Should Latter-day Saints be Concerned about "Christian Nationalism?"

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You may think it was correct but live to regret it.

I'm pretty optimistic about the future. Most Americans support neither the agenda of the religious Right or the secular Left. I think most people are level-headed enough to understand that the draconian abortion "trigger" laws are too extreme, same-sex marriage isn't the end of life as we know it, and schools have no business directing religious activities. In the short term, however, the crazies on the Right have some momentum behind them, and we're going to see some attempts at eroding personal liberties, such as the right to interstate travel for women who might be pregnant. 

Edited August 3, 2022 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Nah, I'm just chuckling at how unnecessarily verbose his posts tend to be and the superfluous number of links they contain. I prefer directness and clarity to walls of text and youtube links. But that's me.

I guess it takes all kinds to make a world. To me, a well structured and analytical argument does not equate to verbosity, nor is it an enemy of clarity. And sources and attribution are hardly extraneous if they give strength and persuasiveness  to one’s discourse. Conversely, it can seem weak and vacuous if such substantiation is absent — which is why the CFR rule is one of the features I most appreciate about this board. 

Edited August 3, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I guess it takes all kinds to make a world. To me, a well structured and analytical argument does not equate to verbosity. And sources and attribution are hardly extraneous if they give strength and persuasiveness  to one’s discourse. Conversely, it can seem weak and vacuous if such substantiation is absent — which is why the CFR rule is one of the features I most appreciate about this board. 

I'll take a well structured and analytical argument any day. I have never liked polemics, especially not those consisting of walls of text and overuse of "documentation" of dubious quality. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'll take a well structured and analytical argument any day.

Except when it goes against your position, apparently. Then it becomes “polemics” and verbosity — buttressed by those pesky “extraneous” sources. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Except when it goes against your position, apparently. Then it becomes “polemics” and verbosity — buttressed by those pesky “extraneous” sources. 

Well, no. I'm not here to relive the glory days of my high school Lincoln-Douglas debate career (I won our district championship). I don't see this as an argument or debate forum, and as far as I can tell, you tend to infer my "position," even when I don't have a settled position.

As I said, I tend not to respond to polemics, if I can help it. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I guess it takes all kinds to make a world. To me, a well structured and analytical argument does not equate to verbosity, nor is it an enemy of clarity. And sources and attribution are hardly extraneous if they give strength and persuasiveness  to one’s discourse. Conversely, it can seem weak and vacuous if such substantiation is absent — which is why the CFR rule is one of the features I most appreciate about this board. 

 

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Except when it goes against your position, apparently. Then it becomes “polemics” and verbosity — buttressed by those pesky “extraneous” sources. 

SMAC is the equivalent to Jeremy Runnels well sourced wall of text known as the CES letter. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

You may think it was correct but live to regret it.

Could you elaborate?  I assume you have something in mind along the lines of this 2000 story:

Quote

News about Mormons, Mormonism, and the LDS Church Sent on Mormon-News: 19Jun00

Summarized by Kent Larsen Supreme Court Rules For Mormon Family In School Prayer Case Associated Press 19Jun00 N1 WASHINGTON, DC -- The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Monday for a Mormon and a Catholic family that challenged the Santa Fe Texas Independent School District's policy of allowing student-led prayers before high school football games. The court ruled that these prayers violate the US Constitution's first amendment, which prohibits the "establishment of religion." Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community." ...   The history of the case shows how very religious people from minority religions were drawn into a major battle over school prayer. The families originally felt left out when school activities seemed to promote the dominant Southern Baptist religion. The Mormon family was upset when their daughter's junior high school teacher passed out fliers for a Baptist revival. When the girl asked a question about the revival, the teacher asked her what her religion was. On learning that the girl was Mormon, she said that Mormonism was "non-Christian cult." After the parents received promises from the school board for change that failed to happen, they took their complaints to the ACLU, which sued the school district in 1995 on behalf of the Mormon and Catholic parents. U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent then ordered the district to adopt new policies prohibiting prayer and religious instruction in class. He allowed students to give a "brief invocation" at graduation and football games, as long as it was "nonsectarian" and "non-proselytizing." When the school board appealed to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, it ruled 2-1 that the school can't allow students "to read overtly Christian prayers from the stage at graduation ceremonies." It also said there is no need for prayer and invocation at football games. The district is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the rulings, allowing students to give a religious message from the podium. But the Court then restricted the question, saying it would decide, "whether [the school board's] policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause."

A bit more context for this story here:

Quote

SANTA FE, TEXAS -- This week's news that the Supreme Court had ruled against allowing the Santa Fe, Texas Independent School District to have "student-led voluntary prayers" before high school football games was disappointing to many conservative Mormons. It was also shocking for many that a the lawsuit had been filed by a Mormon family. But an analysis of the case history shows why a Mormon family might file such a lawsuit.

The case was originally filed in 1995, in response to the way that the Mormon family, and a Catholic family that joined them in the suit, were treated by teachers and other students in the school district. Both families felt that their children had been discriminated against and harassed for belonging to a minority religion in the majority Southern Baptist town, according to Mormon News' analysis of news reports and contacts with those involved in the case.

Both families experienced a pattern of teachers and students promoting their religion at school. One junior high school teacher passed out fliers for a Baptist revival in class. Invitations to religious camps and other religious materials were handed out in the classroom. Teachers included denominational religious teachings in their lessons. Bibles were distributed in the schools by the Gideons. At lunch time, students were told to bow their heads and pray before eating.

