All right. In this episode, I bring back filmmakers Barrett Bergen and Jake
Taylor to talk about the term Christian. What does that mean? There's some push back on this. Who do we affiliate with?
Who do we identify with outside of Latter- Day Saints? Anyone? Are we a part of Christianity as a whole? Is
there danger in doing that? danger. I mean, in the sense of do we need to
watch out uh how we're identifying ourselves or who we're identifying ourselves with.
Are we really part of the Christian right politically? I think sometimes we are. That's the way we probably would
vote most of the time. What does the Christian right think of Latter-day Saints? This is a great discussion.
Fabulous discussion. This episode is brought to you by Gospel on the Nile. I love Egypt. It is my favorite trip. Uh
if you have not been able to do this trip yet, this is a bucket list trip that allows you to see some incredible
sites. You're going to learn more about the temple and your own personal experience in the temple than you will
anywhere else outside of the temple itself. Incredible, incredible temples
and the pyramids. Obviously, a trip packed full of sites and education. Go
to quickdia.com up to the top trips and events and scroll down to Gospel on the Nile. We've got a few trips next year in
February, March, and March next year. I'm leaving tonight for a trip to Cairo.
I would love to see you on one of these trips. Here we go.
[Music]
All right, welcome to Quick Show. My name is Greg Matson and I am your host. In this episode, we bring back Barrett
Bergen and Jake Taylor. How are you guys doing? Doing great, thank you. All right, we're
going to talk about something I think very important, very relevant to our time, especially our time right now in
terms of conflict between Protestantism and and we'll call it Mormonism
and uh an understanding of where do Latter-day Saints fit in in the
religious land landscape among a majority Protestant group uh both
politically, religiously, culturally um where are we at and how did we get
here? Yeah, it's a great question. I have read some books uh over the past year. Chief
among them being this book, A Peculiar People by the BOU professor and I
believe department of history chair his name is J. Spencer Flugman. And it puts
forward this narrative of like why 19th century and I think by extrapolation
thus 20th and 21st century Protestants can often be so vitriolic in their
hatred toward Latter-day Saints in particular. Like why why us? Why are we
the in the eye of Sauron, so to speak, so much as to like what appears to be true
hatred or at the very least just wanting to brush us aside and say, "Stop trying
to say you're like us or you believe in Christ. Just get out of the way." Certainly vitriolic.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Very vitriolic. And for Dr. Fluan the central thesis is something
like this that at the turn of the um well I don't know exactly how that idiom
works is it the turn of the 18th century if it's at the end I don't know the the
early 1800s in the early 1800s America is is a
freshly born nation and religious freedom is still very new and you have
all of these different Protestant sects mainly who are combating with each other
for theological vindication and ultimately political supremacy in terms
of influencing the body politic of this newly democratic nation. And then guess
who pops up on the scene in 1820 is our good friend Prophet Joseph Smith. And so
this arisal of new what they would call enthusiastic religions that are outside
of the the pale of normal formal Protestant Christianom. uh they raise
all these questions of like what counts as Christian and even more than that what counts as religion period and is
Mormonism just a scam which is something that I think we are both probably very
familiar with is this this concept of Joseph Smith being the con man and that he's trying to dupe these people out of
their money and their belief in their time and but that shifts with time away from just false religion or like like a
non relligion a fake religion to false religion, heretical religion, as
Latter-day Saints continue to prove themselves persistent and relevant in
American uh religious debate and and politics because you can't separate the two, especially in somewhere like
Missouri and Nauvoo, where the one of the major reasons why the Latter-day Saints were kicked out, is because they
were growing in numbers to the point where they had political influence and the local majorities did not like that at all.
