Re-visiting Christian Nationalism

[smac97]

I have commented on Christian Nationalism a few times:

• August 2022: Should Latter-day Saints be Concerned about "Christian Nationalism?"
• February 2023: Should Latter-day Saints be Concerned about "Christian Nationalism?" - Part II

A new article: For many Latter-day Saints, America has a special relationship with God − but Christian nationalism is a step too far

Quote

On the verge of the 2024 elections, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are ramping up their campaigns in Arizona and Nevada. Beyond being considered swing states, the two have something else in common: Latter-day Saint voters.

About 5% to 10% of Arizonans and Nevadans belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – among the highest percentages in the country, outside of Utah and Idaho. For decades, a steep majority of Latter-day Saints, often called Mormons, were regarded as reliable Republican voters. But the Trump era has tested that alliance, especially when it comes to many of his backers’ support for Christian nationalism.

Christian nationalism is often described as the belief that American identity and Christianity are deeply intertwined and, therefore, the U.S. government should promote Christian-based values. Using questions such as whether “being Christian is an important part of being truly American,” a Public Religion Research Institute poll in 2024 found that about 4 in 10 Latter-day Saints nationwide are at least sympathetic to Christian nationalist ideas, if not clear “adherents.” This was the third-highest rate among religious groups, behind white evangelicals and Hispanic Protestants.

I think discussions about "Christian Nationalism" are hobbled by important semantic issues, including how surveys about it are worded and the results characterized (see the bulleted links above).

Quote

Yet the report also found a seeming contradiction. Utah, home to the church’s headquarters, “is the only red state in which support for Christian nationalism falls below the national average.”

Not really a contradiction, IMO.  I commented previously here:

Quote

"Christian nationalists want to define America as a Christian nation."

Why?  Why would defining America "as a Christian nation" be superior to the America being a religiously pluralistic, secular-but-still-zealously-protective-of-religious-liberty country?

"{T}hey want the government to promote a specific cultural template as the official culture of the country."

Again, why?  Can't we inculcate our preferred values on Sundays and at home?  Why have the government do it?  

And note the emphasis on schools.  Boy, it sure would be nice if schools got back to the basics.  I don't like the over-the-top indoctrination in schools of LGBT stuff, but I also don't like the idea of teachers and civil servants specifically advocating a particular set of religious sentiments on the taxpayer's dime.  

"Some ... have argued that the United States government must defend and enshrine its predominant 'Anglo-Protestant' culture."

Not really liking this.  Governments do a poor job when they expressly elevate one religion or religioius group over others.  

Also, the Church started with growth in mostly-Protestant America and Northern Europe.  In my lifetime, however, these sources have withered, replaced with growth of the Church happening amongst mostly-Hispanics (North and South America), the Phillipines, Polynesia, and Africa.  Most of these folks are neither "Anglo" nor "Protestant."  The Latter-day Saints are, in ever increasing measures, intertwined in terms of racial/ethnic categories, which should put us at odds with an ideology pushing a particular racial/ethnic "culture."  As Latter-day Saints I think we should be building our own culture, rather than pushing for the government to "enshrine" one.  And since we will, in the end, not quite fit in as "Protestants," we probably ought not support enshrining that either.
...
To sum up:

• The apparent racial component of Christian Nationalism (in some quarters) is problematic.
• The advocacy of intertwining religion with the State is problematic.
• The notion that the Latter-day Saints would be welcomed to the table should ardent Christian Nationalists have their way is . . . pretty iffy.
• I have questions about the legitimacy of connecting "Christian Nationalism" to "White Nationalism," as Whitehead does above.  I'll need to look at the data.  

The Latter-day Saints are, in the main, pretty strongly devoted to religious liberty, both for our own sake and for everyone else.  Religious liberty is, in my view, heavily dependent on religious pluralism, and these thrive best when religious and secular authority are kept separate from each other.

Quote

As a scholar of Mormonism and nationalism, I believe the church’s history and beliefs help explain why so many members wrestle with Christian nationalist ideas – and that this complexity illustrates the difficulty of defining Christian nationalism in the first place. America is sacred in Latter-day Saint doctrine: both the land itself and its constitutional structures. But as a minority that has often faced discrimination from other Christians, the church displays profound skepticism about combining religion and state.

The author is Nicholas Shrum, a "Doctoral Student in Religious Studies, University of Virginia."  I've never heard of him, but he went to BYU as an undergrad, so he's likely a Latter-day Saint.

Quote

Sacred space

The Book of Mormon – one of the church’s key scriptures, alongside the Bible – describes the Americas as “choice above all other lands” and provides an account of Jesus Christ visiting ancient civilizations there after his resurrection.

In addition, Latter-day Saint doctrine considers the United States’ government to be divinely inspired. In 1833 the church’s founder, Joseph Smith, dictated a revelation wherein God declared “I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up for this very purpose.”

In the 1830s, Latter-day Saints migrated from New York and Ohio to western Missouri, where they believed themselves divinely commanded to build a sacred city called Zion. By the end of the decade, however, they had been forced out of Missouri by mob violence and an order from the governor, who called for the group to be “exterminated or driven from the State.”

Church members fled to neighboring Illinois, then began a long trek west after Smith’s death in 1844. The first pioneers reached Utah Territory in 1847, where they set up a society shaped by their beliefs – including, most famously, the practice of plural marriage. But when Utah applied for statehood, tensions with the federal government mounted.

Congress enacted anti-polygamy legislation that seized some church property, imprisoned more than 1,000 church members, disenfranchised anyone who supported the practice, and revoked Utah’s 1870 decision to give women the right to vote.

By 1896, church leaders had begun the process of ending plural marriage, and Utah was admitted to the union. Latter-day Saints also adopted the two-party system and embraced free-market capitalism, giving up their more insular and communal system – adapting to dominant ideas of what it meant to be properly American.

And fortunately for us, we can be "properly American" and also observant Latter-day Saints.

Quote

Constitutional patriots

These experiences tested Latter-day Saints’ faith in the U.S. government – particularly its failure to intervene as members were forced out of Missouri and Illinois. Nevertheless, church doctrine emphasizes duty to one’s country. One of the church’s 13 Articles of Faith explains that “we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, and in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

Latter-day Saints have “a unique responsibility to uphold and defend the United States Constitution and principles of constitutionalism,” as Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the church’s highest governing body, said in 2021.

I would argue that beliefs in the country’s divine purpose and potential, and the close relationship between faith and patriotism, may illuminate Latter-day Saint sympathy for Christian nationalist ideas. Yet the church’s previously fraught relations with the federal government, and with wider American culture, help explain why a majority of Latter-day Saints remain skeptical of Christian nationalism.

I agree with this.

I also think that the apparent racial component of some strains of Christian Nationalism also keep the Latter-day Saints generally at a distance (see, e.g., here).

Quote

For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, hostility against the church was so high and widespread that if the U.S. had declared itself a Christian nation, Latter-day Saints would likely have been excluded – and around one-third of Americans still do not consider them “Christian.” According to a 2023 Pew survey, only 15% of Americans say they have a favorable impression of Latter-day Saints, while 25% report unfavorable views.