The families soon discovered that religion was included in the school system's policies. At the time the original lawsuit was filed, the district had a written policy of designating a minister at the beginning of each school year who was to give invocations at school events, including not only football games and graduation, but school assemblies. The district court found that the school district had encouraged and preferred religion clubs over other clubs.

But the problem faced by the Mormon and Catholic families wasn't limited to simple promotion of a church. It included outright harassment of their children, simply because they weren't part of the dominant church. When one of the children in the Mormon family questioned a teacher's promotion of a revival, the teacher asked the student what religion she belonged to. When told that the child was Mormon, the teacher launched into an attack on Mormonism, calling it a "non-Christian cult," saying it was of the devil, and telling the child that she was going to hell. The court also heard 'uncontradicted' evidence that students who declined to accept Bibles or objected to prayers and religious observances in school were verbally harassed.

Because of the climate, the families decided that they needed protection, and filed their lawsuit anonymously. But the district actively sought to find out their identities, according to one report going as far as to interrogate some students in an effort to discover the identities of the families. These efforts led the district court to threaten "the harshest possible contempt sanctions" if school employees continued trying "to ferret out the identities of" the families. It specifically enjoined the district from using "bogus petitions, questionnaires, individual interrogation, or downright 'snooping'"to discover who the families are.

The court also closed the courtroom when the children in the families testified because of "the possibility of social ostracization and violence due to militant religious attitudes. One of the witnesses who testified in the case (not a member of either family), chose to home-school her youngest daughter to avoid persistent verbal harassment, with pushing and shoving, over issues of religion in the public school.

Faced with the lawsuit, the school district quickly changed its policies, instead of trying to defend them. But in practice, the attorney for the plaintiffs claims that the school district never fixed the problems, "A number of school board members were a very strong and vocal religious right, and they took a position in concert with some local churches that they were going to infuse religion into the school, says Anthony Griffin, who represents the families. "And its still going on. It's a policy that comes from higher up."

Because the families remain anonymous, it isn't possible to know how the Mormon family felt about the issue of prayer in the school before they experienced this harassment. But, the family is pleased with the results. A friend of the families, Debbie Mason, told the Associated Press, that the families were elated by the Supreme Court's decision on Monday. "Thank God, thank God," Mason said. "This time it was football games, next it could have been the classroom. It is a slippery slope. This school district knew what it was doing and kept pushing and pushing."

In a very real sense, the Establishment Clause is a vital component of preserving religious liberty for minority religions, which can - depending on location - include numerically large groups like our Catholic friends.  That said, I think the Santa Fe case was materially distinguishable from the Kennedy case.

Meanwhile, I think that encroachments against civil liberties, including Free Exercise, are often incremental and subtly errosive, rather than in-your-face and overt.  So we need to be attentive and on our toes.  As Andrew Jackson put it: "But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing."

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

SMAC is the equivalent to Jeremy Runnels well sourced wall of text known as the CES letter. 

 

That's not a bad example of what I mean. I've never had much interest in the CES letter, as the parts of it I have read tend to be quite polemical in nature. It seems designed to start a debate, and as I recall, the author has participated in a few debates. Likewise, I disliked what I read of my good friend Jim Bennett's response to the CES letter for the same reason. Does it mean I dislike either of them or am afraid to address the substance and "documentation" they both provide? Obviously not, but I'm not going to expend energy on proving my point to a relative stranger online. It's about as pointless as this:
 

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by jkwilliams

[ttribe]

Posters in this thread - "I don't believe there is any significant nationalism movement in America!"

Me: Welcome to 1933 all over again.

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Posters in this thread - "I don't believe there is any significant nationalism movement in America!"

Me: Welcome to 1933 all over again.

It seems to me that the slogan "America First" presupposes nationalism, Christian or not. 

[Teancum]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate?  I assume you have something in mind along the lines of this 2000 story:

A bit more context for this story here:

In a very real sense, the Establishment Clause is a vital component of preserving religious liberty for minority religions, which can - depending on location - include numerically large groups like our Catholic friends.  That said, I think the Santa Fe case was materially distinguishable from the Kennedy case.

Meanwhile, I think that encroachments against civil liberties, including Free Exercise, are often incremental and subtly errosive, rather than in-your-face and overt.  So we need to be attentive and on our toes.  As Andrew Jackson put it: "But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing."

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes the case illustrates my point very well. Remember, the Christian right is not your friend. They only like Latter day Saints when we poor money and resources into causes they may like such as abortion or gay marriage.  Other than that they think the Church is a cult and not a valid expression of religion at all.  They would be happy to exclude Latter day Saints whenever they can.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

SMAC is the equivalent to Jeremy Runnels well sourced wall of text known as the CES letter. 

I don't see a similarity here.

First, the CES Letter was not posed in good faith.  My inquiries about Christian Nationalism was.

Second, the CES Letter took a throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-see-how-much-of-it-sticks approach.  This thread is focused on a single topic.

Third, Jeremy Runnels was (purportedly) asking questions about matters which had been extensively addressed prior to his CES Letter, and yet he took no time or effort to meaningfully engage those apologetic efforts.  In contrast, in the OP in this thread I critiqued both Christian Nationalism and responses to it.  I laid out my analysis and reasoning, and I did so without trying to stack the deck or work backwards from a preferred conclusion.  Jeremy Runnels had a predetermined conclusion in mind.