Yeah. I mean, he kind of goes through where where you know, you have that those I think it covers four phases, right? Where where you where you're
starting off as not a really a religion. It's made up. It's not really a
religion. It's it's some type of uh um I
don't know what the word I'm looking for. Some kind of mystical because of all the because of the founding, right? Some kind of mystical Christianity that
that isn't really religion. moving into okay maybe it's religion but it's a
false religion and then you have polygamy come up which is a div you know now it's barbaric
and and then you move from okay what is it 1990 you you or 1890 you no
longer have the polygamy so you're accepted a little bit but you're you're you're very much over here
well and accepted on on certain conditions which you know um which
historians have done some great great work on this that that the uh that that there was a a very you know a very
deliberate assimilation choice made uh at that time in in the late 1800s and
early 1900s where it's like okay in order to survive we're going to have to align with the the you know the then
Republican party um and then just kind of stayed that way in in in some ways even while the members um at the time
were uh the rank and file members more Democrat at that time and and sympathize with that the institution of the church
was very much like, okay, in order to, you know, in order to exist, um, we're
going to have to assimilate to Eastern Christian uh, sensibilities and and I would even
say outside of evangelical or Protestant creedle creed Christian um, demands
where it's like fine. You saying eastern, you mean eastern United States? Eastern United, sorry, not not Eastern like uh, Orthodox
like Yeah, the Eastern United States. Um, as as Latter Day Saints, we're in the West. Um, and that I I do think that
that power dynamic um has defined I mean we we all learn about this stuff growing
up as Latter Day Saints too in in in Ohio and Illinois and Missouri, you
know, and we all know about like literally an extermination order and that there are all these factors, but but Latter- Day Saints and and our our
very existence has been a thorn in the side of of American Christendom um from
the very beginning and and to your point, Greg, it just it just takes different shapes and forms. Um, you
know, at one point it's plural marriage, at one point, you know, all the way down to uh, you know, the they we have
political power or the God makers. It's like, well, you don't believe the right things about, you know, about the
godhead. And and Jake, do you want to pick up from there kind of uh, Yeah. Yeah. And if if I may, I think it
leads into this this sort of like um assimilative impulse. It it leads into
another book which I'm which I must say off the bat is certainly more I mean academically leftist in a way that I
don't necessarily agree with on a lot of her claims. But the book Jesus and John Wayne I think paints a pretty clear
picture of the culture that Latter-day Saints by default are trying to assimilate into. starting with the early
1900s and those purposeful efforts to say, "No, no, no, no, no. We are Americans. We're all Americans here.
We're all Christians here. We're not practicing polygamy. Let's just shove that under the ground and and and
pretend like that never happened. We're just like you guys." And they turn to us and say, "No, you're not." And the
vitriol is still there. And that frankly leads us to our good friend Mark Driscoll and people like him nowadays
that carry forward a really I think clear cultural throughine from the early
1800s and American Protestantism and the hatred towards Latter-day Saints to
right now. Well, and and and to build on that like you know I'm I'm I live here in
Tennessee. I I grew up here in Tennessee. I had a great great interfaith experience growing up. um a
lot of fantastic friends who are Baptist, who are Methodist, um who are
evangelical, although evangelical kind of its own thing, especially when it comes to us as as you know in continuing
that that throughine as as Jake said. So, I have I have firsthand experience with this and both like having strong
interfaith relationships and also feeling and and noticing the the the
continuation of like let's just call it what it is, anti- Mormon um sentiment
and rhetoric and belief and that this is like what what we saw in Michigan, you know,
or the responses to the um uh to to the assassination of of Charlie Kirk like
because it was in Utah. Like I I cannot express enough how how much this is like
a sentiment that is everywhere. I'm sure you're familiar with the Pew Research um
that was done, Greg, where where Latter-day Saints have now decreased in in popularity and trust to the point
that we're like the most hated religious group, while conversely, we have the
most positive view of other faiths. And I think that's great. I think it's like like our doctrine accounts for it,
right? We believe there's truth in um in all things and that that any good uh
expression of faith um Christian or otherwise is is valid as people 13th article of faith.
Exactly. It's the 13th article of faith. You know what do you think about that research though with Pew? It's, you know, I've thought about that a lot and
I thought because I as far as practicality, I I don't know that
I don't know that people actually feel that way about Latter-day Saints in terms of people. That that's not my
experience. In fact, it's actually the opposite. Um, theologically that's
different for sure. And once you put it into the theological, you know, place and that's really what the the survey
is, right? It's about the the different denominations and whatnot. But but I I I kind of get a sense that the answer to
that study is where do I place the theology
you know more than more than you know us being hated and I'm not saying there isn't section of people that say they
hate us. I I get more of a sense of I am going to rank the theologies here.
Yes. what what I where I think people are I mean I don't know how much you read the the um the internet comments around
and of course internet comments are always going to be more inflammatory but around around all the the media
attention today like like the response to American primeval and I was on another podcast talking about this and we have we have the screenshots hundreds
of these where it's like we never finish the job you know in in Missouri and like
right got to and people say this kind of stuff all the time about Sure.