Latter-day Saint leaders believe they have a right to exert moral influence on public policy. But the church’s awareness of its own precarious position in U.S. culture has made it wary of policies that put some people’s religious freedom above others.

I don't think our "position in U.S. culture" is "precarious" (as in "not securely held or in position; dangerously likely to fall or collapse").  I think the "unfavorable views" are more abstract than concrete.

Quote

A step too far

This wariness has also shaped Latter-day Saint culture’s inclination to avoid extremes. After decades of being marginalized for practices considered radical, the modern church and its adherents have walked a delicate tightrope. And for many, Christian nationalism and the candidate many adherents put their hope in – Donald Trump – seem a step too far.

I think conflating Latter-day Saint perspectives on "Christian Nationalism" with their assessment of Donald Trump is flawed reasoning.  

Quote

Holy purpose

Ever since the Puritans, many people in what became the United States have believed God has a special plan for their society – part of the same current that drives Christian nationalism today.

Latter-day Saints, however, have a specific vision of that plan. According to the church’s teachings and scriptures, the country’s establishment was a necessary step toward restoring the “only true and living church” – their own. And that church is a global one, not just American. More than half of all Latter-day Saints today live outside the U.S.

In my view, the Church's global presence has only arisen because the Church is headquartered in the United States, the laws and structure of which create the protections needed for our faith to exist and grow, both here and throughout the world.

Quote

Ultimately, Latter-day Saint teachings consider America’s story part of a greater goal: ushering in the second coming of Jesus Christ. As the church’s name suggests, Latter-day Saints believe that they are living in the last days, just before the millennial reign of Jesus – a kingdom where national and political distinctions melt away.

But as with all other churches, its members live in the current day, where political, cultural and social realities shape how they interact with the world around them – and how they vote.

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[teddyaware]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have commented on Christian Nationalism a few times:

• August 2022: Should Latter-day Saints be Concerned about "Christian Nationalism?"
• February 2023: Should Latter-day Saints be Concerned about "Christian Nationalism?" - Part II

A new article: For many Latter-day Saints, America has a special relationship with God − but Christian nationalism is a step too far

I think discussions about "Christian Nationalism" are hobbled by important semantic issues, including how surveys about it are worded and the results characterized (see the bulleted links above).

Not really a contradiction, IMO.  I commented previously here:

The Latter-day Saints are, in the main, pretty strongly devoted to religious liberty, both for our own sake and for everyone else.  Religious liberty is, in my view, heavily dependent on religious pluralism, and these thrive best when religious and secular authority are kept separate from each other.

The author is Nicholas Shrum, a "Doctoral Student in Religious Studies, University of Virginia."  I've never heard of him, but he went to BYU as an undergrad, so he's likely a Latter-day Saint.

And fortunately for us, we can be "properly American" and also observant Latter-day Saints.

I agree with this.

I also think that the apparent racial component of some strains of Christian Nationalism also keep the Latter-day Saints generally at a distance (see, e.g., here).

I don't think our "position in U.S. culture" is "precarious" (as in "not securely held or in position; dangerously likely to fall or collapse").  I think the "unfavorable views" are more abstract than concrete.

I think conflating Latter-day Saint perspectives on "Christian Nationalism" with their assessment of Donald Trump is flawed reasoning.  

In my view, the Church's global presence has only arisen because the Church is headquartered in the United States, the laws and structure of which create the protections needed for our faith to exist and grow, both here and throughout the world.

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m wondering if the following quote from President Brigham Young indicates that he had what could be called Latter-Day Saint oriented Christian Nationalist tendencies?

When the day comes in which the Kingdom of God will bear rule, the flag of the United States will proudly flutter unsullied on the flag staff of liberty and equal rights, without a spot to sully its fair surface; the glorious flag our fathers have bequeathed to us will then be unfurled to the breeze by those who have power to hoist it aloft and defend its sanctity. [Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 360]

[Tacenda]

The scariest thing I've ever seen is the Christian Nationalists wanting it for the United States of America. Not one spot in our constitution has Christian in it does it? That's because the USA is a nation with all religions, races, beliefs and equality for all. 

Edited October 25, 2024 by Tacenda

[Dario_M]

The LDS community is a strongly devoded church indeed. 😇

Edited October 25, 2024 by Dario_M

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’m wondering if the following quote from President Brigham Young indicates that he had what could be called Latter-Day Saint oriented Christian Nationalist tendencies?

When the day comes in which the Kingdom of God will bear rule, the flag of the United States will proudly flutter unsullied on the flag staff of liberty and equal rights, without a spot to sully its fair surface; the glorious flag our fathers have bequeathed to us will then be unfurled to the breeze by those who have power to hoist it aloft and defend its sanctity. [Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 360]

No, the liberty and equal rights thing take it outside of Christian nationalism which is about privileging specific beliefs. Basically it is an attempt to undo the constitution while pretending to be devoted to it.

[BCSpace]

The same God who gave the Constitution (D&C 101:77) also said that if the nation that possessed this land did not serve Jesus Christ, it would be swept off (Ether 2:8-12). This does not mean we force Christianity on others, but it does mean that to the degree we as a nation do not serve Christ, we will also not be free from bondage and captivity.  Hence we try to convince and persuade others towards Christianity as per the Gospel and maintain a high degree of Christianity in society and civic life.

Is this Christian Nationalism? The Left has branded it so, even when there are no forced actions involved. Merely advocating for Christian values in society is enough for them.

Me? I don't care what you call it, but it may or may not be troublesome to call it that depending on what circles you're running in at the time. I've attended several functions in which Glenn Beck has been a speaker and it may interest you to know that in his opinion, because of corrupted definitions and the vitriol and madness possessing many who hold power in our institutions, one should not use the term. I tend to agree.

That being said, Nationalism, in and of itself and without any type or adjective, is an absolute requirement for freedom and liberty. Consider a world with a single government over all. Where would you go if you disagreed with or were persecuted by that government? Hence the drive toward Globalism is very dangerous. Here in the United States, we have the best system. If we don't like one state, we can move to another and we can still have the same national identity. We can be all for the USA and also be all for Texas or New York for example. And even more granular; Dallas or Houston, NYC or Albany, etc. The bottom line is we have choices and opportunities to change the world around us. We know who wanted to take that away from us and enforce the same outcome on us all (equity) Moses 4:1-3.

Edited October 25, 2024 by BCSpace

[Calm]

6 hours ago, BCSpace said:

this Christian Nationalism? The Left has branded it so, even when there are no forced actions involved.

Where has the left branded “not forcing Christianity on others” while practicing it ourselves as Nationalism?  Serious question. 
 

And what do you mean advocating for Christian values?  Just pushing ideas that are assumed to be Christian values or pushing a value held by the Christian community generally speaking?  You can push for marriage fidelity being rewarded by the government by presenting data that shows a committed to each other relationship is better for the country because having both parents in the home is better for kids so they grow up to be productive citizens or you can push for fidelity as a commandment of God that everyone should obey.  Again a serious question as I am interested in how you interpret comments as signifying nationalism or condemnation of such vs patriotism or expression of religious freedom or something else. 

