Mormons not Christian (according to new military list)

[smac97]

.

Edited 12 hours ago by smac97

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, I did read that. It's quite international, too -- even has associated churches in Poland! Some here are very suspicious of this body because the US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, belongs to an associated church of this body.

Its very interesting. There is a conception out there among many friends of mine that the world as a whole, including Christianity is becoming more secular. less religious, increasingly skeptical. At the same time we see groups like this one growing like mad. They are representing a return to a much more strident version of reformed theology mixed with Orthodox, Catholic, and yes, Fundamentalist leanings. I sometimes wonder if, while some are becoming more secular, there isn't also a counter movement to becoming more conservative, especially in doctrine, creedalism, and a blend of religion and political rigidity. I believe that Fundamentalism is finding a new voice and role after reeling since the late 1950s. They are finding this in the Reformed church movement, a highly orthodox version of formalized Presbyterianism. 

Edited 11 hours ago by Navidad

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, Notatbm said:

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. 

Oh, please. Show me where this policy exists. 

Well, you can't, because it doesn't. I've been a member of the church since age 14, when I finally got my father's permission, and while I know that some families were shortsighted about this (like yours -- good grief what was wrong with those people?), there was not and there still is no such church policy. Did you know that neither President Nelson nor President Oaks served missions? And the reason why President Oaks didn't serve was because he was in the Utah National Guard and had been alerted to serve in the Korean War. Though his unit was not activated in the end.

 

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

When I went before my E-5 promotion board, one of the staff sergeants on the board voted against my promotion. He was the one who questioned whether I, as a Mormon, could perform in combat (I was an infantryman) because of my faith. I was unprepared for the question because I didn't think my religion was going to come into play, so I told him that it wouldn't be a problem at all. If I had thought it would come into play, then I would have researched to find the ten LDS members who had been awarded the Medal of Honor:

1. PVT Thomas C. Neibaur - WWI - USArmy 
2. CAPT Mervyn S. Bennion - WW2 - USN - Pearl Harbor, Captain of the USS West Virginia
3. PVT Nathan “Junior” Van Noy - WW2 - 
4. LTC Edward S. Michael - WW2 - USAAC
5. PFC Leonard C. Brostrom - WW2 - USArmy
6. PhM2 George E. Wahlen - WW2 - USN - Later joined the US Army and served in both Korea and Vietnam.
7. SGT David B. Bleak - Korea - USArmy
8. MAJ Bernard F. Fisher - Vietnam - USAF
9. CPL Larry L. Maxam - Vietnam - USMC
10. PFC Sammy L. Davis - Vietnam - USArmy - Footage of his award ceremony was used in the 1995 film “Forrest Gump,” with actor Tom Hanks’ head superimposed over that of Davis.

Of the ten, LTC Michael and PFC Davis joined the Church after their wartime service.

I bet telling the board you are MOH material because you were Mormon would have resulted in a dq and the most brutal smoke session of your life.

I suppose the kind of infantry unit you were in vs the kind I was in made it possible for you to even think you could say such a thing. That would never ever cross my mind to place myself in the same category as an MOH recipient. And don’t know about you but I’ve been in combat a few times and as bad as it was I can’t imagine it being that bad and I took a trip on a litter bird to the states over my last combat encounter. 

So did they promote you? Even though you are Mormon? 
 

I’ve never heard of such a thing being said in a promotion board but I believe it. Like I said Mormons have zero cachet in the army.
 

The units I was in had prop blast for officers. Legalized hazing with tons of pt and alcohol. I understand they removed the alcohol component years ago over a death but anyway… yea it’s a bit uncomfy for Mormons there. 

i never really ran into a problem after infantry school because I sanitized my tags at ranger joes on Bragg blvd… they said NO PREF or some such thing till i went to my commissioning source several years later. 

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thank you for your thoughts on this.  It is my understanding that both Thailand and Egypt have official "state" religions (Theravada Buddhism and Islam, respectively).  Do you think that is a material distinction between how those countries are "Buddhist" and "Muslim," as compared to the U.S., which does not have a state religion?

In a way, no. In the beginning of the Republic, some of the states did have state-endorsed churches, and even allocated government funds towards them.

