smac97

Is this a problem? If I presented myself as a Latter-day Saint with intimate insider knowledge on the inner-held beliefs of Catholics, and if I were to write an article directed to other Latter-day Saints, and if I were to state: "Catholics claim to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the only path to salvation" and "they claim to believe that he is divine and that we must follow his teachings," I think Catholics might think that, in this particularized context and to that particular audience, I am imputing something onto them different from actual belief, namely, only claimed belief. Yes. "Factual" might work, but it's harder when the "fact" is something about me and what is between my ears. I am the world's leading authority of what I think. To say that I "claim" to believe Jesus is the Son of God, the only path to salvation, that He is divine, and that we must follow His teachings, can come across as expressing skepticism about whether I actually do believe these things. That is quite possible. Thanks, -Smac

Thank you for the thoughtful reply and for engaging with the history. I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective. You’re right that human conflicts are rarely simple. Resource scarcity, land disputes, water rights, and cultural prejudices have fueled tension in almost every frontier setting — Missouri, Idaho, Mexico, and many others. Those factors are real and often make already difficult situations worse. I’ve also seen how migrant groups (of any background) can unintentionally bring insular attitudes that heighten friction with those already living in a place. At the same time, from the records left by both Latter-day Saints and outside observers, religious belief was a central driver in much of the violence they faced. Many of the worst episodes (Haun’s Mill, the Extermination Order in Missouri, the driving out of Nauvoo) were explicitly justified by religious difference and fear of “Mormon theocracy.” That doesn’t mean economic or cultural factors were absent — they rarely are in history — but for the Saints, the persecution often felt deeply religious in nature. I think both realities can be true at once: people are complicated, and conflicts are almost always multi-causal. Mutual prejudices (Anglo toward mestizo, mestizo toward Anglo, religious insider vs. outsider) have poisoned wells on all sides throughout history. My hope is that by trying to understand the full picture with charity — including the real pain felt by those on every side — we can avoid repeating old patterns of suspicion and division. I’d be interested in any specific examples from your research in Mexico or elsewhere that have shaped your view. I’m always trying to learn more. Largely, yes. I am glad to hear that this worked out. Thank you for your comments. Thanks, -Smac

This is very helpful to me. Thank you for explaining it. Yes, that disagreement is apparently not going away any time soon. Very interesting! Thank you for sharing this. I should have looked into this years ago. You are clarifying a lot. Regarding "large doctrinal differences on the nature of God," what differences are there besides divergent views on the trinity? The "original sin" concept does seem incompatible with the 2nd Article of Faith: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." Fascinating. I need to better understand this part: From Google's AI: I was only peripherally aware of this distinction until now (hadn't really thought about it at all, that is). I will look into it more. Thanks! One Latter-day Saint source: A very worthwhile toopic, this. From what I have read, it appears to be both facially accurate and well-intentioned. We differ in conclusions and some omissions, but overall I value the effort that went into this. I too am grateful that we collaborate with each other as much as we do. Our commonalities outnumber our differences. Thanks, -Smac