Edited October 25, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, BCSpace said:

The same God who gave the Constitution (D&C 101:77) also said that if the nation that possessed this land did not serve Jesus Christ, it would be swept off (Ether 2:8-12). This does not mean we force Christianity on others, but it does mean that to the degree we as a nation do not serve Christ, we will also not be free from bondage and captivity.  Hence we try to convince and persuade others towards Christianity as per the Gospel and maintain a high degree of Christianity in society and civic life.

Cool.

7 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Is this Christian Nationalism? The Left has branded it so, even when there are no forced actions involved. Merely advocating for Christian values in society is enough for them.

That is not what dominionism wants nor what Christian nationalists want. The label is not being used incorrectly.

7 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Me? I don't care what you call it, but it may or may not be troublesome to call it that depending on what circles you're running in at the time. I've attended several functions in which Glenn Beck has been a speaker and it may interest you to know that in his opinion, because of corrupted definitions and the vitriol and madness possessing many who hold power in our institutions, one should not use the term. I tend to agree.

So he is obfuscating.

7 hours ago, BCSpace said:

That being said, Nationalism, in and of itself and without any type or adjective, is an absolute requirement for freedom and liberty. Consider a world with a single government over all. Where would you go if you disagreed with or were persecuted by that government? Hence the drive toward Globalism is very dangerous. Here in the United States, we have the best system. If we don't like one state, we can move to another and we can still have the same national identity. We can be all for the USA and also be all for Texas or New York for example. And even more granular; Dallas or Houston, NYC or Albany, etc. The bottom line is we have choices and opportunities to change the world around us. We know who wanted to take that away from us and enforce the same outcome on us all (equity) Moses 4:1-3.

Which is why classical liberalism and its associated liberty is so vital to preserve. Freedom of movement is often overlooked since it is so rarely limited these days. Until recently anyways. There are some disturbing signs this might change.

Nationalism isn’t a requirement for liberty. It often helps though. There is no real drive for globalism in the sense of one world government. This is a myth.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So he is obfuscating.

I don’t see a reason here to assume he is obfuscating as long as he is accurate with his actual terms. It is similar imo to me using critics for all but a few anti-Mormons because of the baggage of anti-Mormons being malicious towards the Church when I see the actual technical definition has the broad meaning of wanting the Church to be gone, which could mean by any means possible or just believing that knowledge of the facts would cause people to lose faith as there is a sincere belief that the Church is false and will lead people to hell with good, but wrong intentions or anything in between.

Now if he actually sees Christian Nationalism as a good thing and means to promote it because he is using a broader definition than its technical one, I think that can be dangerous he could end up promoting the real thing for people who don’t understand he is not using a broader definition than the usual. 

I don’t like Beck’s style much at all, but I don’t believe being careful about word choice to avoid baggage that misrepresents one’s position is deception. 

Now if he is an actual Christian Nationalist***, which at the very least imo is someone who wants to privilege Christianity in our country and is trying to make this more palatable, that would be obfuscating, but unless he’s really changed his position since I stopped paying attention to him, I don’t believe he supports actual Christian Nationalism for the US.

***https://www.christianitytoday.com/2021/02/what-is-christian-nationalism/

[smac97]

20 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’m wondering if the following quote from President Brigham Young indicates that he had what could be called Latter-Day Saint oriented Christian Nationalist tendencies?

When the day comes in which the Kingdom of God will bear rule, the flag of the United States will proudly flutter unsullied on the flag staff of liberty and equal rights, without a spot to sully its fair surface; the glorious flag our fathers have bequeathed to us will then be unfurled to the breeze by those who have power to hoist it aloft and defend its sanctity. [Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 360]

No, I don't think so.  FAIR provides some pretty good context:

Quote

Question: Did Brigham Young plan to "rule over all the earth"?

President Young didn't believe that the Kingdom of God was on the earth, nor did he believe it was synonymous with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The book One Nation Under Gods asserts that Brigham Young assured his followers: "[W]e will roll on the Kingdom of our God, gather out the seed of Abraham, build the cities and temples of Zion, and establish the Kingdom of God to bear rule over all the earth." ^[1] The author cites "Young, July 8, 1855, in JOD, vol. 2, 317".

This is one of two quotes used by the author of ONUG from a single discourse by Brigham Young. The author uses these quotes to bolster his belief that Brigham Young felt the Kingdom of God was on earth, that it was synonymous with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and that it would oppressively rule over everyone else.

As was shown in an examination of the earlier quote used by the author of ONUG (see the article [[../Brigham and the Kingdom of God|here]]), President Young didn't believe that the Kingdom of God was on the earth, nor did he believe it was synonymous with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This particular quote from President Young bears further scrutiny, however. Take a look at the full quote, in context. (The bold portion of the quote indicates the words used by the author of ONUG) In talking about the coming Kingdom of God, Brigham Young stated:

They will ask, "If I bow the knee and confess that He is that Savior, the Christ, to the glory of the Father, will you let me go home and be a Presbyterian?" "Yes." "And not persecute me?" "Never." "Won't you let me go home and belong to the Greek Church?" "Yes." "Will you allow me to be a Friend Quaker, or a Shaking Quaker?" "O yes, anything you wish to be, but remember that you must not persecute your neighbors, but must mind your own business, and let your neighbors alone, and let them worship the sun, moon, a white dog, or anything else they please, being mindful that every knee has got to bow and every tongue confess. When you have paid this tribute to the Most High, who created you and preserves you, you may then go and worship what you please, or do what you please, if you do not infringe upon your neighbors."

The brethren who spoke this morning had not time to explain these points, and I have only just touched upon the subject.

The Church of Jesus Christ will produce this government, and cause it to grow and spread, and it will be a shield round about the Church. And under the influence and power of the Kingdom of God, the Church of God will rest secure and dwell in safety, without taking the trouble of governing and controlling the whole earth. The Kingdom of God will do this, it will control the kingdoms of the world.

When the day comes in which the Kingdom of God will bear rule, the flag of the United States will proudly flutter unsullied on the flag staff of liberty and equal rights, without a spot to sully its fair surface; the glorious flag our fathers have bequeathed to us will then be unfurled to the breeze by those who have power to hoist it aloft and defend its sanctity.

Up to this time we have carried the world on our backs. Joseph did it in his day, besides carrying this whole people, and now all this is upon my back, with my family to provide for at the same time, and we will carry it all, and bear off the Kingdom of God. And you may pile on state after state, and kingdom after kingdom, and all hell on top, and we will roll on the Kingdom of our God, gather out the seed of Abraham, build the cities and temples of Zion, and establish the Kingdom of God to bear rule over all the earth, and let the oppressed of all nations go free.