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For my part, though, labeling a country as a "[Predominant Religion] nation" (e.g., “Christian nation,” “Muslim country,” “Hindu nation”) is still reasonable and useful when used as a cultural, demographic, or sociological descriptor, and not necessarily because it has a state religion.  Religion often shapes a country’s culture, laws, holidays, social norms, values, and identity even without an official state religion.  It reflects statistical reality (e.g., the U.S. is ~65–70% Christian; Indonesia is ~87% Muslim).  People use this shorthand all the time in everyday conversation, journalism, and scholarship because it conveys meaningful information quickly.

Yes, the US is culturally Christian, even if has no state church, and even if a good proportion of its people don't claim to be "believers." The thing is, the country was founded by Christians (and a few Deists), and both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are based in Christian values. 

One of the early laws, the Northwest Ordinance, encouraged education, stipulating that "Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." In including "religion" they most certainly meant Christianity. 

When the non-religious of the US express their opinions about morality, that morality almost always has roots in Christian principles. So when someone attempts to tell me that the country isn't Christian, I tend to disagree.

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have struggled quite a bit with the concept of "Christian Nationalism."

Yeah, me too. The problem with this is that the term is used, like "Fascism," more as a way to denigrate than to inform.

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

On the one hand, "Christian Nationalism" is currently a highly polarized and often weaponized term. In much of the media and academic discourse, it is frequently used as a broad brush to smear any Christian who believes faith should have a public voice or that the country has a Christian cultural heritage. This rhetorical move can feel like an attack on Christianity itself.

That is my feeling, too.

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

On the other hand, Some versions of Christian Nationalism appear to go beyond cultural recognition and advocate for a more formal, privileged relationship between (a particular kind of) Christianity and the state. This raises legitimate worries for us as Latter-day Saints, as well as other groups:

• It can undermine the pluralistic religious liberty that has allowed the Church to thrive in the United States.
• Many proponents of stronger forms of Christian Nationalism view Latter-day Saints as outside the bounds of "orthodox Christianity" (sometimes explicitly). Historically, this has led to exclusionary attitudes.
• Restoration doctrine strongly emphasizes agency, the U.S. Constitution as inspired, and the principle that God does not force belief or establish one church by state power (D&C 134 is particularly relevant here).

I think that's right.  That's likely what caused the "ballooning."

Agreed.

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Way back in the day (August 1991), I went to Army Basic Training at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri.  The first Sunday I was there, before training began, all the recruits were gathered into a large room.  A sergeant stood up and said something like this: "Okay, we are splitting y'all up for religious services.  Everyone who does not want to attend any services, stay in this room.  For the rest of you, Catholics, stand up!  You go into Room 105.  Any Muslims?  You go to Room 101.  Any Hindus?  No?  Buddhists?  No?  Okay.  How about Jews?  Y'all go into Room 102.  Protestants, all y'all stand up and go into Room 104.  (Beat.)  Okay, any Mormons?  Stand up!  {Five or so of us did.}  I know y'all aren't Protestant, but we don't have a room for you, so you all go in with the Protestants into Room 104."

So I went in to Room 104 and attended a generic "Protestant" service.  A preacher in a black robe was in charge.  He started out fairly quiet and measured, but his sermon fairly quickly became loud, even thunderous.  As in pulpit-thumping, shouting, pacing back and forth, interspersing the sermon with an occasional "Can I have an amen?," and so on.  Then we all stood and clapped and sang "This is the Day."   Quite different from the regular Latter-day Saint services I had attended in my childhood.

By the next Sunday we had started training, so I was able to go to Latter-day Saint services.  I had to catch an on-base cab, which drove me a few miles over to a quonset hut where the services were held.  The services were much more familiar, and quite brief.

My Basic Training took place in 1975, but pretty much the same thing. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It isn't? Au contraire, mon amis. With 65% Christian, the US is a Christian nation, just like Thailand is a Buddhist nation, and Egypt is a Muslim nation.  

Thank you for your thoughts on this.  It is my understanding that both Thailand and Egypt have official "state" religions (Theravada Buddhism and Islam, respectively).  Do you think that is a material distinction between how those countries are "Buddhist" and "Muslim," as compared to the U.S., which does not have a state religion?