This is my sentiment as well. Your (and, apparently, the Catholic?) view of heresy (here, not accepting creedal trinitarianism) is an important issue, but does not define the parameters of Christianity. I agree with that. Wikipedia has articles for the Latter Day Saint movement and Restoration (Mormonism) However, I don't think the Latter-day Saints came up with these names, nor we use them much. I focus overwhelmingly on Joseph Smith and those we believe to be his successors (Brigham Young, etc.), and so generally don't have much reason to discuss Strangites, Community of Christ, FLDS, etc. When we do discuss them, I don't sense much in the way of feelings of affinity or identity. A good question. You noted above a "greater umbrella of Christianity." If Christianity were to be characterized taxonomically (akin to the hierarchy of biological classification's eight major taxonomic ranks), where would the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints land? Perhaps something like this? Abrahamic Religions --> Christianity --> Restorationist Christianity --> Latter-day Saint Movement --> Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Where would you put Roman Catholicism? Something like this? Abrahamic Religions --> Christianity --> Nicene / Chalcedonian Christianity --> Western (Latin) Christianity --> Roman Catholicism (The Catholic Church) It is interesting to me to see where the paths diverge (Nicene / Chalcedonian Christianity or Restorationist Christianity). I am reminded of this quote from LeGrande Richard's book, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder: No name is given in this source, but it has been located in Elder Whitney's autobiography: The source is Orson F. Whitney’s autobiography, Through Memory’s Halls: The Life Story of Orson F. Whitney, as Told by Himself (Independence, MO: Zion’s Printing and Publishing Company, 1930), 222-23. The Catholic theologian’s name is John M. Reiner. This stance predates the Vatican II counter-reformation and may not reflect general Catholic sentiment. See also here. Mr. Reiner shared with the Latter-day Saints a perspective on "authority" that varies quite substantially from that of most of Protestant Christianity. It varies from the Latter-day Saints in that he believed that authority was retained and is now housed within the Catholic Church, whereas we believe it was lost and then restored through Joseph Smith. In the end, it is a mystery of faith. It's often easier to say what it is not (the Trinitarian heresies). For example, modalism is the idea that there is one God who shows up in three different modes/forms (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) rather than three persons in one God. Yeah, complicated stuff. Candidly, I do not fault Christians who profess belief in a concept that is difficult or impossible to comprehend and parse out. As a Latter-day Saint, I profess belief in some things that I cannot really claim to comprehend. The Atonement. Animal sacrifice. Polygamy. The command to the Israelites to conquer Canaan and “utterly destroy” its inhabitants (Deut. 7:1-2, 20:16-18; Joshua 6–11; 1 Samuel 15). The apparent ambiguous treatment of slavery in the scriptures. I can mitigate these, sort of. For example, Paul Bryner's 2025 FAIR presentation was, to me, quite illuminating and helpful in regards to the herem conquest of Canaan. Still, I struggle. Thanks, -Smac

Thought this was interesting:

I would be interested in your assessment of this statement from the Peterson/Ricks book I cited above: For my part, I acknowledge that don’t really "understand the Trinity." I find the concept difficult, even impossible, to parse out. I am glad we agree on this. Thanks, -Smac

I think it is best encapsulated in the 11th Article of Faith: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." See also here: See also here: We have, fortunately, overcome the above-referenced religious tests and disenfranchisement issues. I appreciate you sharing your perspective. Religious pluralism allows us as individuals and groups to live amongst and work with each other without being obligated to sacrifice our religious beliefs. In an ultimate, "at the end of the day" sense, you disagree with some tenets of the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, correct? The exclusivistic truth claims regarding priesthood authority and other matters appear to be a key point of disagreement. Is this an accurate characterization of your perspective? If so, we are speaking and getting along today, in large part, because of religious pluralism. The U.S. Constitution has a substantial "trickle down" effect on laws and regulations, and ultimately on society and individual and personal interactions. I can be a Latter-day Saint and serve in the military, and vote, and run for public office, and hold real property, and on and on and on. I can then, if I choose, dissociate from the Church and still retain these rights. I can become a Catholic and retain them. I can become an agnostic or atheist and retain them. I can accept, or not accept, religious precepts from the Church, or from you, or from any other individual or group, and not be punished or deprived of my civil rights. Latter-day Saints cherish U.S. religious pluralism primarily because it is grounded in the First Amendment and the inspired U.S. Constitution, which guarantee religious liberty for all. Here are, I think, the core reasons: Historical Protection: Early Latter-day Saints faced violent persecution (expulsions from Missouri, martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, etc.) precisely because of religious intolerance. Pluralism and the separation of church and state provided a legal framework that allowed the Church to survive, regroup in the West, and eventually flourish. Agency and Free Exercise: It aligns with core gospel principles of moral agency and the right to choose one’s faith without coercion — a freedom we see as divinely protected. Enables the Restoration: The open religious marketplace allowed Joseph Smith’s First Vision, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and ongoing revelation to occur and spread without state-sponsored suppression. Benefits All Faiths: Modern leaders of the Church consistently teach that religious liberty must apply equally to everyone. They defend the rights of other religions (and even non-believers) because the same principles protect the Church’s missionary work and existence today. In short, U.S. pluralism is viewed as a providential blessing that prevents the kind of religious tyranny their history taught us to oppose, while creating space for truth to be freely shared. We seem to be agreeing in substance. Consider this 1978 First Presidency statement: And this 1921 statement by Elder Orson F. Whitney (same link) : I would be happy to hear any further thoughts you have on these matters. Thank you, -Smac

