Mormons not Christian (according to new military list)

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

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. 

Just to be clear, I am not deriding the young man for not saying no after expressing his distaste for his parent’s plans for him.  Just wondering why he didn’t given he had gone so far as to make the issues public in the way he did (which would have shocked me at the time for the strength or anger or desperation or whatever gave him the ability to do it, more likely to have been able to find apparent support these days as I have seen those who claimed to be formers members offering places to stay for kids who feel trapped into going…which scared me as the kids would be so vulnerable though no doubt many, maybe even all were sincere offers). That seems like a desperate, last attempt of a fading hope that his parents might love him for who he was.  It does not surprise me in the least he disappeared from church afterwards.  Maybe from the family as well, being that toxic.  It is the only time I have heard of it happening and I am curious about the rest of the story.  Maybe he did it to rid himself of the last sense of obligation to them.  Hope he found a home for himself he could feel safe in, whatever it was.

Edited Wednesday at 12:36 PM by Calm

[Notatbm]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Weren't they? Maybe not in Zion, but that's because they were surrounded by fellow LDS all the time, and had no need for it. But I feel that you're misjudging matters a bit. One of my long-term home teaching families took their five younger children out of public school in Washington state when their oldest child started going "the way of the world" due to what she was being force-fed in school. They home-schooled all the rest, and you would have said they weren't learning any kind of independence to be able to stand up to pressure. But all of them who were home-schooled turned out marvelously strong in the gospel. All married in the temple, the boys all serving honorable missions, and every one of them are strong, independent, and productive members of society. 

Out here in the "mission field" our youth grow up surrounded by Gentiles and get their opportunities to stand up every day. It's home where they find their respite from the pressure.

As for me, I grew up in a largely unreligious home, joined the church all by my lonesome, and so my independence was learned at home. And I think my father regretted giving me permission to be baptized at age 14, because he was NOT happy that I decided to serve a mission four years later, instead of going to university like he wanted. Would I have done just as well in a 100% TBM family? I have no idea, but I suspect so.

It isn't always the environment or the nurture. It is sometimes the nature of the individual. 

Nehor is talking g about standing up to pressure from church leaders and parents. Kids are forever taught to always obey their parents. To always obey church leaders even if they are wrong. Saying no to a mission in many households and wards is next to anarchy. 
 

The church is built on controlling many aspects of members lives such as what they drink, what they wear, who their friends are, what they do on Sunday, how much to pay the church, never say no to a calling, marry an rm, what underwear to wear, go on a mission, get married as soon as possible… you get the point. 
 

when a kid d can’t be controlled and they stray from “ the covenant path” SOME PARENTS AND LEADERS flip out. 
 

if the kids end up not going on a mission sometimes the parents are judged by their fellow ward members and local leaders… obviously they didn’t reward scriptures together as a family, obviously they didn’t have fhe, they don’t do food storage so disobeying the prophet there leads to disobeying everywhere, they didn’t force their kids to go to seminary… etc. 

every ward and stake has their power families… you know the same ten families that do everything. They are the same ones who if there is gonna be a freak out over lack of mission… it will be in their home most of the time.

they listen to idiot leaders and their over the top council like these two guys:

 

 

[Notatbm]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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. 

Many parents and leaders feel they have to control every aspect of your life. If you nope in a mission and take off ..  well there goes any chance of you following orders. They can’t rely on obedience if you give them and the prophet the middle finger. How embarrassing your kid act like an adult and make his own choices… so sad for you it must be humiliating to have a wayward child. 
 

I should add that even as recently as 10 years ago when I first got put in the as a priest quorum advisor in our ward.  within the first couple weeks I was in the calling, we had a class discussion where the other advisor was telling the kids about something or other, and mentioning the fact that after they get back from their mission, blah blah blah blah whatever. I don’t recall the topic exactly but essentially it boiled down to you have to go on a mission. I chimed in and said well that’s if you decide to go on a mission missions aren’t for everybody, etc. anyway by the end of the evening I was released for my calling. I’m not sure who dimed me out the other counselor or one of the kids, but the decision was made to release me because I wasn’t on board with making sure every young man serves a mission. That is in the ward I’m in right now. This was only 10 years ago. So yeah, that kind of culture is still around contrary to what others may think.

 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 03:37 PM by Notatbm

[smac97]

An unusual analysis: https://www.rawstory.com/hegseth-white-evangelical-plot-new/

Quote

White evangelicals are just 13% of the American population. But according to one columnist, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is building a Pentagon that looks a lot like their church — and writer Amanda Marcotte says that's no accident.

When the Pentagon cut its official list of military religious designations from 211 to 31 earlier this month, it left out one group that expected to be included: Latter-day Saints. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wasn't classified as Christian at all.

Meanwhile, atheists, Wiccans, and pagans were removed entirely. Muslims and Jews were folded into single catch-all entries. Christians got 21 subcategories.

I am curious why this differentiation happened where, for example, Muslims and Jews were consolidated.  Do Shia Muslims object to being characterized as just "Muslim" (and, therefore, "folded into" a designation synonymous with Sunni Muslims)?  

Quote

That's "extremely concerning," said Matthew D. Taylor, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs. "The ideological consolidation of the military is something that we have historically not wanted."

I'm not sure I understand what he means by "ideological consolidation of the military."

Quote

For Salon'a Marcotte, the Mormon exclusion wasn't a bureaucratic mistake — she contends it was a glimpse of the endgame.

To build the "Christian nation" they envision, Marcotte writes, white evangelicals need votes from the other 87% — Black Protestants, Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Mormons, and non-churchgoing conservatives who reliably pull the lever for President Donald Trump. That means, she argues, making all of them believe they're insiders.

Um, then why did the original list ostensibly exclude "Mormons" from the ambit of "Christian" groups?

Quote

"In playing these games," Marcotte writes, "Hegseth gave the whole thing away."

I am curious about what role, if any, Sec. Hegseth played in all this.

Quote

Robert Jeffress — the Southern Baptist megachurch pastor and Trump ally who has repeatedly called Mormonism a "cult" — spoke in person at the administration-backed Rededicate 250 rally on the National Mall last month. Hegseth addressed the crowd by video. The speaker list was overwhelmingly white and evangelical. No Mormon leaders were invited. No Black church leaders. A few Catholics appeared on the program.

I wonder if the Church would have sent a representative to this event.  I suspect not.  Perhaps the Church was invited and declined.  Hard to say.

Quote

Marcotte contends that the rally was the public showcase of a longer project. Since taking the Pentagon, Hegseth has hosted monthly worship services in the building's auditorium — every invited preacher a white evangelical, every sermon evangelical in character.

Pastor Douglas Wilson, a leader of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, told troops that bearing the name of Jesus Christ is "no armor greater than that." Evangelist Franklin Graham asked uniformed service members whether they knew God is "a god of war," then quoted scripture ordering enemies killed without mercy — women, children, livestock.

More information on this event here.

I think we as Latter-day Saints can appreciate Graham’s core gospel emphasis — God’s justice, human sinfulness, the reality of divine judgment, and salvation through Jesus Christ — while approaching his framing with caution and doctrinal nuance rooted in restored scripture and modern revelation.

Latter-day Saint doctrine strongly affirms that God is both loving and just (e.g., D&C 1:35; Moses 7:26-33). The Book of Mormon and Bible repeatedly show God commanding or allowing warfare in specific historical contexts for righteous purposes (e.g., Captain Moroni’s defensive wars in Alma 43–62, or ancient Israel’s conquests as part of covenant judgment). Graham’s reminder that God “hates” sin and enacts judgment aligns with scriptures like 2 Nephi 9:24 and Alma 42.

His call for America to “turn to the God of our fathers” echoes Book of Mormon warnings about pride, secret combinations, and the need for a righteous nation to be preserved (e.g., Ether 2:8–12; Helaman 13–15).  The pivot to Christ’s birth, atonement, resurrection, and Second Coming is solidly compatible with LDS teachings.  That said, these comments presuppose Americans as Christians.  This is predominantly, but far from exclusively, so.  I question whether this messaging should be taking place at the Pentagon.

Then there are the areas in which we may diverge from Mr. Graham's comments.  Graham’s heavy focus on herem (total destruction) warfare can sound triumphalist or overly militaristic in a Christmas setting. LDS theology, informed by the Restoration, views ancient commands through the lens of progressive revelation and the higher law of Christ (e.g., 3 Nephi 12:38–48; D&C 98:23–32 on defensive war and limiting vengeance). Modern prophets emphasize peace, the Prince of Peace, and just war principles rather than celebrating “God of war” rhetoric.

Addressing service members, Graham’s words can be seen as encouraging moral clarity and resolve in defending liberty. However, Latter-day Saint teachings (e.g., Articles of Faith 1:12; prophetic counsel on the Constitution) stress defending freedom while upholding the sanctity of life and avoiding unnecessary aggression.

Graham represents a conservative evangelical perspective that often blends patriotism, Old Testament literalism, and political application more closely than the nuanced, prophet-led approach of the Church.

Quote

At a March prayer service tied to the Iran war, Hegseth himself prayed for "overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy."

The scriptures are full of accounts where God commands or empowers His people to defend liberty and righteousness with decisive force. Captain Moroni’s Title of Liberty (Alma 46), the defensive wars in Alma 43–62, and Helaman’s stripling warriors exemplify faith-filled, principled military action. Hegseth’s prayer for protection of troops and victory over aggressors appears to resonate with D&C 98:16–18 and 134:11 (right to self-defense and defense of others).  The Restoration affirms that evil exists, that Satan is real, and that there are times when force is justified to restrain wickedness (D&C 101:76–80 on the Constitution and just government). Praying for “wisdom,” “unity,” and protection of righteous causes is, I think, compatible with Latter-day Saint teachings.

