Mormons not Christian (according to new military list)

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

Goggle’s AI came up with this, but the source didn’t refer to it, so need to see if there is an actual source:

• Conscientious Objector Status: The military officially recognizes various faith-based stances on warfare. The records help identify individuals who hold sincere religious objections to combat, allowing them to request non-combatant duties or honorable discharge. [1, 2]
• Prior Service Converts: Some individuals enlist in the military before converting to the faith. When they formally become Jehovah's Witnesses, their military records are updated to reflect their new religious affiliation. [1]
• Veterans and Benefits: The military maintains records of all past and present service members, including their religious preferences, to determine eligibility for military benefits, pensions, and specialized chaplain care during and after their service. [1, 2]

[Calm]

JW would be requesting discharge surely since they don’t serve in supporting military either, such as other pacifists might, so it still seems unnecessary because easily handled on a case by case basis….except perhaps veteran’s benefits, but would there be that many and do they use the same list.  Are chaplains assigned to veteran programs based on adherents involved?

Edited yesterday at 01:28 AM by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Goggle’s AI came up with this, but the source didn’t refer to it, so need to see if there is an actual source:

 

• Conscientious Objector Status: The military officially recognizes various faith-based stances on warfare. The records help identify individuals who hold sincere religious objections to combat, allowing them to request non-combatant duties or honorable discharge. [1, 2]
• Prior Service Converts: Some individuals enlist in the military before converting to the faith. When they formally become Jehovah's Witnesses, their military records are updated to reflect their new religious affiliation. [1]
• Veterans and Benefits: The military maintains records of all past and present service members, including their religious preferences, to determine eligibility for military benefits, pensions, and specialized chaplain care during and after their service. [1, 2]

I can't imagine they would stay in the military when they convert. And I can't imagine the military would allow someone to stay who, even if they are a non-combatant, wouldn't salute, say the pledge, sing the national anthem, attend patriotic services, etc.

[MorningStar]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

I had that same question. Maybe some of them still do, but they aren't allowed to be chaplains, so who is supposed to give them spiritual support? 

[Notatbm]

“And although 54% of Mormons feel positively toward evangelical Christians, the feelings are not reciprocal: 15% of born-again or evangelical Protestants feel positively toward Mormons, compared with 27% who express negative views.”

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2023/03/PF_2023.03.15_religion-favorability_REPORT.pdf

I guess PEW  saw this one coming. 
 

 

 

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, MorningStar said:

I had that same question. Maybe some of them still do, but they aren't allowed to be chaplains, so who is supposed to give them spiritual support? 

There are some JW in the military. They are just the JW version of an exmo. A JW getting shunned by their church is orders of magnitude worse than getting shunned by Mormons. JW are ruthless. 
 

it’s kinda like being a Mormon, blowing off a mission and joining the army to kill people and break things. Definitely not an honorable excusal from missionary service, your parents are all renting their garments and gnashing their teeth over it and therefore -bad mormon

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

it’s kinda like being a Mormon, blowing off a mission and joining the army to kill people and break things. Definitely not an honorable excusal from missionary service, your parents are all renting their garments and gnashing their teeth over it and therefore -bad mormon

I know a couple of LDS kids from active families who chose military instead of missions and their parents were proud of them.  My grandson was seriously thinking about it as his aunt is in the military.  No one rented garments in our house or his (what a waste of money).

We know quite a few older members who went military instead of missions.  No one in the ward cares as far as I can tell, we like them as much as return missionaries.

Not saying it doesn’t happen, but not as much as you seem to be claiming.

Edited yesterday at 04:01 AM by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

Again, I would call them by whatever church group to which they belong

My experience online is a lot of critics (those who come to attack, not understand) don’t want to share that info.  The only information they might share is evangelical (from what you have said, they may be misunderstanding what it means or even trying to avoid criticism that often comes with the label of fundamentalist).  My guess is because they don’t want criticism turned on them for their beliefs.  If they are there to share their beliefs, they often mention their background pretty quickly, which is always nice imo as it helps fill in a broad framework so I don’t need to bug them as much to feel like I have something to remember them by.

