Mormons not Christian (according to new military list)

[Navidad]

54 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. 
 

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. 

Good morning: I don't understand how my LDS friends live out their claim to have the only authorized priesthood of God and still cherish religious pluralism. That is why I asked. It was not a gotcha question. I can't agree or disagree until I understand how it plays out in real life. I can receive it, but I cannot agree or disagree until I understand it better. Furthermore, it really doesn't matter whether I agree or not, does it? I ask questions because I don't understand. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. Religious pluralism is a complex issue, especially in the United States. 

 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.”

To clarify, smac isn't saying this, he is quoting the article by Christiansen.

He is accurate that Catholicism doesn't consider LDS "sacramentally Christian." The key word here is "sacramentally." Baptism is part of the Sacrament of Christian Initiation. In other words, it is the first step to becoming a sacramental Christian (the next two are confirmation and receiving the Eucharist). If someone has been baptized validly, they have taken the first step and are thus in partial communion with the Catholic Church. I've always kinda giggled at that. Someone gets baptized as a, say, Lutheran, and without their knowledge they have now partially joined the Catholic Church, ha. To enter full communion with the Catholic Church, someone has to also complete the other steps: be confirmed and receive the Eucharist. So, if that Lutheran converts later on in life, they don't need to be baptized because their first baptism was valid. They would need to be confirmed, however, and then receive the Eucharist. Now they are in full communion and fully sacramentally Christian.

Not being sacramentally Christian doesn't mean you aren't Christian in my view, though obviously others disagree (like the author of the article).

Now, let's get into why LDS baptism is considered invalid. All sacraments require three things to be valid: proper matter, proper form, proper intent. Matter is what is used or done physically, in this case water. Form is the words, in this case baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Intent is to do what the Catholic Church intends to be done.

Some sacraments also require a valid minister, meaning either a priest or a bishop (though often the bishops delegate to priests). Baptism, however, does not, so the question of whether or not a baptism is valid does not hinge on priestly authority. That is why some non-Catholic baptisms are valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

The 2001 dubium that Christiansen refers to clarified that the Catholic Church views LDS baptism as invalid because the form and intent are invalid. (A dubium is a question submitted to the Church for clarification, in this case whether or not LDS baptism is valid). For form, it specifically points to LDS understanding of God, not just as non-Trinitarian but also the belief that God and humans are of the same nature. So while the words are the same, the meaning behind the words are different. Here is the section of that document relevant to form:

Quote

II. The Form. We have seen that in the texts of the Magisterium on Baptism there is a reference to the invocation of the Trinity (to the sources already mentioned, the Fourth Lateran Council could be added here [DH 8021). The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: "Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552). This divinity and man share the same nature and they are substantially equal. God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp. 345-346). God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal (cf. TPJS, p. 373). God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. The Son and the Holy Spirit were procreated after the beginning of the creation of the world known to us (cf. EM, Vol. 2, p. 961). Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity.

As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2.

The intent is also considered invalid, beginning with the large doctrinal differences on the nature of God, but also because part of the intent of baptism is the remission of original sin. The dubium also argues that the LDS belief that Christ did not innovate baptism makes it invalid. Here's the section on that:

Quote

III. The Intention of the Celebrating Minister. Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism, that is, doing what Christ willed her to do when he instituted and mandated the sacrament of Baptism. This becomes even more evident when we consider that in their understanding Baptism was not instituted by Christ but by God and began with Adam (cf. Book of Moses 6:64). Christ simply commanded the practice of this rite; but this was not an innovation. It is clear that the intention of the Church in conferring Baptism is certainly to follow the mandate of Christ (cf. Mt 28,19) but at the same time to confer the sacrament that Christ had instituted. According to the New Testament, there is an essential difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism. The Baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which originated not in Christ but already at the beginning of creation (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith [AF], Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1990, cf. pp. 110-111), is not Christian Baptism; indeed, it denies its newness. The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the "priest" (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13).

We can note two other differences, not as fundamental as the preceding one, but which also have their importance:

A) According to the Catholic Church, Baptism cancels not only personal sins but also original sin, and therefore even infants are baptized for the remission of sins (cf. the essential texts of the Council of Trent, DH 1513-1515). This remission of original sin is not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which denies the existence of this sin and therefore baptizes only persons who have the use of reason and are at least eight years old, excluding the mentally handicapped (cf. AF, pp. 113-116). In fact, the practice of the Catholic Church in conferring Baptism on infants is one of the main reasons for which the Mormons say that the Catholic Church apostatized in the first centuries, so that the sacraments celebrated by it are all invalid.

B) If a believer baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, after renouncing his or her faith or having been excommunicated, wants to return, he or she must be rebaptized (cf. AF, pp. 129-131).

Finally, the dubium ends on a positive note:

Quote

It is equally necessary to underline that the decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a response to a particular question regarding the Baptism of Mormons and obviously does not indicate a judgment on those who are members of the Church of JesusChrist of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, Catholics and Mormons often find themselves working together on a range of problems regarding the common good of the entire human race. It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect.