That said, I have some qualms with Sec. Hegseth's comments:

• The Spirit of the Prince of Peace: Our should center on the Savior’s mercy, atonement, and invitation to “love your enemies” (3 Nephi 12:44; Matthew 5:44). Heavy emphasis on “overwhelming violence,” “no mercy,” and “eternal damnation” in a public Pentagon service raises concerns for me. The Book of Mormon repeatedly warns against delighting in bloodshed (Mosiah 29:14; Alma 48:11–17).  Moroni rejoiced in liberty, not in the shedding of blood.
• Just War Principles in the Restoration: D&C 98 and 134 teach defensive, measured, and reluctant use of force. Modern prophets have consistently urged restraint, diplomacy, and peace (e.g., President Hinckley’s teachings post-9/11, President Nelson’s repeated calls for peace and against contention). Prayers invoking graphic violence risk crossing into the spirit of vengeance rather than measured justice.
• Separation of Church and State Concerns: While individuals have full religious freedom, using official government/military platforms for sectarian worship raises questions under D&C 134:4–5 and 98:9–10. The Restoration emphasizes that governments should secure freedom of conscience without establishing religion.
• Ancient vs. Modern Dispensation: Old Testament herem (total destruction) commands were specific, time-bound, and tied to ancient Israel’s unique covenant role (and, for me, remain one of my great struggles to understand and reconcile with the Restored Gospel). The higher law of Christ and the Restoration temper such applications (3 Nephi 9–10; D&C 98:23–32 explicitly limits vengeance and requires forgiveness where possible).

I sense that Sec. Hegseth's comments reflect a sincere desire to invoke God’s help for those defending the nation — a sentiment to which many Latter-day Saints who serve or have served in the military can relate. However, in the fulness of the Restored Gospel, we are called to both uphold justice/defend liberty and cultivate the pure love of Christ. Prayers in such settings are most powerful when they balance resolve against evil with humility, mercy, and reliance on the Prince of Peace.

This 2008 talk at BYU-Hawaii does a great job of explaining "war" imagery in scriptures, hymns, etc. in relation to the "Gospel of Peace":

Fight The Good Fight: War as a Metaphor in LDS Discourse

It's worth a read, but for those with limited time, a Grok summary:

Quote

Summary of the Lecture: "Fight the Good Fight: War as a Metaphor in LDS Discourse" (David O. McKay Lecture by Randal W. Allred, BYU-Hawaii, February 12, 2008)

Randal Allred, an Associate Professor of English, explores a central paradox in Latter-day Saint thought and language: the gospel condemns literal war as an abomination (D&C 98:16 — "renounce war and proclaim peace"), yet LDS scriptures, hymns, prophetic teachings, and discourse are saturated with military metaphors for the spiritual struggle against sin, Satan, and evil.

Key Points:

• Scriptural Foundation: Paul’s imagery dominates — "fight the good fight" (1 Tim. 6:12; 2 Tim. 4:7), "put on the whole armor of God" (Ephesians 6), wrestling against spiritual powers rather than flesh and blood. The Doctrine and Covenants uses similar language (e.g., the Church coming forth "terrible as an army with banners," D&C 5:14; "thrash the nations by the power of my Spirit," D&C 35).
• LDS Usage: Hymns like "Onward, Christian Soldiers," "We Are All Enlisted," "Hope of Israel," and "Behold! A Royal Army" are filled with marching, battling, swords of truth, and victory. Prophets (e.g., Ezra Taft Benson, Bruce R. McConkie, Gordon B. Hinckley) describe the work of the Church and the premortal war in heaven as an ongoing cosmic conflict between truth and error, agency and compulsion.
• The Paradox and Transformation: Literal war is tragic and to be avoided, but the metaphor is powerful because it conveys discipline, courage, unity, sacrifice, loyalty, and endurance. Allred argues that Latter-day Saints have recontextualized these images — turning them from instruments of destruction into tools of spiritual liberation, missionary work, and personal righteousness. Examples include the Utah War (largely bloodless) and adaptations of hymns like "Battle Hymn of the Republic."
• Conclusion: These metaphors strengthen resolve in mortality’s battles against despair, temptation, and opposition. They remind us we fight under Christ as Captain, with spiritual weapons (truth, faith, the word of God), and that ultimate victory is assured through His Atonement. The lecture ends with a choir performance of "For All the Saints" to emphasize hope and unity.

The talk celebrates the rhetorical power of these metaphors while acknowledging the need for care so they do not glorify violence.

Insights for Latter-day Saints

This lecture aligns beautifully with the Restored Gospel’s balanced view of conflict: war is evil, but the fight for righteousness is noble. It echoes Captain Moroni’s defensive, liberty-focused wars in the Book of Mormon and modern prophets’ emphasis on moral courage without bloodthirstiness. In today’s context (e.g., discussions around military prayers or cultural rhetoric), it reminds us to wield "the sword of the Spirit" (the word of God) rather than carnal weapons, and to let metaphors inspire Christlike discipleship — unity, endurance, and proclaiming peace — rather than division or aggression.

A timely and thoughtful piece on how language shapes our understanding of the "war in heaven" that continues in our hearts and homes.

We can and should support righteous defense of freedom while rejecting bloodthirstiness or triumphalism. I think the Latter-day Saints should pray for our military, for righteous leaders, for protection of the innocent, and for the conversion and softening of hearts on all sides of conflict.

Anyway, back to the original article:

Quote

A February 2026 PRRI survey of more than 22,000 adults found white evangelical Protestants are the only religious group with majority support for Christian nationalist views — 67% qualify as adherents or sympathizers.

"Christian Nationalism" continues to be a troubling topic for me.

Quote

Among the groups being courted for their votes, the numbers drop sharply: just 43% of Black Protestants, 35% of white Catholics, and 31% of Hispanic Catholics qualify as supporters. More than two-thirds of Hispanic Catholics reject Christian nationalism outright.

Black Protestants, Hispanic Catholics, Hispanic Protestants, and other Christians of color together make up roughly a quarter of the U.S. population. White mainline Protestants and white Catholics account for another quarter.

"Once the principle of religious discrimination against non-Christians is established in American law," Marcotte writes, "the next step was always going to be reclassifying huge swathes of Christians as non-Christians, so they can be marginalized, too."

Per PRRI: 

Quote

Around half of white Christians (16% Adherents and 30% Sympathizers) and four in ten Christians of color (14% Adherents and 25% Sympathizers) qualify as Christian nationalists, compared with around one in ten non-Christians (3% Adherents and 10% Sympathizers) and unaffiliated Americans (2% Adherents and 8% Sympathizers).
...
Looking deeper within these broader religious categories, PRRI finds distinct differences. White evangelical Protestants (29% Adherents and 38% Sympathizers) and Hispanic Protestants (24% Adherents and 30% Sympathizers) stand out as the only groups with majority support for Christian nationalist views. Latter-day Saints are divided, with 49% qualifying as Christian nationalism Adherents or Sympathizers and 49% qualifying as Skeptics and Rejecters.

On balance, I'm either a "Skeptic" or "Rejecter."

Quote

Tensions are also emerging regarding Catholics. Pope Leo XIV's Vatican has repeatedly condemned the Iran war — putting it in direct conflict with what Taylor has called Hegseth's religiously charged war rhetoric. Evangelicals, Marcotte points out, "would love to push the Catholics out over this, and will, the second it's politically viable."

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) called the Mormon exclusion "repugnant," phoned Trump, and got a reversal within days.

Lee welcomed the fix — but the reversal reportedly dropped the "Christian" label from several groupings rather than extend it to Mormons. Marcotte asserts the evangelical in-group held regardless.

"They're coming for other Christians, too," Marcotte writes.

Interesting stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Notatbm]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am curious why this differentiation happened where, for example, Muslims and Jews were consolidated.  Do Shia Muslims object to being characterized as just "Muslim" (and, therefore, "folded into" a designation synonymous with Sunni Muslims)?  

I’m open to correction but I think Sunni and Shia Muslims are pretty much on-board with killing each other if the situation dictates. 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I’m open to correction but I think Sunni and Shia Muslims are pretty much on-board with killing each other if the situation dictates. 

Right.  But is that the case in the United States generally?  I asked Grok: "Is there tension/conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the United States?"

The response:

Quote

Yes, there is some tension between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the United States, but it is limited, sporadic, and far less severe than in many parts of the Middle East or South Asia.

Overall Picture

• Low-level friction exists, but large-scale violence or organized sectarian conflict is rare. American Muslim communities (estimated 3.5–4+ million) are a small minority overall, with Sunnis forming the large majority (~80–90%) and Shias a smaller portion. Most interactions are peaceful, with shared mosques, intermarriage, and joint events common in many cities.
• Sectarianism from overseas (e.g., Middle East conflicts, Iran-Saudi rivalry, or online radicalization) occasionally spills over but is generally contained by American civic norms, law enforcement, and community leaders who actively promote unity.

Notable Incidents and Concerns

• Isolated violence: The most prominent recent case was the 2021–2022 killings of four Shia men in Albuquerque, New Mexico, by a Sunni perpetrator (motives were disputed but raised sectarian fears).
• Occasional mosque vandalism, online harassment, or intra-community disputes over leadership, funding, or theological differences occur.
• Imported political tensions (e.g., around Iran, Hezbollah, Yemen, or Gulf politics) sometimes create divides in mosques or advocacy groups.