Maybe the best option is to use Protestant when it’s pretty clear they are Christian, but not Catholic, Orthodox, or another Restorationist faith, but as someone who used to get labeled Protestant in the distant past before they started offering “other”, that just doesn’t seem right.

Edited yesterday at 04:32 AM by Calm

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I know a couple of LDS kids from active families who chose military instead of missions and their parents were proud of them.  My grandson was seriously thinking about it as his aunt is in the military.  No one rented garments in our house or his (what a waste of money).

We know quite a few older members who went military instead of missions.  No one in the ward cares as far as I can tell, we like them as much as return missionaries.

Not saying it doesn’t happen, but not as much as you seem to be claiming.

I joined about 40 yrs ago.. right in the middle of the new mission push started by kimball in 1978 ish?? Anyway our stake had over 40 -50 ish missionaries out and it was a literal competition between wards to have the most missionaries out. My father was the stake pres and I went in the military. Salt lake even got involved in the fray because parents here complained that the Sp kid didn’t  have to go but they have to empty their savings so their own kid can go to Brazil or wherever. It was a freaking disaster of epic proportions.I can go on but I know you don’t believe me. 
 

my parents never forgave me for the humiliation of having an apostate kid… yep I was an apostate for not going on a mission. My military service was not looked upon as honorable simply for the fact I didn’t go on a mission first.
 

Even the church maintains the policy today that I was not honorable excused from missionary service. That goes for anyone who doesn’t go on a mission unless the brethren “honorably excused” them. That is church policy. 
 

believe it or not there are some serious psycho Mormon parents out there. I have a bunch in my ward last time I went. They just keep the screaming and yelling at home and act all TBM at church. No kid is gonna mess up the perfect Mormon family track record of eagles and missions. You know those people are out there. 
 

the eagles thing dates me, but that was all the rage. No eagle, no mission = faithless loser not worth marrying

 

your older members who didn’t go on missions?? What is older? Ww2, Korea, Vietnam?? Well the church didn’t expect them to serve missions. It is different now. Missions are mandatory 

Edited yesterday at 05:03 AM by Notatbm

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

can go on but I know you don’t believe me. 

You might want to reread what I said….as in the last line, which you quoted.

Edited yesterday at 05:10 AM by Calm

[Notatbm]

54 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

know a couple of LDS kids from active families who chose military instead of missions and their parents were proud of them.

Did the parents get up in fast testimony meeting and say how proud they are that their kiddo is disobeying the Lord? If not, then  are they really proud? 
 

I wish I grew up wherever you are or were at … ok maybe not if it’s Utah but not going on a mission here was and remains a social death sentence. I can’t name a single family in my ward who would openly admit they are proud their kid didn’t go on a mission. 

[BlueDreams]

16 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. 

Other's have answered you and I don't have much time. I don't know If I would have much to add to what's mentioned. 

As pointed out, no one here has assumed all evangelicals are culpable for the negative experiences of some. But there are evangelicals that absolutely do mislead and gate keep around LDS and other communities they see as false. And it's not a microscopic number. If you continually confuse the FLDS with the CoJCoLDS as one and the same (which people do at least on the polygamy part) that would be a very microscopic number to do so with (they're a group of 3-10K at the moment). It would be more like if I was insisting the westboro group rep'd baptists. Very few do that. When you make the comparison, it diminishes and dismisses very common experiences as latter-day saints that show up in data and many of our lived experiences. I know you're not meaning to, I know we're likely rubbing up against your pet peeves and wounds as you are inadvertently doing the same. But this is how I'm experiencing these posts, nonetheless.