The Kingdom of God would not be oppressive: people will be able to worship as they like and live in peace with each other

Does such a Kingdom sound oppressive? According to Brigham Young (and contrary to ONUG's statements about the Mormons' beliefs), people will be able to worship as they like and live in peace with each other. In fact, President Young makes several points in closing his discourse:

• People can worship any way they like (even "worship the sun, moon, a white dog, or anything else they please").
• Neighbors will not infringe upon neighbors.
• The Church of Jesus Christ will produce this government (but it will not be that government, as was made clear in President Young's remarks earlier, in the same talk).
• The Church of God will dwell in safety.
• The Church of God will not govern or control the whole earth (the Kingdom of God will, but not the Church of God).
• The United States will still exist under the Kingdom of God, and separate from the Church of God.
• The Kingdom of God will "let the oppressed of all nations go free."

The bulleted summary reflects, I think, concepts that are incompatible with what I understand about current notions of "Christian Nationalism."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is no real drive for globalism in the sense of one world government. This is a myth.

Based on my observations of humanity, my guess is those who are power hungry enough to love the idea of sitting at the top of the world power structure and actually have a chance at doing so are also politically savvy enough to know it is easier to get in the power seat of a small group rather than a large one.  It would take a lot longer than their own life time to accomplish this world government, why invest all their effort into giving the power to someone else.

Iow, I think most people capable of putting together a world government are going to be too self centered to commit to doing it. 

While there are those with grandiose beliefs a world government would make things better and are very willing to commit to the idea, I don’t see them as likely capable enough to make it happen (because I don’t see them as being able to be realistic enough). 

The UN is an excellent example of how each power group is too interested in promoting itself, refusing to work with others for the mutual good by making the type of sacrifices needed to weld a workable government together.  Corrupt groups may work together, but in the end such coalitions will fall apart in order because they won’t want to share power or their toys. 

Edited October 25, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Based on my observations of humanity, my guess is those who are power hungry enough to love the idea of sitting at the top of the world power structure and actually have a chance at doing so are also politically savvy enough to know it is easier to get in the power seat of a small group rather than a large one.  It would take a lot longer than their own life time to accomplish this world government, why invest all their effort into giving the power to someone else.

Iow, I think most people capable of putting together a world government are going to be too self centered to commit to doing it. 

While there are those with grandiose beliefs a world government would make things better and are very willing to commit to the idea, I don’t see them as likely capable enough to make it happen (because I don’t see them as being able to be realistic enough). 

The UN is an excellent example of how each power group is too interested in promoting itself, refusing to work with others for the mutual good by making the type of sacrifices needed to weld a workable government together.  Corrupt groups may work together, but in the end such coalitions will fall apart in order because they won’t want to share power or their toys. 

It also requires all the other powerful people to turn their power over to this central government. I don’t think there is a carrot or a stick big enough to make this happen.

[JVW]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is no real drive for globalism in the sense of one world government. This is a myth.

This is probably a big derail, but I don't want to work right now so I'm going for it, sorry in advance.

It stands to reason that there is a drive for globalism using both a religious and secular perspective.

Religious perspective. Assuming that the LDS church is truly the restored church of Jesus Christ and temples are valid and prophets are real, etc. Then it would stand to reason that there would be an inverse organization directly connected to the devil. God's power will not remain unopposed by the adversary. There would be anti-priests, anti-prophets, anti-temples, and anti-rituals performed in order to draw power from the devil and accomplish his purposes. In both cases, the righteous and the satanic, the true followers mostly fly under the radar and perform their work with little public fanfare.

If there is a secret, satanic cabal in existence then their goal would be very similar to the true Christians goal. The Christian is trying to prepare the world for the Millenial reign of Jesus Christ in which there will be a one world government operated by Jesus Christ from the two Jerusalems. The satanic follower's goal would be to create a one world government in which none could oppose the power of their god. Please keep in mind that this is all just me spitballing using my reasoning, I'm not saying anything that I'm writing is literally true or happening right now, but I think it's reasonable to consider IF the restored Church of Christ is actually true.

On a side note, it is very easy to see Satan as the victim and even as the hero in the Biblical narrative, and media is becoming more and more sympathetic to the devil's plight as time goes on. There are even some in the satanic community that view the devil as one of God's agents, a commander, who is currently in good standing with Him. (A sermon from Nicholas Shreck comes specifically to mind here.) In my specific corner of the world I'm very plugged into Korean action comics, and nearly every. single. comic (no joke) that I read ends up with the hero being the spawn of the devil and the angels and "god" as the villain that finally needs to be conquered once the top of the tower is reached, or the portals are conquered, etc. The quintessential Korean action Manhwa is Solo Leveling, it takes around 80 chapters for everything to start coming together (where the main character is revealed to be the 'Shadow Monarch' and starts learning about the war with the angels and being cast out from heaven), but it's definitely a great representation of standard action comics now days.

Secular perspective. The type of person that lusts for power and will do anything to gain greater power is the kind of person that is in pretty much any government office around the world. It takes a certain personality type to play the game on the world stage, and those who are in power, I imagine, dream about being rulers over the entire planet, not just a single country. There are also books written by Klaus Schwab, like The Fourth Industrial Revolution, to consider, and presentations given by Yuval Noah Harari (the second-in-command of the WEF) in which he basically talks about men becoming gods and having all power to change the world to our will. e.g. this kind of sentiment has been expressed by him "We no longer need some being in a cloud in the sky to help us, because we have the online cloud from which we can have the power to literally alter mankind's genetics." The kind of crap they do at Davos meetings and other "world" events are kept tightly under wraps, but there are a lot of things that are broadcast from those meetings that indicate desires for power over the world.

The good news is, that if a one world government is going to happen, it'll probably happen within the next 20 years (I can't see a feasible way for it to be accomplished after the Earth's magnetic poles flip), so we will actually get to find out instead of people having all sorts of sensational conjecture about it.

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, BCSpace said:

The same God who gave the Constitution (D&C 101:77) also said that if the nation that possessed this land did not serve Jesus Christ, it would be swept off (Ether 2:8-12). This does not mean we force Christianity on others, but it does mean that to the degree we as a nation do not serve Christ, we will also not be free from bondage and captivity.  Hence we try to convince and persuade others towards Christianity as per the Gospel and maintain a high degree of Christianity in society and civic life.

The key phrase here is Christianity per the gospel Mormonism is not Christianity to those who advocate Christian Nationalism.

10 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Is this Christian Nationalism? The Left has branded it so, even when there are no forced actions involved. Merely advocating for Christian values in society is enough for them.

No you are incorrect. Advocating for anyone's values is fine.  When one wants government involved and wants to force a religious preference on others through the state, that is Christian Nationalism.  Believe what you want. Just don't try to use power to shove it down anyone's throat.

10 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Me? I don't care what you call it, but it may or may not be troublesome to call it that depending on what circles you're running in at the time. I've attended several functions in which Glenn Beck has been a speaker and it may interest you to know that in his opinion, because of corrupted definitions and the vitriol and madness possessing many who hold power in our institutions, one should not use the term. I tend to agree.

Yea ok. But Beck is a right wing nut job these days. His opinion means little to anyone who does not by into his tropes.

 

10 hours ago, BCSpace said:

That being said, Nationalism, in and of itself and without any type or adjective, is an absolute requirement for freedom and liberty.

