Mormons not Christian (according to new military list)

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

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. 

Fundamentalism arose at the same time as advances in archaeology and evolutionary science began to provide a solid case for a naturalistic explanation for the universe and threw doubt on the historical claims of the Bible. So some retreat to a very literalist and absolute view of religious historical truth claims as a way of pushing back. When it seems like the ground you are on is eroding you tend to view anything that could potentially erode anything as a threat. Hence fundamentalism. Islamic fundamentalism showed up shortly afterwards.

[Tony uk]

12 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Ur prob right. Didn’t help them from claiming Mormons aren’t Christian’s. They can just say their pastor told them so. Defer to leaders just like many Mormons do.

I agree. Those who say LDS are not Christian, have more than likely heard the statement made by someone else. As such, the person hearing, will just repeat the statement verbally, parrot fashion. 

[Navidad]

51 minutes ago, Tony uk said:

I agree. Those who say LDS are not Christian, have more than likely heard the statement made by someone else. As such, the person hearing, will just repeat the statement verbally, parrot fashion. 

We had an African Grey parrot for thirty years. Solomon could "parrot" wonderfully well. He often had a method behind his parroting to achieve his own purposes. I am certain he enjoyed verbally taunting our dogs we had over those years. In all faith traditions, as well as in secular education, we teach our little ones to parrot. Whether primary, Sunday school, or kindergarten, we value rote memorization and repetition. We praise it, and it becomes learned behavior. I am 77 years old and can still sing my little songs from Sunday school. They still have meaning.

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Notatbm said:

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.

Thank you.  I misspelled the word when typing it on my phone.  I'm familiar with the word, but not with the statement that "Mormons have zero cachet in the army" and its predecessors (that "the Mormon church has less than zero cachet in the military" and that "{n}o one is gonna care if they are labeled as Christian’s or not").  It seems like some, perhaps many, Latter-day Saints would care.  I can understand that most who are not Latter-day Saints do not care one way or the other, but I was not sure how that works out to the Church having "less than zero cachet in the military" and its members having "zero cachet in the army."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Deseret News: 

Pentagon rethinks policy that omitted Latter-day Saints as Christian. Here’s how Utah lawmakers got involved

This seems better.

I prefer to have the State stay out of such delineations.  I am gratified that the matter has been resolved.

Thanks,

-Smac

Another Deseret News article:

Midnight phone call: Why Glenn Beck asked Trump to change Pentagon Latter-day Saint label

Quote

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck took credit on Monday for persuading President Donald Trump to change a Pentagon designation that excluded The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from a list of “Christian” groups.

Beck, who joined the church in 1999 at age 35, spoke with the president early on Sunday morning about a controversy that erupted over the weekend when the Department of War reduced the number of religious affiliation categories from 200 down to 31.

Organizations like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Quakers were included beside a “Christian” label, while the Church of Jesus Christ had no category.

Firm responses followed from Latter-day Saints in Congress, including Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho and Utah Sens. Mike Lee and John Curtis. On Monday, Lee said he spoke with the president about the policy, and Curtis said he engaged with the Pentagon to reverse it.

It looks like there were a few voices that made a difference here.

Quote

But Trump first became aware of the concerns during a midnight phone call with Beck, the radio show host told listeners on Monday morning.

“Last night, the president called me, it’s about 12:30,” Beck said. “And I brought this up. And I said, Mr. President, why are we doing this?”

Beck related that the president did not know about the administrative change. Beck said the president told him he would look into the designation first thing on Monday. Then, at 5:20 A.M., Beck said he received another note from the president.

“He said to me, ‘Done. They’re Christians. Congratulations, I love the Mormons. President Donald J. Trump,’” Beck said of the message.

A few hours later, the Pentagon released an updated version of its new policy classifying religious affiliation categories for military service members, removing the “Christian” label entirely and instead just listing all faith groups as their own categories.

I think that was a good move.

Quote

Should the government decide who is Christian?