Fourth, Jeremy Runnels had clearly antagonistic motives for the CES Letter.  Conversely, I do not consider Christian Nationalists my enemy, nor do I wish to do them affirmative harm.  I consider myself to be a fairly religious person.  However, while I share many of the presuppositions that Christian Nationalists hold dear (belief in God, love of country), I am also both an attorney and a Latter-day Saint.  I am therefore particularly concerned with the role of government (via my legal training) in all of our lives, including minority religions (via my membership in the Church).  Consequently, I believe Christian Nationalists to be substantially misguided and wrong, notwithstanding sharing some basic presuppositions with them.  I think they typify the error Paul describes in Romans 10: "Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.  For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.  For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."  In the end, though I disagree with Christian Nationalism and will work against it if such becomes necessary, I bear them no animosity.  

Fifth, Jeremy Runnels never intended to give the Church a fair hearing.  The CES Letter was purely and conclusorily polemical.  I am trying to do that with Christian Nationalism.  I initially harbored some suspicion that it is the far-left version of what QAnon is to the far-right: a hugely speculative and overreaching conspiracy theory intended to create a menacing boogeyman.  A mostly fabricated threat designed to rally the troops.  The data I looked at indicates that there are sizable numbers of Americans who support at least some of the underlying - and in my view problematic - precepts.  And there are plenty of genuinely devout Christians who, like me, share many presuppositions with, but still end up rejecting, Christian Nationalism (see, e.g., "Christian Nationalism Is ‘Single Biggest Threat’ to America’s Religious Freedom").

I have tried to approach Christian Nationalism in an open-minded, clinical way.  So far my assessment is that it wants "Christianity" (the parameters of which are notably not described) to enjoy elevated and privileged status in the United States.  It wants a state religion.  There are some legitimately concerning racialized aspects to the movement (see, e.g., here, here, here).  Having concluded that Christian Nationalism is problematic, I feel it appropriate to oppose it, and to explain why I oppose it. This is not based emotional vitriol and a pound-of-flesh attitude (such as I think permeates the CES Letter).

I agree with, and have signed, the "Christians Against Christian Nationalism" statement here:

Quote

As Christians, our faith teaches us everyone is created in God’s image and commands us to love one another. As Americans, we value our system of government and the good that can be accomplished in our constitutional democracy. Today, we are concerned about a persistent threat to both our religious communities and our democracy — Christian nationalism.

Christian nationalism seeks to merge Christian and American identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy. Christian nationalism demands Christianity be privileged by the State and implies that to be a good American, one must be Christian. It often overlaps with and provides cover for white supremacy and racial subjugation. We reject this damaging political ideology and invite our Christian brothers and sisters to join us in opposing this threat to our faith and to our nation.

 As Christians, we are bound to Christ, not by citizenship, but by faith. We believe that:

• People of all faiths and none have the right and responsibility to engage constructively in the public square.

• Patriotism does not require us to minimize our religious convictions.

• One’s religious affiliation, or lack thereof, should be irrelevant to one’s standing in the civic community.

• Government should not prefer one religion over another or religion over nonreligion.

• Religious instruction is best left to our houses of worship, other religious institutions and families.

• America’s historic commitment to religious pluralism enables faith communities to live in civic harmony with one another without sacrificing our theological convictions.

• Conflating religious authority with political authority is idolatrous and often leads to oppression of minority and other marginalized groups as well as the spiritual impoverishment of religion.

• We must stand up to and speak out against Christian nationalism, especially when it inspires acts of violence and intimidation—including vandalism, bomb threats, arson, hate crimes, and attacks on houses of worship—against religious communities at home and abroad.

Whether we worship at a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple, America has no second-class faiths. All are equal under the U.S. Constitution. As Christians, we must speak in one voice condemning Christian nationalism as a distortion of the gospel of Jesus and a threat to American democracy.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 3, 2022 by smac97

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nah. The topic holds no interest for me. 

Of course not.

4 hours ago, longview said:

Because you are in DEEP denial about the derangement of "woke" philosophies?  Or maybe you are embarrassed with the antics of antifas which you have repeatedly expressed admiration for?  Possibly your lack of "enthusiasm" for free enterprise?

"Christian Nationalism" is a meaningless term for me.  I subscribe to Elder Oaks masterful praise of Constitutionalism and the blessings that flowed from it to the whole world.  Which you tried to fight back against by calling it idolatry.

 

None of which answered the actual question or relates to what I said. Unable to explain what your buzzword jargon actually means. Just more whataboutisms, the favored rhetorical tactic of the Soviet Union. You have learned your lessons well Comrade. Are you talking to me or some imaginary opponent in your brain?

I used to think Hugh Nibley’s essays on the dangers of rhetoric and how it destroys civilizations was overblown. Now I think he was very insightful.

You went way beyond what the talk said when I called what you said idolatry.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I get a chuckle from you guys scoffing at Smac for putting too much content and/or documentation in his posts. Almost seems like a variation on “my mind’s made up; don’t confuse me with facts.”

Nope, it is more frustration with his usual disjointed line by line responses. Individually they often work but it ends up dodging the coherent whole of whatever he is posting. It is also tedious and awful if you try to quote and respond to it. Instead of engaging the argument you instead find yourself facing a dozen or more one-line rebuttals mixed with a few agreements and a few comments without a ton of meaning.

It is boring.