I don't think we need to, you know, be looking over our shoulder like, "Oh, people hate me because I'm Mormon." To
your point, um I think Latter- Day Saints as as individuals and even as
communities, um people uh people respect and are like, "Well, they believe just
the craziest stuff, but they're really nice and, you know, they'll serve you." And even our response to what happened
um in Michigan just just demonstrates that. you know, I I saw that um that that was happening and I and I felt a
swell of gratitude and pride and humility and just like that is the right answer, right? I'm I I think as we're
talking about, you know, kind of getting really clear on these lines, there's we
need to maintain the peacemaking and peacekeeping um attempts and and those good relationships, right? But the point
is it did happen. And the point is it did happen over theology for sure. Like
like uh and and what happened in Michigan is an extreme and isolated
expression of a more common sentiment which is that ultimately the church, you
know, the theology, Mormonism, whatever it is, we can dig up all the political
cartoons. I I saved a bunch of them from our time, you know, earlier in in US history. And like this is this is
continued. It it will continue. And um I think the irony for me, Greg, is
that like this is just a little anecdote. Um but I I went to a high
school with maybe 15 or 20 L saints. And uh maybe Jake, tell me if this if this,
you know, kind of resonates with you too, but sometimes there's a sometimes there's kind of a um temptation to to
almost be uh uh to to to be quiet about it, right? to
kind of be circumscript about like, oh, you know, I I want to tell him, but you know, if if if you start talking about
Joseph Smith or something, it's like, and then and then also Joseph Joseph Smith, he saw, you know, and it's like, I don't want people to know that I'm a
Latter-day Saint. And that was kind of the the the approach that I found among
my peers in Knoxville, not just my high school, but like but but like other high schools is there's sort of this like we
we you know, make sure you're focusing on Jesus Christ and then like if the time is right, you express who you are.
And I just kind of bucked that because I'm proud to be a Latter-day Saint and I
wore it on my sleeve. And what what happened as a result is that I I gained
a lot more respect and a lot more dialogue and a lot more like, oh, this guy like loves that he's Mormon and
doesn't care at all and it's unique and it's different and it's um and it's powerful and and it is it is in
conversation. I remember I remember one time I had my uh my buddy who worked in
in film with me in high school like he he sat me down before my mission. And he's like, "I just want you to know I've
like I've finally decided that you're a Christian, you know, and I I'm just like, oh, like, oh, thank you." Oh, wow.
You know, like now that the now that the great evangelical has has, you know, he's like, "Well, you're you're like a
Catholic, but like American Catholic, you have all these extra works." And like I guess my point is like, what is this? What is this? What is this
constantly sing for the, you know, for the Christian right to like to like take
whatever crumbs? And I think this goes back generations. Like in as much as as generational trauma exists, it is
something that Latter Day Saints certainly would have about uh the violent the violent violent past and the
continued violent rhetoric about um yeah that's nice that you know you guys got
slaughtered or you know we're so sorry you got slaughtered but like also just make sure you're you're not Christian and you are going you are going to hell
you know and um not all Protestants are evangelicals feel this way. Um, but I
think, you know, and we can kind of get into this more specifically, but I think on the basis of thinking that we're
political allies and sort of having such a long history of aligning on on um, you
know, moral and and and maybe philosophical issues that are not even totally consistent, some of them, with
what our earlier history uh, even was or is or was was built around. um that we
are in this really uncomfortable and inaccurate understanding of our
relationship to the rest of Christianity. And it would do us well to to maybe do an inventory and be like,
okay, what you know, why does this matter so much that we're that we're accepted by this particular group of
Christians that is so particularly opposed to things that we want to be and
and aspire to. Yeah. Jake, you know, you're talking about Flumen's book and and looking
through the history and and how really more than just this is how it is a certain group hating another group, but
it's actually defining who the Protestants are, right, to some degree. And and it's
interesting because you do have a framework, as you said, Barry, before you've got a framework here where Joseph Smith gets dropped into this time period
where freedom of religion is still being tested. What is this exactly? How does
it work? And you have 13 different colonies starting off, many of them with
very different religions. Their religion is their politics, right? Their religion is their politics. So, how do you make
all of that work? They've got battles. You get rid of the original articles of confederation over all of this. You have
eventually a constitution that's settled on uh in in in the 18th century. And
it's just how how is this eventually going to be coalesed around these principles that
we believe are inspired and that do allow for Latterday Saints
to have the ability to grow and and be a part of the American fabric. Right now,
if you look at the 13 colonies with these different religions, much of the
framework of the constitution and the founding documents actually do allow for
these colonies and these different denominations to coales around these universal principles,
right? But what it also does is it
as you get Joseph Smith coming in, you you get
as you say, you you you define, you know, Protestants begin to define what they're not. And you have to do that.