Utah’s federal delegation praised the response from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Lawmakers voiced their thoughts on the social media platform X, saying the government should not be in the business of making theological classifications.

During his daily show, which ranks in the top five nationally with a weekly audience of nearly 9 million, Beck argued that allowing government agencies to assign religious categories could set a bad precedent for future administrations that are less friendly to Christians.

“The moment a government decides who they can define, who belongs and who doesn’t belong, who is inside the circle, and who stands outside the circle, it creates a tool. And that tool is going to be inherited by people with very different convictions,” Beck said.

I wonder what intersection, if any, this has with "Christian Nationalism."  Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

I’m glad they  changed it. 
 

it annoys me when people claim I’m not Christian, that I don’t believe in real Jesus Christ. At the same time, I trust that people who get worked up about my claim to Christianity are coming from a place that I don’t yet understand.  I’ve had plenty of friends have left the church who have stated that Mormons don’t get it. I’ve been a Mormon all of my life so it’s all I know.  I trust that there’s a perspective outside of me that feels as right as mine does to me.

Regarding Missionaries, absolutely back in the day, 30 years ago, it was very shameful to not serve and even worse to come home early.

Change in Utah occurs slowly, but outside the bubble we don’t bat an eye any more when kids have not served a mission.  The 80s and 90s were rough with shame.

Edited 19 hours ago by MustardSeed

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, Notatbm said:

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. 

I will never understand the mindset of forcing or bribing a kid to go on a mission.  I served one, my husband served (after converting when he was 16), and my oldest son has served. Missions are absolutely worth it when you serve for the right purposes and it's your decision to go.  But I can't see the worth in being there against your will or grudgingly.  

My second oldest son has not served and it has never been an issue for his dad or I.  

[Notatbm]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Sure he could have. Wouldn’t have worked out too well. As they are family friend s we know them well, mom and dad threatened to disown him and kick him out if he didn’t go. Their word is good as gold as they had already done it before. 
 

he went and came back and left the church. Family didn’t disown him. They get humiliated waaay to easily. No the parents need to grow up and quit being hardliner control freaks. No wonder my family like them they are peas in a pod.
 

He was 19 and they were in their fifties. It is on them to act the adult. It is said all too often and is true the missionaries are just kids. Why be surprised when they act like one?

the fact he didn’t get disowned means he is prob still in line to inherit a ton of $$.  He doesn’t need it as he has been very successful on his own. We will see. I still have contact with his older brothers and he is still on good terms. 

 

 

[Notatbm]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I will never understand the mindset of forcing or bribing a kid to go on a mission.  I served one, my husband served (after converting when he was 16), and my oldest son has served. Missions are absolutely worth it when you serve for the right purposes and it's your decision to go.  But I can't see the worth in being there against your will or grudgingly.  

My second oldest son has not served and it has never been an issue for his dad or I.  

Agreed 100%. Problem is there are parents out there who are psycho hardliners who will have nothing but 100% obedience… no matter the cost. I know tons of them because those types are who my parents were friends with. Temple presidents, regional reps ( now area authority) other stake presidents… apostles and seventies. It’s a whole different world out there when those people are your social circle. 
 

they are the types who will absolutely go crazy on a kid for not serving a mission. 
 

 

 

[Notatbm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thank you.  I misspelled the word when typing it on my phone.  I'm familiar with the word, but not with the statement that "Mormons have zero cachet in the army" and its predecessors (that "the Mormon church has less than zero cachet in the military" and that "{n}o one is gonna care if they are labeled as Christian’s or not").  It seems like some, perhaps many, Latter-day Saints would care.  I can understand that most who are not Latter-day Saints do not care one way or the other, but I was not sure how that works out to the Church having "less than zero cachet in the military" and its members having "zero cachet in the army."  

Thanks,

-Smac

In your experience in the National Guard in the MI community may be a little bit more skewed towards favorability for Mormons. That being because of the language capability in the higher population of Mormons in the unit, especially since it’s based in Utah or at least that’s what I believe.