I hope that the dubium is accurate in its portrayal of your beliefs. It looks like they went to good lengths to have primary sources from your church. A link to the full document is here.

[3DOP]

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Good morning: I don't understand how my LDS friends live out their claim to have the only authorized priesthood of God and still cherish religious pluralism. That is why I asked. It was not a gotcha question. I can't agree or disagree until I understand how it plays out in real life. I can receive it, but I cannot agree or disagree until I understand it better. Furthermore, it really doesn't matter whether I agree or not, does it? I ask questions because I don't understand. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. Religious pluralism is a complex issue, especially in the United States. 

 

Navidad hi.

Ideally, I do not find plurality in religion something to celebrate in society. I profess to hope for unity instead.

The first and most intimate society is the family. I think few would argue that it is best for families to disagree with each other about religion. It would seem peculiar to find it any way uplifting if the members of a family unit went their separate ways in order to observe different forms of worship and religious exercises.

Do any object to my observation on the family?

If not, why should we as an ideal, wish and pray for religious disunity in other social structures extending to the state?

Is there any objection to my use of the word "disunity" in exchange for "pluralism" as a synonym? Perhaps I am too simplistic regarding "pluralism"?

 

 

 

 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

This is my sentiment as well.

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

Your (and, apparently, the Catholic?) view of heresy (here, not accepting creedal trinitarianism) is an important issue, but does not define the parameters of Christianity.  I agree with that.

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is there a term LDS use to refer to other churches that trace themselves back to Joseph Smith (Strangites, Community of Christ, FLDS, etc)?

Wikipedia has articles for the Latter Day Saint movement and Restoration (Mormonism)

However, I don't think the Latter-day Saints came up with these names, nor we use them much.  I focus overwhelmingly on Joseph Smith and those we believe to be his successors (Brigham Young, etc.), and so generally don't have much reason to discuss Strangites, Community of Christ, FLDS, etc.  When we do discuss them, I don't sense much in the way of feelings of affinity or identity.  

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

A good question.  You noted above a "greater umbrella of Christianity."  If Christianity were to be characterized taxonomically (akin to the hierarchy of biological classification's eight major taxonomic ranks), where would the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints land?  Perhaps something like this?

Abrahamic Religions --> Christianity --> Restorationist Christianity --> Latter-day Saint Movement --> Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Where would you put Roman Catholicism?  Something like this?

Abrahamic Religions --> Christianity --> Nicene / Chalcedonian Christianity --> Western (Latin) Christianity --> Roman Catholicism (The Catholic Church)

It is interesting to me to see where the paths diverge (Nicene / Chalcedonian Christianity or Restorationist Christianity).  I am reminded of this quote from LeGrande Richard's book, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder: 

Quote

Question: What do we know about Orson F. Whitney's "Strength of the Mormon Position" claim regarding a Catholic theologian?

Orson F. Whitney quoting a Catholic doctor of divinity: "You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position"

Note: This article derives from a blog post made by FAIR member Kevin Barney. ^[1]

Many members know this quote from LeGrande Richard's book, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder.

Elder Richards quoted from a pamphlet written by Orson F. Whitney:

A Catholic Opinion.–Many years ago there came to Salt Lake City a learned doctor of divinity, a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I became well acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen, languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy, and was never weary of displaying his vast erudition. One day he said to me: “You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. If we are wrong, they are wrong with us, for they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we really have, as we claim, the apostolic succession from St. Peter, there was no need for Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days.” ^[2]

No name is given in this source, but it has been located in Elder Whitney's autobiography:

The source is Orson F. Whitney’s autobiography, Through Memory’s Halls: The Life Story of Orson F. Whitney, as Told by Himself (Independence, MO: Zion’s Printing and Publishing Company, 1930), 222-23.

The Catholic theologian’s name is John M. Reiner.

This stance predates the Vatican II counter-reformation and may not reflect general Catholic sentiment.

See also here.

Mr. Reiner shared with the Latter-day Saints a perspective on "authority" that varies quite substantially from that of most of Protestant Christianity.  It varies from the Latter-day Saints in that he believed that authority was retained and is now housed within the Catholic Church, whereas we believe it was lost and then restored through Joseph Smith.

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Quote

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.

Candidly, I do not fault Christians who profess belief in a concept that is difficult or impossible to comprehend and parse out.  As a Latter-day Saint, I profess belief in some things that I cannot really claim to comprehend.  The Atonement.  Animal sacrifice.  Polygamy.  The command to the Israelites to conquer Canaan and “utterly destroy” its inhabitants (Deut. 7:1-2, 20:16-18; Joshua 6–11; 1 Samuel 15).  The apparent ambiguous treatment of slavery in the scriptures.

I can mitigate these, sort of.  For example, Paul Bryner's 2025 FAIR presentation was, to me, quite illuminating and helpful in regards to the herem conquest of Canaan.  Still, I struggle.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

To clarify, smac isn't saying this, he is quoting the article by Christiansen.