I would say patriotism to one's country is important. Nationalism typically ends in placing the state above all else.

10 hours ago, BCSpace said:

 

 

Consider a world with a single government over all. Where would you go if you disagreed with or were persecuted by that government? Hence the drive toward Globalism is very dangerous. Here in the United States, we have the best system. If we don't like one state, we can move to another and we can still have the same national identity. We can be all for the USA and also be all for Texas or New York for example. And even more granular; Dallas or Houston, NYC or Albany, etc. The bottom line is we have choices and opportunities to change the world around us. We know who wanted to take that away from us and enforce the same outcome on us all (equity) Moses 4:1-3.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

Religious perspective. Assuming that the LDS church is truly the restored church of Jesus Christ and temples are valid and prophets are real, etc. Then it would stand to reason that there would be an inverse organization directly connected to the devil.

I respect this view, but I don't agree with it, at least not as to an earthly "inverse organization."

George Carlin once said, “You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. These people went to the same universities, they're on the same boards of directors, they're in the same country clubs, they have like interests, they don't need to call a meeting, they know what's good for them and they're getting it.”

Carlin often commented on institutions of power, including corporations, governments, and influential elites (this last category, I think, doesn't get as much attention as they should). His point was that these groups often have shared goals: maintaining influence, accumulating wealth, protecting their power structures, etc.  Insofar as disparate groups have aligned/converged interests, a formal and overarching conspiracy is not necessarily needed.  Instead, they simply behave in ways that advance their mutual goals. This convergence of interests then naturally leads to outcomes that seem coordinated without the necessity of a secret plan.  Carlin’s broader philosophy pertained to broad societal issues, some of which he argued are the result of institutional interests aligning, rather than intentional conspiracies. He believed that the structures of power were enough to ensure the desired outcomes for those in control.

I remember watching Superfriends as a kid.  This cartoon involved the "Legion of Doom" as an organized group of baddies:

This stuff was, of course, a bit farfetched, but still not totally wrong.  Organized crime is a thing, after all.  But scale and scope matter.

In the real world, we have seen many instances of cabals, cartels, political alignments, terrorist organizations, nation-states collaborating, etc.  These entities certainly exist, but my sense is that they mostly operate independently from each other, and sometimes come together to cooperate when particularized interests are aligned.

Consider, for example, the marked oddity of "Queers for Palestine."  Both LGBTQ+ activists and pro-Palestinian advocates often align on broader so-called "social justice" goals, often styled as anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, challenging power structures, etc.  This alignment creates a shared cause, even if more specific values (like LGBTQ+ rights within Palestinian territories) might conflict.

Lobbying culture in Washington DC often involves a "revolving door" of political operatives entering public service, gaining influence and connections, and then exiting and getting hired - and generously compensated - by lobbying groups whose interests are advanced by these operatives influence and connections.

Major media companies, which often rely on advertising revenue from large corporations, may shape news coverage to avoid offending advertisers or key stakeholders, even if they are not specifically told to do so.  Media companies may also be de facto lapdogs/sockpuppets for political groups where the power players have converged sociopolitical interests.

Major tech companies (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, etc.) often have aligned positions on data privacy, content moderation, and antitrust issues.  They may also have de facto aligned positions on social and political issues, and soi may act in similar ways even without a formal conspiracy.

The Military-Industrial Complex.  Res ipsa loquitur.

And so on.

1 hour ago, JVW said:

If there is a secret, satanic cabal in existence then their goal would be very similar to the true Christians goal.

The scriptural concept of "Secret Combinations" is notably plural.  From The Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

In latter-day scriptures, secret combinations are groups of conspirators who plot and initiate "works of darkness" for evil and selfish purposes. Secret combinations have existed since the days of Cain (Moses 5:51). Satan is their author (2 Ne. 26:22), power and gain are their motives (Ether 8:15, 25), and conspiracy is their method of operation (Hel. 6:22-24). Secret combinations may be brotherhoods, groups, societies, or governments. They operate in secrecy to perform evil acts for the purpose of gaining power over the minds and actions of people.

As the enemies of honest men and women governed by the rule of law, such secret combinations seek to subvert public virtue and legally constituted authority. They defile, defraud, murder, deceive, and destroy the elements of good government, religious or secular. Their goal is to seize power and to rule over all the people (3 Ne. 6:27-30), which results in the destruction of human freedom and agency and the paralysis of peaceful and just communities.

Secret combinations and their practices have a scriptural and historic tradition that extends from the days of Cain's secret covenant with Satan to modern times. Members of these Satanic combinations are bound by secret oaths and covenants. The devil proclaims, initiates, and sustains these combinations and their conspiratorial practices (Moses 5:29-33, 47-52).
...

In the contemporary world, secret combinations take various forms and operate at different levels of society. They are expressed in organized crime and in religious, economic, and political conspiracies. The Lord has warned that secret combinations will be present in modern society (D&C 38:29; Ether 8:20-25). They threaten freedom everywhere. However, Latter-day Saints believe that secret combinations and their practices can be overcome, but only through righteous living and full support of honest government.

Secret combinations are often referred to in latter-day scripture, particularly in the Book of Moses and the Book of Mormon. In the Doctrine and Covenants, this term describes those who have conspired against the Saints (D&C 42:64). It does not appear in the Bible, but the equivalent "conspiracy" is used at least ten times.

Similarly, I think the Latter-day Saints err when we construe the "Great and Abominable Church" in 1 Nephi 13:6 as a single unified entity.  Again, from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

The phrase "great and abominable church," which appears in an apocalyptic vision received by the Book of Mormon prophet Nephi ₁ in the sixth century B.C. (1 Ne. 13:6), refers to the church of the devil and is understood by Latter-day Saints to be equivalent to the "great whore that sitteth upon many waters" described in Revelation 17:1. This "whore of all the earth" is identified by Nephi's brother Jacob as all those who are against God and who fight against Zion, in all periods of time (2 Ne. 10:16). Nephi did not write a detailed account of everything he saw in the vision, as this responsibility was reserved for John the apostle, who was to receive the same vision; however, Nephi repeatedly refers to its content and teachings, using various images and phrases (1 Ne. 13:4-9, 26-27, 34;14:1-4, 9-17).

Like John, Nephi and Jacob describe persecutions that evil people will inflict on God's people, particularly in the last days. The angel who explained the vision to Nephi emphasized that this great and abominable church would take away from the Bible and "the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord" (1 Ne. 13:26), causing men to "stumble" and giving Satan "great power" over them (1 Ne. 13:29; D&C 86:3; Robinson, "Early Christianity," p. 188). Though many Protestants, following the lead of Martin Luther, have linked this evil force described in Revelation 17 with the Roman Catholic church, the particular focus of these LDS and New Testament scriptures seems rather to be on earlier agents of apostasy in the Jewish and Christian traditions (see A. Clarke, Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 6, pp. 1036-38, Nashville, Tenn., 1977).