In a unit like that being Mormon wouldn’t be a bad thing probably be a positive thing and there’s tons of em around so in that very instance perhaps there would be a bit of cachet for Mormons so to speak.

I spent my career in combat arms, and the number of Mormons that were in any one  unit I was ever in literally amounted to a rounding error and so the only time Mormon anything came up is if some Mormon person made some kind of a statement or whatever other than that they weren’t really talked about except in joking about Mormons. And that happened kind of regular if religious discussions popped up.

 

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Quote

I can understand that most who are not Latter-day Saints do not care one way or the other, but I was not sure how that works out to the Church having "less than zero cachet in the military" and its members having "zero cachet in the army."  

In your experience in the National Guard in the MI community may be a little bit more skewed towards favorability for Mormons. That being because of the language capability in the higher population of Mormons in the unit, especially since it’s based in Utah or at least that’s what I believe.

I was thinking a bit more of my time at DLI (12 months) and at Ft. Huachuca (4 months).  I got ribbed a bit for being Mormon, and certainly a few pointed digs, but in the main I did not feel like an outsider.

26 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

In a unit like that being Mormon wouldn’t be a bad thing probably be a positive thing and there’s tons of em around so in that very instance perhaps there would be a bit of cachet for Mormons so to speak.

I spent my career in combat arms, and the number of Mormons that were in any one  unit I was ever in literally amounted to a rounding error and so the only time Mormon anything came up is if some Mormon person made some kind of a statement or whatever other than that they weren’t really talked about except in joking about Mormons. And that happened kind of regular if religious discussions popped up.

Ah.  You seem to be referencing "cachet" in the context of idle "Smoking and Joking"-style conversations/banter in the barracks and whatnot.  Am I on track with that?

My experience in that regard, in Basic Training, and DLI and at AIT at Ft. Huachuca, was a bit of a mixed bag, but largely positive.  Questions and comments leaned toward curiosity (polygamy, horns, Book of Mormon, etc.) and ribbing (about me not swearing or drinking, going to church on Sundays, no sex outside of marriage, polygamy, that sort of thing), with denigrations being more an occasional/isolated sort of thing.

I could see discussions with or involving Latter-day Saints being potentially markedly different from discussions about Latter-day Saints (and in their absence).

I recall one fellow at DLI who was a devout Evangelical Protestant.  He asked me some questions about the Church's teachings that were headed toward pointed/barbed, but when I pulled out my Bible and flipped to the index, he was quite surprised (apparently he had never used an indexed Bible before).  He asked where he could get a copy, but then recoiled a bit when I told him the one I had was published by the Church.  The conversation sort of ended with him being surprised that I both had a Bible and was familiar with its contents.  We were never best buds, but he was thereafter more cordial than before.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 19 hours ago by smac97

[Notatbm]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  You seem to be referencing "cachet" in the context of idle "Smoking and Joking"-style conversations/banter in the barracks and whatnot.  Am I on track with that?

 

Partially yea that is a thing no matter where you are. Heres is a better example:

I'm in a planning meeting re potentially sending some teams to a multi-national training event that was a couple months long. This was not being hosted in a Muslim country so alcohol was not illegal. One of the first things that comes up is the entire time they will be there they will not be permitted to drink. Not at all. Thats a big deal because these events in foreign countries often involve several social events that in the states we would call "mixers." Some Gen somewhere was afraid of an incident so put ou t the order no drinking at all.

So the Col In charge of the discussion says "too bad we dont have about 50 f-ing mormons we can send to this, sounds like an f-ing sunday school class."

He said that in front of no less than 30 people mostly field grades and SNCOs. A couple of them were mormon and he knew it. Didnt give a rats butt they were sitting right there. Whole room laughed...yea no respect. 

Edited 18 hours ago by Notatbm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

was 19 and they were in their fifties. It is on them to act the adult. It is said all too often and is true the missionaries are just kids. Why be surprised when they act like one?