Positive Trends and Counterbalances

• Many U.S. mosques are mixed or explicitly inclusive. Leaders from both traditions frequently organize joint prayers, unity events, and interfaith work.
• American Muslim organizations (e.g., CAIR and others) have historically worked to prevent Sunni-Shia strife from taking root domestically.
• Surveys and reports indicate that while theological differences persist, everyday coexistence is the norm for most American Muslims, who prioritize shared challenges like Islamophobia, discrimination, and integration over sectarian divides.

Bottom line: Tension exists on the margins — amplified by global events and social media — but it does not define Muslim life in America. Most Sunni and Shia Muslims here get along better than their counterparts in many conflict zones abroad, thanks to distance from old-world power struggles and the unifying pressures of life as a religious minority in a pluralistic society.

I wonder if this is accurate.  I hope so.

My adult daughter befriended a young Muslim woman from Egypt several years ago.  She had come to the U.S. to study, and ended up at BYU (we live in Provo).  She lives in the U.S., and we have become her informal adopted family.  She means a lot to us.  Next month we are taking a trip to Washington State to say in a beach house on a cliff overlooking the Juan de Fuca Strait near Sequim.  This young woman will be joining us, and we are all quite excited about it.

There are, of course, times when cultural / sociological / political ideologies can create disagreements and even conflict.  I am glad that the Church has long fostered sentiments of finding common ground and understanding and friendship.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Wednesday at 03:53 PM by smac97

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

I chimed in and said well that’s if you decide to go on a mission missions aren’t for everybody, etc

I wasn’t there, I don’t know exactly what was said and so take this feedback with a grain of salt.

There are multiple ways that you could’ve created space adjacent to your teaching partners ideology that would have been acceptable to most. 
 

Your anger is rooted in your parents rejection of you, and that’s totally valid. But it’s also blinding you to some opportunities you apparently have had to make a difference legitimately for young men and probably other areas, (audience here on this site for example- )your bitterness comes across in a way that doesn’t invite self reflection from anyone but rather creates defensiveness and guarding.  
I would’ve asked for you to be released myself. And I have no issues with young men not serving missions. But I do take issue with is people personal agendas particularly those rooted in unresolved wounding bleeding out in any way when in a position of leadership.

Edited Wednesday at 04:12 PM by MustardSeed

[MiserereNobis]

On 6/8/2026 at 1:31 PM, 3DOP said:

Who here has ever heard of the Theravadan Buddhism? 

Buddhism has 2 major divisions: Theravada and Mahayana. Think Catholic and Protestant. Theravada is the official Buddhism of Thailand. 

On 6/8/2026 at 1:31 PM, 3DOP said:

Granted that east is east and west is west, it seems like it might be okay to identify the US as a Christian nation, as a majority of the population or even among members of the US military. 

But the United States, as lawfully constituted now, and for a long time, cannot officially recognize anything as a state religion. Perhaps Thailand can? I dunno.

Yes, for me the difference is number of adherents vs. official state religion. The US is a Christian nation in terms of the former but not the latter. Thailand is a Buddhist nation in both ways. 

On 6/8/2026 at 1:31 PM, 3DOP said:

Anyway my friend, just let's shake things up and be on different sides in love! Bash me...and me back at you. Let them see how we Catholics can think each other are stupid, but still ❤️ each other.

All my love, Rory!

Jesse

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I wasn’t there, I don’t know exactly what was said and so take this feedback with a grain of salt.

There are multiple ways that you could’ve created space adjacent to your teaching partners ideology that would have been acceptable to most. 
 

Your anger is rooted in your parents rejection of you, and that’s totally valid. But it’s also blinding you to some opportunities you apparently have had to make a difference legitimately for young men and probably other areas, (audience here on this site for example- )your bitterness comes across in a way that doesn’t invite self reflection from anyone but rather creates defensiveness and guarding.  
I would’ve asked for you to be released myself. And I have no issues with young men not serving missions. But I do take issue with is people personal agendas particularly those rooted in unresolved wounding bleeding out in any way when in a position of leadership.

Yep you werent there and the notion I did it without "leaving space" for my partners ideology is a wierd thing to say.

That said all I did was make a point that whatever we were talking ( i think it was finding a good wife ) about at the time wasnt dependent upon their serving a mission or not. They were not obligated to serve a mission. My teacher partner was making it sound like they had to...IE when you go, when you get back, after you, etc. No room for any if at all. And I did it tactfully, not with anger, or blind rage or bitterness. Kids need to know they actually have a choice whether their leaders or parents will admit it or not. Had I known they wanted me to be just another pressure cooker in the ward for launching kids on missions I would have turned down the calling.

 

[MustardSeed]

8 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Yep you werent there and the notion I did it without "leaving space" for my partners ideology is a wierd thing to say.

That said all I did was make a point that whatever we were talking ( i think it was finding a good wife ) about at the time wasnt dependent upon their serving a mission or not. They were not obligated to serve a mission. My teacher partner was making it sound like they had to...IE when you go, when you get back, after you, etc. No room for any if at all. And I did it tactfully, not with anger, or blind rage or bitterness. Kids need to know they actually have a choice whether their leaders or parents will admit it or not. Had I known they wanted me to be just another pressure cooker in the ward for launching kids on missions I would have turned down the calling.

 

Ok. 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Nehor is talking g about standing up to pressure from church leaders and parents. Kids are forever taught to always obey their parents. To always obey church leaders even if they are wrong. Saying no to a mission in many households and wards is next to anarchy. 

Ah, I see. I missed the turn. Not unusual.

Like many other children, I grew up in a non-religious household. My parents taught me to obey them. Since when does a responsible parent tell their children "Oh, you can stand up to me, be independent, no problem! If I tell you to not jump off that cliff, feel free to disobey and take the leap!"

Do you know what happened in my household when I told my non-member father that I was going to serve a mission? Wow, it wasn't "next to anarchy," it was anarchy to the max. My non-member mother didn't say a word, but dad definitely had things to say. In my family, I was the quiet obedient one, who always did what was expected. Until this mission thing came up. I was 18, and when dad saw he couldn't force me to change my mind, he kicked me out of the house, and I was on my own. He even got physical about it until mom told him to cut it out. I lived with my grandmother for a few weeks until I got a job and my own little apartment. After I got back from the mission he seemed proud about it, though, and was impressed I could speak German fluently. 

I disobeyed him a second time after he died, because I went through the temple for him myself, even though he had told me not to do it. I had turned into a true rebel, you see, and my life of crime has continued until this day.

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

The church is built on controlling many aspects of members lives such as what they drink, what they wear, who their friends are, what they do on Sunday, how much to pay the church, never say no to a calling, marry an rm, what underwear to wear, go on a mission, get married as soon as possible… you get the point. 

I hope you don't take this in bad part, but that sounds incredibly whiny and immature. And I don't get the point.

I don't know what you've seen in non-LDS peoples' lives, but I've heard similar things from plenty of children growing up in totally non-religious households. "They won't let me stay out past 10 at night!" "They make me do my homework before I'm allowed to play with my friends!" "They make me take piano lessons! I hate it!" "What? I have to be back from my date by 11 pm? What monster control freaks!" "They grounded me because I stole some cigarettes from my Uncle Tom!" "My parents won't let me play Grand Theft Auto XX all night long! What losers!" "Why do I have to pay for my own gas?" "What do you mean I'm not allowed to hang out with [insert local dubious crowd here]?" "Get a job? What are you, nuts? That's no fun at all!"

As for other communities who are not LDS, take my extended family. We were (and still are) flag wavers to the nth degree. Practically every male in the family has volunteered for service with one branch or other of the US military. My two brothers both served.  I don't know if there was any family pressure involved, but if there were no direct pressure, there was a huge expectation that we would serve. Was it wrong? Evil? It didn't get down to the point of shame if you didn't enlist, I don't think, but that isn't the way it is in all LDS households either, as far as I'm aware. Your experience notwithstanding. A friend of mine is the 2nd counselor in the stake presidency, and his son is giving signs that he doesn't want to serve a mission. He told me that he is trying not to pressure him, and if he chooses not to, that's his choice. None of my sons served missions, either, and I still love them. A bit disappointed, but the only person I blame is me.

Here it is: from time immemorial, parents and communities have had expectations, sometimes serious ones, for what their progeny would do with their lives. You can stop imagining that the LDS are particularly heinous about this. 

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

when a kid d can’t be controlled and they stray from “ the covenant path” SOME PARENTS AND LEADERS flip out. 

When a parent tries to steer their children away from self-destructive behaviors, SOME KIDS flip out.

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

if the kids end up not going on a mission sometimes the parents are judged by their fellow ward members and local leaders… obviously they didn’t reward scriptures together as a family, obviously they didn’t have fhe, they don’t do food storage so disobeying the prophet there leads to disobeying everywhere, they didn’t force their kids to go to seminary… etc. 

We did pretty much all that, and I guess we weren't strict enough. And never felt any judgment from our fellow ward members. If they judged us secretly, we never noticed.

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

every ward and stake has their power families… you know the same ten families that do everything. They are the same ones who if there is gonna be a freak out over lack of mission… it will be in their home most of the time.

Where'd you grow up, anyway? I've been a member of the Church for 60 years and I've never lived in a stake where this kind of crap was going on. If you're talking about Utah Valley, well, then OK. Just stay away from them Mormons. Power families? Most of my church life was in western Washington state, and while we had some families many of whose members were extremely faithful and as a result many were in leadership positions, the kind of toxicity you seem to be talking about just wasn't happening. 