He is accurate that Catholicism doesn't consider LDS "sacramentally Christian." The key word here is "sacramentally." Baptism is part of the Sacrament of Christian Initiation. In other words, it is the first step to becoming a sacramental Christian (the next two are confirmation and receiving the Eucharist). If someone has been baptized validly, they have taken the first step and are thus in partial communion with the Catholic Church. I've always kinda giggled at that. Someone gets baptized as a, say, Lutheran, and without their knowledge they have now partially joined the Catholic Church, ha. To enter full communion with the Catholic Church, someone has to also complete the other steps: be confirmed and receive the Eucharist. So, if that Lutheran converts later on in life, they don't need to be baptized because their first baptism was valid. They would need to be confirmed, however, and then receive the Eucharist. Now they are in full communion and fully sacramentally Christian.

This is very helpful to me.  Thank you for explaining it.

17 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Not being sacramentally Christian doesn't mean you aren't Christian in my view, though obviously others disagree (like the author of the article).

Yes, that disagreement is apparently not going away any time soon.

17 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Now, let's get into why LDS baptism is considered invalid. All sacraments require three things to be valid: proper matter, proper form, proper intent. Matter is what is used or done physically, in this case water. Form is the words, in this case baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Intent is to do what the Catholic Church intends to be done.

Some sacraments also require a valid minister, meaning either a priest or a bishop (though often the bishops delegate to priests). Baptism, however, does not, so the question of whether or not a baptism is valid does not hinge on priestly authority. That is why some non-Catholic baptisms are valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

The 2001 dubium that Christiansen refers to clarified that the Catholic Church views LDS baptism as invalid because the form and intent are invalid.

Very interesting!  Thank you for sharing this.

17 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

For form, it specifically points to LDS understanding of God, not just as non-Trinitarian but also the belief that God and humans are of the same nature. So while the words are the same, the meaning behind the words are different.

I should have looked into this years ago.  You are clarifying a lot.

17 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Here is the section of that document relevant to form:

The intent is also considered invalid, beginning with the large doctrinal differences on the nature of God, but also because part of the intent of baptism is the remission of original sin.

Regarding "large doctrinal differences on the nature of God," what differences are there besides divergent views on the trinity?

The "original sin" concept does seem incompatible with the 2nd Article of Faith: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."

17 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The dubium also argues that the LDS belief that Christ did not innovate baptism makes it invalid. Here's the section on that:

Fascinating.  I need to better understand this part:

Quote

This becomes even more evident when we consider that in their understanding Baptism was not instituted by Christ but by God and began with Adam (cf. Book of Moses 6:64). Christ simply commanded the practice of this rite; but this was not an innovation. It is clear that the intention of the Church in conferring Baptism is certainly to follow the mandate of Christ (cf. Mt 28,19) but at the same time to confer the sacrament that Christ had instituted. According to the New Testament, there is an essential difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism.

From Google's AI:

Quote

The Baptism of John and Christian Baptism are distinct. John's baptism was a temporary sign of repentance and preparation for the Messiah's coming. Christian Baptism is a permanent sacrament of salvation, performed in the name of the Trinity, representing spiritual rebirth and inclusion into the Church. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The primary differences between the two involve their purpose, authority, and effect. [1, 2, 3]

Key Differences

• Purpose: John's baptism required turning away from sins to get ready for Jesus. Christian baptism symbolizes being united with Christ in His death and resurrection. [1, 2, 3]
• Authority: John's baptism was a prophetic Jewish purification rite. Christian baptism is commanded by Jesus and instituted as a church practice. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Effect: John did not baptize with the Holy Spirit, but pointed to Jesus who would. Christian baptism is the outward sign of receiving the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness of sins. [1, 2, 3]

Biblical Evidence

The distinction is evident in the New Testament. In Acts 19:1-5, the Apostle Paul met some disciples who had only received John’s baptism. Paul told them John's baptism was meant to prepare people to believe in Jesus. He then baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus, after which they received the Holy Spirit. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

 

I was only peripherally aware of this distinction until now (hadn't really thought about it at all, that is).  I will look into it more.  Thanks!

One Latter-day Saint source:

Quote

John the Baptist understood that he held a lesser priesthood and that the Messiah would bring a greater one. You’ll recall that John was the son of “a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia.” (Luke 1:5). Because this was a lineage-based ordination, John would be an heir to the same office and responsibilities provided he kept himself pure and unblemished (see Leviticus 21). But even with the authority that he had, John’s baptism was incomplete. “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.” (Matthew 3:11). Philip (not the apostle) was in the same boat, baptizing by water but not conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost. Philip met a eunuch reading Isaiah, testified to him, and baptized him right away, but did not give him the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:26-39). Because of this limitation, apostles (like Peter and John) would follow behind Philip and give the gift of the Holy Ghost to new converts (Acts 8:14-17).

Philip provides us with a good example of the last point. He did not assume authority to baptize, but was given it by (and worked under the direction of) the apostles who held greater authority (Acts 6:2-6). And note that Philip was given this authority by the laying on of hands. For the honor of this authority, “no man taketh … unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” (Hebrews 5:4). And the apostles with the Melchizedek priesthood similarly did not take that authority upon themselves, but were instead ordained by Jesus Himself.