Yeah, I get that.  I just would expect someone who had the guts to speak up at church like that (I wouldn’t have) would have first considered the likelihood of being disowned for doing so and thus been mentally prepared to go…what he did comes across as much more humiliating to me than just not going with the drama played out behind closed doors…and second, if he hated it so much as to do that to his parents (not saying they didn’t deserve it), it just seems like he would have been angry enough to walk then.   But maybe one thing good for him happened on his mission, he was away from his parents for two years (lot less communication back then) and he knew he could survive without them.

I feel really sorry for that kid if it didn’t come across before.  For any kid who feels they have to hide who they really are from their parents for more than a short time (because it’s likely all kids don’t want to disappoint their parents even or especially if it’s a loving and supportive relationship and it may take a bit to realize even with a very supportive, understanding parent that they would prefer one not to hide).  We have taken in a couple of kids who had abusive parents when they were at the legally adult, but not quite ready to be on their own.  It was heartbreaking.

Edited 17 hours ago by Calm

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Partially yea that is a thing no matter where you are. Heres is a better example:

I'm in a planning meeting re potentially sending some teams to a multi-national training event that was a couple months long. This was not being hosted in a Muslim country so alcohol was not illegal. One of the first things that comes up is the entire time they will be there they will not be permitted to drink. Not at all. Thats a big deal because these events in foreign countries often involve several social events that in the states we would call "mixers." Some Gen somewhere was afraid of an incident so put ou t the order no drinking at all.

So the Col In charge of the discussion says "too bad we dont have about 50 f-ing mormons we can send to this, sounds like an f-ing sunday school class."

He said that in front of no less than 30 people mostly field grades and SNCOs. A couple of them were mormon and he knew it. Didnt give a rats butt they were sitting right there. Whole room laughed...yea no respect. 

Huh.  I might have laughed too.  This is the sort of "whatnot" banter/commentary I was referencing.  I was occasionally teased for my teetotaling ways, but almost always in a caustic/vulgar-but-still-good-natured ribbing sort of way.  I have a hard time recalling someone expressing genuine contempt at me for not drinking for religious reasons.  Same goes for my abstention from swearing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Notatbm]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Huh.  I might have laughed too.  This is the sort of "whatnot" banter/commentary I was referencing.  I was occasionally teased for my teetotaling ways, but almost always in a caustic/vulgar-but-still-good-natured ribbing sort of way.  I have a hard time recalling someone expressing genuine contempt at me for not drinking for religious reasons.  Same goes for my abstention from swearing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh yea.. I laughed too. Thing is a full bird calling people f-ing Mormons in front of a pretty large audience is actually pretty bold. Say same thing about another “protected” class even back then (~2008 ish)is a career ender for sure. No one cared when it was Mormons tho. 

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

The zero cache part.

I'm not entirely sure about the zero cachet thing. Being a career officer, @Notatbm probably has more direct experience than I did. Aside from my E-5 promotion board it never seemed to come up again. 

But I did get a little bit of personal chaff from from a couple of folks. Not bad, though. One of my mortar section mates, once he found out I was a Mormon, he just loved to get in digs every time he saw me, which was frequently. Like "How many wives do you have, again" "You don't drink? I thought you were an infantryman!" and so on. I don't remember his name, but I'll call him Jones. Just for fun. He was quite inventive in his little digs, but unfortunately I don't remember most of what he had to say in this vein. And it wasn't really unfriendly, just annoying banter. Very annoying, in fact! What finally happened was that Jones got engaged to be married, and he wanted our battalion chaplain to perform the ceremony. Note that our battalion chaplain was very well-beloved amongst all the troops. He was truly a model of a compassionate and engaged minister of the gospel in uniform. He was also LDS, which many did not know. So, the word got out that he was to be married by the chaplain. A few weeks before the wedding, I was sitting in the platoon day room, and Jones walked in. I said "I hear you're getting married!" He replied that yes, he was. I then asked him "So who's marrying you?" Jones gave me a very wry smile and replied "Some Mormon!" We got a good laugh out of that (I still laugh when I think of it), and he never gave me any of his Mormon digs again.