You do have to do that. I think that's part of a definition. We do it. We do it with We do it all the time. You you have to
do it, you know. But but it's but what it does is it almost says
Mormonism is going to be the direction of the eyeire of all of these different denominations.
And so it allows those denominations to actually unite
against one single enemy, so to speak, one theological enemy with with with the
with the Mormons, right? Do you would you say that Jake do would you say that
the that Protestantism grows and is defined somewhat simply by saying well
we're not them and this is a a line we're going to draw around us which includes several of the denominations
and does that allow those denominations to pull themselves together into more of
an idea of Christianity in America? I mean, I think that
historically that definitely appears to have been the case. Um, that's that's how it it played out in terms of, well,
what are we? We're all of these different Protestant sects. We have all of these different theological
differences. And especially later on in the 1800s and beyond,
Fluan says this as much like theology was downplayed in order to upplay a
particular kind of identity. And for much of the 1800s that was we are absolutely not Catholics, Muslims or
Mormons. And by drawing the circle as to what counts as religion or not or heresy
or not um or ultimately and this can't be avoided, I think white American or
not, especially when it comes to saying we're not we're not Muslims. That was a huge We're not easy addicts, you know, and
with the onset of polygamy in our in our pra our religious practice, that becomes very important in terms of the
stereotypes that were produced about Latter-day Saints that there's like the angiatic mongaloid monster with green
skin and big lips. It's like, oh my gosh, this is horrible. This is awful.
But it's drawing the circle. and and then Jesus and John Wayne with its
flaws, but I think um very robustly shows how th those sentiments carried
through into the 20th century and and haven't really gone away.
Well, and that that's also what a lot of um you know that's hold on sorry that's
also what a lot of uh like the the the identity of the Christian right is is
built around today. like Jake and I were talking about about about this before getting on this interview um which is
that we don't we don't want to come off as um you know politically motivated one way or the other and and just to show
show my cards um I'm very moderate you know like I I don't I don't believe that
uh I guess what I'll say is that the the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is is the lens through which I I
view truth. I I believe the gospel. I believe in the restored gospel and I don't think an honest objective reading
of of the gospel and even of all of sort of the the the full history of the
church and the full standard works and the scriptures. I don't think it gives Latter-day Saints um a political home. I
really don't. I think that and and most of us are are comfortable talking about that and saying, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, you know, both parties have." But like to
get really hyper specific um there are issues that are that are you know
fundamentally Latter-day Saint issues that um that the church itself and I
think a lot of members of the church find themselves on either side of the aisle with. I think that's where you see
this sort of LDS moderate you know moderate conservative um uh negotiation
with with with what defines the Christian right which is identity. It's identity politics and um and this has
been the case from the very beginning. If another great book is um religion of a of a different color, I think is what
it's what it's called. I don't have the um the name of the author right in front of me. I I'll have to find it. Um, but but to Jake's point, like a a
huge part of all of our own racial history and issues and and and you know,
the priesthood ban, whatever it was, like culturally at least, grows out of
the fact that uh the Eastern United States was was obsessed with painting
the Mormon, the exotic, you know, Mormon as some other race. It's like you're not
white, you're not American because we're disgusted with the idea that you're part of us in any way. And of course, as as
as a group of of Latter-day Saints whose grandparents had fought in the Revolutionary War and and who had had um
you know appealed to the United States to be protected on the basis of of their religion um were were appalled by this
and and they felt like well the US has abandoned us, but we we love the Constitution and we love these
principles and we're going to follow our God. And so like that that history
um there's no way that that's not relevant all the way up until today when
you know when there are when there are still kind of these instincts and these um kind of this this strain of of you
know what is the gate not not just on an ideological basis but on like who and
and sort of conflating those things. I think you're right, Greg, when you say it's about theology, but I think
theology um informs our views of identity and uh and and I have found a
lot more, you know, I I have experienced, at least personally, a lot more comments of like, well, you're one
of the good ones. I think you believe in Jesus, you know, I I and and I'll decide kind of that. But but your church, but
your church, though, and it's like our church is a fundamental part of our our theology.
