cases, but I try to be accurate as well and will typically add qualifiers to more global terms to differentiate.

I ask these questions not to question your beliefs or nomenclature because I do believe Fundamentalists should be differentiated from others who do not share their world view as I do believe LDS should be differentiated from FLDS.  I am trying to figure out the most respectful, effective, and accurate way to do so.

Edited Sunday at 06:55 PM by Calm

[Tacenda]

20 hours ago, Buckeye said:

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. 
 

Spot on! And this is probably part of the plan in Project 2025. I'm glad the LDS aren't included in their list.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Spot on! And this is probably part of the plan in Project 2025. I'm glad the LDS aren't included in their list.

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

Certainly gives the impression that a faith has to have lots of members to be seen as important enough to pay attention to, imo. 

Edited Sunday at 08:32 PM by Calm

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

What do you call all those who claim to follow Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon?

And what do you do if a Fundamentalist identifies as an Evangelical, wants to included under the Evangelical umbrella and gets offended when you call them a Fundamentalist (since Fundamentalist is sometimes used a a derogatory label from what I have seen).

Serious question.  I try and be respectful by calling people what they choose to called in most cases, but I try to be accurate as well and will typically add qualifiers to more global terms to differentiate.

I ask these questions not to question your beliefs or nomenclature because I do believe Fundamentalists should be differentiated from others who do not share their world view as I do believe LDS should be differentiated from FLDS.  I am trying to figure out the most respectful, effective, and accurate way to do so.

I call them by their specific denominational affiliation, whether that is FLDS, Community of Christ, Church of the Fullness of Times, or whatever. My exception for that might be the LeBarons. They seem to prefer being members of the LeBaron community, which does not denote church affiliation. Many LeBarons are simply not religious. They may also be pentecostal, or Catholic.

Fundamentalist does not designate a religious affiliation, church, or denomination. Again, I would call them by whatever church group to which they belong. Then I might dig deeper and name them by their theological position within Christianity if there was a reason to do so. For example, I am first and foremost a Christian; second, I am an Evangelical by orthodoxy and by orthopraxis within Christianity; and third and finally, I am a Mennonite by church affiliation and identity. Call me any one of the three, and I am fine. Someone can be Mainstream, Fundamentalist, or Evangelical within most Christian denominations and groups. Of course, this varies by denomination. I would suggest that all three exist within the membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I know, especially within MHA, those who I would identify as each of the three. They might do so as well. The three classifications are entirely different from denominational classifications. There are all three within the Mennonite Church for sure. To further muddy the waters, there are conferences within Mennonitism with which individual Mennonites belong. Sometimes conference ID is stronger than denominational ID. I grew up within the Franconia Conference of the Mennonite Church USA. the designation Mennonite Church USA no longer exists. the Franconia Conference does. 

The term Mormon has become ubiquitous for followers of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I am not sure if that will ever change, especially in places like Chihuahua. As  my Catholic friend, 3DOP indicated a few posts above, fundamentalism is, in some areas and times, a badge of honor. People would be proud of that appellation to this day. Many have migrated from Fundamentalism to Evangelicalism (capital E). They probably would be uncomfortable with the Fundamentalist label. It is most likely rare to see someone go in the reverse unless they are attached to a particular pastor, a concept that may be foreign to my LDS friends.. 

I don't know if any of that helps or not. I have been affiliated with MHA for years. I have sat next to general authorities at their events and next to Mrs. Tanner. I have sat next to a Franciscan priest, and next to an excommunicated member of the LDS church there. MHA is a real melting pot. . . a very interesting place. 

Edited Sunday at 10:09 PM by Navidad

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

Of course it happens. There is no denying that. There is also no point in using a broad brush to identify those who are well-known for identifying themselves by what they are against, not by what they are for. It bullies and regurgitates (especially the latter) when my LDS friends simply identify anti-Mormonism with a broad brush (Evangelicals) that shows little understanding of the differences in conservative Christianity since the beginning of the twentieth century. The 1890s through the 1920s was a tumultuous time in LDS doctrine and history. Ditto for non-LDS Christianity in the USA. 

It is identical to what I would be doing if I simply used the term Mormon to refer to all the branches that have sprung up of the followers of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I imagine you would not be pleased with me if I continually attributed the actions of the FLDS to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with no recognition of the significant differences. I teach people not to do that on the non-LDS Christian side of the debate. However, it appears that no one on the LDS side of the debate is teaching the significant differences between non-LDS Christianity. It goes back to previous discussions on this forum about how the LDS seem reasonably disinterested in learning about other faiths. That is a generalization, but it may be one that holds water (an old Mennonite saying). Evangelicals split from Fundamentalists. There is no denying that. Even my keyboard doesn't recognize the difference! It refuses to allow me to type  Fundamentalist with a capital F! It points out that it should be a small f! Hogwarts! Errr......Hogwash!    Baloney! Fundamentalism is a distinct grouping within both LDS and non-LDS Christianity.