Edited 17 hours ago by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Yes, that is all true, but it's still all very Christian, or Judeo-Christian, if you will. There are some things that a universal, of course, because we are all born with the Light of Christ. 

We live in a time of sad forgetfulness of who put us here, and why. Up until the mid-20th century, being Christian of one variety or another was relatively universal. During the Revolutionary War, many of those fighting were Christian ministers who sometimes led members of their congregations into the field. In the Civil War, worship was considered very seriously, and taken part in most seriously. Scenes from two films, Gettysburg, and Glory, illustrate this.

From Gettysburg:

And Glory:

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

We live in a time of sad forgetfulness of who put us here, and why.

My problem is when remembering our heritage begins and ends with Christianity.  It too often ignores the depth and beauty and complexity of our heritage for a semi patriotic commitment to a particular ideology.

Not saying Christianity shouldn’t be as valued or isn’t as beautiful, but it’s like listening to a solo of a piece written to be played by an orchestra or a piano version of a classic rock song and sometimes it’s a rather blah adaptation.

Edited 14 hours ago by Calm

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, Notatbm said:

What is it with Mortar guys always having shortages? Beating each other up off duty?? Ha.

Far fewer needed overall, and probably also because recruiters got more cachet for recruiting 11Bs. And possibly due to a career arc that ended at E-6. You could be 11B all the way up to E-7. But at the time I was in, 11C ended at E-6, and there were so few needed (only four in an entire leg infantry battalion) that even the primary zone score requirement was quite high. To go further you had to move to a different MOS. And for 11Cs whose eyesight profile was below 2, they weren't eligible for 11B. That included me, since the reason I was 11C was because my uncorrected vision was lower than the allowable threshold for 11B. 

18 hours ago, Notatbm said:

  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

I understand about the hazing. And I heard some stories about it. I once read a Soviet defector's description of initial hazing in Spetsnaz, and it could be pretty intense. But if you were briefed in advance, you could avoid it. The story that he told involved when he arrived at his first assignment, and walking into the HQ tent. There was a clean white towel laid just inside the entrance. The towel was a trigger. If you hopped over it out of fear of soiling it with your muddy boots, the men inside would beat the crap out of you -- it signaled that you were a New Guy. But if you deliberately stepped on the towel and cleaned your boots on it, then you were a veteran, and you'd be welcomed heartily with no beating. His sponsor into the Spetsnaz, an up and coming general officer, had warned him in advance about the practice, so he avoided the beating.

I did notice the degree of disdain for non-winged troops! We had a bit of an oddity in our battalion hq while I was serving there driving the battalion TOC vehicle as an E-4. The oddity was our Assistant S-3 (Air), who was a "leg Ranger." He was a 1LT who had the Ranger tab, but no jump wings! What had happened was he attended Ranger School before Airborne School, passed Ranger, but had a medical issue at Jump School. It was one of those weird injuries that temporarily, at least, made him unable to finish the Airborne course. So weird to have Ranger-tabbed officer but no jump wings!

18 hours ago, Notatbm said:

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. 

You're right about the 13F. Things change over time, but when I was a 13F you were assigned to the HHB of the battalion, and if you were not part of the battalion HQ FIST then you were attached out with one of the firing batteries for both billeting and general duties -- and that was the battery you would usually direct fire for. And since the line infantry companies needed a FIST detail when certain doing training, you'd go out with them when needed. Our battery was usually tasked to provide artillery support for my old infantry battalion, so I was frequently out there with them, including a couple of times with my old mortar section, where I knew practically everyone. Had lots of fun firing them guys out on the Ft. Lewis arty impact area. 