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

they listen to idiot leaders and their over the top council like these two guys:

Jeeze, it IS a dumb question. If you have a testimony of the gospel, it's definitely a dumb question. 

I suppose that if you don't have a testimony, then you should see if you can get one. And if you do, then it's definitely a dumb question. My current ministering companion, who is from South Africa, due to some social pressure went on his mission without having a testimony, but got one while serving. This isn't particularly unusual.

If you don't want to serve a mission, then fine, don't. But if you're PRAYING whether you should serve a mission, then what do you think GOD is going to tell you? "No, I'm going to make an exception in your case. You're perfectly healthy and capable, but you, my son, can just stay home." I'm sure that's going to happen.

Not that there aren't some who really shouldn't serve a full-time mission. There are those whose capacity or lack thereof make a mission quite iffy. 

I wasn't going to serve a mission, initially, because as a relatively new convert I didn't think I measured up to the standard demonstrated by the missionary elders who taught me, and by the others whom I met over time, who had the benefit of years of Primary, Seminary, and all that. But when I got my patriarchal blessing I realized that even I needed to be about my Father's business. Although I did try to pray about it to get a confirmation. As it happens I didn't get a confirmation, but after some thought realized that the Lord had already answered me. And so I went, and the rest of my life has been blessed by that decision. 

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Oh, Mormon Stories Podcast! I'm sure they'll be quite neutral and open-minded on the subject.

My apologies, but I have a tendency to disregard whatever it is Mr. Dehlin has to present. 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Marcotte contends that the rally was the public showcase of a longer project. Since taking the Pentagon, Hegseth has hosted monthly worship services in the building's auditorium — every invited preacher a white evangelical, every sermon evangelical in character.

That's kind of "stunning and brave," I guess.

I spent a few years in camo, and wow guess what we had chaplains who led worship services every Sunday (or Saturday). There were dedicated buildings on post that were specifically intended for religious services. 

So what is Marcotte all hot and bothered about? Hegseth having worship services in the Pentagon is not some glaring change. 

[Notatbm]

40 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Ah, I see. I missed the turn. Not unusual.

Like many other children, I grew up in a non-religious household. My parents taught me to obey them. Since when does a responsible parent tell their children "Oh, you can stand up to me, be independent, no problem! If I tell you to not jump off that cliff, feel free to disobey and take the leap!"

Do you know what happened in my household when I told my non-member father that I was going to serve a mission? Wow, it wasn't "next to anarchy," it was anarchy to the max. My non-member mother didn't say a word, but dad definitely had things to say. In my family, I was the quiet obedient one, who always did what was expected. Until this mission thing came up. I was 18, and when dad saw he couldn't force me to change my mind, he kicked me out of the house, and I was on my own. He even got physical about it until mom told him to cut it out. I lived with my grandmother for a few weeks until I got a job and my own little apartment. After I got back from the mission he seemed proud about it, though, and was impressed I could speak German fluently. 

I disobeyed him a second time after he died, because I went through the temple for him myself, even though he had told me not to do it. I had turned into a true rebel, you see, and my life of crime has continued until this day.

I hope you don't take this in bad part, but that sounds incredibly whiny and immature. And I don't get the point.

I don't know what you've seen in non-LDS peoples' lives, but I've heard similar things from plenty of children growing up in totally non-religious households. "They won't let me stay out past 10 at night!" "They make me do my homework before I'm allowed to play with my friends!" "They make me take piano lessons! I hate it!" "What? I have to be back from my date by 11 pm? What monster control freaks!" "They grounded me because I stole some cigarettes from my Uncle Tom!" "My parents won't let me play Grand Theft Auto XX all night long! What losers!" "Why do I have to pay for my own gas?" "What do you mean I'm not allowed to hang out with [insert local dubious crowd here]?" "Get a job? What are you, nuts? That's no fun at all!"

As for other communities who are not LDS, take my extended family. We were (and still are) flag wavers to the nth degree. Practically every male in the family has volunteered for service with one branch or other of the US military. My two brothers both served.  I don't know if there was any family pressure involved, but if there were no direct pressure, there was a huge expectation that we would serve. Was it wrong? Evil? It didn't get down to the point of shame if you didn't enlist, I don't think, but that isn't the way it is in all LDS households either, as far as I'm aware. Your experience notwithstanding. A friend of mine is the 2nd counselor in the stake presidency, and his son is giving signs that he doesn't want to serve a mission. He told me that he is trying not to pressure him, and if he chooses not to, that's his choice. None of my sons served missions, either, and I still love them. A bit disappointed, but the only person I blame is me.

Here it is: from time immemorial, parents and communities have had expectations, sometimes serious ones, for what their progeny would do with their lives. You can stop imagining that the LDS are particularly heinous about this. 

When a parent tries to steer their children away from self-destructive behaviors, SOME KIDS flip out.

We did pretty much all that, and I guess we weren't strict enough. And never felt any judgment from our fellow ward members. If they judged us secretly, we never noticed.

Where'd you grow up, anyway? I've been a member of the Church for 60 years and I've never lived in a stake where this kind of crap was going on. If you're talking about Utah Valley, well, then OK. Just stay away from them Mormons. Power families? Most of my church life was in western Washington state, and while we had some families many of whose members were extremely faithful and as a result many were in leadership positions, the kind of toxicity you seem to be talking about just wasn't happening. 

Jeeze, it IS a dumb question. If you have a testimony of the gospel, it's definitely a dumb question. 

I suppose that if you don't have a testimony, then you should see if you can get one. And if you do, then it's definitely a dumb question. My current ministering companion, who is from South Africa, due to some social pressure went on his mission without having a testimony, but got one while serving. This isn't particularly unusual.

If you don't want to serve a mission, then fine, don't. But if you're PRAYING whether you should serve a mission, then what do you think GOD is going to tell you? "No, I'm going to make an exception in your case. You're perfectly healthy and capable, but you, my son, can just stay home." I'm sure that's going to happen.

Not that there aren't some who really shouldn't serve a full-time mission. There are those whose capacity or lack thereof make a mission quite iffy. 

I wasn't going to serve a mission, initially, because as a relatively new convert I didn't think I measured up to the standard demonstrated by the missionary elders who taught me, and by the others whom I met over time, who had the benefit of years of Primary, Seminary, and all that. But when I got my patriarchal blessing I realized that even I needed to be about my Father's business. Although I did try to pray about it to get a confirmation. As it happens I didn't get a confirmation, but after some thought realized that the Lord had already answered me. And so I went, and the rest of my life has been blessed by that decision. 

Oh, Mormon Stories Podcast! I'm sure they'll be quite neutral and open-minded on the subject.

My apologies, but I have a tendency to disregard whatever it is Mr. Dehlin has to present. 

Watch the video clip of the stake presidency counselor and what he has to say. Not dehlin

Edited Wednesday at 07:31 PM by Notatbm

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Hegseth having worship services in the Pentagon is not some glaring change. 

Are you bothered by the lack of variety?  It’s not like there are only white evangelical chaplains in the military.   It’s in a government building, a government that is supposed to represent all its people.

[Stargazer]

Just now, Calm said:

Are you bothered by the lack of variety?

No. If I were Secretary of War, I might want to see that LDS-oriented services were conducted, and leave other denominational services to those who wanted them. And you better believe that if I did that, there'd be complaints about that, too. 

Hegseth is an evangelical Protestant. If he wants to see to it that his own variety of Christian has occasional worship services, it doesn't bother me. Some have complained that he has seen fit to reserve an actual meeting hall, not a small chapel, for the monthly services. To which I say: if he can fill the space, what's the big deal? They should find something worthwhile to complain about.

If he were interfering with other denominational services, that would bother me. Has anyone said that other denominations aren't holding worship services in the Pentagon? In fact, there a number of military chaplains actually assigned to the Pentagon. There is a special memorial chapel, the Pentagon Memorial Chapel, which is located at the crash site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Throughout the week, services for various faiths are held at the chapel. It's open 24 hours a day for prayer and meditation. Besides those, there are religious services for many different faiths held in other places in the Pentagon. You can see the schedule of services held HERE. LDS meet in the memorial chapel on Tuesdays 0730-0830. Muslims meet there on Fridays, 1400-1500. Possibly ironically, since the memorial chapel was created to memorialize the victims of the attack committed by their coreligionists.

Just now, Calm said:

 It’s not like there are only white evangelical chaplains in the military.   It’s in a government building, a government that is supposed to represent all its people.

Do we have information that black evangelical chaplains were excluded from those evangelical services encouraged by Hegseth? 

I don't quite see the logic. Yes, the government is supposed to represent all its people. But there is no national religion. Thus it's difficult to have a generic all-faith worship service. And what about the atheists? They of all people don't want to worship with all the rest. 

You have to keep in mind that Pete Hegseth is a divisive figure in the public eye, because his policies rub some people quite raw. What this means, is that if he did something truly great, certain people would find it to be troubling, no matter what it was. And heaven forbid someone actually believe in their own religion, and act accordingly. 

 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

That's kind of "stunning and brave," I guess.

I spent a few years in camo, and wow guess what we had chaplains who led worship services every Sunday (or Saturday). There were dedicated buildings on post that were specifically intended for religious services. 

Do you think there is a difference between religious services in a dedicated building on post versus in the Pentagon's auditorium?  Particularly where the Pentagon has a dedicated "Memorial Chapel" intended for facilitate religious services?