For my part, though, labeling a country as a "[Predominant Religion] nation" (e.g., “Christian nation,” “Muslim country,” “Hindu nation”) is still reasonable and useful when used as a cultural, demographic, or sociological descriptor, and not necessarily because it has a state religion.  Religion often shapes a country’s culture, laws, holidays, social norms, values, and identity even without an official state religion.  It reflects statistical reality (e.g., the U.S. is ~65–70% Christian; Indonesia is ~87% Muslim).  People use this shorthand all the time in everyday conversation, journalism, and scholarship because it conveys meaningful information quickly.

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I've found that the term "Christian Nationalism" to be pretty much a dog-whistle for anti-Christian. 

I have struggled with the concept of Christian Nationalism.

On the one hand,"Christian Nationalism" is currently a highly polarized and often weaponized term. In much of the media and academic discourse, it is frequently used as a broad brush to smear any Christian who believes faith should have a public voice or that the country has a Christian cultural heritage. This rhetorical move can feel like an attack on Christianity itself.

On the other hand, though, some versions of Christian Nationalism that are being advocated by various Christian groups and individuals do appear to go beyond simple cultural recognition and advocate for a more formal, privileged relationship between (a particular kind of) Christianity and the state. This raises legitimate worries for Latter-day Saints and other groups:

• It can undermine the pluralistic religious liberty that has allowed the Church to thrive in the United States.
• Many proponents of stronger forms of Christian Nationalism view Latter-day Saints as outside the bounds of "orthodox Christianity" (sometimes explicitly). Historically, this has led to exclusionary attitudes.
• Restoration doctrine strongly emphasizes agency, the U.S. Constitution as inspired, and the principle that God does not force belief or establish one church by state power (D&C 134 is particularly relevant here).

There is a legitimate debate happening in the U.S. about whether aggressive secularism has gone too far in pushing religion out of the public square. Many Christians (including some Latter-day Saints) are rightly concerned about that cultural shift.

That said, I think the solution is not to have a formal Christian establishment or "Christian nation" in the legal sense. A healthier approach would, in my view, be:

• Strong protection for religious liberty for all faiths.
• Cultural recognition of America's Christian heritage without legal privilege for one tradition.
• Moral engagement in the public square while respecting pluralism.

I would be interested in hearing from others about these matters.

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And what is this nonsense about "repeatedly publish the list"? As far as I can tell, they published the list once. The previous list, that included over 200 items, was also only published once. The whole purpose of the list is to give the military a better idea of how to support its members' religious preferences. How does including a religion that has virtually no adherents in the military help the military support such adherents? 

The evil Pete Hegseth said the following about all this: "The previous system had ballooned to well over 200 faith codes. … It was impractical and unusable, and many codes were never used at all," Hegseth said in March, adding that 82% of members who identify as religious use only six of the codes.

In my opinion the previous list was so extensive because the touchy-feely types were desperately trying to avoid offending anyone.

It would be interesting to see how the "200 faith codes" came to be.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Notatbm]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Oh, please. Show me where this policy exists. 
 

 

“But as he prays about serving a mission, he should also remember that by receiving the priesthood, he has already accepted the sacred responsibility to “warn, expound, exhort, and teach, and invite all to come unto Christ” (D&C 20:59), including by serving as a full-time missionary. If young men are not able to serve because of poor health or a disability, they are honorably excused.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2012/01/to-the-point/why-is-there-so-much-pressure-on-young-men-to-go-on-a-mission-isnt-it-a-personal-decision?lang=eng

Looks like poor health or disability is the ONLY accepted reason to not serve a full time mission. 

that tells me all other reasons to not serve a mission are by  default “dishonorable.”

 

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, you can't, because it doesn't. I've been a member of the church since age 14, when I finally got my father's permission, and while I know that some families were shortsighted about this (like yours -- good grief what was wrong with those people?), there was not and there still is no such church policy. Did you know that neither President Nelson nor President Oaks served missions? And the reason why President Oaks didn't serve was because he was in the Utah National Guard and had been alerted to serve in the Korean War. Though his unit was not activated in the end.