When Nephi speaks typologically rather than historically, he identifies all the enemies of the Saints with the church of the devil (1 Ne. 14:9-10; 2 Ne. 10:16). They are those from all nations and all time periods who desire "to get gain, and…power over the flesh, and…to become popular in the eyes of the world,…who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity" (1 Ne. 22:23). Other scriptural terms related to the great and abominable church include "Babylon" and the "great harlot" (Rev. 17:5; 1 Ne. 22:13; D&C 1:16). Images of pride, greed, and covenant abandonment are associated with these terms, in sharp contrast to the church of God. The scriptures are consistent in warning people to flee from the church of evil and find refuge in the church of God (Jer. 51:6; Rev. 18:4; 1 Ne. 20:20; D&C 133:14; see also P. Minear, "Babylon," in Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 1:338, Nashville, Tenn., 1962). The Book of Mormon image of a great and abominable church complements the biblical images of Babylon and the harlot.

The same goes with the concept of antichrists, which is also notably plural:

Quote

Antichrists are those who deny the divinity of Jesus Christ or essential parts of his gospel and actively oppose the followers of Christ or seek to destroy their faith.

The epistles of John explicitly condemn as antichrists those with a lying spirit who deny that Jesus is the Christ and deny the physical resurrection. Antichrists are to be notably active in the last days (1 Jn. 2:18, 22;4:3; 2 Jn. 1:7).

The Book of Mormon profiles many subtle and sophisticated aspects of antiChrist characters, though the text explicitly refers to only one of them as antiChrist.

Sherem (c. 540 B.C.) ...
...
Nehor (c. 91 B.C.) ...
...
Korihor (c. 74 B.C.)...

I guess my main point here is to differentiate the foregoing "convergence-of-interests"-style "conspiracies" / combinations (which I think are happening all over the place) from a formal-and-overarching conspiracy claim involving a single, formal, coordinated, unified conspiracy involving one specific and overarching entity, which is how I construed your notably singular "inverse organization" and "a secret, satanic cabal" comments above.

1 hour ago, JVW said:

The Christian is trying to prepare the world for the Millenial reign of Jesus Christ in which there will be a one world government operated by Jesus Christ from the two Jerusalems. The satanic follower's goal would be to create a one world government in which none could oppose the power of their god. Please keep in mind that this is all just me spitballing using my reasoning, I'm not saying anything that I'm writing is literally true or happening right now, but I think it's reasonable to consider IF the restored Church of Christ is actually true.

As a Latter-day Saint, I see us proclaiming the Gospel, improving ourselves, serving others, redeeming the dead, and so on.  I have no calculations or plans regarding "a one world government operated by Jesus Christ from the two Jerusalems."  That is, I believe this will happen, but I don't see it as a specifically-calculated impetus or motivator for the Latter-day Saints to go to Church, attend the temple, serve missions, serve others, etc.  

1 hour ago, JVW said:

Secular perspective. The type of person that lusts for power and will do anything to gain greater power is the kind of person that is in pretty much any government office around the world. It takes a certain personality type to play the game on the world stage, and those who are in power, I imagine, dream about being rulers over the entire planet, not just a single country. There are also books written by Klaus Schwab, like The Fourth Industrial Revolution, to consider, and presentations given by Yuval Noah Harari (the second-in-command of the WEF) in which he basically talks about men becoming gods and having all power to change the world to our will. e.g. this kind of sentiment has been expressed by him "We no longer need some being in a cloud in the sky to help us, because we have the online cloud from which we can have the power to literally alter mankind's genetics." The kind of crap they do at Davos meetings and other "world" events are kept tightly under wraps, but there are a lot of things that are broadcast from those meetings that indicate desires for power over the world.

I haven't really given much thought to this topic, but I don't see a singular individual or entity posing a singular "One World Government"-style threat.

1 hour ago, JVW said:

The good news is, that if a one world government is going to happen, it'll probably happen within the next 20 years (I can't see a feasible way for it to be accomplished after the Earth's magnetic poles flip), so we will actually get to find out instead of people having all sorts of sensational conjecture about it.

I think we ought to remain attuned to the signs of the times, sure.  But in the main, I think we are better off focusing on improving ourselves and those within our sphere of influence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 25, 2024 by smac97

[Doctor Steuss]

I generally don't "plug" books that I haven't read, but a high school friend (Christina Littlefield, PhD in Divinity, MA in Religion, and BA in Journalism) has an upcoming book on a subset of this topic, for anyone with money burning a hole in their pocketbook.  In preorder stage, and set for publication on 2/25/25.  Preorder stage tends to be incredibly important for the success of books, particularly those put out by University Presses.  There are currently two blurbs available from reviewers -- unfortunately, no preview.

Christian America and the Kingdom of God:  White Christian Nationalism

[JVW]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I respect this view, but I don't agree with it, at least not as to an earthly "inverse organization."

George Carlin once said, “You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. These people went to the same universities, they're on the same boards of directors, they're in the same country clubs, they have like interests, they don't need to call a meeting, they know what's good for them and they're getting it.”

Carlin often commented on institutions of power, including corporations, governments, and influential elites (this last category, I think, doesn't get as much attention as they should). His point was that these groups often have shared goals: maintaining influence, accumulating wealth, protecting their power structures, etc.  Insofar as disparate groups have aligned/converged interests, a formal and overarching conspiracy is not necessarily needed.  Instead, they simply behave in ways that advance their mutual goals. This convergence of interests then naturally leads to outcomes that seem coordinated without the necessity of a secret plan.  Carlin’s broader philosophy pertained to broad societal issues, some of which he argued are the result of institutional interests aligning, rather than intentional conspiracies. He believed that the structures of power were enough to ensure the desired outcomes for those in control.

I agree with this view, but I think there can be more to the story. For example, any coup that was implemented by the CIA in a foreign country. To a citizen of that country it may appear to be the natural course of events, and if the CIA's plan was never discovered, it would always appear to be that way to any observer of history. But in reality, it was a 'formal and overarching' conspiracy by a foreign entity with the intent to overthrow the government of that nation. It's kind of a blend of what Carlin said mixed with a bit more formality and placed in a specific context. The only point of distinction between Carlin's views and mine are that I do believe there are groups that perform secret, satanic rituals in order to gain power from the devil, and gain more power as an organization. I don't believe that every conspiracy does this.

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In the real world, we have seen many instances of cabals, cartels, political alignments, terrorist organizations, nation-states collaborating, etc.  These entities certainly exist, but my sense is that they mostly operate independently from each other, and sometimes come together to cooperate when particularized interests are aligned.

I think you make a very good point, but I do think that the scope of the entity may be larger than it appears. We are speaking only of what we know about. On that note, who knows how the book of Mormon authors knew about the conspiracies that transpired in their time. That book has many chapters that were straight up conspiracy to the people of that time and we regard them as actual historical (not-conjecture) events.

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Consider, for example, the marked oddity of "Queers for Palestine."  Both LGBTQ+ activists and pro-Palestinian advocates often align on broader so-called "social justice" goals, often styled as anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, challenging power structures, etc.  This alignment creates a shared cause, even if more specific values (like LGBTQ+ rights within Palestinian territories) might conflict.