For Exercise Jack Frost in 1979 elements of the 9th ID went to Alaska for cold-weather testing/training, and my FIST team flew up there in support of 2/39 INF. I was with one of the platoons of A company, and we spent two weeks freezing our tushes off in an arctic tent. The warmest it got was 25 below zero, and the coldest was 55 below zero. My platoon was flown out into our boonie area in a Chinook, and I was first out of the chopper. Took one step off the ramp and my foot fell into powder snow three feet deep. So there I was, one foot on the ramp, and the other a yard deep in snow. It was hilarious, but not at the time, as they were about to slide the ahkio sled (with 300 lbs of gear) down onto me.

Ah, those were the days, my friend. We thought they'd never end -- we'd sing and dance forever and a day.

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Another Deseret News article:

Midnight phone call: Why Glenn Beck asked Trump to change Pentagon Latter-day Saint label

It looks like there were a few voices that made a difference here.

For better or worse I think this shows how ‘off the cuff’ everything is being run right now and how often the last person to talk to the President seems to have a lot of influence. I would worry if an enemy of the Church got his ear for too long.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder what intersection, if any, this has with "Christian Nationalism."  Thoughts?

I am trying to understand Beck’s point. He is worried that another administration would care more about whether LDS are Christian. I really can’t see the Democratic Party or most “leftists” caring that much about it. The idea that it would be weaponized in that case is kind of silly. I also find it cute that Beck thinks LDS are safe when they are excluded from the in group until they make a special plea.

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, that is all true, but it's still all very Christian, or Judeo-Christian, if you will. There are some things that a universal, of course, because we are all born with the Light of Christ. 

We live in a time of sad forgetfulness of who put us here, and why. Up until the mid-20th century, being Christian of one variety or another was relatively universal. During the Revolutionary War, many of those fighting were Christian ministers who sometimes led members of their congregations into the field. In the Civil War, worship was considered very seriously, and taken part in most seriously. Scenes from two films, Gettysburg, and Glory, illustrate this.

From Gettysburg:

And Glory:

 

I think one big difference between now and then is that Christianity could be used for causes that seemed valiant and praiseworthy. One of my favorite marching songs from the Civil War from the Union Army that was put to the music of what we sign at “Battle Hymn of the Republic” with a similar chorus to what we use now.

Old John Brown's body lies a moldering in the grave,
While weep the sons of bondage whom he ventured all to save;
But though he sleeps his life was lost while struggling for the slave,
His soul is marching on.

Glory Hallelujah!

John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true and brave,
And Kansas knew his valor when he fought her rights to save;
And now, though the grass grows green above his grave,
His soul is marching on.

(Chorus)

He captured Harper's Ferry, with his nineteen men so few,
And frightened "Old Virginny" till she trembled through and through
They hung him for a traitor, themselves a traitor crew,
But his soul is marching on.

(Chorus)

John Brown was John the Baptist of the Christ we are to see—
Christ who of the bondmen shall the Liberator be,
And soon throughout the Sunny South the slaves shall all be free,
For his soul is marching on.

(Chorus)

The conflict that he heralded he looks from heaven to view,
On the army of the Union with its flag red, white and blue.
And heaven shall ring with anthems o'er the deed they mean to do,
For his soul is marching on.

(Chorus)

Ye soldiers of Freedom, then strike, while strike ye may,
The death blow of oppression in a better time and way,
For the dawn of old John Brown has brightened into day,
And his soul is marching on.

(Chorus)

 

That is a song worth singing. Christianity doesn’t seem to stand for that kind of stuff anymore in the US. Is it any wonder that Christianity generates less enthusiasm when it stands for….what? Some economic principles? And that Christianity is the best and needs a special privileged status? And it needs some kind of official government privilege? That is not something that is easy to be devoted to.

[The Nehor]

On 6/8/2026 at 9:09 PM, Notatbm said:

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. 

The kids who are in this situation are sometimes derided for not being strong enough to say no to that kind of pressure but it is not like they were taught any kind of independence at home (or at church) to be able to stand up to that pressure.