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have tried to approach Christian Nationalism in an open-minded, clinical way.  So far my assessment is that it wants "Christianity" (the parameters of which are notably not described) to enjoy elevated and privileged status in the United States.  It wants a state religion.  There are some legitimately concerning racialized aspects to the movement (see, e.g., here, here, here).  Having concluded that Christian Nationalism is problematic, I feel it appropriate to oppose it, and to explain why I oppose it. This is not based emotional vitriol and a pound-of-flesh attitude (such as I think permeates the CES Letter).

I agree with, and have signed, the "Christians Against Christian Nationalism" statement here:

Thank you for signing and for showing me the link.  I have also signed it. 

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree with, and have signed, the "Christians Against Christian Nationalism" statement here:

They have published a report worth a read:

Quote

Released February 9, 2022, this report is the most complete accounting to date of how Christian nationalism contributed to the events leading up to January 6 and the day of the attack itself, and it looks at responses to January 6. Featuring contributions from scholars, historians, advocates, and researchers, this report was a joint project of Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC), Freedom From Religion Foundation, and Christians Against Christian Nationalism.

https://www.christiansagainstchristiannationalism.org/jan6report

Also a webinar that can be watched on that subject at the link.  

[The Nehor]

43 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It seems to me that the slogan "America First" presupposes nationalism, Christian or not. 

Fun Fact: It was also the slogan of pro-Fascists in 1930s USA.

The term was first used in a different context by President Wilson who wanted to keep out of the First World War.

Later it was used by antisemitic fascist sympathizers in the America First Committee. The KKK used the slogan too.

So why was the slogan resurrected now given its obvious history? Hmmmmm…..is that a dog whistle I hear?

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes the case illustrates my point very well. Remember, the Christian right is not your friend. They only like Latter day Saints when we poor money and resources into causes they may like such as abortion or gay marriage.  Other than that they think the Church is a cult and not a valid expression of religion at all.  They would be happy to exclude Latter day Saints whenever they can.

Yep, Mormons are generally like Log Cabin Republicans. Pandered to where it is believed the pandering might produce favorable political results and ignored when they are considered irrelevant.

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes the case illustrates my point very well. Remember, the Christian right is not your friend.

Sorry, but that's way too overbroad.  

Look at the "Christians Against Christian Nationalism" website.  So far it has about 24,000 signers who endorse its "Statement" on Christian Nationalism.  

There are ample measures of live-and-let-live-ism, diversity of thought, meaningful tolerance, devotion to religious pluralism, and generalized respect to be found in most quarters of Christianity.  Where problematic ideologies are seeping in (such as Christian Nationalism), Christians are stepping up and policing their own (see, for example, the Christianity Today article I linked to in the OP, the "Christians Against Christian Nationalism" website, various statements by the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints denouncing racism, nationalism, etc., and speaking in defense of religious pluralism and tolerance).

Not everyone on "the Christian right" is my friend, but many, many are.  In contrast, I find the secular left (an increasingly redundant label) to be far more contemptuous and inimical toward religious people broadly, Christians more emphatically, and the Latter-day Saints in particular.

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

They only like Latter day Saints when we poor money and resources into causes they may like such as abortion or gay marriage. 

You seem to think this is a bug, whereas I see it as a feature.  The Latter-day Saints and other Christian groups are increasingly setting aside doctrinal differences and working together on matters where we substantively agree.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

In Utah, Catholics, Mormons have ‘positive, cordial relationship’

BY CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE

MAR 24, 2019

Pope Francis meets March 9 at the Vatican with Russell M. Nelson, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (CNS, Vatican Media)

SALT LAKE CITY (CNS) — The March 3 meeting at the Vatican between Pope Francis and Russell M. Nelson, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, drew great interest from members of both faiths and was covered extensively in the media in Utah.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, widely known as the Mormon Church, has its headquarters in Utah. Earlier in the year, Nelson, who Latter-day Saints consider a prophet, addressed more than 65,000 Arizona members of his church, as was reported by local LDS publication, the Arizona Beehive. 

This historic meeting, the first between the leaders of the two Churches, came about while Nelson and other leaders of his faith were in Rome to dedicate a church temple, the first in Italy. Church temples are where LDS sacred ordinances, or sacred rites and ceremonies, of the faith are conducted.

The temple was built to give the church’s nearly 27,000 members in Italy access to those ordinances and because Rome has historically been “the heart and center of the Christian world,” said John Taylor, director of interfaith relations for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Vatican leaders, in particular Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, who was president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue until his death last year, have been very supportive of his church’s efforts to build the temple in Rome, Taylor told the Intermountain Catholic, newspaper of the Diocese of Salt Lake City.

While historically the two churches have interacted positively, some see the meeting as the beginning of a new chapter in their relationship.

Dallin H. Oaks, Apostle for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gives the keynote speech as part of the Utah Valley University Constitutional Syposium on Religious Freedom at the UCCU Center on the campus of in Orem, Utah in this April 16, 2014, file photo. With him is Archbishop John C. Wester of Santa Fe when he was serving as the bishop of Salt Lake City. (August Miller/Courtesy of LDS Newsroom, via UVU Marketing)

“This says to me that Mormons and Catholics are getting to know each other as Christians,” said Mathew Schmalz, a College of the Holy Cross associate professor of religious studies. “Beyond political action, they are getting to know each other as people of faith. I think it could provide the opportunity for more substantial dialogue in religious issues that moves beyond mutual stereotypes.”

Schmalz has written and spoken extensively about Mormon-Catholic dialogue and is the only Catholic on the editorial board of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, an independent quarterly journal.