Finally, Jesus and His apostles considered it of extreme importance that baptisms be administered by someone who had this authority. When Jesus went to be baptized, he traveled about 80 miles to be baptized by John. When the apostles came across some disciples in Ephesus, there arose some uncertainty about whether their baptism was valid. It had all the proper form (being baptized “unto John’s baptism”), but was not performed by someone authorized by the apostles since Paul seems to think they would have also been instructed on the gift of the Holy Ghost (presumably this training was given by the apostles when they ordained the seven). Paul had the ordinance performed again, by the proper authority (Acts 19:1-6).

A very worthwhile toopic, this.

17 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Finally, the dubium ends on a positive note:

I hope that the dubium is accurate in its portrayal of your beliefs. It looks like they went to good lengths to have primary sources from your church. A link to the full document is here.

From what I have read, it appears to be both facially accurate and well-intentioned.  We differ in conclusions and some omissions, but overall I value the effort that went into this.

I too am grateful that we collaborate with each other as much as we do.  Our commonalities outnumber our differences.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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:

See also here:

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

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.

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

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

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

Thank you,

-Smac

Thanks for the history. I appreciate that. The history as you explained it, is part of the reason the Anglo-Mormon Colonies existed and to a small degree, still exist here as enclaves. In my writings and teaching, I have often portrayed (I must admit) that the LDS (as well as Mennonite) concepts of persecution as fed by religious persecution are sometimes more the result of resource shortages, land disputes, water hoarding, and ethno-religious migrants's built in prejudice toward those already in the land. That is true whether speaking of Missouri, Idaho, or Mexico.  Of course, in the case of Mexico, we must also acknowledge the Mexican mestizo bias and prejudice against Anglos, especially those considered from the USA. 

So, it seems that you cherish the pluralism because it provides the four protections you list in your four bolded comments. As a senior public school district official, I often came in contact with conflicts over USA religious pluralism from all sides. This is why it is of special interest to me. and why I sought more clarification. When working in San Diego I dealt on more than one occasion with the fact that all our fifth graders (probably 8,000 or so) took district paid and sponsored bus trips to the Mormon Battalion  building in Old Town. To resolve those disputes, I had to meet with the older full-time LDS missionaries who worked at the center, the school board, as well as those who complained about the trips as shadow LDS proselytzing efforts. The good news is that with the cooperation of all, we were able to work it out so the trips continued. Perhaps public education is the number one place where these kinds of issues come to the forefront. I often led the effort to engage and bring healing or resolution to the same. This was especially true in San Diego, very liberal, very conservative, and very Navy. Oh, and also, in southern San Diego County a haven for the  most fundamentalist of the LeBaron communities! 

Thanks for your cooperation in helping me understand. Best, Navidad

[3DOP]

19 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

To clarify, smac isn't saying this, he is quoting the article by Christiansen.

He is accurate that Catholicism doesn't consider LDS "sacramentally Christian." The key word here is "sacramentally." Baptism is part of the Sacrament of Christian Initiation. In other words, it is the first step to becoming a sacramental Christian (the next two are confirmation and receiving the Eucharist). If someone has been baptized validly, they have taken the first step and are thus in partial communion with the Catholic Church. I've always kinda giggled at that. Someone gets baptized as a, say, Lutheran, and without their knowledge they have now partially joined the Catholic Church, ha. To enter full communion with the Catholic Church, someone has to also complete the other steps: be confirmed and receive the Eucharist. So, if that Lutheran converts later on in life, they don't need to be baptized because their first baptism was valid. They would need to be confirmed, however, and then receive the Eucharist. Now they are in full communion and fully sacramentally Christian.

Not being sacramentally Christian doesn't mean you aren't Christian in my view, though obviously others disagree (like the author of the article).

Now, let's get into why LDS baptism is considered invalid. All sacraments require three things to be valid: proper matter, proper form, proper intent. Matter is what is used or done physically, in this case water. Form is the words, in this case baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Intent is to do what the Catholic Church intends to be done.

Some sacraments also require a valid minister, meaning either a priest or a bishop (though often the bishops delegate to priests). Baptism, however, does not, so the question of whether or not a baptism is valid does not hinge on priestly authority. That is why some non-Catholic baptisms are valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

The 2001 dubium that Christiansen refers to clarified that the Catholic Church views LDS baptism as invalid because the form and intent are invalid. (A dubium is a question submitted to the Church for clarification, in this case whether or not LDS baptism is valid). For form, it specifically points to LDS understanding of God, not just as non-Trinitarian but also the belief that God and humans are of the same nature. So while the words are the same, the meaning behind the words are different. Here is the section of that document relevant to form:

The intent is also considered invalid, beginning with the large doctrinal differences on the nature of God, but also because part of the intent of baptism is the remission of original sin. The dubium also argues that the LDS belief that Christ did not innovate baptism makes it invalid. Here's the section on that:

Finally, the dubium ends on a positive note:

I hope that the dubium is accurate in its portrayal of your beliefs. It looks like they went to good lengths to have primary sources from your church. A link to the full document is here.