See, e.g., here:

Quote

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth led a Christian prayer service in the Pentagon’s auditorium on Wednesday morning, during working hours, in which President Trump was praised as a divinely appointed leader.

The event, billed as the “Secretary of Defense Christian Prayer & Worship Service,” was standing room only and ran for about 30 minutes, with Brooks Potteiger, the pastor of Mr. Hegseth’s church in Tennessee, as the main speaker.

I'm not sure what to make about a "Christian Prayer & Worship Service" headed by the Secretary of War, since he's in the chain of command and all.  A chaplain running this, sure, but the SoW?

Quote

“This is precisely where I need to be, and I think exactly where we need to be as a nation, at this moment,” Mr. Hegseth, standing at a lectern bearing the seal of the Defense Department, said in his opening remarks: “in prayer, on bended knee recognizing the providence of our lord and savior Jesus Christ.” He added, “Knowing that there’s an author in heaven overseeing all of this, who’s underwritten all of it, for us, on the cross, gives me the strength to proceed.”

Do you think there is any difference between a prayer meeting or other religious/devotional meeting being conducted by a chaplain versus by the Secretary of War?

Quote

The defense secretary said that attendance at the prayer service was voluntary, but encouraged the uniformed military personnel and civilian employees there to tell their co-workers about it.

"Voluntary, but encouraged {by the Secretary of War}."

Quote

“King Jesus, we come humbly before you, seeking your face, seeking your grace, in humble obedience to your law and to your word,” Mr. Hegseth prayed after asking attendees to bow their heads. “We come as sinners saved only by that grace, seeking your providence in our lives and in our nation. Lord God, we ask for the wisdom to see what is right and in each and every day, in each and every circumstance, the courage to do what is right in obedience to your will. It is in the name of our lord and savior, Jesus Christ, that we pray. And all God’s people say amen.”

The assembled worshipers, including at least one general, repeated “Amen.”

Again, I'd be fine with a chaplain doing this stuff.  Not sure about the SoW saying this stuff in the auditorium at the Pentagon, at a lectern "bearing the seal of the Defense Department."

Quote

Mr. Potteiger’s church, the Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship in Goodlettsville, Tenn., is a member of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches — the governing documents of which say that church leadership roles are reserved for men, that homosexuality is “unbiblical” and that women should not participate in combat. Mr. Hegseth said in a podcast appearance before his nomination to lead the Pentagon that women have no place in military combat units, but appeared to soften that stance during his confirmation hearing in January.

Not a chaplain, this fellow.

Quote

In his sermon, the pastor said, “We pray for our leaders who you have sovereignly appointed — for President Trump, thank you for the way that you have used him to bring stability and moral clarity to our land. And we pray that you would continue to protect him, bless him, give him great wisdom.”

President Trump was "sovereignly appointed"?  And this declaration is being made by a pastor (not a chaplain) in the Pentagon auditorium (not in the dedicated "Memorial Chapel)?  While standing at a lectern "bearing the seal of the Defense Department"?  This is troubling to me.

Quote

He added: “We pray that you would surround him with faithful counselors who fear your name and love your precepts.”

Mr. Hegseth said Mr. Potteiger had “long been a mentor of mine, of my wife and I, of our family,” and he described him as “just a Bible-believing, rock steady minister.”

Sounds appropriate in other contexts, but the time, place and manner of this stuff is off to me.

9 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

So what is Marcotte all hot and bothered about? Hegseth having worship services in the Pentagon is not some glaring change. 

I don't agree with much of what Marcotte has to say, but what she describes here is giving me pause.

I cherish the religious pluralism of the United States.  I'm a bit nervous about organs and representatives of the State to be doing stuff like this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Notatbm]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Like many other children, I grew up in a non-religious household. My parents taught me to obey them. Since when does a responsible parent tell their children "Oh, you can stand up to me, be independent, no problem! If I tell you to not jump off that cliff, feel free to disobey and take the leap!"

We r talking about 18-19 year olds and their (well maybe it isnt their decision) decision as to whether or not they will serve a mission...not little children.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Do you know what happened in my household when I told my non-member father that I was going to serve a mission? Wow, it wasn't "next to anarchy," it was anarchy to the max. My non-member mother didn't say a word, but dad definitely had things to say. In my family, I was the quiet obedient one, who always did what was expected. Until this mission thing came up. I was 18, and when dad saw he couldn't force me to change my mind, he kicked me out of the house, and I was on my own. He even got physical about it until mom told him to cut it out. I lived with my grandmother for a few weeks until I got a job and my own little apartment. After I got back from the mission he seemed proud about it, though, and was impressed I could speak German fluently. 

We r talking about Mormon 18 yar old adults disobeying mormon parents and mormon prophets about serving mormon missions, not some part mormon/part nevermo household. The church and its missionaries sets up dual faith families like yours and they are suprised there is a problem for the opposite reason when it comes to missions?

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I hope you don't take this in bad part, but that sounds incredibly whiny and immature. And I don't get the point.

The point is mormon parents and mormon leaders infantilize mormon ADULT children and dictate mandatory missions to them....in some cases such as my own family...and many others I know. Its not whiney, its called parents not letting your kids make their own life decisions as adults and then being regarded as "dishonorably excused" by the church if they dont go. 

I'll refresh your memory:

"If young men are not able to serve because of poor health or a disability, they are honorably excused.”

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I don't know what you've seen in non-LDS peoples' lives, but I've heard similar things from plenty of children growing up in totally non-religious households. "They won't let me stay out past 10 at night!" "They make me do my homework before I'm allowed to play with my friends!" "They make me take piano lessons! I hate it!" "What? I have to be back from my date by 11 pm? What monster control freaks!" "They grounded me because I stole some cigarettes from my Uncle Tom!" "My parents won't let me play Grand Theft Auto XX all night long! What losers!" "Why do I have to pay for my own gas?" "What do you mean I'm not allowed to hang out with [insert local dubious crowd here]?" "Get a job? What are you, nuts? That's no fun at all!"

Again Im talking about adults here not little kids, but you know that.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As for other communities who are not LDS, take my extended family. We were (and still are) flag wavers to the nth degree. Practically every male in the family has volunteered for service with one branch or other of the US military. My two brothers both served.  I don't know if there was any family pressure involved, but if there were no direct pressure, there was a huge expectation that we would serve. Was it wrong? Evil? It didn't get down to the point of shame if you didn't enlist, I don't think, but that isn't the way it is in all LDS households either, as far as I'm aware. Your experience notwithstanding. 

Service wasnt expected in my family, it was actively discouraged. And ohhh boy are they some serious stars and stripes wavers too.

I had a Platoon Leader once who was sitting with us Joes eating our MREs during a break in training at JOTC.. someone asked him why he joined the Army. He flat out told us it was a family expectation and his whole family (males) had all gone to VMI and then the Army. Said he was doing his six years and getting out for good. One of the Joes asked if he even wanted to be in the Army and he said no way might as well have been drafted. 

My PSG got up and told the LT to come with him right now. He walked him about 25 yds in the Jungle and yelled at him for being a failure as a leader and was gonna do his best to get him relieved, not because he was a bad person, but because he just lost the trust of his Soldiers and didnt belong as a PL. He got relieved. But hey he did what his parents said. Same can be said for forcing kids to go on missions. Some just dont belong and shouldnt be forced.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

When a parent tries to steer their children away from self-destructive behaviors, SOME KIDS flip out.

So not going on a mission is "self-destructive behaviour." tell us how you really feel...about your own kids who didnt go on missions. Did they destroy themselves? My kids went on missions and I didnt want them to. You know what I told them...? Do what you want and whatever it is do a good job. I'll even pay for it if you go. If you dont no worries. I really didnt want to drop $10K + on a mission but hey I'm not gonna force one on an 18 year old or bash him if he doesnt go. They knew I wasnt on board with missions and they knew how my parents were cuz I told them. They also knew I wasnt gonna go crazy if they didnt go. There is no way I was going to consider their decision to be "Self-Desructive" if they didnt go on one.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Where'd you grow up, anyway? I've been a member of the Church for 60 years and I've never lived in a stake where this kind of crap was going on. If you're talking about Utah Valley, well, then OK. Just stay away from them Mormons. Power families? Most of my church life was in western Washington state, and while we had some families many of whose members were extremely faithful and as a result many were in leadership positions, the kind of toxicity you seem to be talking about just wasn't happening. 

Grew up in the morridor. Father was Stake Pres for ten years at the point I bailed on a mission.  Back in those days the traveling apostles and seventies would stay with local families when they came for stake conferences etc. My family knew enough of them from having lots of connections in Bountiful that lots of them would visit even if it wasnt for something in our stake and they would stay with us for a few days and eat my mom's awesome cooking.

Packer, Featherstone, McKonkie, Hunter, Holland, Ballard, Benson, Peterson, Richards, Hinkley, and liar liar Dunn to name the more well-known ones. Yep fam is/was friends with most at the time and I've met em all. Stake Presidents used to be somebody back then... nowadays they are just basic errand boys since theres too many of them. Anyway- them and their extended family friends connections were my parents's connections and social circle. So extreme hardliners. That's who my parents not only wanted to emulate, but also impress probably. Having a kid not go on a mission in that crowd was extremely humiliating.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Jeeze, it IS a dumb question. If you have a testimony of the gospel, it's definitely a dumb question. 

Agreed, but he doesnt qualify it. Just says it is a dumb question. people who talk like that are dumb. Have you heard some of his other talks??? Man that is one arrogant guy. 