An interesting article by a former Latter-day Saint who converted to Catholicism in 2018: Are Latter-day Saints Christians? A few excerpts: I wonder how accurate this is. Per this 2007 Pew Research article: I would like to see more current data. "{C}laim to believe." From "they claim to believe..." to "I can personally confirm they believe these things" in the space of two sentences. Okay. But it the claim accurate? "I can personally confirm they {Latter-day Saints} believe {that Jesus is the Son of God, the only path to salvation ... and that he is divine and that we must follow his teachings}." "Even the LDS Church’s specific affirmations—that Jesus is divine, that he is our only Savior—aren’t enough." I'm not sure what to make of this. This fellow seems to be undercutting his thesis. So Latter-day Saints "mean something very different" in their affirmations of Jesus's divinity? What is that difference? I would like to better understand this. As a Latter-day Saint, I think some boundaries do matter. For example, I think many (most?) Latter-day Saints do not "acknowledge" polygamist offshoot groups to be Latter-day Saints. But I don't think we deny their believe in Jesus Christ. I sense that most non-Latter-day Saint Christians have a generalized sense or need for boundary maintenance about the broader category of "Christian," but that this maintenance is really quite hard to do. The Peterson/Ricks book, Offenders for a Word, does a very good job of laying that out. I quite agree with this. So is Mr. Christiansen saying that Latter-day Saints do not ground their faith in the "real person" known as the "Jesus" of the New Testament of the Bible? Is he, in the end, advancing the "another Jesus" concept? It appears so: Is he saying that the "Jesus" the Latter-day Saints profess to worship is numerically distinct from the "Jesus" of Catholicism? The reference to Arius is interesting. "Claim 2" cited in the Peterson/Ricks book addresses this: The entire response is worth a read. The concluding statement is something of a zinger: Interesting stuff. This is an interesting point. The Church similarly does not recognize or ratify Catholic baptisms, but in doing so we do not deny their status as Christians (rather, we claim they lack the requisite authority to baptize). Hmm. This sort of sounds like a utilitarian "the ends justify the means" justification. Thoughts? The article is surprisingly oblique about this principal issue, namely, "orthodoxy regarding who Jesus Christ is" and the previous "Latter-day Saints mean something very different when they baptize their members 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost'" claim. This is apparently about creedal trinitarianism, and that the Latter-day Saint rejection of it, in favor of the "Godhead" or "Social Trinitarianism," means we are not "Christian." I think this is confirmed in the article's concluding comments: "{B}elief in the Triune God is positively non-negotiable to the Christian faith." Again, from the Peterson/Ricks book: Thanks, -Smac

Grok summary: "The single strongest predictor of whether a young person stays active in the Church is feeling God’s presence in daily life." Thanks, -Smac

Grok summary: The losses are hard. Thanks, -Smac

Do you think there is a difference between religious services in a dedicated building on post versus in the Pentagon's auditorium? Particularly where the Pentagon has a dedicated "Memorial Chapel" intended for facilitate religious services? See, e.g., here: I'm not sure what to make about a "Christian Prayer & Worship Service" headed by the Secretary of War, since he's in the chain of command and all. A chaplain running this, sure, but the SoW? Do you think there is any difference between a prayer meeting or other religious/devotional meeting being conducted by a chaplain versus by the Secretary of War? "Voluntary, but encouraged {by the Secretary of War}." Again, I'd be fine with a chaplain doing this stuff. Not sure about the SoW saying this stuff in the auditorium at the Pentagon, at a lectern "bearing the seal of the Defense Department." Not a chaplain, this fellow. President Trump was "sovereignly appointed"? And this declaration is being made by a pastor (not a chaplain) in the Pentagon auditorium (not in the dedicated "Memorial Chapel)? While standing at a lectern "bearing the seal of the Defense Department"? This is troubling to me. Sounds appropriate in other contexts, but the time, place and manner of this stuff is off to me. I don't agree with much of what Marcotte has to say, but what she describes here is giving me pause. I cherish the religious pluralism of the United States. I'm a bit nervous about organs and representatives of the State to be doing stuff like this. Thanks, -Smac