Hey Misere.

I fear that the assumption on the part of our Church is that there is a unity of belief among LDS on doctrines that might make for an invalid baptism in our eyes.

From the beginning, I have thought this is a flaw in our current Church policy. I think that it could be too difficult to discover the beliefs of LDS ministers of baptism. Unless we can conclude that all Latter-day Saints believe the invalidating articles mentioned in the Catholic ruling, it would be prudent to administer conditional baptisms to LDS converts. 

Catholics had hardly begun to advance to a uniform creedal unity when we were the same age as the LDS are today. I suspect there were baptisms according to proper form for three centuries that might have been invalid according to the standard we now apply to the LDS. 

Anyway Jesse, our bunch were excused from following a Nicene Creed that was many years away. I think the baptisms were all valid because of form. Ignorance of the meaning of the full meaning of the form does not invalidate. I have a broader idea of how doctrinal error would affect the Sacrament than the brightest minds in Rome. I don't to disagree. But maybe in my pride, I think I am perhaps better acquainted with the nuances of LDS beliefs and practices than they?

I am open to correction.

By the way, give the LDS a hundred years and they might have a creed too. And it might be more Nicene than anybody today could believe!

 

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for the history. I appreciate that. The history as you explained it, is part of the reason the Anglo-Mormon Colonies existed and to a small degree, still exist here as enclaves. In my writings and teaching, I have often portrayed (I must admit) that the LDS (as well as Mennonite) concepts of persecution as fed by religious persecution are sometimes more the result of resource shortages, land disputes, water hoarding, and ethno-religious migrants's built in prejudice toward those already in the land.  That is true whether speaking of Missouri, Idaho, or Mexico.  Of course, in the case of Mexico, we must also acknowledge the Mexican mestizo bias and prejudice against Anglos, especially those considered from the USA. 

Thank you for the thoughtful reply and for engaging with the history. I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective.

You’re right that human conflicts are rarely simple. Resource scarcity, land disputes, water rights, and cultural prejudices have fueled tension in almost every frontier setting — Missouri, Idaho, Mexico, and many others. Those factors are real and often make already difficult situations worse. I’ve also seen how migrant groups (of any background) can unintentionally bring insular attitudes that heighten friction with those already living in a place.

At the same time, from the records left by both Latter-day Saints and outside observers, religious belief was a central driver in much of the violence they faced. Many of the worst episodes (Haun’s Mill, the Extermination Order in Missouri, the driving out of Nauvoo) were explicitly justified by religious difference and fear of “Mormon theocracy.” That doesn’t mean economic or cultural factors were absent — they rarely are in history — but for the Saints, the persecution often felt deeply religious in nature.

I think both realities can be true at once: people are complicated, and conflicts are almost always multi-causal. Mutual prejudices (Anglo toward mestizo, mestizo toward Anglo, religious insider vs. outsider) have poisoned wells on all sides throughout history. My hope is that by trying to understand the full picture with charity — including the real pain felt by those on every side — we can avoid repeating old patterns of suspicion and division.

I’d be interested in any specific examples from your research in Mexico or elsewhere that have shaped your view. I’m always trying to learn more.

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

So, it seems that you cherish the pluralism because it provides the four protections you list in your four bolded comments.

Largely, yes.

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

As a senior public school district official, I often came in contact with conflicts over USA religious pluralism from all sides. This is why it is of special interest to me. and why I sought more clarification. When working in San Diego I dealt on more than one occasion with the fact that all our fifth graders (probably 8,000 or so) took district paid and sponsored bus trips to the Mormon Battalion  building in Old Town. To resolve those disputes, I had to meet with the older full-time LDS missionaries who worked at the center, the school board, as well as those who complained about the trips as shadow LDS proselytzing efforts. The good news is that with the cooperation of all, we were able to work it out so the trips continued.

I am glad to hear that this worked out.

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps public education is the number one place where these kinds of issues come to the forefront. I often led the effort to engage and bring healing or resolution to the same. This was especially true in San Diego, very liberal, very conservative, and very Navy. Oh, and also, in southern San Diego County a haven for the  most fundamentalist of the LeBaron communities! 

Thanks for your cooperation in helping me understand. Best, Navidad

Thank you for your comments.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Thank you for the thoughtful reply and for engaging with the history. I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective.

You’re right that human conflicts are rarely simple. Resource scarcity, land disputes, water rights, and cultural prejudices have fueled tension in almost every frontier setting — Missouri, Idaho, Mexico, and many others. Those factors are real and often make already difficult situations worse. I’ve also seen how migrant groups (of any background) can unintentionally bring insular attitudes that heighten friction with those already living in a place.