 

You should remember these old dudes were not required or encouraged to go because we had a war going on. After what late ‘70s it became a commandment of sorts for all young men to serve a mission. Oaks et al are exempted. 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Quote

When I went before my E-5 promotion board, one of the staff sergeants on the board voted against my promotion. He was the one who questioned whether I, as a Mormon, could perform in combat (I was an infantryman) because of my faith. I was unprepared for the question because I didn't think my religion was going to come into play, so I told him that it wouldn't be a problem at all. If I had thought it would come into play, then I would have researched to find the ten LDS members who had been awarded the Medal of Honor:

1. PVT Thomas C. Neibaur - WWI - USArmy 
2. CAPT Mervyn S. Bennion - WW2 - USN - Pearl Harbor, Captain of the USS West Virginia
3. PVT Nathan “Junior” Van Noy - WW2 - 
4. LTC Edward S. Michael - WW2 - USAAC
5. PFC Leonard C. Brostrom - WW2 - USArmy
6. PhM2 George E. Wahlen - WW2 - USN - Later joined the US Army and served in both Korea and Vietnam.
7. SGT David B. Bleak - Korea - USArmy
8. MAJ Bernard F. Fisher - Vietnam - USAF
9. CPL Larry L. Maxam - Vietnam - USMC
10. PFC Sammy L. Davis - Vietnam - USArmy - Footage of his award ceremony was used in the 1995 film “Forrest Gump,” with actor Tom Hanks’ head superimposed over that of Davis.

Of the ten, LTC Michael and PFC Davis joined the Church after their wartime service.

I bet telling the board you are MOH material because you were Mormon would have resulted in a dq and the most brutal smoke session of your life.

I think his point is that he could "perform in combat" as a Latter-day Saint, as tens of thousands have done, with some of them even earning the highest awards for valor in combat.

10 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I suppose the kind of infantry unit you were in vs the kind I was in made it possible for you to even think you could say such a thing. That would never ever cross my mind to place myself in the same category as an MOH recipient.

I don't think he did, or that this was his point.  But I'll let him address it further if he likes.

10 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

And don’t know about you but I’ve been in combat a few times and as bad as it was I can’t imagine it being that bad and I took a trip on a litter bird to the states over my last combat encounter. 

I was never deployed.  I served out my 8-year term in the National Guard, then left.  My old NG company was deployed to, I believe, Afghanistan after 9/11, including the Russian and Chinese sections into which I was slotted (I had attended DLI for Russian before my mission, and served a mission in Taiwan).

10 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

So did they promote you? Even though you are Mormon? 

I’ve never heard of such a thing being said in a promotion board but I believe it. Like I said Mormons have zero cachet in the army.

Could you elaborate on what you mean here?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

When I went before my E-5 promotion board, one of the staff sergeants on the board voted against my promotion. He was the one who questioned whether I, as a Mormon, could perform in combat (I was an infantryman) because of my faith. I was unprepared for the question because I didn't think my religion was going to come into play, so I told him that it wouldn't be a problem at all. If I had thought it would come into play, then I would have researched to find the ten LDS members who had been awarded the Medal of Honor:

1. PVT Thomas C. Neibaur - WWI - USArmy 
2. CAPT Mervyn S. Bennion - WW2 - USN - Pearl Harbor, Captain of the USS West Virginia
3. PVT Nathan “Junior” Van Noy - WW2 - 
4. LTC Edward S. Michael - WW2 - USAAC
5. PFC Leonard C. Brostrom - WW2 - USArmy
6. PhM2 George E. Wahlen - WW2 - USN - Later joined the US Army and served in both Korea and Vietnam.
7. SGT David B. Bleak - Korea - USArmy
8. MAJ Bernard F. Fisher - Vietnam - USAF
9. CPL Larry L. Maxam - Vietnam - USMC
10. PFC Sammy L. Davis - Vietnam - USArmy - Footage of his award ceremony was used in the 1995 film “Forrest Gump,” with actor Tom Hanks’ head superimposed over that of Davis.

Of the ten, LTC Michael and PFC Davis joined the Church after their wartime service.

Interesting tidbit: Captain Bennion's father-in-law was J. Reuben Clark.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Notatbm]

19 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

My Basic Training took place in 1975, but pretty much the same thing. 

I was at benning. In 13 weeks I was able to go twice. The routine was the same except we actually had lds services. There were like five of us the first time… maybe ten the second. That was the service for our bct brigade so about ten trainees out of  guess 3000 or so?? 

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I bet telling the board you are MOH material because you were Mormon would have resulted in a dq and the most brutal smoke session of your life.

Wouldn't have happened because I wouldn't have told them that. Fact is, we were all MOH material. Something I knew but it didn't occur to me to mention was that the then Commandant of the Coast Guard was a Mormon. I suppose that wouldn't have helped my case.