Utah became home to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1847 as its members settled in the state in hopes of finding a place where they could practice their faith without persecution.

While the first Mass was celebrated in Utah in 1776 by members of the Dominguez-Escalante party, who were seeking an overland route from present-day New Mexico to California, the Catholic Church formally came to Utah with the creation of the Apostolic Vicariate of Utah in 1886; the statewide Diocese of Salt Lake City was established in 1891.

In time, both Churches grew and flourished side by side on this desert frontier, but while each Church professes a deep belief in the person of Jesus Christ as the savior of mankind, distinctly different doctrines and practices have historically kept the faithful separate.

Nevertheless, over the years, the leadership of the two Churches met often, but it was always behind closed doors, according to Msgr. Colin M. Bircumshaw, vicar general of the diocese.

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, OFM Cap., Archdiocese of Philadelphia, thanks Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for speaking at the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia, in this Sept. 24, 2015, file photo. During Christofferson’s presentation, Archbishop Chaput said, “When we planned this [event], we tried to reach out to different faith communities to get some help on how to be good families. I don’t think anybody does it better than the Mormon community and the Latter-day Saints. I’m grateful that you are willing to help teach us.” (Courtesy of Courtesy of LDS Newsroom, via DESERET NEWS)

“The differences were in the pews,” he said. “We’ve had a positive and cordial relationship for many years. We have mutually recognized theological differences, but we don’t let them deter us from working together and respecting one another. We’ve especially worked closely together in common areas of social justice and charitable projects.”

In Utah, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has proven to be a strong partner with Catholic Community Services of Utah, the local arm of Catholic Charities USA.

“Not only do they support us with in-kind and monetary donations, but also with volunteers,” said Bradford R. Drake, executive director of Catholic Community Services.

“Their manpower is invaluable as each of our programs rely on thousands of volunteers each year to meet the needs of those we serve,” he said, adding, “we consider ourselves very fortunate to work with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose focus is very similar to ours in following Christ’s example of serving those most in need.”

On a national level, since the 1980s, LDS Charities, the church’s humanitarian arm, has had on ongoing relationship with Catholic Relief Services.

It began when Bishop William K. Weigand, the seventh bishop of Salt Lake City (1980 to early 1994), facilitated a partnership between LDS Charities and CRS to provide aid to Poland during the early days of Solidarity, the people’s labor movement in that country. Since that time, CRS and LDS Charities have partnered in hundreds of humanitarian and development projects across the world.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Quorum of the Twelve Apostles greets the late Cardinal Francis George of Chicago during the cardinal’s visit to Salt Lake City in February 2010 as Elder Neil L. Andersen and Elder Quentin L. Cook look on. (Courtesy of LDS Newsroom, via INTELLECTUAL RESERVE, INC.)

“From 2014 to 2018, LDS Charities supported more than 50 CRS projects, which reached more than 1.7 million people,” said Sean Callahan, president and CEO of CRS. “Currently, LDS Charities is supporting 24 active CRS projects, which touch all major regions of Africa, the Middle East, East and South Asia, and Central and South America.

“This is more than a relationship between two charities, it’s a relationship between faith communities dedicated to reaching out to our sisters and brothers globally,” he told the Intermountain Catholic.

While the leadership of both churches has been actively engaged together in humanitarian efforts for many years, for much of their shared history in Utah the ordinary members of the Churches rarely interacted except in the workforce. In recent years that has changed.

For example, parishes and wards (the LDS equivalent of a parish) throughout the state often assist each other on food drives and other charitable efforts. Also, as attacks on organized religion and traditional values have mounted, common core values have led to greater interaction and dialogue between local faith congregations, including the two Churches.

Leaders of the two Churches have continued to meet often to address areas of mutual concern. One issue that Taylor said comes up at just about every meeting in recent years is how to engage young people who are drifting away from their parents’ faith.

Taylor said they are learning together that while these young people often describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated or “none” on surveys, they are very concerned about causes.

The charitable work of both Churches is the perfect vehicle to draw those young people back into their faith communities, Taylor said. “It is amazing to me to see that when we organize an activity or event along those lines there is an incredibly strong response that comes from that segment.”

As both Churches address this and other concerns, “I have no question that the commonalities between the two faiths can overcome the differences that separate us,” he said.

Locally, the Catholic and Latter-day Saint communities have partnered on a variety of issues.

Smith, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, pointed to the shared values among Mormons, Catholics and Evangelicals.

“We have some differences of doctrine, but we share a lot more values than we have differences,” said Ken Smith, a former president of a Spanish-speaking LDS branch in Mesa during a gathering of Hispanic religious leaders of various faiths outside the Arizona State Capitol in May 2016.

“The family is being attacked and it’s being destroyed and we’re losing the battle … those people who share traditional values are now pushing back. We’re not going to stand for it. We’re going to protect our families.”

