- Mortimer on Delighting in bloodshed: “Jonathan Green, I’m not asking the Church to take sides in partisan politics specifically for the sake of power to one side or the other. I’m saying that Prophetic leadership includes naming moral dangers plainly when they are reshaping people’s values and justifying cruelty and violence. Another definition of a Prophet (lowercase p perhaps) is someone who speaks truth to a culture of lies (Sister Joan Chittister). A global audience may be a reason to refrain from normally endorsing parties or candidates, but it is not a reason to avoid clarity about evil and consequences or to clarify their lies with TRUTH. In scripture, P/prophets did not speak in abstractions when societies were being led astray, they named idolatry, oppression, and bloodshed, even evil kings, judges or other leaders if needed, because those things had become normalized. Truth had been obscured. Messages so general that the deceived can hear them as *approval* are NOT WARNINGS, they are fog. It also isn’t accurate to say that religion exists outside political order. Historically, religion has almost never been separate from authority, law, and public life. In ancient societies, religious teaching shaped what was considered just, lawful, and acceptable behavior. Prophets confronted kings, systems, and collective sins, not just private hearts. (This is actually pretty fascinating to think about. I wish Dan McClellan the bible scholar was a T&S reader and we could ask him for clarification on this point.) Religion can only be apolitical if it is reduced to private sentiment with no claims on public conduct, which Christianity, by design is NOT. Or in other words, religion is only neutral it it lives solely in the heart of an individual and makes no claims about how people should treat one another in the world. Christianity has never been that. The tent of Zion, the Saints, the Church, the United Order, has always been about community making a difference in this world by collaboration. Asking why modern leaders are silent is NOT the same as refusing to act ourselves. Individual action matters, but so does the voice of the watchmen, and so does our community. When leaders explicitly reserve the right to speak on serious moral and spiritual threats, choosing NOT to NAME a clear danger is NOT neutrality. (As Holocaust survivor Elie Weisel said, “Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”) It is a CHOICE with consequences, especially for the vulnerable. This calls into mind the big paradox of religion, individual or communal salvation. faith is personal, yet it is lived, tested, and actualized in community. I don’t want to thread-jack your post, but just pointing out that there is a communal dependency and even goal to our quests. So why doesn’t it just work for us to take the responsibility ourselves and ignore the fact our community chooses inaction? Because institutional moral leadership and individual action are not substitutes for one another, they’re complimentary. Zion is not a solo project. We are yoked to one another, covenentally and morally, and the work that actually changes the world, resisting evil, protecting the vulnerable, building peace, requires shared sacrifice, coordination, and mutual reinforcement. No man is an island. No lasting moral movement is sustained by private individuals acting alone, it survives when communities, sometimes even small, hidden, or counter-cultural, share responsibility, sacrifice and are one in purpose. When institutions refuse to lead, they don’t stay neutral, they leave people to struggle alone against the highly coordinated and organized forces you quite well described in your post. And this matters so much now, when religion’s social power is fading and the “Nones” are rising. Churches no longer function as the default for society. The church has focused on becoming more of the spiritual spa for individuals or a private wellness practice (YW Personal Progress, Personal Home and Family Enrichment, Family study of Come Follow Me, personal temple work, etc.). But Christianity was never meant to be a spiritual spa. It was meant to change the world, to confront violence and injustice (peacefully, non-violently), reduce and eradicate suffering, hunger, poverty, war, etc. If the Church sets aside its millennial zeal and turns inward, it should not be surprised when people begin to wonder what, exactly, it is for. And if a church with over $100 billion in assets (including airwaves, broadcast stations and satellites, newspapers, universities, magazines, global distribution systems, political and diplomatic networks, printing presses, websites, technology platforms, farms, real estate, and countless other resources) chooses SILENCE in the face of the most urgent moral threats of our time, including matters of life and death, it should again not be surprised when that question grows louder. But, we can agree to disagree too.” Dec 16, 12:59