5 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I suppose the kind of infantry unit you were in vs the kind I was in made it possible for you to even think you could say such a thing. That would never ever cross my mind to place myself in the same category as an MOH recipient. And don’t know about you but I’ve been in combat a few times and as bad as it was I can’t imagine it being that bad and I took a trip on a litter bird to the states over my last combat encounter. 

Well, I didn't think of saying such a thing because it didn't enter my head that my religion would even come up. The SSG that asked me the question wasn't what I would call much of a Christian, anyway. He was one of the more venal NCOs in our company, in my opinion. I think he just had a hard-on against Mormons. At the time I was in 2nd BN 39th INF, 9th Inf Div, Ft. Lewis, Washington. Later in 1st BN 11th FA.

I served from 1975 to 1983, and nothing happened during that time that required me to be in combat. In that 8 years I spent 3 years as a mortar crewman, 1 year as an artillery forward observer, and 4 years as an electronic technician. The closest I ever got to a potential enemy was the 3 years I spent in Germany waiting for the Warsaw Pact to get off its duff and try for WW3. 

Great respect from me to you for your service! 

5 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

So did they promote you? Even though you are Mormon? 

Oh, yes. The president of the board asked him to change his vote to make it unanimous. I was in the secondary zone for E-5 in my MOS, but it didn't take long to get promoted, since the 11C MOS needed E-5s like water. When I was in that MOS, of the 23 men of an 81mm mortar section, the TO&E required 8 E-5s. At the time, two of my section's squad leaders were E-4s, and two of the FOs also. Later, the Army consolidated forward observers into a single MOS (13F) and so the TO&E of the section lost 2 E-5s and two E-2s to the Field Artillery. Which is when I transferred over to 13F. By mistake, actually! You can read about it here: How I Became a Redleg

Our battalion chaplain was a Mormon, by the way. He was a man greatly respected by all the troops. We felt we had a friend in him.

5 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I’ve never heard of such a thing being said in a promotion board but I believe it. Like I said Mormons have zero cachet in the army.

The units I was in had prop blast for officers. Legalized hazing with tons of pt and alcohol. I understand they removed the alcohol component years ago over a death but anyway… yea it’s a bit uncomfy for Mormons there. 

i never really ran into a problem after infantry school because I sanitized my tags at ranger joes on Bragg blvd… they said NO PREF or some such thing till i went to my commissioning source several years later. 

Interesting!

[InCognitus]

Has this been posted here yet?  Apparently the Pentagon (or someone) has revised the list due to the complaints about the removal of "Christian" from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  And now the designation as "Christian" has been removed completely from all of the classifications except for the Non-Denominational "Christian" classification:

It says, "The Pentagon’s job is not to adjudicate theological debates, but instead to ensure sincerely-held faith is respected and encouraged in our ranks."

And here is the new list:

Unfortunately this doesn't confirm or deny my theory about the field size in the database, since everything on the list is shortened from what it was before! 

ETA:  Oops, I missed "Christian Science" (sic) and "Orthodox Christian" that both have the word Christian in it (but that's part of their name).

ETA AGAIN!  Another Oops, I see that @bsjkki already posted this here earlier in the thread (6 hours ago).  Obviously I'm not up to date on reading the thread.

Edited 10 hours ago by InCognitus

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I don't think most Christians who believe Mormons aren't Christian could articulate a good reason why they think Mormons aren't Christians.

Don’t most hear we believe humans can become gods?  If so, for a good portion of them that’s crossing the line heresy.  We don’t only allow the gap between creator and creature to be bridged, we claim it doesn’t exist in the first place.

Edited 10 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

When the non-religious of the US express their opinions about morality, that morality almost always has roots in Christian principles.

A lot of Christian principles are universal, not unique to Christianity.  Even the more unique principles such as love you enemies and a required forgiveness of others tend to have less radical version in many.  The only one I am not sure of being very visible or at least reflected in others is Grace and that may be just because I am thinking of the Christian version.

One might be better saying Jewish principles since that faith is seen as coming first, therefore roots of Christianity were buried in Judaism.

Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism and some more that also contained much of these principles in their teachings existed before Christianity.  Then there’s some Greek Philosophers

Edited 10 hours ago by Calm

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

So these are all people who chose to ditch a mission and go military? Hmm ok good for them and I'm glad they are celebrated I suppose. I'm frankly suprised a stake would honor people who chose to disobey the lord and shirk their priesthood duty. Yea I don't see it happening here but hey you never know.