He's is the same one that quantifies and measures a missionarys service with a specific number of full tithepayers brought on-board of all things. A real gem that guy is.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

If you don't want to serve a mission, then fine, don't. But if you're PRAYING whether you should serve a mission, then what do you think GOD is going to tell you? "No, I'm going to make an exception in your case. You're perfectly healthy and capable, but you, my son, can just stay home." I'm sure that's going to happen.

The same god that is picking Bishops who then molest children. What are we up to now??? 150 plus documented victims of child abuse at the hands of  mormon bishops... The same god that doesn't spare a little child from being beaten or molested but helps BYU coed McKayleigh McKinzie find her keys in the BYU parking lot...no thanks.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Oh, Mormon Stories Podcast! I'm sure they'll be quite neutral and open-minded on the subject.

My apologies, but I have a tendency to disregard whatever it is Mr. Dehlin has to present. 

Since I dont want you to turn into a pillar of salt, here is the transcript of the statement from the stake presidency counselor ON  VIDEO.

"33 seconds

the tape a little tangent here real quick we were recently as a family having a discussion about missionary work one of my daughters was at school she was talking with her friends about president nelson's recent call for young men to serve missions and the friends there at the lunch table were debating do young men have to go or is it a choice now young man i hope you'll think about this carefully because there's an important doctrine here do you have a choice whether to serve a mission?  i'm gonna tell you why you don't nowthat might rub you the wrong way because we're so big into liberty and agency and and we do believe we're a free democratic kind of people right but here's why you don't have the choice anymore is because when you were baptized you signed on to the lord's plan which is giving up free agency and accepting moral agency...

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 10:23 PM by Notatbm
forgot to embed video of Kevin's moneygrab

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And you better believe that if I did that, there'd be complaints about that, too. 

And I would be there complaining if I worked in the military.  I think it’s completely inappropriate for him to arrange for only his version of religion and not others.  If I were Secretary of Defense***, I would ask for volunteers to run the other services and if no one was available, do it myself (or rather assign one of my people) and show up at least once to each version to show there was to be no favoritism…because as Secretary of Defense I would be representing the US, not LDS.  If for some reason this was impossible, I would still arrange meetings if needed, but they would be in a private, not government facility and would not be heavily publicized.  It would not be anything close to official or paid by tax dollars unless the identical opportunity was not only available, but used by other faiths.  I would avoid any possibility that it looked like the LDS faith or any other had a favored status.

***I would never work for a president whose focus was on aggression rather than defense of our country, so most likely there would be a new executive order vacating the previous one restoring the primary official title to use everywhere…plus I believe Congress should get more respect from the Executive branch.  Using executive orders to tailor the government to one’s personal taste is a presidential habit I hope gets broken soon.  At the very least, it’s a waste of money and time and creates a mass of confusion if controversial and is likely to get reversed or placed on hold judicially.

Edited Wednesday at 10:38 PM by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you think there is a difference between religious services in a dedicated building on post versus in the Pentagon's auditorium?  Particularly where the Pentagon has a dedicated "Memorial Chapel" intended for facilitate religious services?

See, e.g., here:

I'm not sure what to make about a "Christian Prayer & Worship Service" headed by the Secretary of War, since he's in the chain of command and all.  A chaplain running this, sure, but the SoW?

Do you think there is any difference between a prayer meeting or other religious/devotional meeting being conducted by a chaplain versus by the Secretary of War?

"Voluntary, but encouraged {by the Secretary of War}."

Again, I'd be fine with a chaplain doing this stuff.  Not sure about the SoW saying this stuff in the auditorium at the Pentagon, at a lectern "bearing the seal of the Defense Department."

Not a chaplain, this fellow.

President Trump was "sovereignly appointed"?  And this declaration is being made by a pastor (not a chaplain) in the Pentagon auditorium (not in the dedicated "Memorial Chapel)?  While standing at a lectern "bearing the seal of the Defense Department"?  This is troubling to me.

Sounds appropriate in other contexts, but the time, place and manner of this stuff is off to me.

I don't agree with much of what Marcotte has to say, but what she describes here is giving me pause.

I cherish the religious pluralism of the United States.  I'm a bit nervous about organs and representatives of the State to be doing stuff like this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you, Smac.  You itemized most of my concerns here about why I think it’s inappropriate.

[Navidad]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I cherish the religious pluralism of the United States. 

Hi my friend. Like Calm, I both value and agree with your summary of your concerns.  I am sincerely asking you to help me understand the religious pluralism of the United States that you cherish? The only thing I can get my head around is that you cherish the right of the rest of us to be doctrinally wrong. Then, at the same time, send out thousands of missionaries to systematically and hopefully phase out the very pluralism you cherish. I think we should all cherish the truth of each other's beliefs, or at the very least receive them without necessarily agreeing with them. That, to me, is valuing religious pluralism. I am genuinely trying to understand. Thanks.

Edited yesterday at 02:45 PM by Navidad

[MiserereNobis]

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. I am sincerely asking you to help me understand the religious pluralism of the United States that you cherish? The only thing I can get my head around is that you cherish the right of the rest of us to be doctrinally wrong. Then, at the same time, send out thousands of missionaries to systematically and hopefully phase out the very pluralism you cherish. I think we should all cherish the truth of each other's beliefs, or at the very least receive them without necessarily agreeing with them. That, to me, is valuing religious pluralism. I am genuinely trying to understand. Thanks.

Hi Navidad,

Is it that you truly don’t understand the LDS claim to have the only authorized priesthood of God, or that you don’t agree with it?

For example, there are many LDS (it seems to me) that don’t understand the Trinity. It’s not just that they disagree with it, they misunderstand it as modalism or another heresy. Their misunderstanding can be cleared up, and then they can disagree with the actual doctrine. 
 

Is this where you are at with LDS exclusivity claims, that you don’t understand it? Or is it just that you just don’t agree?

 While you didn’t ask me, I’ll toss out my answer. Like smac, I also cherish the religious pluralism of the US, meaning I’m glad the US government doesn’t/shouldn’t treat religions differently. Do I wish people were Catholic? Sure. Do I want the US government to force Catholicism on others? No. Let Christ and the Holy Sprit bring them to Holy Mother Church, not the heavy hand of the government. 

[smac97]

An interesting article by a former Latter-day Saint who converted to Catholicism in 2018:

Are Latter-day Saints Christians?

A few excerpts:

Quote

Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?” While these are the words of a hypothetical objector in the preface of C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, they aptly sum up the feelings of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) following the Pentagon’s efforts to streamline certain religious classifications in the military. The government omitted the LDS Church from the “Christian” designation—a move that elicited strong objections from LDS politicians and members alike, including Utah senator Mike Lee. Ultimately, the Department of War dropped the designation altogether.

One of the few things Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox agree on is that Latter-day Saints are not Christians. But why?

I wonder how accurate this is.  Per this 2007 Pew Research article:

Quote

{L}arge majorities of white mainline Protestants (62%) and white non-Hispanic Catholics (59%) say that Mormons are Christians. In addition, those with no formal religious affiliation also say by greater than two-to-one that the Mormon religion is Christian (59%-25%).

I would like to see more current data.

Quote

After all, Latter-day Saints claim to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the only path to salvation. They claim to believe that he is divine and that we must follow his teachings.

"{C}laim to believe."

Quote

I can personally confirm they believe these things because I was born and raised in the faith, was a missionary for two years, was married to my wife in an LDS temple, served in local LDS leadership positions, and lived the faith actively for many years until I converted to Catholicism in 2018.

From "they claim to believe..." to "I can personally confirm they believe these things" in the space of two sentences.

Quote

I agree with the historic Christian consensus, not out of spite or animus, but out of a conviction that it is both historically necessary and spiritually prudent for safeguarding the Christian faith.

Okay.  But it the claim accurate?

Quote

As Lewis’s objector questions, “May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?” In other words: Mormons are really good people who claim to follow Jesus and live many basic virtues better than many Nicene-professing Christians. The problem is, as Lewis observes, this line of reasoning is “in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive,” but indeed, “has every available quality except that of being useful.” Membership in any group—including the LDS Church—requires an authoritative line defining who belongs and who doesn’t. When “Christian” is stretched to mean nothing more than “being good,” the word is rendered essentially empty.

Even the LDS Church’s specific affirmations—that Jesus is divine, that he is our only Savior—aren’t enough.

"I can personally confirm they {Latter-day Saints} believe {that Jesus is the Son of God, the only path to salvation ... and that he is divine and that we must follow his teachings}."

"Even the LDS Church’s specific affirmations—that Jesus is divine, that he is our only Savior—aren’t enough."

I'm not sure what to make of this.  This fellow seems to be undercutting his thesis.

Quote

According to the Gospel of Truth, a document influential with Valentinian Gnostics, Jesus is “the Logos” (the Word) and “the Savior,” “since that is the name of the work he must do for the redemption of those who have not known the Father.” But for St. Irenaeus of Lyons, this so-called gospel was full of “blasphemy.” When the Gnostics spoke of Jesus and the salvation he offered, they meant something very different from, and opposed to, what was affirmed by the deposit of faith. If uttering the words “Jesus is my Lord and Savior” is sufficient to be Christian, we wind up having to identify as Christian numerous groups the early Church would deem not only wrong but spiritually dangerous. Whatever benefit it may have for sociological purposes to lump Gnostics, Mormons, and Catholics together as “Christians,” sociology is not a matter of our salvation.

So Latter-day Saints "mean something very different" in their affirmations of Jesus's divinity?  What is that difference?

Quote

So when we speak as Christians, it matters whom we do and do not acknowledge to be Christian.