Uh oh. Uh oh. Greg, I think you're muted. So that brings us to a couple of other
points. Um the the argument, and I've spoken to
very smart people about this, and they come from different angles on this, but the argument about being Christian or
putting a label of being Christian uh on being a Latter-day Saint and and
an identity. Again, there's a label of identity being placed or or being many want to be
placed on themselves as Latter-day Saints. A few say no that I've spoken to. But where do you see that? Where
does that term if we talk about this co coalesing around uh you know not being Muslim, not being
Catholic, not being Mormon and this bringing together of of these uniting of
these other Christian denominations. Where does that argument land today
about being Christian and how that was probably developed
really in the 19th century? If I may really briefly, I know that you have some thoughts on this Barrett.
There's something in the sort of I guess the philosophy of language. The the philosopher Lud Ludvig Vickenstein has
this phrase that the meaning of a word is its use in language. And that it's one of those phrases it's like okay yeah
thanks Sherlock that's that is what a word means isn't it? But but you take a step back and you think about it, it's
like, well, what is the use of Christian in the English language specifically in
the angophone Americas? And is it specifically creedle Christianity?
Is that how it's used? whether or not what we want it to mean, whether or not the denotation even in the dictionary
says, you know, believer, follower of Jesus Christ or whatever it says is how it's used
against including Latter-day Saints in the majority usage of the word. I hope that makes sense. But like it's
something that we need to grapple with that maybe in the way that the majority
Englishspeaking America uses Christian that no, we're not. And we can say yes,
we are in these ways, but we have to be willing to concede. That's not how most people use the term Christian. And then
we have to we have to be okay with that and say I'm okay with my identity because what you mean by Christian is is
something different. And like yeah, I don't follow the creeds. I don't follow the creed of Nika and Athanasius or
whatever. So anyways, bearing well here's my argument against
I've talked about this a few times. Um, it's not just being a creedle, someone
who believes in the creeds, right? There is an automatic assumption whether
you're religious or not religious in the United States that if someone says you're Christian, you believe in Jesus
Christ as your savior and redeemer that he is the one who has given you the opportunity to you, we'll say, go to
heaven, right? By believing him and believing in his sacrifice. And you can't you you can't untie that in United
States the way it's used. I don't think you can untie
the the creeds from that idea of Jesus Christ is my savior. Right? I think they
are both pregnant in that definition. And so for me to parse that out, what I
always use is creedle Christian or non-cred Christian because then I can
get rid of one of those two and and change it to some degree and I believe it works as perfectly as anything does
out there. And so I say I am a noncritical Christian. Now I want to go back to the idea of
the other thing is missionary work. You know, if there is a fullon as long as I
think others think, well, they say they're Christian,
right? Then there's still at least the thought, okay, they believe in Jesus Christ. A lot of people don't even know that.
They don't understand it. I' I've had unbelievably ignorant comments on my videos from people say, "You, you don't
even believe Jesus is your savior. You don't you don't even believe that Jesus died and was resurrected."
Right? It's it's that there is a high level of ignorance to our theology and
and and what we believe in. And so Christian does represent that still. And
to the point we were talking about before, Barrett, where you said uh you know, Christian is usually used in the scriptures as as the enemy's identifying
at least in the book of people. So I I would say the following and and you brought up the the word disciples, which I like.
Yeah. But we take on the name of Christ when we get baptized. For sure.
We take on the name of Christ. I think that's different than just saying we're a disciple,
right? What is the what am I called by then? What what is if I take on the name of Christ?
The best word we have I believe is Christian for for using for say stating that we
take on the name of Christ. Now again there's so much that goes into this. It is very difficult and nuanced.
I get it because I want to push back right on not being a part of what mainstream
Christianity is. I think these are phenomenal points, Greg. And and and I I want to state
clearly here too, and I I know I speak for both me and Jake, like we we believe we're Christians, you know, we identify
as Christian. I would very proudly call myself a Christian. Um, but I think to
Jake's point about how a word is uh how a word is used has just as much effect,
you know, like I I I have a couple points of push back if I may, Greg. The first is the first is that like how do
you believe in the Trinity? No. Why? Because it's not true.