One ward was in Utah. The others were in different states. 

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Wouldn't have happened because I wouldn't have told them that. Fact is, we were all MOH material. Something I knew but it didn't occur to me to mention was that the then Commandant of the Coast Guard was a Mormon. I suppose that wouldn't have helped my case.

Well, I didn't think of saying such a thing because it didn't enter my head that my religion would even come up. The SSG that asked me the question wasn't what I would call much of a Christian, anyway. He was one of the more venal NCOs in our company, in my opinion. I think he just had a hard-on against Mormons. At the time I was in 2nd BN 39th INF, 9th Inf Div, Ft. Lewis, Washington. Later in 1st BN 11th FA.

I served from 1975 to 1983, and nothing happened during that time that required me to be in combat. In that 8 years I spent 3 years as a mortar crewman, 1 year as an artillery forward observer, and 4 years as an electronic technician. The closest I ever got to a potential enemy was the 3 years I spent in Germany waiting for the Warsaw Pact to get off its duff and try for WW3. 

Great respect from me to you for your service! 

Oh, yes. The president of the board asked him to change his vote to make it unanimous. I was in the secondary zone for E-5 in my MOS, but it didn't take long to get promoted, since the 11C MOS needed E-5s like water. When I was in that MOS, of the 23 men of an 81mm mortar section, the TO&E required 8 E-5s. At the time, two of my section's squad leaders were E-4s, and two of the FOs also. Later, the Army consolidated forward observers into a single MOS (13F) and so the TO&E of the section lost 2 E-5s and two E-2s to the Field Artillery. Which is when I transferred over to 13F. By mistake, actually! You can read about it here: How I Became a Redleg

Our battalion chaplain was a Mormon, by the way. He was a man greatly respected by all the troops. We felt we had a friend in him.

Interesting!

What is it with Mortar guys always having shortages? Beating each other up off duty?? Ha.  I was 11B and the points were always 99Never.. I got lucky when I boarded for E5 Desert shield was underway (I was overseas elsewhere) so the army was short like 10K E5s. I got promoted in secondary zone. We were so short people as everyone PCSing got sent straight back to the 82nd to go be trench clearing fodder or so went the theory. We didnt get any new privates till the ground war was over and Benning sent them all to our BN and others. We were down to 15 person platoons from original strength of over 40. I think our BN dwindled from 600 pax to less than 300. I think if we combined we could only deploy two full strength companies and HHC mortar/med/en/recon/ and 90mmRCL teams. 

Prop blast details from a civilian observer: https://www.danielsanthropology.com/papers/82nd/82ndairborneinitiations.html

your story is pretty funny btw...Id have ripped that thing off too. 13F surprisingly (at least last I recall) are assigned to their respective Arty BAttery and only go out with the inf for training/deployment. I was in two seperate ABN INF BNs and we had organic 13F with us and also AF TACP. No one knew their jobs so I dotn know how they got along without any mentorship. They were really squared away so perhaps that is how they got selected to go there. 

 

Edited 10 hours ago by Notatbm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

  It reflects statistical reality (e.g., the U.S. is ~65–70% Christian; Indonesia is ~87% Muslim).

If people say “primarily Christian nation”, it is close enough (I would prefer “majority Christian nation” if not using actual stats for precision).  Saying “Christian nation” makes all the rest invisible as if they don’t exist and so does not reflect statistical reality unless one specifies average or typical…which often doesn’t happen.  It doesn’t seem that accurate to me to say solely “Christian” alone when over a third are not Christian.

Too often I see it used to glorify the Christian way as if we sprang full grown from the head of Christ in 30 AD (or whenever he actually started preaching) independent of any other thought or morality that had been taught in the centuries before instead of mankind having strong traditions before that which provided a basis for Jesus to place his more radical gospel on as well these and other faiths having influence on how Christianity developed in the hands of Christ’s followers.

Edited 3 hours ago by Calm

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So did they promote you? Even though you are Mormon? 

I’ve never heard of such a thing being said in a promotion board but I believe it. Like I said Mormons have zero cachet in the army.

Could you elaborate on what you mean here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Elaborate on which part? 

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

One ward was in Utah. The others were in different states. 