I'm no expert, but I wonder if these groups are both ultimately funded by the same entity and though at the local level may appear divided are actually pawns used for specific strategic purposes? I'm reminded of the graphic showing how all of the media entities interplay with each other, or the one about how all food is owned by 10 entities.

Quote

This graph points to your 'revolving door' comment quoted below, and it's also similar to how Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street own a relatively large chunk of every company. They don't need a lot of influence, just enough to steer the ship on key points towards their strategic destination.

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Lobbying culture in Washington DC often involves a "revolving door" of political operatives entering public service, gaining influence and connections, and then exiting and getting hired - and generously compensated - by lobbying groups whose interests are advanced by these operatives influence and connections.

Major media companies, which often rely on advertising revenue from large corporations, may shape news coverage to avoid offending advertisers or key stakeholders, even if they are not specifically told to do so.  Media companies may also be de facto lapdogs/sockpuppets for political groups where the power players have converged sociopolitical interests.

Major tech companies (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, etc.) often have aligned positions on data privacy, content moderation, and antitrust issues.  They may also have de facto aligned positions on social and political issues, and soi may act in similar ways even without a formal conspiracy.

The Military-Industrial Complex.  Res ipsa loquitur.

And so on.

While there may be a lot of haphazard crap going on, I still think it's reasonable to consider one of the groups being a literal, secretive satanic church. Just as the true saints of the LDS church bring more of the power of God to this world than any other group of people, the true disciples of the devil would do likewise. And that group would desire for the whole Earth to be slaves to the devil, which would be accomplished through a one world government and the mark of the beast.

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The scriptural concept of "Secret Combinations" is notably plural.  From The Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

The same goes with the concept of antichrists, which is also notably plural:

I guess my main point here is to differentiate the foregoing "convergence-of-interests"-style "conspiracies" / combinations (which I think are happening all over the place) from a formal-and-overarching conspiracy claim involving a single, formal, coordinated, unified conspiracy involving one specific and overarching entity, which is how I construed your notably singular "inverse organization" and "a secret, satanic cabal" comments above.

I think you make a very good point here. It stands to reason that satan's kingdom is divided, which is one of the reasons why it will ultimately fall. If I try to imagine worldwide cabals I imagine several who are trying to use each other for their own selfish gain with the ultimate outcome of many eating each other up. But I'm also reminded of the book of Revelation in which there was a beast with many heads and many crowns but it was a single beast.

On the 'formal and overarching' front I think of the 8 great families, the people who finance both sides of war to gain interest on it.

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As a Latter-day Saint, I see us proclaiming the Gospel, improving ourselves, serving others, redeeming the dead, and so on.  I have no calculations or plans regarding "a one world government operated by Jesus Christ from the two Jerusalems."  That is, I believe this will happen, but I don't see it as a specifically-calculated impetus or motivator for the Latter-day Saints to go to Church, attend the temple, serve missions, serve others, etc. 

I think the Second Coming is at the forefront of many people's minds as a motivator. Preparing for the Second Coming was spoken of quite a bit this last conference. The individual actions you speak of are the actions necessary in order to prepare the world for the Second Coming. And whether literal or figurative, keeping my own personal "second coming of Jesus" (whether it's my death, or the literal event) in mind helps me focus more on my discipleship journey. I must confess I don't really spend any time daydreaming about living in a utopian society, but I'd probably be a happier person if I did.

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I haven't really given much thought to this topic, but I don't see a singular individual or entity posing a singular "One World Government"-style threat.

Agreed. But I do see a small group of entities posing a threat. The method to do so is already, theoretically, pretty well along its way. America is far from the only country that's trillions of dollars in debt, and a global financial collapse could be a hinge point in the history of the entire world. Who knows how the other side of that would look, as it's never been experienced before.

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we ought to remain attuned to the signs of the times, sure.  But in the main, I think we are better off focusing on improving ourselves and those within our sphere of influence.

I agree. That was a lesson I learned from the covid years. The most important thing I can do is develop my personal righteousness and try to emulate, teach, encourage, and help others to become more righteous. That's the only way to really fight against the powers of evil from where I'm standing.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, JVW said:

mine are that I do believe there are groups that perform secret, satanic rituals in order to gain power from the devil,

I don’t see how any rational, capable being who accepted the reality of Satan who would choose to worship him thinking Satan would give them power because if you accept Satan as reality, don’t you also accept the Abrahamic God as a reality and know the plot has Satan losing in the end?

I can see people doing it to goof off or to manipulate followers, but actually believing Satan will give them power?

Besides, I don’t think Satan is a sharer.

[JVW]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t see how any rational, capable being who accepted the reality of Satan who would choose to worship him thinking Satan would give them power because if you accept Satan as reality, don’t you also accept the Abrahamic God as a reality and know the plot has Satan losing in the end?

I can see people doing it to goof off or to manipulate followers, but actually believing Satan will give them power?

Besides, I don’t think Satan is a sharer.

Before God introduced Himself to me in 2010 I was a staunch atheist-nihilist and was considering choosing to believe in the Christian god so that I could worship the devil. I was aware that the devil had lost, but I admired the devil as the original rebel and viewed him much as how we view giant corporations picking on the little guy. And when I listened to satanic worship music or contemplated what the devil went through and what he represented, it made me feel powerful and excited. Satan can, and does, give people power. They need his power in order to perform his work. Ultimately, he will stab all of his followers in the back, but he's the master deceiver and manipulator. With the right frame of reference there is a twisted beauty in destruction, in intentionally breaking the rules and giving the middle finger to the Man.

And honestly, on paper, the devil does have a sympathetic cause. "God destroyed me because I wanted to save everyone. I was looking out for the little guy, the marginalized, the one's without a voice. He wasn't being fair, I was powerless against him, and he's dead to me now. We should rise up and with enough of us, we can destroy everything that's precious to him in our efforts to remove him from his throne." Any side in a war will have honest sympathizers, and I can't exactly fault them for believing the way they do if I put myself in their shoes. Many of histories most notorious rulers had popular support, and in the context of the everyday person living at the time, I can't use presentism and look at them like they were being stupid idiots, they were people just like you and me.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

Satan can, and does, give people power.

I have my doubts about this.  Maybe power through his form of inspiration, but I believe he only has the power we give him.

Quote

With the right frame of reference there is a twisted beauty in destruction, in intentionally breaking the rules and giving the middle finger to the Man.

But that is rebellion, not attempting to gain and hold power.  I think it is much more likely someone seeking real authority and power over governments as would be required to create a global government/empire is either not going to believe in or at least care about God and/or Satan exists or if they do believe, rationalize they are doing God’s will and thus are destined for greatness and success and they therefore deserve it all.

Edited October 25, 2024 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

I was a staunch atheist-nihilist and was considering choosing to believe in the Christian god so that I could worship the devil.

This sentence doesn’t make any sense. I’m not sure how you are using the words “staunch” “atheist” “nihilist” “god” and “devil” but you can’t be using them in the standard dictionary sense. 

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, JVW said:

This is probably a big derail, but I don't want to work right now so I'm going for it, sorry in advance.