I would like to better understand this.  As a Latter-day Saint, I think some boundaries do matter.  For example, I think many (most?) Latter-day Saints do not "acknowledge" polygamist offshoot groups to be Latter-day Saints.  But I don't think we deny their believe in Jesus Christ.

I sense that most non-Latter-day Saint Christians have a generalized sense or need for boundary maintenance about the broader category of "Christian," but that this maintenance is really quite hard to do.  The Peterson/Ricks book, Offenders for a Word, does a very good job of laying that out.

Quote

The Christian faith is grounded in a real person, not merely in the words a religion bears in its name, the symbols it displays.

I quite agree with this.  So is Mr. Christiansen saying that Latter-day Saints do not ground their faith in the "real person" known as the "Jesus" of the New Testament of the Bible?  Is he, in the end, advancing the "another Jesus" concept?  It appears so:

Quote

It is for that reason that when I became Catholic, I was baptized. Not re-baptized, but baptized. Much like the Valentinians, Latter-day Saints mean something very different when they baptize their members “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” I will not digress here on the complexities, and indeed, diversity, of LDS theology, but in a nutshell their views boil down to either polytheistic or henotheistic worship, neither of which is consistent with the historic Christian faith (and indeed, would make Arius himself blush).

Is he saying that the "Jesus" the Latter-day Saints profess to worship is numerically distinct from the "Jesus" of Catholicism?

The reference to Arius is interesting.  "Claim 2" cited in the Peterson/Ricks book addresses this:

Quote

Claim 2. Mormons do not really believe in the deity of Jesus because they reject traditional dogma on the Trinity.184 In Mormondom, alleges G. H. Fraser, “Athanasius is scorned and Arius is eulogized.”185 Mormons are “tritheists.” And, thus, since they reject the Trinity, “the most basic of all Christian doctrines,” they cannot possibly be considered Christian.186

The entire response is worth a read.  The concluding statement is something of a zinger:

Quote

Anti-Mormons who denounce The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as tritheistic need to check the thickness of their glass house’s walls before they continue, since their own trinitarian understanding of the Godhead looks like tritheism to rigidly monotheistic Jews and Muslims. “Judaism, Islam, and Christianity claim to be monotheistic,” noted the late S. G. F. Brandon, “but the title of Christianity is disputed by the other two on the grounds that the doctrine of the Trinity is tritheism.” 211 Even dissenters within the Christian tradition have sometimes felt uneasy with trinitarian theology. From the point of view of the Sabellian bishops of early Christianity , the doctrine of the trinity appeared to be tritheistic.212  But not only by them. Many ordinary Christians of those first centuries were disturbed by such doctrinal innovations. “The beginnings of the church’s trinitarian theology were perceived as polytheism and were rejected as heresy in the name of the biblical God.” 213

Interesting stuff.

Quote

For that reason, among others, the Catholic Church, in a 2001 response to a dubium, declared baptism conferred by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be invalid. Thus, a person so baptized is not, in the Catholic Church’s eyes, sacramentally Christian. What the Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox hold in common about the nature of who Jesus Christ is serves as the basis of their rightly held consensus on the question of whether the Latter-day Saints are “Christians.”

This is an interesting point.  The Church similarly does not recognize or ratify Catholic baptisms, but in doing so we do not deny their status as Christians (rather, we claim they lack the requisite authority to baptize).

Quote

Some dispute the pragmatic evangelical effect of this posture toward Latter-day Saints, who are famously nice and conflict-avoidant, and who take great offense at being doggedly refused the title of Christians. To that I would suggest there is actually a twofold usefulness to this consensus: First, it may well serve to keep in the fold our Christian brothers and sisters who are at the margins, given that the overwhelming bulk of converts to the LDS Church are lapsed or poorly catechized Christians of one sort or another.  If the LDS Church is “Christian,” it will make it that much easier for those whose faith in the Christian message is not where it ought to be to turn away from the faith.

Hmm.  This sort of sounds like a utilitarian "the ends justify the means" justification.  Thoughts?

Quote

Second, Christians of the past were willing to be exiled, even die, over strictly maintaining orthodoxy regarding who Jesus Christ is.

The article is surprisingly oblique about this principal issue, namely, "orthodoxy regarding who Jesus Christ is" and the previous "Latter-day Saints mean something very different when they baptize their members 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost'" claim.  This is apparently about creedal trinitarianism, and that the Latter-day Saint rejection of it, in favor of the "Godhead" or "Social Trinitarianism," means we are not "Christian."  I think this is confirmed in the article's concluding comments:

Quote

Perhaps our own willingness to respectfully maintain that line can help the LDS Church to understand that belief in the Triune God is positively non-negotiable to the Christian faith. I know it is possible to cross that line with one’s love for Christ not merely intact but deepened. My hope, and my prayer, is that many more will follow.

"{B}elief in the Triune God is positively non-negotiable to the Christian faith."

Again, from the Peterson/Ricks book:

Quote

The fact that the Latter-day Saints are neither Athanasians nor genuine Arians, nor indeed any kind of trinitarians at all in the typical meaning of the word, should not mislead observers into thinking that they reject the divine Sonship of Jesus. Unlike such ancient groups as the Ebionites, who are universally referred to as “Jewish Christians,” Mormons emphatically declare the deity of Christ. 190 “We believe in God, the Eternal Father,” they declare in their first Article of Faith, “and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” Thus, while not conventionally trinitarian, they declare forthrightly their belief in a three-person Godhead which is in all crucial respects the functional equivalent of the Greek metaphysical Trinity, and which includes as its second member a fully-divine Son. Indeed, so insistent is the Book of Mormon upon the divinity of Christ that Krister Stendahl, former dean of Harvard Divinity School and Lutheran bishop of Sweden, as well as a sympathetic critic of the Latter-day Saints, has suggested that it goes too far! 191

We must be clear on the issue here. Despite the frequency with which Christ’s divinity and trinitarian metaphysics are identified with each other, 192 the linkage is extremely dubious on both logical and historical grounds. Trinitarianism hardly seems a valid litmus test for determining who is, and who is not, Christian. 193 Indeed, the metaphysical doctrine of the Trinity is a very late development, and hardly to be found with clarity in the Bible. 194 The first Christian author to use the term is Theophilus of Antioch, who flourished in the late second century, and it is very doubtful that he meant by it what contemporary theologians mean, since the term had yet to go through a long philosophical and theological evolution before it reached any kind of stability. 195 Trinitarianism cannot be said to have been fully present among early Christians, in the sense to which the Latter-day Saints are being held. There was, for instance, a tendency in Justin Martyr(d. ca. A.D. 165), as among the apologists of the second century generally, to an idea of two Gods, and not three. 196 The theology of Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. A.D. 215) was also “really Binitarian.” 197 W. H. C. Frend believes that the charge of “ditheism” (i.e., having a two member Godhead) commonly made against Hippolytus (d. A.D. 235) was probably justified. 198 “The exact theological definition of the doctrine of the Trinity,” notes the Protestant Bible commentator J. R. Dummelow, “was the result of a long process of development, which was not complete till the fifth century or even later.” Dummelow goes on, it is true, to observe that “the doctrine itself underlies the whole New Testament, which everywhere attributes divinity to the Father, the Son and the Spirit, and assigns to them distinct functions in the economy of human redemption.” 199 But we must beware here of shifting meanings. What Dummelow means when he speaks of “the doctrine” that “underlies the whole New Testament” is merely the portrayal of a divine Father, a divine Son, and a divine Holy Ghost, united while nonetheless carrying out their various roles. But this picture of the Godhead is compatible both with the metaphysical Trinity, as that doctrine later evolved, and with the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints. It is far too inclusive to justify expelling the Mormons from Christendom. As Gerhard Kittel’s famous Theological Dictionary of the New Testament observes, “The NT does not actually speak of triunity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae of the NT. . . . Early Christianity itself . . . does not yet have the problem of the Trinity in view.” 200 This point cannot be overstressed, for it demonstrates beyond any question that the New Testament does not exclude Latter-day Saints from Christendom over the issue of the Trinity.

Ironically, however, anti-Mormon trinitarianism may well serve to exclude the early Christian Church. We have seen that neither Clement of Alexandria nor Hippolytus nor Justin Martyr held to a full-blown doctrine of the Trinity. Neither, apparently, did the very earliest followers of Jesus. For “the New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a Triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature.” 201 “We cannot,” notes one prominent non-Mormon scholar, “read back into the New Testament, much less the Old Testament, the more sophisticated trinitarian theology and doctrine which slowly and often unevenly developed over the course of some fifteen centuries.” 202 “To insist that a belief in the Trinity is requisite to being Christian,” Bill Forrest aptly remarks, “is to acknowledge that for centuries after the New Testament was completed thousands of Jesus’ followers were in fact not really ‘Christian.'” 203

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. Like Calm, I both value and agree with your summary of your concerns.  I am sincerely asking you to help me understand the religious pluralism of the United States that you cherish?