There is indeed a spectrum among the Evangelical community as there is among the LDS community. But more important is the differences between different kinds of Mormons and between different kinds of non-LDS Christianity. Take care and very best wishes. 

I hope no one has implied that all evangelicals are anti-Mormon. I didn’t say that because I don’t believe it’s true.

But what is true is that most of my personal anti-Mormon experiences have been at the hands of people who identify themselves as evangelical.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I hope no one has implied that all evangelicals are anti-Mormon. I didn’t say that because I don’t believe it’s true.

But what is true is that most of my personal anti-Mormon experiences have been at the hands of people who identify themselves as evangelical.

Fair enough. Maybe I should simply disclose that "But what is true is that most of my personal anti-non-LDS Christian experiences have been at the hands of people who identify themselves as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  I am thinking a lot about true, truth, truthfully, and truthing right now. It is a wonderful discussion if only so far in my own mind. I am seeing truth more and more as a journey: A path we walk not a possession we own.  Somehow I think that is important in discussions like these. Take care. 

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Fair enough. Maybe I should simply disclose that "But what is true is that most of my personal anti-non-LDS Christian experiences have been at the hands of people who identify themselves as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  I am thinking a lot about true, truth, truthfully, and truthing right now. It is a wonderful discussion if only so far in my own mind. I am seeing truth more and more as a journey: A path we walk not a possession we own.  Somehow I think that is important in discussions like these. Take care. 

We are taught not to be that way but individuals certainly can offend. My Catholic step family felt very excluded when living in Utah in the ‘80’s. I do appreciate talks that talk about not being that way. 
 

In general, we don’t preach against other faiths from the pulpit. I am grateful for that. We generally don’t target other faiths but do focus on our own beliefs. Some of our doctrine of being the one true faith with authority can be offensive to others…but they also think they are right. 
 

I was sensitive to a certain ‘superiority’ or judginess found in some LDS people and was sensitive to that with my non-member family. I find  it particularly egregious as people hold those not of our faith to our standards. 
 

 

[MiserereNobis]

Why are Jehovah's Witnesses on the list? They don't serve in the military.

[Navidad]

16 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

In general, we don’t preach against other faiths from the pulpit. I am grateful for that. We generally don’t target other faiths but do focus on our own beliefs.

Thanks for your good spirit. I would simply suggest that you have not heard some of the sacrament talks that my wife and I have heard over six years in a ward every Sunday, with us sitting right there as if we are invisible. Maybe that's it, as non-investigators, we were invisible. Anyway, I am tired and discouraged. It is not a good time for me to be stressing over who does or says what to whom and how many Fundamentalists (or Evangelicals - sorry) can dance (oh no!) on the head of a pin!

I am sorry for each of us who have suffered soul wounds by the words, beliefs, and "truths" of the other. Maybe even our parents and grandparents suffered the wounds and they have come down to us epigenetically. Whatever, when our doctrines are not kind, it is hard to see them as truth, whoever holds them, especially since kindness is a fruit of the Spirit.  I will sign off for now. I need to go check on my sweet and kind wife. Navidad 

[Navidad]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why are Jehovah's Witnesses on the list? They don't serve in the military.

I really didn't look that closely at the list. Are Anabaptists (Mennonites, Brethren, and Amish) on the list?

[MiserereNobis]

11 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I really didn't look that closely at the list. Are Anabaptists (Mennonites, Brethren, and Amish) on the list?

 

Brethren are there:

Quote

• Agnostic (AN)
• Baha'i faith (BH)
• Buddhism (BU)
• Christian - Assemblies of God (AG)
• Christian - Baptist (BA)
• Christian - Brethren (BR)
• Christian - Catholic (CA)
• Christian - Church of Christ (CC)
• Christian - Church of God (CG)
• Christian - Church of the Nazarene (CN)
• Christian - Episcopal/Anglican (EA)
• Christian - Evangelical (EV)
• Christian - Jehovah's Witnesses (JW)
• Christian - Lutheran (LU)
• Christian - Methodist (ME)
• Christian - Non Denominational (ND)
• Christian - Orthodox (OX)
• Christian - Other (CO)
• Christian - Pentecostal (PE)
• Christian - Presbyterian (PR)
• Christian - Quaker (QU)
• Christian - Reformed (RE)
• Christian - Scientist (SC)
• Christian - Seventh Day Adventist (SA)
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (CJ)
• Hindu (HI)
• Islam (Muslim) (IS)
• Judaism (Jewish) (JU)
• No Religion (NR)
• Other Religions (OR)
• Sikh (SI)