At the same time, from the records left by both Latter-day Saints and outside observers, religious belief was a central driver in much of the violence they faced. Many of the worst episodes (Haun’s Mill, the Extermination Order in Missouri, the driving out of Nauvoo) were explicitly justified by religious difference and fear of “Mormon theocracy.” That doesn’t mean economic or cultural factors were absent — they rarely are in history — but for the Saints, the persecution often felt deeply religious in nature.

I think both realities can be true at once: people are complicated, and conflicts are almost always multi-causal. Mutual prejudices (Anglo toward mestizo, mestizo toward Anglo, religious insider vs. outsider) have poisoned wells on all sides throughout history. My hope is that by trying to understand the full picture with charity — including the real pain felt by those on every side — we can avoid repeating old patterns of suspicion and division.

I’d be interested in any specific examples from your research in Mexico or elsewhere that have shaped your view. I’m always trying to learn more.

Largely, yes.

I am glad to hear that this worked out.

Thank you for your comments.

Thanks,

-Smac

I just finished a 350 page book on the exact subject we are discussing, within the context of 1930s Chihuahua. It is basically a book summary of my PhD dissertation from the University of Kent in Canterbury. I would be happy to send you a copy of the English version of the book.

I have an entirely different concept of the struggle at Hawn's Mill for what it is worth. I believe Jacob Hawn was most likely Mennonite. The massacre came from Hawn's and Joseph Smith's failed meeting to circumvent the violence. I believe Hawn failed, from a Mennonite perspective, to appropriately defend the Saints in his mill due to his pacifistic beliefs. We know that after the incident he left for Oregon and founded more mills in Oregon that are still largely Mennonite areas in that state. Hawn is a very common Mennonite surname. 

At any rate,if you want to PM me your address, I will happily mail you a free copy of my new book next time I am in the states.  Best, Navidad 

Edited 12 hours ago by Navidad

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Where would you put Roman Catholicism?  Something like this?

Abrahamic Religions --> Christianity --> Nicene / Chalcedonian Christianity --> Western (Latin) Christianity --> Roman Catholicism (The Catholic Church)

Yeah, that can work, but it does get a little interesting because there are Eastern Churches within the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is made up of 24 autonomous particular churches. 1 of them is the Latin Church that everyone thinks of when they think of the Catholic Church. It makes up probably 98-99% of the Catholic Church population and uses the Latin rite for liturgy. The other 23 are Eastern Catholic Churches. This means that they follow the eastern rites for liturgy (there's like 5 or 6 different rites). They are basically indistinguishable from appearance from Eastern Orthodox churches, but they are in full communion with the Pope, recognizing his supremacy.

So the taxonomy of having the Catholic Church under Western (Latin) Christianity doesn't take them into account, because they are not Western nor Latin and yet are part of the Catholic Church. Maybe just remove the Western (Latin) Christianity part and go from Nicene / Chalcedonian to The Catholic Church?

I went hunting for a genealogy of Christianity, so to speak, but I didn't find the exact one I remember. Here's one that's decent that shows the reunion of some of the Eastern Churches into Catholicism. I don't know how accurate this is in regards to other churches and it conspicuously does not have restorationists.

 

 

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Candidly, I do not fault Christians who profess belief in a concept that is difficult or impossible to comprehend and parse out.  As a Latter-day Saint, I profess belief in some things that I cannot really claim to comprehend.  The Atonement.  Animal sacrifice.  Polygamy.  The command to the Israelites to conquer Canaan and “utterly destroy” its inhabitants (Deut. 7:1-2, 20:16-18; Joshua 6–11; 1 Samuel 15).  The apparent ambiguous treatment of slavery in the scriptures.

I can mitigate these, sort of.  For example, Paul Bryner's 2025 FAIR presentation was, to me, quite illuminating and helpful in regards to the herem conquest of Canaan.  Still, I struggle.

I'd say it wouldn't be faith if there weren't things we don't quite understand or struggle with.

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Regarding "large doctrinal differences on the nature of God," what differences are there besides divergent views on the trinity?

I think it is the belief that God and humans are the same nature, same species so to speak, that there is no fundamental difference between creator and creature (I wanted to say createe, but it's always fun when we can call ourselves creatures). So, as far as I understand your beliefs, the idea that God is an exalted human.

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hey Misere.

I fear that the assumption on the part of our Church is that there is a unity of belief among LDS on doctrines that might make for an invalid baptism in our eyes.

From the beginning, I have thought this is a flaw in our current Church policy. I think that it could be too difficult to discover the beliefs of LDS ministers of baptism. Unless we can conclude that all Latter-day Saints believe the invalidating articles mentioned in the Catholic ruling, it would be prudent to administer conditional baptisms to LDS converts. 

Catholics had hardly begun to advance to a uniform creedal unity when we were the same age as the LDS are today. I suspect there were baptisms according to proper form for three centuries that might have been invalid according to the standard we now apply to the LDS. 

Anyway Jesse, our bunch were excused from following a Nicene Creed that was many years away. I think the baptisms were all valid because of form. Ignorance of the meaning of the full meaning of the form does not invalidate. I have a broader idea of how doctrinal error would affect the Sacrament than the brightest minds in Rome. I don't to disagree. But maybe in my pride, I think I am perhaps better acquainted with the nuances of LDS beliefs and practices than they?