- on Snorkeling in Scripture: Joshua Sears on Why Latter-day Saints Need Study Bibles: “I saw the Newsroom update, but it also makes explicit the huge gap between different language editions. Spanish speaking saints can officially read a bible updated in 2009, Portuguese speaking saints can officially read a bible updated in 2015, English speaking saints can officially read a bible updated in 1611…” Dec 16, 12:16
- on Sociology of Religion Terms and the Restored Gospel: “…really, the concept is that religions develop and transform over time, and that while their histories aren’t linear they are somewhat predictable. And that’s why it’s helpful to view the Church as an organization, and to study it the way we study other organizations. Businesses move from startups to corporations, affinity and volunteer groups become more professional over time, and even criminal organizations experience this development. Sociology’s tools for studying organizations can help us understand LDS Church history and contribute to making sense of its contemporary evolution.” Dec 16, 12:04
- on Sociology of Religion Terms and the Restored Gospel: “Stephen- When I started reading I expected you would eventually present concepts such as cult or new religious movement. These aren’t specific to sociology but sociology does have unique insight that applies to the Church. Thinking of religions as moving through stages of development (cult, sect, denomination, church, …) is imperfect but the LDS movement is a good test case for how to apply these concepts. I know my favorite gospel doctrine class to teach every four years is when I get to characterize the early Church as a cult and then watch everyone freak out, but then walking them through what we really mean by that and calming them down and getting them comfortable with the comparison. Anyway, thanks for this!” Dec 16, 11:52
- on Sociology of Religion Terms and the Restored Gospel: “Frankly I see the point of the Church as facilitating the creation and formalization of covenants in vivo and by proxy. We’re that department of God’s firm. Your numbers do not have to be enormous to accomplish that. But you do have to have a little bit everywhere.” Dec 16, 10:50
- on Snorkeling in Scripture: Joshua Sears on Why Latter-day Saints Need Study Bibles: “Updates to this conversation as of Dec. 16, 2025: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/holy-bible-translations-editions-church-of-jesus-christ https://www.thechurchnews.com/members/2025/12/16/update-to-general-handbook-outlines-more-flexibility-in-bible-usage-home-church/” Dec 16, 10:48
- on Catholic Integralism and the Constitution: “Agreed, RLD. The assumption that Mormons will get a better deal under Catholic authoritarianism than under the free exchange of ideas under “liberalism” seems uninformed. It seems as though minority religions like Mormons and (until recently) Catholics, push for full religious freedom until they feel they are in a political position to grab power. I see no reason for Mormons to be on board with Catholic integralism OR post-liberalism generally.” Dec 16, 08:56
- on Catholic Integralism and the Constitution: “heh…”Illiberal would be using government…to drive people who believe the Book of Mormon out of the public square” is what I meant to say, but driving people who don’t believe it out of the public square would certainly be illiberal too.” Dec 16, 08:28
- on Catholic Integralism and the Constitution: “Hoosier, you may well be right about that. Your proximity to young left-wingers in age is probably more important than my proximity in politics (especially since I’m not really all that left). But I do want to emphasize that claiming the Book of Mormon is neocolonialist mendacity is not illiberal. Being allowed to criticize other peoples’ religion, and especially the dominant religion, is one of the hallmarks of a classically liberal society. Illiberal would using government to try to keep people from reading the Book of Mormon, or to drive people who don’t believe the Book of Mormon out of the public square. That’s the thing about classical liberalism: it makes it okay for other people to be wrong. Latter-day Saints don’t have to worry that if a Democrat wins the next election, their lives will be ruined. And trans people don’t have to worry that if a Republican wins the next election, their lives will be ruined. As long as we stick to classical liberalism, anyway.” Dec 16, 08:18
- on Catholic Integralism and the Constitution: “Thanks for the additional information, RLD and Hoosier. Adopting Orban’s authoritarianism seems like a bad idea and against what our religion (wisely) teaches.” Dec 16, 08:05