Seen in a couple wards in Utah, my own and ones we visited….all in Utah County.

Probably been ten years since last we visited except for my son’s ward as I barely get to my ward these days, not up to attending blessings and baptisms, etc anymore.  Hopefully that will eventually change (pain levels much better now, hoping fatigue will eventually lift).  

Edited 10 hours ago by Calm

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Notatbm said:

So these are all people who chose to ditch a mission and go military? Hmm ok good for them and I'm glad they are celebrated I suppose. I'm frankly suprised a stake would honor people who chose to disobey the lord and shirk their priesthood duty. Yea I don't see it happening here but hey you never know.

I just wanted to add that I don't doubt your experience or that there are wards and/or families where this kind of thing would be judged harshly.  I'm also guessing that when you were growing up things were a lot different than they are now in most places.  I don't doubt that at times in the past, it never would have been celebrated if a kid choose to enlist rather than serve a mission.  I grew up in the 80s and 90s (born in the late 70s) but it sounds like you grew up in the 60s and 70s?  I would guess that the peak McConkie era in the church was a hard time to have doubts, make mistakes, or choose a different road.

I don't want my posts to make it seem like there has never been a problem with families shunning those who didn't serve, for whatever reason.  Your feelings around the experiences with your family especially are valid.

[Notatbm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I just wanted to add that I don't doubt your experience or that there are wards and/or families where this kind of thing would be judged harshly.  I'm also guessing that when you were growing up things were a lot different than they are now in most places.  I don't doubt that at times in the past, it never would have been celebrated if a kid choose to enlist rather than serve a mission.  I grew up in the 80s and 90s (born in the late 70s) but it sounds like you grew up in the 60s and 70s?  I would guess that the peak McConkie era in the church was a hard time to have doubts, make mistakes, or choose a different road.

I don't want my posts to make it seem like there has never been a problem with families shunning those who didn't serve, for whatever reason.  Your feelings around the experiences with your family especially are valid.

No worries.. grew up in 80s. Pressure on all the guys was significant and the girls were taught buyer beware if you don’t marry an rm.

Just a couple years ago a stake pres member got on video at a tri stake conference and point blank told the young men they don’t have a choice about mission service. Also Kevin Pearson is also on tape essentially saying the same thing..  esp with Pearson this has to be coming from salt lake so the pressure and shaming is still coming from church leaders. Maybe it’s just Utah, Idaho and Az. I dunno. 
 

you will like this one… in one of our family wards we had a farewell of a young man from a big time Mormon family. He gets up to give his talk (he went first ) and he just got to to podium and then turned around and pointed at his parents who were both going to speak as well. He said (paraphrased) I don’t want to go, they are making me and I don’t have a choice. See y’all in two years. He then just sat down and the bishop closed the meeting. Stake presidency was on the stand as well. People were like oh yea they aren’t gonna let him go now with that terrible attitude… they were basically trashing the kid. No one thought it odd to put a full court press on a kid to go on a mission. So whatever it takes. . well he went
 

the kid went and served two years and when he got home he left the church. Family thought they were such hard asses making him go. They bragged on it a bit. He got the last laugh. This was about 30 years ago so yea things are different I guess. 
 

hopefully they let kids go do peace corps stuff, or school or whatever. Let them do what they want. Missions are such a waste anymore. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Notatbm

[Peacefully]

Apparently, the President called Glenn Beck and voila, the “Christian” category was removed. The President said 95% of “Mormons” voted for him and he wouldn’t forget that. 
https://fb.watch/HDmb-gFRXK/?mibextid=SphRi8

Edited 5 hours ago by Peacefully

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Elaborate on which part? 

The zero cache part.

[Notatbm]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The zero cache part.

Cachet (pronounced /kæˈʃeɪ/) is a noun that generally refers to a mark or quality of distinction, prestige, or an official seal of approval. It implies an aura of high status or exclusivity that makes something or someone highly respected and admired.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Notatbm said:

He got the last laugh.

He would have been an adult, could have walked out before if he was going to walk out afterwards when he wasn’t any more prepared financially surely.   I am surprised he went with his burn the bridges behind him approach instead of declaring his independence right then and there.  They could have disowned him for that if they were as bad as you say.  Something like that, it’s smart to pack your bags beforehand, empty any savings account if it’s not your name alone on it and arrange with a friend to stay for awhile.