I am open to correction.

By the way, give the LDS a hundred years and they might have a creed too. And it might be more Nicene than anybody today could believe!

 

 

Do I need to report you to the Holy Office?  

You probably are more acquainted since you have spent much time among our LDS friends. The idea of a conditional baptism appeals to me, too.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Is there any objection to my use of the word "disunity" in exchange for "pluralism" as a synonym? Perhaps I am too simplistic regarding "pluralism"?

 

To me, pluralism exemplifies unity, not disunity. I have no idea whether you are being too simplistic or not. I do not see unity as agreement. In fact, I prefer unity despite disagreement. I think that is a much more worthy goal, very hard to achieve. But important in religious situations. 

[Calm]

5 hours 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. 

Just because you (speaking personally and generally) may have some wrong doctrines and practices hardly means your faiths are all wrong and therefore valueless.

There is no doctrine in the LDS faith that says there is no error in our own doctrines.  We need continuing revelation for more than just filling in the gaps of our knowledge.  There are weaknesses that can be strengthened and errors that can be corrected in our faith by the teachings of others.

Speaking of gaps, while there may be members and possibly even leaders who believe those of the LDS faith have nothing to learn from other faiths, I certainly do not.  I know many Saints who study other religions, not to learn where they went wrong, but to receive truth and wisdom.  My mother was one of them, reading extensively in some of my earliest memories, looking for insights that gave greater meaning and better direction to her life.  Of course, she was also studying LDS history and doctrine at the same time, but my memories mostly have her sharing nonLDS sources that enlightened her understanding of Christ’s work and the gifts that God had given her as well as what she was meant to do with them.  Her shelves had many more nonLDS books on them than LDS.

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

"{C}laim to believe."

Is this a problem?

I use “claim” a lot, not because I think someone is misrepresenting anything, but because claim means to assert something is factual, truth, etc.  Also, “they claim” is a good way imo to say I am reporting what others say.

Maybe the connotation of intentional inaccuracy is strong for you because of how it might be used in lawyering? 
 

My perspective is more from science and writing…

Quote

A claim is a statement that presents an idea or series of ideas as arguments. Arguments therefore consist of claims, or another way to put it is, to say that claims are the building blocks of a good argument.

In research writing, claims will be the backbone that form a thesis or a hypothesis (here the term 'hypothesis' refers to the argument that is evidenced within the scope of the work).

https://rmit.pressbooks.pub/researchwritingmodules/chapter/what-is-a-claim/

Tone is what will convey skepticism.  Is there any reason to read that article as the author being skeptical?  If he is a former member, he probably knows what we actually believe among ourselves, not just what we publicly claim.  Is he challenging our claims at all?

Edited 11 hours ago by Calm

[Doctor Steuss]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Good morning: I don't understand how my LDS friends live out their claim to have the only authorized priesthood of God and still cherish religious pluralism. That is why I asked. It was not a gotcha question. I can't agree or disagree until I understand how it plays out in real life. I can receive it, but I cannot agree or disagree until I understand it better. Furthermore, it really doesn't matter whether I agree or not, does it? I ask questions because I don't understand. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. Religious pluralism is a complex issue, especially in the United States. 

 

Free will is so integral to Mormonism's ethos, that theologically there were people ("spirits") who were in the presence of God, experiencing His full Glory firsthand, who were still able to make a free will choice to rebel against Him.  Even the posthumous rights are believed to be able to be accepted or rejected by the person they are performed on behalf of.

Making the government (or anyone, for that matter) force compliance to the "one true religion" negates a core foundational belief of Mormonism.  In fact, forced acceptance of the Gospel was Satan's plan within the Mormon mythos.

At least that's this agnostic heathen's perspective. 

Edited 11 hours ago by Doctor Steuss

[Calm]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

We don’t teach from our pulpit or lesson manuals about other faiths for the most part, usually only where we agree (leaders and lessons might quote a nonLDS for insight or support), so my experience is there isn’t either an official or unofficial way to refer to them beyond using their names or speaking generally of any offshoots as apostate groups.

I would prefer “offshoot” if I was sharing their beliefs and history.  Might use “apostate” just out of habit from my youth, but hopefully I would limit that to if I was focusing on their opposition to the mainstream Latter-day Saint faith headquartered in Salt Lake.  I would love to know how they would prefer us to refer to them when arguing where we are right and they went wrong.

[Navidad]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

hardly means your faiths are all wrong and therefore valueless.

 

Edited 11 hours ago by Navidad
not important

[Calm]

10 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Navidad hi.

Ideally, I do not find plurality in religion something to celebrate in society. I profess to hope for unity instead.

The first and most intimate society is the family. I think few would argue that it is best for families to disagree with each other about religion. It would seem peculiar to find it any way uplifting if the members of a family unit went their separate ways in order to observe different forms of worship and religious exercises.

Do any object to my observation on the family?

If not, why should we as an ideal, wish and pray for religious disunity in other social structures extending to the state?