Why Why don't you just call the Godhead the Trinity? That's a perfectly good Christian word. Why don't we use
Right. But but because because the trinity is a very specific theological
concept, right? We use godhead instead of trinity. Even though in Spanish or in
Portuguese or in many other countries where uh where the differentiation is
not as much of a cultural issue, we use right trinity. It's the same word. It means godhead. It means it means uh
trinity. It's it's it and all we have to do is kind of identify and parse out, right? And and and and yet in in the
United States um it comes with some really specific expectations and in English it's you
know this there we conflate these things and so like you know in in sort of the philosophy of language like um these
things uh these things matter when it comes to missionary work if we want to help people understand that we follow
Jesus Christ. I don't know that big branded terms are are what convince
people that we follow Jesus Christ. It certainly wasn't in my relationships with my friends in high school. Um it
was it was observing uh it was observing my behavior and my values and my
testimony of Jesus which I would share and and make very clear. Um and and and
the Lord himself didn't say by this shall men know ye are my disciples. if you use the word Christian, they're
really going to know you're my disciples at that point, right? Um he he said if if you love one another and and it's
it's how you um how you express yourself. So, while I'm not necessarily
suggesting that like we we say no, we're not Christian. I just think that some of
what we I think that there I think that sometimes, forgive me if I'm wrong here,
it's just my opinion, but like I think we conflate theology and identity and
and sort of the need to assimilate and we conflate all of these things, right? We've got our history of theology and
doctrine. We also have our history of persecution and assimilation for the need for survival. And so like yes,
absolutely. if if if if we need to make it clear and I don't know that we have the answers for this. Um I have a
proposal but but of course it's just for me like this is this is more of a comment on on us as a as a as a
community. But um I'm just not sure those things are as distinct as as as we'd like them to be. You know, how do
we take the name of Christ upon us? Is it through the term Christian? I don't know. But what I can tell you is that at
least today in in in the 21st century in 2025, when somebody thinks Christian who
isn't Christian, I think they think a whole lot of things that are not necessarily what we are as Latter-day
Saints. Jake, what are your thoughts?
Well, I think that Mormon introduces himself as I am Mormon and I am a
disciple of Christ. And I think that that is a powerful thing that like if
somebody says we're not a Christian, we can say, "Okay, but I'm a disciple of
Christ." And it's like, "Oh, that's a word game." It's like, "Yeah, it is a word game." It's really annoying, isn't it? So either stop or don't. But it's
irrelevant to who I am, which is a follower of Christ, a disciple of Christ. And I'm going to continue saying
that I'm a Christian to people. It's not like I'm saying I'm going to stop using that word in the context that makes
sense for me as a Christian, as a disciple of Christ. It's more to say
don't take it seriously when someone like Mark Driscoll who has like $200,000 of fraud allegations and like bizarre
hypersexual sermons when he says we're not Christians like
go away enough I'm a disciple of Christ and it gives it gives them the power as
we're constantly as we're constantly trying to negotiate with the evangelical
or the Protestant or the credo Christian as to why we're the same. They already don't think we're the same. We're we're
asking for permission to be let into a, you know, as far as missionary go work goes, I I think it's very easy to show
that you follow Jesus Christ. Um, as far as convincing another Christian why
we're the same, we're not the same. We are different. We're we're an express an
expressly different variation of Christianity. We're a restoration strain
of theology. We believe that we have access to all truth that we have claim on the whole of Christendom. We don't
need their approval to to to understand that we have claim anywhere. Brigham Young talked about like if there's truth
in heaven or hell or anywhere it belongs to to the Latter-day Saints. And um and
one of one of the very first things this is a paradox, right? We believe all things, we hope all things, we we see
validity in every expression of religion. And yet at the same time um one of the first things the Lord himself
said is that all their creeds are an abomination. I don't know that we need to apologize for the Lord and for the
foundations of of of of what our entire theology is. And and when we also are
able to accept what those boundaries are and what they are not, um I think I
think that it robs the bully of his power, right? of of of that. We're somehow sneaking around trying to um
trying to gain access to the legitimacy of the coalition of of what um you know
what defines this group of people by what they're not, which is which is in so much part us, you know, not not
exclusively us. I have one more point to make on this. like when it comes to Islam or when it comes to followers of
Krishna or when it comes to some of the uh Eastern religions like like Shinto or
like the history of Zoroastrianism. I think it's really valuable that a Latter-day Saint can look through all of
those and see similarities in our own faith tradition which clearly suggests
that it all comes from a common source and we have no problem with that, right? we don't have to die on the hill that
you know Islam is somehow the devil's you know variation on on on the truth
that that it's that it's very possible within our within our faith that that
this was an expression of of the gospel that that went into apostasy like any other version and and for some reason I
think we give I think we give you know Christianity on the whole more credit
because they have the name of Christ because they have the New Testament. When when you have these other religious
traditions that are doing a lot of the same things that we are that might be missing the plain and precious truths,
but have other have other truths that are there. And um I don't think that uh
just because someone is a fellow Christian makes them necessarily closer to the fullness of the gospel because
not all who say unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. um you know, but he that doeth the works
of my father, right? Like that's there's something to this. There's something to the fact that in some sense we we have
we have more in common with a lot of the religious traditions we're less familiar with because we are hyperfixating on our
our Protestant and Catholic brothers and sisters who we love and want to have good relationships with but don't need
don't need their kind of pat on the head for legitimacy. Yeah, I guess I would question that
hyperfixation. I don't know if that's true. Uh if if we actually do hyperfixate on them, I I I think we are
very internal in terms of identity. I do know that a lot of people do. Okay. They
they do look for the acceptance and maybe Christian is the term they are most looking for in terms of acceptance.