Right. But is that the case in the United States generally? I asked Grok: "Is there tension/conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the United States?" The response: I wonder if this is accurate. I hope so. My adult daughter befriended a young Muslim woman from Egypt several years ago. She had come to the U.S. to study, and ended up at BYU (we live in Provo). She lives in the U.S., and we have become her informal adopted family. She means a lot to us. Next month we are taking a trip to Washington State to say in a beach house on a cliff overlooking the Juan de Fuca Strait near Sequim. This young woman will be joining us, and we are all quite excited about it. There are, of course, times when cultural / sociological / political ideologies can create disagreements and even conflict. I am glad that the Church has long fostered sentiments of finding common ground and understanding and friendship. Thanks, -Smac

An unusual analysis: https://www.rawstory.com/hegseth-white-evangelical-plot-new/ I am curious why this differentiation happened where, for example, Muslims and Jews were consolidated. Do Shia Muslims object to being characterized as just "Muslim" (and, therefore, "folded into" a designation synonymous with Sunni Muslims)? I'm not sure I understand what he means by "ideological consolidation of the military." Um, then why did the original list ostensibly exclude "Mormons" from the ambit of "Christian" groups? I am curious about what role, if any, Sec. Hegseth played in all this. I wonder if the Church would have sent a representative to this event. I suspect not. Perhaps the Church was invited and declined. Hard to say. More information on this event here. I think we as Latter-day Saints can appreciate Graham’s core gospel emphasis — God’s justice, human sinfulness, the reality of divine judgment, and salvation through Jesus Christ — while approaching his framing with caution and doctrinal nuance rooted in restored scripture and modern revelation. Latter-day Saint doctrine strongly affirms that God is both loving and just (e.g., D&C 1:35; Moses 7:26-33). The Book of Mormon and Bible repeatedly show God commanding or allowing warfare in specific historical contexts for righteous purposes (e.g., Captain Moroni’s defensive wars in Alma 43–62, or ancient Israel’s conquests as part of covenant judgment). Graham’s reminder that God “hates” sin and enacts judgment aligns with scriptures like 2 Nephi 9:24 and Alma 42. His call for America to “turn to the God of our fathers” echoes Book of Mormon warnings about pride, secret combinations, and the need for a righteous nation to be preserved (e.g., Ether 2:8–12; Helaman 13–15). The pivot to Christ’s birth, atonement, resurrection, and Second Coming is solidly compatible with LDS teachings. That said, these comments presuppose Americans as Christians. This is predominantly, but far from exclusively, so. I question whether this messaging should be taking place at the Pentagon. Then there are the areas in which we may diverge from Mr. Graham's comments. Graham’s heavy focus on herem (total destruction) warfare can sound triumphalist or overly militaristic in a Christmas setting. LDS theology, informed by the Restoration, views ancient commands through the lens of progressive revelation and the higher law of Christ (e.g., 3 Nephi 12:38–48; D&C 98:23–32 on defensive war and limiting vengeance). Modern prophets emphasize peace, the Prince of Peace, and just war principles rather than celebrating “God of war” rhetoric. Addressing service members, Graham’s words can be seen as encouraging moral clarity and resolve in defending liberty. However, Latter-day Saint teachings (e.g., Articles of Faith 1:12; prophetic counsel on the Constitution) stress defending freedom while upholding the sanctity of life and avoiding unnecessary aggression. Graham represents a conservative evangelical perspective that often blends patriotism, Old Testament literalism, and political application more closely than the nuanced, prophet-led approach of the Church. The scriptures are full of accounts where God commands or empowers His people to defend liberty and righteousness with decisive force. Captain Moroni’s Title of Liberty (Alma 46), the defensive wars in Alma 43–62, and Helaman’s stripling warriors exemplify faith-filled, principled military action. Hegseth’s prayer for protection of troops and victory over aggressors appears to resonate with D&C 98:16–18 and 134:11 (right to self-defense and defense of others). The Restoration affirms that evil exists, that Satan is real, and that there are times when force is justified to restrain wickedness (D&C 101:76–80 on the Constitution and just government). Praying for “wisdom,” “unity,” and protection of righteous causes is, I think, compatible with Latter-day Saint teachings. That said, I have some qualms with Sec. Hegseth's comments: The Spirit of the Prince of Peace: Our should center on the Savior’s mercy, atonement, and invitation to “love your enemies” (3 Nephi 12:44; Matthew 5:44). Heavy emphasis on “overwhelming violence,” “no mercy,” and “eternal damnation” in a public Pentagon service raises concerns for me. The Book of Mormon repeatedly warns against delighting in bloodshed (Mosiah 29:14; Alma 48:11–17). Moroni rejoiced in liberty, not in the shedding of blood. Just War Principles in the Restoration: D&C 98 and 134 teach defensive, measured, and reluctant use of force. Modern prophets have consistently urged restraint, diplomacy, and peace (e.g., President Hinckley’s teachings post-9/11, President Nelson’s repeated calls for peace and against contention). Prayers invoking graphic violence risk crossing into the spirit of vengeance rather than measured justice. Separation of Church and State Concerns: While individuals have full religious freedom, using official government/military platforms for sectarian worship raises questions under D&C 134:4–5 and 98:9–10. The Restoration emphasizes that governments should secure freedom of conscience without establishing religion. Ancient vs. Modern Dispensation: Old Testament herem (total destruction) commands were specific, time-bound, and tied to ancient Israel’s unique covenant role (and, for me, remain one of my great struggles to understand and reconcile with the Restored Gospel). The higher law of Christ and the Restoration temper such applications (3 Nephi 9–10; D&C 98:23–32 explicitly limits vengeance and requires forgiveness where possible). I sense that Sec. Hegseth's comments reflect a sincere desire to invoke God’s help for those defending the nation — a sentiment to which many Latter-day Saints who serve or have served in the military can relate. However, in the fulness of the Restored Gospel, we are called to both uphold justice/defend liberty and cultivate the pure love of Christ. Prayers in such settings are most powerful when they balance resolve against evil with humility, mercy, and reliance on the Prince of Peace. This 2008 talk at BYU-Hawaii does a great job of explaining "war" imagery in scriptures, hymns, etc. in relation to the "Gospel of Peace": Fight The Good Fight: War as a Metaphor in LDS Discourse It's worth a read, but for those with limited time, a Grok summary: We can and should support righteous defense of freedom while rejecting bloodthirstiness or triumphalism. I think the Latter-day Saints should pray for our military, for righteous leaders, for protection of the innocent, and for the conversion and softening of hearts on all sides of conflict. Anyway, back to the original article: "Christian Nationalism" continues to be a troubling topic for me. Per PRRI: On balance, I'm either a "Skeptic" or "Rejecter." Interesting stuff. Thanks, -Smac