See also:

Interfaith Relations

Quote

The following are just a few examples and stories of cooperation between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint and other faiths:

Examples of Events Hosted

Evangelical and Latter-day Saint Leaders Gather in Tabernacle to Promote Faith and Religious Freedom (21 January 2014)
Church Hosts Concert of Praise in Tabernacle for National Bible Week  (25 November 2013)
Latter-day Saint Congregation Hosts “Sacred Spaces” Interfaith Event in New York (26 July 2012)
Interfaith Friends Bring Music and Energy to Historic Tabernacle (28 February 2012)
Many Faiths, One Family (21 February 2011)
Archbishop Alex J. Brunett Receives Family Values Award (30 November 2010)
Bishop Wester Praises Utah Visit of Cardinal George (26 February 2010)
Cardinal George Addresses Religious Freedom in Speech at BYU (23 February 2010)
Annual Interfaith Music Tribute Performed in Historic Salt Lake Tabernacle (22 February 2010)
Faiths Join for Musical Tribute in Salt Lake Tabernacle (9 February 2010)
Salt Lake Interfaith Roundtable Holds Concert on Temple Square (2/13/2007)

Examples of Events Participated in

Latter-day Saints, Baptists Worship Together at Christmas Jubilee (16 December 2015)
Church Participates in Global Interfaith Gathering in Salt Lake City (16 October 2015)
At World Meeting of Families, Apostle Suggests Ways to Help Families Flourish (24 September 2015)
Apostle Speaks at Historic Religious Freedom Event in Brazil (29 April 2015)
Vatican Summit: Global Faith Leaders Discuss Marriage (17 November 2014)
Church Leader Attends European Union Meeting ( 11 June 2014)
Apostle Joins Faith Leaders to Honor Rabbi Sacks (2 June 2014)
Latter-day Saint and Seventh-day Adventist Leaders Discuss Faith, Family and Religious Freedom (30 April 2014)
Bay Area Interfaith Group Honoring Christ Through Song and Service (29 April 2014)
Breaking Down the Walls: Latter-day Saints Join Interfaith Effort to Feed Hungry at Thanksgiving (27 November 2013)
Church Builds Interfaith Relationships in Baltimore (26 November 2013)
Interfaith Choir Holds Concerts for Moore, Oklahoma, Tornado Survivors (16 July 2013)
Elder Dallin H. Oaks Honored for Championing Religious Freedom  (16 May 2013)
Catholic Bishop Urges Interfaith Dialogue During Speech at Institute of Religion (19 September 2012)
Interfaith Concert Inspires Donations to Food Pantry (22 December 2011)
Apostles Travel the World in Response to Growing Church Membership (27 September 2010)
2009 Parliament of World’s Religions Gathers in Melbourne (14 December 2009)
Cathedral Celebrates 100^th Anniversary; President Monson Speaks of Service Given Jointly by Two Faiths (10 August 2009)
Church Represented at World Religions Conference in Kazakhstan (22 July 2009)
Tours of Religious Buildings Nurture Understanding (31 July 2008)

Examples of Church Teachings

Church Points to Joseph Smith’s Statements on Religious Freedom, Pluralism (8 December 2015)
Why Religious Freedom Matters to Latter-day Saints (20 February 2012)
Dr. Robert L. Millet: A View on Interfaith Respect (24 January 2012)
Elder Quentin L. Cook Delivers Speech on Morality and Religious Freedom (16 December 2011)
Partnering with Our Friends from Other Faiths (12 August 2010)
Believers in God Need to Work Together, Apostle Says (28 May 2008)
Respect for Diversity of Faiths (18 April 2008)

Examples of Humanitarian Aid and Other Service

Latter-day Saint Representatives Discuss Church Humanitarian Efforts at the United Nations (28 February 2014)
Latter-day Saint Volunteers Building Homes for Typhoon Haiyan Victims (21 February 2014)
Church Community Helps Refugees in Utah (3 January 2014)
Church Continues to Assist Typhoon Survivors (13 November 2013)
Catholic Community Services Honors Presiding Bishopric for Humanitarian Work (25 October 2013)
Latter-day Saints, Other Groups Work Together on Oklahoma Tornado Cleanup (29 May 2013)
Church Donates More Than 1 Million Pounds of Food to Top Hunger-Relief Organization (9 May 2013)
Church Representative Speaks at the U.N. (6 March 2013)
Church Responds to Over 100 Disasters in 2012 (27 February 2013)
Two Congregations of Different Faiths Forge Friendship in the Wake of Devastation (30 November 2012)
Church Humanitarian Aid Helps During Costly 2011 Disasters (7 March 2012)
Neighbors helping Neighbors (8 July 2010)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Partners with Islamic Relief USA to Send Food and Medical Supplies to Haiti (22 January 2010)
From Salt Lake to Samoa, Church Extends Humanitarian Help (6 October 2009)
Latter-day Saint, Islamic Leaders Share Relief Efforts (29 July 2009)
Quilters Sew to Help Homeless Families (21 March 2007)
Latter-day Saint Youth in Houston Help Neighbors Prepare for Emergencies (25 October 2006)
Latter-day Saints Send Aid to Middle East (27 July 2006)
Muslims and Latter-day Saints Work Together to Rush Aid to Indonesia Quake Victims (30 May 2006)

Building these relationships is taking real time and effort, but the efforts are under way.

I'd like to see more friendliness and cooperation with secular groups.  The Church seems to have extended some olive leaves.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

5 July 2017 - SALT LAKE CITY | Commentary

Where Religious and Secular Meet

Does religious freedom protect only the religious?

The pursuit of truth, the desire for meaning and the search for transcendence belong to no particular church, culture or country. These, rather, are the common aspirations of all human beings. A person does not have to be religious to be moral, and a person does not have to be secular to be thoughtful. They both occupy the same public space and want the same right to voice their beliefs. Religious freedom should protect all who care about matters of ultimate concern and promote the common good.