A lot of that goes back again to the DNA of a history of persecution and generational trauma, so to speak,
theological trauma. Sure. But I I you know, it's kind of like, okay, so
like like England, right? Well, here's a question. Is Israel part of the West?
Is that a rhetorical question or Yeah, I don't know. Is is Israel part of Are they a
democracy? I mean that's a really good question.
Okay. So, so again it's like wait a minute they're very different. Sure. But the way
the way the term is used democracy, right? Uh western values.
Sure. Yeah. There's an awful lot of that that a lot of people can say, okay, well, Israel is part of the West in that term. They're
part of I see what you mean. They're part of because that's how we use the term. Yes.
Right. Is they're using Is England part of that? I mean they use a parliamentary form of business of of of of democracy.
Is that is that the West? Is that is that democracy? It's, you know, it's I I don't know.
Again, this is getting into some semantics here, but I mean, you're you're you're right to you're right to ask that. And and and
perhaps it is too bold of a stance to suggest that we're we're hyperfixated on it on that specifically. Um, but I
certainly wouldn't I certainly don't think there there is any lack of our
focus on needing to be really clear on who we are and what we are. And like I
stand by that. I'm glad that we're using the full name of the church. I'm glad that we're identifying more clearly as
Latter-day Saints of part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I think it's significant that President
Nelson talked about how our um you know how we should identify is first as a
child of God then as a child of the covenant then as a disciple of Jesus
Christ. Pretty interesting that that like our our you know a child of the covenant
essentially as a Latter-day Saint and then as a disciple of of of Jesus Christ that those I think that's very strategic.
Those things matter, right? And and you use the word strategic. I want to be very careful here. I don't
want to suggest I don't want this to come, you know, to sound like a criticism, especially of maybe the
current focus of the church, but when taken on the whole, I don't I don't
think it's inaccurate to say we have a hyperfixation on how we're perceived and how we're understood and that we are
followers of Jesus Christ. And yes, theologically that's essential, that's important, and also serves a political
and social function when it comes to this this lopsided Stockholm syndrome
power dynamic that we have with the rest of the Christians. So Jake, let me ask you if we're are we hyperfixated on on
our own identity in terms of acceptance or are we hyperfixated on our identity
to the world because there is so much misinformation about
who we are and and what the world perceives us to
be as an identity. That is a really good question. That is
a really good question. I mean, I think like so many things, it's probably both,
but um yeah, maybe let's let's separate it a little bit because I think there is the
general desire to be perceived well by just people in general as an individual,
as a community. And obviously Latter Day Saints have that because that's a human attribute.
And I think on top of that, um, and I think this is difficult to to
get across without going too much into politics, that there is absolutely a desire to be
on the Christian right. And that's not to say that you can't be a Republican as
a Latter-day Saint. That's not to say you can't be a Democrat as a Latter-day Saint. Like, this isn't a political
judgment. This is a political observation to say that there is this thing called the Christian right and it
it it is a real identity group and we can play the political game and say
we're going to vote with them or not without saying we are a part of them because to say that we are a part of the
Christian right comes along with a lot of baggage and like we can vote with
them without saying that we are them because here's the thing and maybe this is slightly tinfoil hat. But these are
the same people culturally speaking who would turn around and stab our backs the moment they got the chance for the past
190 years. And maybe we should take that into consideration with our political
identity, not our political affiliation. That's fine, but our political identity.