I think it is best encapsulated in the 11th Article of Faith: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."  See also here:

Quote

Article VI, Clause 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

England historically required public officeholders not only to swear an oath of loyalty to the Crown, the head of the state-sponsored Church of England, but also to take communion in that church.¹ Religious test oaths were initially required in the colonies, as well, as part of the legal framework supporting state-established churches.² The Constitution Annotated discusses the features of historic state-sponsored religions, known as religious establishments, in the context of the Religion Clauses.³ Looking specifically at religious tests, early Puritans and other colonists believed oaths requiring conformance to Christian values were necessary to ensure that officials were of good moral character.⁴ These arguments held particular force for colonies seeking to establish religiously pure communities.⁵ Religious minorities protested these oaths, some because of general religious objections to taking oaths, and others because the oaths elevated specific religious views.⁶

See also here:

Quote

In an Idaho stake conference in May 1885, Heber J. Grant told the assembled crowd, “The Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech and faith and religious action as long as it does not interfere with the rights and privileges of others.”[1] Grant made this statement a few months after all Latter-day Saints were disfranchised in the Idaho Territory. The passage of this law, known as the Idaho test oath, prohibited the Saints from voting, serving on a jury, holding public office, and teaching in public schools. However, the Idaho Territory was not the only jurisdiction to attempt to disfranchise their citizens through a test oath. A federal test oath was imposed in 1882 by the Utah Commission and adopted in 1887 in the Edmunds-Tucker Act. The State of Nevada also passed a test oath mirroring and exceeding the Idaho act in 1887.

While the Saints avoided prosecution through hiding, they also followed the advice of George Q. Cannon and made “a fight in the courts.”[2] These legal “fights” took place in federal, state, and territorial courts where the Saints had varying levels of success. Through their efforts the Nevada law was struck down and ruled unconstitutional in 1888. The Saints were also able to mitigate the harshness of the federal laws. However, they were unable to overcome the Idaho law. The Idaho Saints attacked the law on many fronts and through many lawsuits, but it was repeatedly upheld by territorial courts. An Idaho case, Davis v. Beason,[3] was eventually appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where the Idaho test oath was once again upheld. This caused the Church considerable worry as the Saints could then be disfranchised in all other territories, including Utah.

Around this same time, the Supreme Court held the United States government could confiscate property of the Church in a second case, Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. United States.[4] It was these two cases that led President Woodruff to abandon plural marriage, as the antipolygamy laws “have been pronounced constitutional by the courts of last resort.”[5] While the Saints’ constitutional arguments won some protection at the state and federal level, their arguments against Idaho’s law ultimately failed due to the nature of the territory’s laws.

We have, fortunately, overcome the above-referenced religious tests and disenfranchisement issues.

23 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The only thing I can get my head around is that you cherish the right of the rest of us to be doctrinally wrong.

I appreciate you sharing your perspective.  Religious pluralism allows us as individuals and groups to live amongst and work with each other without being obligated to sacrifice our religious beliefs.  In an ultimate, "at the end of the day" sense, you disagree with some tenets of the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, correct?  The exclusivistic truth claims regarding priesthood authority and other matters appear to be a key point of disagreement.  Is this an accurate characterization of your perspective? 

If so, we are speaking and getting along today, in large part, because of religious pluralism.  The U.S. Constitution has a substantial "trickle down" effect on laws and regulations, and ultimately on society and individual and personal interactions.  I can be a Latter-day Saint and serve in the military, and vote, and run for public office, and hold real property, and on and on and on.  I can then, if I choose, dissociate from the Church and still retain these rights.  I can become a Catholic and retain them.  I can become an agnostic or atheist and retain them.  I can accept, or not accept, religious precepts from the Church, or from you, or from any other individual or group, and not be punished or deprived of my civil rights.

Latter-day Saints cherish U.S. religious pluralism primarily because it is grounded in the First Amendment and the inspired U.S. Constitution, which guarantee religious liberty for all.  Here are, I think, the core reasons:

• Historical Protection: Early Latter-day Saints faced violent persecution (expulsions from Missouri, martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, etc.) precisely because of religious intolerance. Pluralism and the separation of church and state provided a legal framework that allowed the Church to survive, regroup in the West, and eventually flourish.
• Agency and Free Exercise: It aligns with core gospel principles of moral agency and the right to choose one’s faith without coercion — a freedom we see as divinely protected.
• Enables the Restoration: The open religious marketplace allowed Joseph Smith’s First Vision, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and ongoing revelation to occur and spread without state-sponsored suppression.
• Benefits All Faiths: Modern leaders of the Church consistently teach that religious liberty must apply equally to everyone. They defend the rights of other religions (and even non-believers) because the same principles protect the Church’s missionary work and existence today.

In short, U.S. pluralism is viewed as a providential blessing that prevents the kind of religious tyranny their history taught us to oppose, while creating space for truth to be freely shared.

23 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Then, at the same time, send out thousands of missionaries to systematically and hopefully phase out the very pluralism you cherish. I think we should all cherish the truth of each other's beliefs, or at the very least receive them without necessarily agreeing with them. That, to me, is valuing religious pluralism. I am genuinely trying to understand. Thanks.

We seem to be agreeing in substance.  Consider this 1978 First Presidency statement:

Quote

"Based upon ancient and modern revelation, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gladly teaches and declares the Christian doctrine that all men and women are brothers and sisters, not only by blood relationship from mortal progenitors, but also as literal spirit children of an Eternal Father.

"The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.

And this 1921 statement by Elder Orson F. Whitney (same link) :

Quote

"{After quoting several verses from Alma 29.1-9 continues: These verses} tell one that Providence is over all, and that he holds the nations in the hollow of his hand; that he is using not only his covenant people, but other peoples as well, to consummate a work....[God] is using men as his instruments. Nor is he limited in the choice of instruments to his own people....Outside the pale of their [prophetic, priesthood] activities other good and great men, not bearing the Priesthood but possessing profundity of thought, great wisdom, and a desire to uplift their fellows, have been sent by the Almighty into many nations, to give them, not the fulness of the gospel, but that portion of truth that they were able to receive and wisely use. Such men as Confucius, Zoroaster, Buddha, Socrates and Plato. ...They were servants of the Lord in a lesser sense, and were sent to those pagan or heathen nations to give them the measure of truth that a wise Providence had allotted to them."

I would be happy to hear any further thoughts you have on these matters.

Thank you,

-Smac

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hi Navidad,

Is it that you truly don’t understand the LDS claim to have the only authorized priesthood of God, or that you don’t agree with it?

For example, there are many LDS (it seems to me) that don’t understand the Trinity. It’s not just that they disagree with it, they misunderstand it as modalism or another heresy. Their misunderstanding can be cleared up, and then they can disagree with the actual doctrine.

I would be interested in your assessment of this statement from the Peterson/Ricks book I cited above:

Quote

The fact that the Latter-day Saints are neither Athanasians nor genuine Arians, nor indeed any kind of trinitarians at all in the typical meaning of the word, should not mislead observers into thinking that they reject the divine Sonship of Jesus. Unlike such ancient groups as the Ebionites, who are universally referred to as “Jewish Christians,” Mormons emphatically declare the deity of Christ.190 “We believe in God, the Eternal Father,” they declare in their first Article of Faith, “and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” Thus, while not conventionally trinitarian, they declare forthrightly their belief in a three-person Godhead which is in all crucial respects the functional equivalent of the Greek metaphysical Trinity, and which includes as its second member a fully-divine Son. Indeed, so insistent is the Book of Mormon upon the divinity of Christ that Krister Stendahl, former dean of Harvard Divinity School and Lutheran bishop of Sweden, as well as a sympathetic critic of the Latter-day Saints, has suggested that it goes too far!191
...
As we have noted above, traditional Christianity itself is not straightforwardly monotheistic. Muslims, for example, who are rigidly and purely so, routinely refer to trinitarian Christians as Mushrikūn, or “polytheists.”223 And they are not alone in their uneasiness with a Godhead which is claimed to be simultaneously one and three. “The metaphysical insanities of Athanasius, of Loyola, and of Calvin,” wrote Thomas Jefferson to Jared Sparks in 1820, “are, to my understanding, mere relapses into polytheism, differing from paganism only by being more unintelligible.”224

For my part, I acknowledge that don’t really "understand the Trinity."  I find the concept difficult, even impossible, to parse out.

27 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is this where you are at with LDS exclusivity claims, that you don’t understand it? Or is it just that you just don’t agree?

 While you didn’t ask me, I’ll toss out my answer. Like smac, I also cherish the religious pluralism of the US, meaning I’m glad the US government doesn’t/shouldn’t treat religions differently. Do I wish people were Catholic? Sure. Do I want the US government to force Catholicism on others? No. Let Christ and the Holy Sprit bring them to Holy Mother Church, not the heavy hand of the government. 

I am glad we agree on this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MiserereNobis]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I would be interested in your assessment of this statement from the Peterson/Ricks book I cited above:

For me, a Christian is someone who fits into the greater umbrella of Christianity, which I am fine being large and with not very clearly defined borders. If someone says they are a Christian, and their basic beliefs fit into the basic idea of Christianity, then sure, they are Christian. So they don't have to be Trinitarian to be Christian. That just makes them a heretic  But seriously, for me it is not a big deal and I don't spend energy on it.

Is there a term LDS use to refer to other churches that trace themselves back to Joseph Smith (Strangites, Community of Christ, FLDS, etc)? I see this as an interesting parallel. Everyone who believes in Christ is Christian, even if they differ on theological and ecclesiastical points. Everyone who believes Joseph Smith was a prophet is a "?" even if they differ on theological and ecclesiastical points. Latter-day Saint Restorationist? A Smithian? Just curious.

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For my part, I acknowledge that don’t really "understand the Trinity."  I find the concept difficult, even impossible, to parse out.

In the end, it is a mystery of faith. It's often easier to say what it is not (the Trinitarian heresies). For example, modalism is the idea that there is one God who shows up in three different modes/forms (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) rather than three persons in one God. Yeah, complicated stuff.