Human society has an unavoidable moral dimension. The nature of law, commerce, education and relationships stems from assumptions we hold about right and wrong. Social values are influenced by many sources — history, literature, philosophy, science — but moral and religious traditions perform a key role. Both religious and secular people benefit from each other’s achievements. Faith and reason do not have to be viewed as opposites.

Given this interaction, the broad overlap between religious freedom and other civil rights is understandable. For example, freedom of speech, press, assembly and association have more meaning when buttressed by the free exercise of religion. Though conscience, ethics and human rights are often associated with secular values, they still fall under the umbrella of religious freedom. In this way, the secular and the religious are close relatives.
...
{P}luralism is on the rise, and both religion and secularism have a part to play. The two do not have to cancel each other out. So many different ways of living life complicate our world, but they can also enrich it. The challenge we face is to learn how to accommodate each other’s beliefs without sacrificing our own.

A generous freedom of heart and mind bridges the gaps where religious and secular meet.

Alas, I'm not sure how much or how many secularists are interested in this sort of thing.  My sense is that there is something inherent in secularism that fosters selfishness, and that in turn can reduce an individual's willingness to help and serve others.  The numbers on charitable giving seem to bear this out:

Quote

Religious Faith and Charitable Giving

Believers give more to secular charities than non-believers do

Wednesday, October 1, 2003  15 min readBy: Arthur C. Brooks

 

Over the past decade, a number of policy scholars have examined parallel bedrock constituencies in America’s political parties. On one side, the Republicans rely on the near-monolithic support of Christian conservatives, a fact that has been documented ad nauseam by political commentators and the mainstream press for more than 20 years. Less well understood, but equally important, is the role of liberal secularists in shaping the policies of the American left. These people are the religious and political inverse of Christian conservatives: They vote for liberal political candidates and hold left-wing views on issues like school prayer and the death penalty. But most saliently, religion does not play a significant role in their lives. As political scientists Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio recently demonstrated in the Public Interest (“Our Secularist Democratic Party,” Fall 2002), liberal secularists are at least as influential in molding the platform of the Democratic Party as are Christian conservatives for the Republicans.

Secularism is historically anomalous in the American cultural mainstream. The links between civic and religious life were persistent across the American political spectrum for hundreds of years. Indeed, John Winthrop’s seventeenth-century statement quoted above would probably not have sounded particularly zealous throughout most of the twentieth century. As many public opinion scholars have documented, however, a dramatic philosophical shift occurred in the 1960s, leaving us to this day with a pervasive secular rhetoric on the political left. Consider how retrograde the words of John F. Kennedy’s 1961 inaugural address would sound today: “With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”

An unanswered question is one of causality: Do secularists tend toward the political left, or do political liberals tend to be secular? On the one hand, secularism might be the only hard-headed option for those who see, as Karl Marx did, that “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.” On the other hand, secularists might find sanctuary in liberalism’s tolerance for their somewhat unpopular views. Alexis de Tocqueville noted that being a secularist in America was no easy life (at least in 1835): “In the United States, if a politician attacks a sect, this may not prevent the partisans of that very sect from supporting him; but if he attacks all the sects together, everyone abandons him, and he remains alone.” Nor is secularism a popular stance among the public at large today: According to a March 2002 survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, more than half of Americans have an unfavorable view of nonbelievers.
...
This essay focuses on the latter. Using data from a large survey conducted in 2000, I investigate differences in charitable giving and volunteering between secular and religious people. I look for explanations for these differences in the current debates about social capital, the role of government in social policy, and the separation of church and state. Finally, I explore the implications of charitable giving differences for policy and politics.

Giving and volunteering, by the numbers

 

How do religious and secular people vary in their charitable behavior? To answer this, I turn to data collected expressly to explore patterns in American civic life. The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (sccbs) was undertaken in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. The data consist of nearly 30,000 observations drawn from 50 communities across the United States and ask individuals about their “civic behavior,” including their giving and volunteering during the year preceding the survey.

From these data, I have constructed two measures of religious participation. First, the group I refer to as “religious” are the respondents that report attending religious services every week or more often. This is 33 percent of the sample. Second, the group I call “secular” report attending religious services less than a few times per year or explicitly say they have no religion. These people are 26 percent of the sample (implying that those who practice their religion occasionally make up 41 percent of the sample). The sccbs asked respondents whether and how much they gave and volunteered to “religious causes” or “non-religious charities” over the previous 12 months. Across the whole population, 81 percent gave, while 57 percent volunteered.

The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.

...

Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so. In other words, religious conservatives (who give and volunteer at rates of 91 percent and 67 percent) appear to differ from secular liberals (who give and volunteer at rates of 72 percent and 52 percent) more due to religion than to politics.
...
Charity differences between religious and secular people persist if we look at the actual amounts of donations and volunteering. Indeed, measures of the dollars given and occasions volunteered per year produce a yawning gap between the groups. The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times. To put this into perspective, religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered. Secular people are 26 percent of the population but contribute 13 percent of the dollars and 17 percent of the times volunteered.
...
Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent). For example, religious people are 7 points more likely than secularists to volunteer for neighborhood and civic groups, 20 points more likely to volunteer to help the poor or elderly, and 26 points more likely to volunteer for school or youth programs. It seems fair to say that religion engenders charity in general — including nonreligious charity.

I hope this changes in the future.

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Other than that they think the Church is a cult and not a valid expression of religion at all.  They would be happy to exclude Latter day Saints whenever they can.

