By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As part of a broader initiative to combat “political correctness and secular humanism” within the Chaplain Corps, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has announced revisions to the department’s roster of recognized religions. These adjustments aim to ensure the corps reflects a wider spectrum of faiths. The changes are intended to streamline religious accommodations and better serve the diverse spiritual needs of service members.
Read the original article here
The question of whether Latter-day Saints are Christian is one that sparks considerable debate, and it appears that even the U.S. Department of Defense, in certain contexts, has taken a stance that suggests they do not consider the faith to be within the traditional Christian fold. This is a point that causes no small amount of consternation, particularly for those within the Latter-day Saint community who clearly identify as Christian and are followers of Jesus Christ. It’s a situation that echoes, perhaps humorously and tragically, the infinite subdivisions within Christianity itself, where strict adherence to one particular branch can lead to the ostracization of another. The sheer number of denominations and interpretations within what is broadly defined as Christianity often leads to a sort of theological tribalism, where one group’s understanding of faith is considered the only valid one.
The U.S. Department of Defense’s apparent exclusion of Latter-day Saints from a list of recognized Christian faiths is a significant development, and it’s been met with a range of reactions. Some find it utterly unsurprising, pointing to historical divisions and theological differences. They argue that the Latter-day Saint faith, with its unique scriptures and doctrines, such as the Book of Mormon and the concept of ongoing revelation, deviates too significantly from the Nicene Creed and the foundational tenets accepted by the majority of mainstream Christian denominations. From this perspective, the faith is seen as Christian-adjacent rather than directly Christian, a distinct religious movement that emerged from the broader Judeo-Christian tradition but ultimately forged its own path.
Others, however, are bewildered and perhaps even angered by this distinction. They emphasize that Latter-day Saints unequivocally believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior, accept the Bible as scripture (alongside other texts), and strive to live according to His teachings. For them, self-identification as Christian is paramount, and any external body, governmental or otherwise, questioning that identity is seen as an affront. This perspective often highlights the internal diversity within Christianity itself, suggesting that if various Protestant denominations, Catholicism, and even Jehovah’s Witnesses are recognized as Christian, then Latter-day Saints, who also revere Christ, should be included. The argument is that judging another’s faith based on strict adherence to one’s own narrow definition is not only divisive but also contrary to the spirit of religious freedom.
The observation that many who call themselves Christian today might not embody Christian principles in their actions further complicates the matter. This sentiment suggests that outward labels don’t always equate to inward conviction or ethical behavior. When political figures or individuals espouse beliefs and engage in actions that seem antithetical to Christian teachings of love, compassion, and humility, it raises questions about who truly belongs to the Christian fold, regardless of denominational affiliation. This points to a broader societal issue where religious identity is often intertwined with political alignment and cultural identity, leading to a blurring of genuine faith and ideological affiliation.
Furthermore, the notion that political figures, particularly those associated with Christian Nationalism, would be the arbiters of who is and isn’t Christian is a point of significant concern. Christian Nationalism, with its tendency to fuse religious belief with national identity and its often exclusionary doctrines, can lead to a situation where religious groups that don’t align with its specific ideology are deemed heretical or outside the acceptable bounds. The history of Latter-day Saints, who faced persecution and sought refuge in Utah precisely to escape such religiously motivated intolerance, should serve as a stark warning about the dangers of allowing such movements to define religious orthodoxy.
The observation that a substantial portion of the intelligence community, including military linguists, are Latter-day Saints adds another layer to this discussion, particularly when considering the Department of Defense. If these individuals are trusted with sensitive national security roles, it raises questions about the practical implications of the DOD’s potential classification of their faith. It suggests a disconnect between the operational reality of the military and its administrative or ideological classifications of religious groups. The efficiency and effectiveness of these individuals are well-established, and their religious identity has not historically been a barrier to their service or security clearance.
The historical context of the U.S. government’s past actions towards Latter-day Saints, including the denial of statehood and the forceful suppression of polygamy, underscores a long-standing tension. Some commentators recall a time when the government’s animosity towards the faith was so profound that drastic measures were considered to undermine its influence. The historical disenfranchisement and persecution faced by Latter-day Saints provide a backdrop against which current classifications and potential policy shifts are viewed with suspicion and concern. It’s a reminder that religious minorities have often been targets of discrimination, and the current situation, however framed, can evoke those historical anxieties.
Ultimately, the U.S. Department of Defense’s apparent stance on Latter-day Saint Christianity, as suggested by certain interpretations, highlights the complex and often contentious nature of religious identity, particularly within the diverse landscape of American faith. It underscores how political ideologies and doctrinal interpretations can intersect to create divisions, and it raises important questions about religious freedom, inclusion, and the very definition of what it means to be Christian in a pluralistic society. The situation prompts reflection on whether such distinctions are truly about theological accuracy or are, perhaps, more influenced by political considerations and the shifting tides of cultural acceptance.