When one gets deep into the technicalities of language and labels, one can lose track of the common meaning and experience of lay people in everyday circumstances. People don't usually split hairs on the labels as you do here in regular conversation. Most don't have a historical background to parse their exact doctrinal heritage and pastoral traditions of their current church home/religious persuasion to a specific time or place. There's polls and stats that point to that growing as a trend as "evangelical" has become more and more a political identity marker in the US. For example when I talked to my brother a year or so after he converted to a more mainstream christian faith, he couldn't tell me much more than that he was in a "non-denominational" church that had an affinity to "churches in africa" (note: he lives in TX) and leaned more conservative from what I could gather. But he didn't know the meaning or heritage of many non-denom faiths. I know him well enough to know he couldn't tell you squat about the religious era around 1890-1920. I couldn't either, TBF. And none of that changed one of the most uncomfortable and insulting wedding toasts I've ever witnessed by his (likely autististic and at the time definitely undiagnosed) BIL towards the mormons in the room. I don't think that said brother is representative of all protestant faiths. I don't think he's representative of all evangelicals out there. But it doesn't change the fact that what he said were very common themes I've heard over and over again in different ways. Including from my brother as he painfully (mainly for him) informed me I would be going to hell in he new conversion fervor, before I dissuaded him of that fairly quickly. 

 Instead of the FLDS to LDS confusion, it may be more accurate to picture evangelicals as living in a spectrum of beliefs and practices and cultural contexts that inform their approach to the gospel. Some are more conservative or even fundamentalist leaning, many are more mainstream, some are very liberal in their expressions (such as yourself). The ones that have more problems with me as a member have definitely been more conservative or mainstream. Online when I was younger especially, many were likely fundamentalist too. But I don't question the labels they give me to ID themselves.  

Lastly, you have been living as a minority in a small largely rural traditionally isolated LDS community. They are deeply intriguing. But they have many of the trappings common in said communities: More gate keeping, more black and white constructs, more adherence to traditional practice, more aversion to change. They're also a unique minority within the LDS faith. They, ironically, may be a better example of what you're trying to describe here by presuming that how they practice and interpret the faith is a universal construct. It's a common misconception that often is bred by those who fit these categories being particularly confident in their positions as basically gospel-truth rather than a possible gospel-expression.  Assuming their beliefs are the church as a whole is bound to run into problems. 

Personally, I will continue to maintain space for a variation of evangelical and protestant responses to my faith. Just as I need to maintain space for a variety of ways to be a latter-day saint. It's not too hard to when I've seen examples of that. But I will also likely use the labels they've given me when I met them. And that has included the evangelical one fairly often. 

Edited yesterday at 06:31 AM by BlueDreams

[Notatbm]

My take on this is that the various religions were grouped as “Christian“ since most any Christian denominated chaplain can minister to those particular religions, such as communion, sacrament, blessings, baptism etc.

If one looks at the last four or five religions on the list,  each one of them are of the persuasion that allows no ministers from outside their faith to participate in or officiate over ordinances in their respective religion.

In the case of Mormons, they do not recognize any faith’s communion, sacraments, blessings, baptisms, etc. so why would a chaplain from another faith be assigned to minister to any Mormon for any religious purpose?

That said my guess is that the last four or five religions on that list will have their own chaplains assigned to them since they don’t recognize anybody else as having any kind of authority. We will see what actually happens, but that is my hypothesis right now.

it appears to me to be a streamlined tool to determine where to allocate different chaplains according to the overall numbers of particular members on each base or installation to make sure each denomination has its needs met. For example, a base having members of any or all of the listed “Christian” religions can be assigned any “Christian” chaplain. 
 

At this time, most military installations do not have any LDS chaplains. The members go to local family awards off the base. This being the case, it has taken demand away from the chaplain core of the military for LDS chaplains because we don’t recognize any of these chaplains unless they’re are Mormon. Since Mormons are not beating down the door of the chaplains offices, it would appear lds chaplains are not needed so we’ve kind of created this problem ourselves. 