It stands to reason that there is a drive for globalism using both a religious and secular perspective.

Religious perspective. Assuming that the LDS church is truly the restored church of Jesus Christ and temples are valid and prophets are real, etc. Then it would stand to reason that there would be an inverse organization directly connected to the devil. God's power will not remain unopposed by the adversary. There would be anti-priests, anti-prophets, anti-temples, and anti-rituals performed in order to draw power from the devil and accomplish his purposes. In both cases, the righteous and the satanic, the true followers mostly fly under the radar and perform their work with little public fanfare.

If there is a secret, satanic cabal in existence then their goal would be very similar to the true Christians goal. The Christian is trying to prepare the world for the Millenial reign of Jesus Christ in which there will be a one world government operated by Jesus Christ from the two Jerusalems. The satanic follower's goal would be to create a one world government in which none could oppose the power of their god. Please keep in mind that this is all just me spitballing using my reasoning, I'm not saying anything that I'm writing is literally true or happening right now, but I think it's reasonable to consider IF the restored Church of Christ is actually true.

On a side note, it is very easy to see Satan as the victim and even as the hero in the Biblical narrative, and media is becoming more and more sympathetic to the devil's plight as time goes on. There are even some in the satanic community that view the devil as one of God's agents, a commander, who is currently in good standing with Him. (A sermon from Nicholas Shreck comes specifically to mind here.) In my specific corner of the world I'm very plugged into Korean action comics, and nearly every. single. comic (no joke) that I read ends up with the hero being the spawn of the devil and the angels and "god" as the villain that finally needs to be conquered once the top of the tower is reached, or the portals are conquered, etc. The quintessential Korean action Manhwa is Solo Leveling, it takes around 80 chapters for everything to start coming together (where the main character is revealed to be the 'Shadow Monarch' and starts learning about the war with the angels and being cast out from heaven), but it's definitely a great representation of standard action comics now days.

Secular perspective. The type of person that lusts for power and will do anything to gain greater power is the kind of person that is in pretty much any government office around the world. It takes a certain personality type to play the game on the world stage, and those who are in power, I imagine, dream about being rulers over the entire planet, not just a single country. There are also books written by Klaus Schwab, like The Fourth Industrial Revolution, to consider, and presentations given by Yuval Noah Harari (the second-in-command of the WEF) in which he basically talks about men becoming gods and having all power to change the world to our will. e.g. this kind of sentiment has been expressed by him "We no longer need some being in a cloud in the sky to help us, because we have the online cloud from which we can have the power to literally alter mankind's genetics." The kind of crap they do at Davos meetings and other "world" events are kept tightly under wraps, but there are a lot of things that are broadcast from those meetings that indicate desires for power over the world.

The good news is, that if a one world government is going to happen, it'll probably happen within the next 20 years (I can't see a feasible way for it to be accomplished after the Earth's magnetic poles flip), so we will actually get to find out instead of people having all sorts of sensational conjecture about it.

None of that follows any kind of logic. Satan also doesn’t have a cabal of shadowy figures in a board room planning everything. That is a trope of fiction which is filled with secret puppetmasters and cabals. History shows that is not how power works.

Also there is no reason to think that the earth’s poles are going to flip in the next 20 years. The poles do flip every so often and the last time was about 800,000 years ago. It is also not a sudden event. It would take around 1,000 years at a minimum to complete and probably a lot longer.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, JVW said:

I'm no expert, but I wonder if these groups are both ultimately funded by the same entity and though at the local level may appear divided are actually pawns used for specific strategic purposes? I'm reminded of the graphic showing how all of the media entities interplay with each other, or the one about how all food is owned by 10 entities.

Welcome to the Ezra Taft Benson school of paranoia where every movement for social change is bankrolled by an evil entity of some sort. He was wrong.

[Calm]

14 hours ago, JVW said:

it'll probably happen within the next 20 years (I can't see a feasible way for it to be accomplished after the Earth's magnetic poles flip)

I missed this earlier, thought I had finished the post, probably was interrupted…

Can you explain why you think the poles are going to flip in 20 years?

added:  for a second I thought Deseret News had gone off the rails with such a specific prediction (this year) for poles flipping, but it’s the sun’s poles they were talking about, lol (they switch every 11 years)

https://www.deseret.com/2024/2/7/24062307/sun-magnetic-pole-reversal-2024/#:~:text=So%2C while the Earth's last,at some point in 2024.

Quote

While the Earth’s magnetic north pole switches infrequently to the south and vice versa (ranging from once every 10 thousand years to once every 50 million years)

Now the Earth’s…..that is quite a range, so I would love to know why anyone is predicting within a couple of decades.  

It’s been too long since I dabbled in geology, I should do a refresher course.  It is so interesting.  

Quote

No one knows exactly when the next pole reversal may occur, but scientists know they don’t happen overnight: they take place over hundreds to thousands of years.

In the past 200 years, Earth’s magnetic field has weakened about nine percent on a global average. Some people cite this as “evidence” a pole reversal is imminent, but scientists have no reason to believe so. In fact, paleomagnetic studies show the field is about as strong as it’s been in the past 100,000 years, and is twice as intense as its million-year average. While some scientists estimate the field’s strength might completely decay in about 1,300 years, the current weakening could stop at any time.

Plant and animal fossils from the period of the last major pole reversal don’t show any big changes. Deep ocean sediment samples indicate glacial activity was stable. In fact, geologic and fossil records from previous reversals show nothing remarkable, such as doomsday events or major extinctions.

Quote

Recently, there have been questions and discussion about “geomagnetic excursions:” shorter-lived but significant changes in the magnetic field’s intensity that last from a few centuries to a few tens of thousands of years. During the last major excursion, called the Laschamps event, radiocarbon evidence shows that about 41,500 years ago, the magnetic field weakened significantly and the poles reversed, only to flip back again about 500 years later.

 

https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/flip-flop-why-variations-in-earths-magnetic-field-arent-causing-todays-climate-change/#hds-sidebar-nav-8

Edited October 26, 2024 by Calm

[JVW]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I missed this earlier, thought I had finished the post, probably was interrupted…

Can you explain why you think the poles are going to flip in 20 years?

added:  for a second I thought Deseret News had gone off the rails with such a specific prediction (this year) for poles flipping, but it’s the sun’s poles they were talking about, lol (they switch every 11 years)

https://www.deseret.com/2024/2/7/24062307/sun-magnetic-pole-reversal-2024/#:~:text=So%2C while the Earth's last,at some point in 2024.

Now the Earth’s…..that is quite a range, so I would love to know why anyone is predicting within a couple of decades.  

It’s been too long since I dabbled in geology, I should do a refresher course.  It is so interesting.  

https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/flip-flop-why-variations-in-earths-magnetic-field-arent-causing-todays-climate-change/#hds-sidebar-nav-8

Here's a great 4 minute video on the topic. 

This channel has many other videos that go into more detail on the latest research and methodologies behind the 2040-2050 prediction if you're interested in learning more.

Edited October 26, 2024 by JVW