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

In your experience in the National Guard in the MI community may be a little bit more skewed towards favorability for Mormons. That being because of the language capability in the higher population of Mormons in the unit, especially since it’s based in Utah or at least that’s what I believe. I was thinking a bit more of my time at DLI (12 months) and at Ft. Huachuca (4 months). I got ribbed a bit for being Mormon, and certainly a few pointed digs, but in the main I did not feel like an outsider. Ah. You seem to be referencing "cachet" in the context of idle "Smoking and Joking"-style conversations/banter in the barracks and whatnot. Am I on track with that? My experience in that regard, in Basic Training, and DLI and at AIT at Ft. Huachuca, was a bit of a mixed bag, but largely positive. Questions and comments leaned toward curiosity (polygamy, horns, Book of Mormon, etc.) and ribbing (about me not swearing or drinking, going to church on Sundays, no sex outside of marriage, polygamy, that sort of thing), with denigrations being more an occasional/isolated sort of thing. I could see discussions with or involving Latter-day Saints being potentially markedly different from discussions about Latter-day Saints (and in their absence). I recall one fellow at DLI who was a devout Evangelical Protestant. He asked me some questions about the Church's teachings that were headed toward pointed/barbed, but when I pulled out my Bible and flipped to the index, he was quite surprised (apparently he had never used an indexed Bible before). He asked where he could get a copy, but then recoiled a bit when I told him the one I had was published by the Church. The conversation sort of ended with him being surprised that I both had a Bible and was familiar with its contents. We were never best buds, but he was thereafter more cordial than before. Thanks, -Smac