Is there any objection to my use of the word "disunity" in exchange for "pluralism" as a synonym? Perhaps I am too simplistic regarding "pluralism"?

We hope all will come together in unity, but being too familiar with certain mortal tendencies to force unity based not on God’s desires, but our own, religious pluralism protected by law is beneficial to everyone.  A monarchy will be wonderful when Christ is King, but put a human in his place and things can go very wrong.

Religious pluralism would be along the same lines as what Churchill said about democracy, imo.

Quote

democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Though I will be open and say I love variety of religious thought.  There is plenty of variation in LDS beliefs if one digs a bit, but there is great beauty imo in the many expressions of understanding about the divine.  A very big part of me would miss that if we didn’t have it (I don’t anticipate missing it after resurrection because the ability to share ourselves and the universe will be so much, much, much more powerful and therefore endless variety of expressions of the beauty in the Divine will be present to revel in all with a fullness of truth in every way unlike the partial expressions we have now).

Edited 4 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think it is the belief that God and humans are the same nature, same species so to speak, that there is no fundamental difference between creator and creature (I wanted to say createe, but it's always fun when we can call ourselves creatures). So, as far as I understand your beliefs, the idea that God is an exalted human.

I see that as the fundamental issue myself since I learned of the Catholic understanding of valid baptism.  There is more possible wiggle room with most of the other issues imo due in part to the variation of belief among LDS that Rory refers to.  Plus this is just so huge, it doesn’t matter if we get other stuff right in Catholic eyes, it seems to me.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

the same time, from the records left by both Latter-day Saints and outside observers, religious belief was a central driver in much of the violence they faced. Many of the worst episodes (Haun’s Mill, the Extermination Order in Missouri, the driving out of Nauvoo) were explicitly justified by religious difference and fear of “Mormon theocracy.” That doesn’t mean economic or cultural factors were absent — they rarely are in history — but for the Saints, the persecution often felt deeply religious in nature.

When religion gets used as a slogan to mobilize forces no matter what the causes are, it’s going to feel like religious persecution, imo.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

When we do discuss them, I don't sense much in the way of feelings of affinity or identity.  

My experience is our shared heritage is rarely discussed and it’s more the accusations that we are the ones who have gone into apostasy that we focus on.  We generally don’t appreciate that, to say the least.  Our emotional, cultural response is often very human, imo (the official one is pretty dry, either ignored and treated no differently than other faiths or in some cases their doctrine and relationship with their former offshoot faith needs to be examined before baptism is allowed).  I think many of us feel we have more in common with creedal and other forms of Christianity than those who see themselves as the heirs of Joseph Smith rather than us, who stake the same claim of authority and authenticity as we do.

Edited 10 hours ago by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

"{C}laim to believe."

Is this a problem?

If I presented myself as a Latter-day Saint with intimate insider knowledge on the inner-held beliefs of Catholics, and if I were to write an article directed to other Latter-day Saints, and if I were to state: "Catholics claim to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the only path to salvation" and "they claim to believe that he is divine and that we must follow his teachings," I think Catholics might think that, in this particularized context and to that particular audience, I am imputing something onto them different from actual belief, namely, only claimed belief.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I use “claim” a lot, not because I think someone is misrepresenting anything, but because claim means to assert something is factual, truth, etc.

Yes.  "Factual" might work, but it's harder when the "fact" is something about me and what is between my ears.  I am the world's leading authority of what I think.  To say that I "claim" to believe Jesus is the Son of God, the only path to salvation, that He is divine, and that we must follow His teachings, can come across as expressing skepticism about whether I actually do believe these things.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Also, “they claim” is a good way imo to say I am reporting what others say.

Maybe the connotation of intentional inaccuracy is strong for you because of how it might be used in lawyering? 

That is quite possible.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MiserereNobis]

I came across this subject in another news article on this subject. Douglas Wilson is the pastor to Hegseth and has preached in the pentagon. On his blog on April 28th he published this letter written to him:

Quote

I am a local pastor in Western Massachusetts and an Army chaplain in the Reserves. Because I think God has granted you significant influence in certain spheres I wanted to make you aware of a disturbing trend within the Chaplain Corps. It’s the influence of Mormon Chaplains. They are growing and unfortunately unnoticeable to the average soldier. Roughly 90% of Chaplains wear the cross on their uniforms, but so many are heretics. Many individuals should be distinguished from the cross to have some other symbol that represents their heresy, but if I had to pick one to work on right now, I would pick the Mormons. I would be interested to hear your thoughts and pray you can mention this upstream. My guess is this is already noticed but now you can reference something from the boots on the ground.

A clear appeal for Wilson to talk to Hegseth about it. Not labeling LDS as Christian would be a solution to this pastor's issue.

Wilson didn't agree to do anything. His response was:

Quote

Andrew, thanks for the heads up. The best thing orthodox chaplains can do is to teach and preach a robust orthodoxy, starting with a strict Trinitarian monotheism.

Does anyone know what LDS chaplains wear on their uniform?