Edited 16 hours ago by Notatbm

[MorningStar]

12 hours ago, Notatbm said:

There are some JW in the military. They are just the JW version of an exmo. A JW getting shunned by their church is orders of magnitude worse than getting shunned by Mormons. JW are ruthless. 
 

it’s kinda like being a Mormon, blowing off a mission and joining the army to kill people and break things. Definitely not an honorable excusal from missionary service, your parents are all renting their garments and gnashing their teeth over it and therefore -bad mormon

My son joined the Army instead of going on a mission and I was still proud of him.

Anyway, I realize that some military would be ex JW and in that case, wouldn’t they want spritual support from some other faith? 

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

JW would be requesting discharge surely since they don’t serve in supporting military either, such as other pacifists might, so it still seems unnecessary because easily handled on a case by case basis….except perhaps veteran’s benefits, but would there be that many and do they use the same list.  Are chaplains assigned to veteran programs based on adherents involved?

You generally can’t get out of military service via conversion. In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses specifically the church won’t begin the formal conversion process for anyone serving in the military.

There is currently a way out of the US military though. Get prescribed testosterone or estrogen for dysphoria and they will let you and/or force you to leave. I know of about four people who were delaying a diagnosis due to serving in the military or the reserves that were planning to finish their time before transitioning that took the diagnosis to leave early. Avoiding the potential of being sent to the current conflict zones is a strong incentive. I also know one guy who was already transitioned who was pushed out due to the rule change. He mostly wanted to stay but was frustrated as his promotion opportunities were being sabotaged due to bigotry.

[bsjkki]

Update! 

 

[Stargazer]

On 6/6/2026 at 2:52 PM, Nofear said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2026/06/06/lds-church-left-off-defense/

Jehovah Witnesses made the list as Christian - [item]
Latter-day Saints are listed as a separate category.

How do the Jehovah's Witnesses even make the list? JW's don't believe in serving in the military. Any JW in the military is in violation of their faith and are most likely disfellowshipped -- and for that reason there can be no JW chaplains, either, since their leadership would never certify a chaplain in their faith.

I served in the US Army from 1975 to 1983. In my first assignment, with the 2nd Battalion 39th Infantry in the 9th Infantry Division at Ft. Lewis, one of my platoon members wanted to convert to Jehovah's Witness. The JWs wouldn't let him be baptized while he was still a member of the Army, so he sought a discharge as a conscientious objector. The Army gave him a hard time about it, but after several months of hard work he finally succeeded. I think they gave him a "General Discharge under Honorable Conditions." He could have just waited another 2 years until his enlistment was up, but he was quite serious about the principle of the thing. 

 

[Notatbm]

48 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

My son joined the Army instead of going on a mission and I was still proud of him.

Im glad for both you and your son and wish more were like that. Of course if more were....there would be less kids going on missions knowing they are not going to get a bashing from their family.

There are many out there who cannot say the same. I had the opportunity to learn of many of their stories while serving. While there are not a ton of Mormons who join up before/instead of going on a mission; of those who do, many experience shunning and disappointment from their family and church leaders. My story is not unique. These parents and Bishops are out there...I had both and I know many others who did as well. 

Do you remember the kid who got dumped off in Zions natl park over deciding overnight he wasnt going on a mission?? Parents abandoned him there. My parents would have dont the same thing and there are other mormons out there who will defend that kind of behavior.

https://www.ldsliving.com/our-take-on-the-family-leaving-their-son-at-bryce-canyon-controversy-why-we-need-to-act-mormon-even-online/s/85950

48 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

Anyway, I realize that some military would be ex JW and in that case, wouldn’t they want spritual support from some other faith? 

I didn't say they wouldn't want support- I said there are JW in the military. I'd think if they wanted some kind of support, they would ask. In my experience, unless you ask no one is going to come around ministering to you.

[Stargazer]

On 6/6/2026 at 7:46 PM, InCognitus said:

Maybe the issue is much more basic than we are making it out to be. 

Is it possible that some short-sighted software designer created the new database with a limit of only 50 characters for the name of each religion?  There just isn't enough room to fit "Christian" in front of "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (CJ)".  Besides, Jesus Christ is already part of the name, and fortunately the abbreviation code accounts for that as well (i.e. CJ = Church [of] Jesus).  I think that's better.