I think this is changing.  And in any event. religious pluralism doesn't require that we get along in terms of doctrinal agreement.  Meanwhile, we are increasingly able to set aside such doctrinal disagreements and work with other religious groups.

Would that I could say the same about secularists.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 3, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

They have published a report worth a read:

Also a webinar that can be watched on that subject at the link.  

I am really glad to see religious groups "policing their own" and speaking and acting against excesses and overreaches.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sorry, but that's way too overbroad.  

Look at the "Christians Against Christian Nationalism" website.  So far it has about 24,000 signers who endorse its "Statement" on Christian Nationalism.  

There are ample measures of live-and-let-live-ism, diversity of thought, meaningful tolerance, devotion to religious pluralism, and generalized respect to be found in most quarters of Christianity.  Where problematic ideologies are seeping in (such as Christian Nationalism), Christians are stepping up and policing their own (see, for example, the Christianity Today article I linked to in the OP, the "Christians Against Christian Nationalism" website, various statements by the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints denouncing racism, nationalism, etc., and speaking in defense of religious pluralism and tolerance).

Not everyone on "the Christian right" is my friend, but many, many are.  In contrast, I find the secular left (an increasingly redundant label) to be far more contemptuous and inimical toward religious people broadly, Christians more emphatically, and the Latter-day Saints in particular.

You seem to think this is a bug, whereas I see it as a feature.  The Latter-day Saints and other Christian groups are increasingly setting aside doctrinal differences and working together on matters where we substantively agree.  See, e.g., here:

See also:

Interfaith Relations

Building these relationships is taking real time and effort, but the efforts are under way.

I'd like to see more friendliness and cooperation with secular groups.  The Church seems to have extended some olive leaves.  See, e.g., here:

d

 

You do realize that the religious groups willing to hold interfaith and ecumenical activities with Latter-day Saints are not the same as the Religious Right. 

Anecdotally speaking, I’ve had right-wing Evangelicals say all kinds of lovely things about the church (usually about our shared values) when they think I’m a member; when they find out I’m a de facto ex-Mormon, they are universally scathing and derisive about this “hell-forged cult” (a direct quote). You can kid yourself that you are tolerated and valued, but that ends when you stop being useful. 

Edited August 3, 2022 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

That's not a bad example of what I mean. I've never had much interest in the CES letter, as the parts of it I have read tend to be quite polemical in nature. It seems designed to start a debate, and as I recall, the author has participated in a few debates. Likewise, I disliked what I read of my good friend Jim Bennett's response to the CES letter for the same reason.

I don't see much symmetry between the two, but that's a discussion for another day and another thread.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Does it mean I dislike either of them or am afraid to address the substance and "documentation" they both provide? Obviously not, but I'm not going to expend energy on proving my point to a relative stranger online.

I can appreciate that.  Life is short.  Interests and priorities vary.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

It's about as pointless as this:

I am a huge Frank Capra fan.  What a wonderful creative fellow.  He was willing to address real-world challenges and failures while consistently maintaining an ultimately optimistic worldview.  And he had a love for America, both its ideals and its people, despite their flaws and shortcomings.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't see much symmetry between the two, but that's a discussion for another day and another thread.

I can appreciate that.  Life is short.  Interests and priorities vary.

I am a huge Frank Capra fan.  What a wonderful creative fellow.  He was willing to address real-world challenges and failures while consistently maintaining an ultimately optimistic worldview.  And he had a love for America, both its ideals and its people, despite their flaws and shortcomings.

Thanks,

-Smac

I did not mean to be offensive, but I hope you understand I am just not interested in the kind of point-by-point arguing you seem to be fond of. I don't have the time, and I really don't have the interest. Years ago, my friend Michael Austin commented about my blog that I always start out trying to be evenhanded and "nuanced" (as you put it), but in the end, the church is always wrong. I took that to heart and have adopted more of a live-and-let-live approach. You don't see me arguing about Book of Mormon evidence or polygamy or any of that anymore. I'll offer my thoughts, but that's it. I got sucked into the discussion about pride uniforms because I thought (and still do) that people here seem to completely miss the point of pride events. Am I going to provide a 30-page rebuttal with links? Nope. Life's too short.

Edited August 3, 2022 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You do realize that the religious groups willing to hold interfaith and ecumenical activities with Latter-day Saints are not the same as the Religious Right. 

I do.

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Anecdotally speaking, I’ve had right-wing Evangelicals say all kinds of lovely things about the church (usually about our shared values) when they think I’m a member; when they find out I’m a de facto ex-Mormon, they are universally scathing and derisive about this “hell-forged cult” (a direct quote). You can kid yourself that you are tolerated and valued, but that ends when you stop being useful. 

And yet I still think religious groups and the "right" are considerably more appreciative of religious liberty and pluralism in the sociopolitical sphere as compared to . . . other sectors.

You seem to be focusing on doctrinal and sectarian disagreements and resentments, and then exporting them into the "political" sphere.  The shift doesn't work very well.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I do.

And yet I still think religious groups and the "right" are considerably more appreciative of religious liberty and pluralism in the sociopolitical sphere as compared to . . . other sectors.

You seem to be focusing on doctrinal and sectarian disagreements and resentments, and then exporting them into the "political" sphere.  The shift doesn't work very well.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh, but it does. I'm convinced the 2012 election would have been closer had prominent Evangelicals like Robert Jeffress not come out so strongly against Romney. From what I saw in Texas, a significant number of conservative Evangelicals stayed home rather than vote for a Mormon.