As a software developer I can tell you this is not how it works. In a relational database, an indexed code (e.g. "CJ") would be used in the service member's personnel record, and that code would point at a separate table containing the list of faith codes, as values. And a competent database designer would make the max length of the value column long enough to accommodate the longest expected value.

It is a waste of database space to write the full name of each faith in every single servicemember's record. And it violates important principles of database design.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, MorningStar said:

My son joined the Army instead of going on a mission and I was still proud of him.

Anyway, I realize that some military would be ex JW and in that case, wouldn’t they want spritual support from some other faith? 

In a couple of my previous wards that had quite a few young men serving, they would put a plaque up with their military picture, information, and favorite scripture and display them along with the other missionary plaques.  

[Buckeye]

41 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Update! 

 

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/

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

For example, a base having members of any or all of the listed “Christian” religions can be assigned any “Christian” chaplain. 

This isn’t true. Catholics and Protestants aren’t interchangeable when it comes to sacraments and authority. We generally view their sacraments as invalid and they are generally barred from ours. 

[manol]

Imo this controversy is not a bad thing.

My guess is that there are people whose minds are not closed on the topic who will make some effort to reach their own conclusion as to whether the LDS Church is a Christian church or not.  And I think that will work to the Church's benefit. 

[Notatbm]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In a couple of my previous wards that had quite a few young men serving, they would put a plaque up with their military picture, information, and favorite scripture and display them along with the other missionary plaques.  

Yea I have seen that before too. Usually it was people doing simultaneous service ie military, leave of absence, mission, come back to military usually reservists and guard, not active duty. In fact that is all of the cases I have seen before. Typically it is where the guy had to wait till he was 19 to serve a mission so went to boot camp while he was 18. With the age change I bet that activity has tapered off quite a bit. Not the same as blowing off a mission completely.

I'm in Gilbert az and have never seen that here other than missionary plaques. In fact in the nearly ten years I have been in this ward (im in the stake canter when i did attend) we have had zero enlistees into the military other than one girl who is a lesbian...thats what her parent who is a friend of ours said. 

Anyway not here to debate whether the church approves of ditching a mission or not. We all know the church absolutely does not approve. Is the stake pres where you are at smart for allowing them to put pictures up of military members who refuse to serve a mission?? Sure I suppose. Not sure what good it does if the military member isnt around to see it, but at least they probably know it is there and that we don't completely hate you for being a disobedient soul. Of course they can also go on a mission and have like what?? a 40-50% chance of leaving the church anyway... 

Yea the stake im in now, others I have been in and the one I grew up in def would never do that. In my family wards I was in while on active duty they didn't do that. Maybe with new stake pres they would. I suppose we'd have to get kids to join up first so we can find out. Prob have to wait a while around here for that.

[Stargazer]

On 6/6/2026 at 10:33 PM, Calm said:

How is religious liberty and practice helped by making so many religions invisible?

Partly because some religions are invisible in the military. Among the reasons for dropping some of the classifications was because virtually no-one adhering to such faiths were serving. One of the faith codes eliminated was "Atheist." But how would the Army provide religious support for atheists, anyway? Another issue is that men and women are appointed as military chaplains by recommendation from the religious organization in question. Good luck finding a religious organization that can provide a recommendation for an atheist chaplain. Or a humanist chaplain. 

On 6/6/2026 at 10:33 PM, Calm said:

They also contrasted it with the previous Trump administration, implying imo that Trump is just letting Hegseth do what he wants.

That's how leaders are supposed to operate -> they appoint delegates and trust them to operate reasonably. Is it the President's job to have his nose in every aspect of the executive department? I hope not, because if he's micromanaging details like this then he's not paying enough attention to things of much greater importance. And when I was in the Army as a sergeant, it was extremely annoying to have the company or battalion commander get all up in my day-to-day business as a squad leader.