Um, and I do think that we have a little bit of a hyperfixation as a culture and like the the whole church, the masses of
the church in the early 1900s, they voted Democrat and the church leaders tried to get them to vote Republican and
they wouldn't do it. And it took a long time of very dedicated efforts to say no, we're going to do this. These are
the people who we align with. And this is not again to keep the tribal hackles from coming up. This is not to say don't
vote Republican. I vote Republican. Okay? This is an identity issue. Who do
we align with in terms of who we want to be like? We should want to be like our own best selves and like Christ.
Well, and and and you know, Greg, you you said a portion of them. I think the question
is like how big is the portion, you know, and I I don't mean I don't mean that every, you know, every one of our
friends who is who is Protestant or Evangelicals like don't trust them, you know. It's it's that we all know that
everybody has a Sunday school lesson on the Mormons and that like this is foundational and um and that I think I
think to Jake's point like whether or not they're like, "Yeah, get them now. We're we are sometimes upholding a group
that that very much is not interested in Latterday Saints being a part of that group, but will happily use us if it if
it and this has been true from the very beginning. This is why the church leaders wanted Latter-day Saints to be
Republican was to protect them. And after the Republicans annihilated us on plural marriage, um then we went to them
and said, "Hey, you know what? If we were to vote with you, will you will you stop coming after us now?" It's like,
"Oh, okay. Yeah, we could do that." Um and and and so like how big is the
portion? I don't know. As far as misinformation goes, yes, there's misinformation about the church. And
also, there is information that is accurate that just needs context that
we're a bit sheepish about that we don't want to talk about. We know this, right? We've talked about some of these things.
And and so we have this conflation of like, well, is it positive? Does it make us look good? Does it make us look
normal? Is it misinformation? Is it false? And all those things stir around
how we are perceived in media, how we see ourselves being represented. And I think Jake is wise to parse these things
out because they're all individual separate issues. You know, I had a I've had a couple of
discussions with some evangelicals since the Michigan attack and and that is something that I push back on also. It's
it's uh I I just say, you know, be careful because you don't know, you
know, again, I I am convinced thoroughly that that attack comes from
a fueling of anti- Mormon rhetoric, vitriolic, hateful, violent
uh rhetoric that is found online. And people go down that rabbit hole and they get radicalized, right? And most of that
comes from the right. Most of it comes from the right. And and so it's, you know, my my point on
that is saying, hey, just let's curb some of this as terms of politics and identity because let's just think about
this for a second. If the left was, let's say the left was
conquered, which is never going to happen, but let's say the left was conquered,
where would we stand with the religious right? There you go. That's kind of that that is we are just like we were
saying about the alignment and the co the coalesing around principles and against the Latter-day Saints early on
where where would you know that that that align them? Well, we do align politically more with the religious
right than we do with with the left, the secular left, right? But
we are not a part of them. We are not a part of them. And you can't think that way. And I love what you said, Barrett,
about a, you know, for example, and this is again
my Now, Jake, I'm taking on your your your hat here and saying I I am uh uh
politically I'm independent. in terms of party affiliation because I do not want the identity or
the label that has so much involved with it to be a part of oh I'm locked up with
this right I'm a part of this because the party that I affiliate with is the
church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that's my political party same right and and so I'm going to look
through things now I'm going to disagree with others who would might say the same thing on on solutions on uh where we're
at, where things are going, uh worldview even, you know, etc. But that's I have
an issue with, you know, we're talking about the idea of a of a Christian identity using that term. I don't want a
political party identity. I I I don't want to be a part of that. Right. Does
that make sense? Absolutely. 100%. Well, and I I I don't I don't know that in today's world, I don't know that
it's ever been this way in the American history because I I love how Christian the the the founding principles were and
agree with that. But I I let's just say now, Greg, I don't think those things can be totally
separated, you know, and I think we're seeing more and more. I mean, you know, Jake was telling me a little bit more and you you could speak more to this
about this Jake on Jesus and John Wayne, but like there is a there is a sort of
um you know, religious political like socopolitical marriage of those things.
Frankly, there is for us too. There is for Latter-day Saints, right? We we can't pretend that the council of 50
wasn't a thing. We can't pretend that we don't believe that the stone cut out of the mountain without hands will fill the
whole world. And of course, our our other fellow Christian friends would say the same thing, but they would think
something entirely different. And and who they decide is a prophet might
expressly be different. And and and you make the point that like we find ourselves on the right. I I I think that
for some issues we do. For some issues, as you have as you have made a a a very
strong case for, Greg, like on some issues they're fundamental issues, but on other issues we see Latter-day Saints
turning on the church on the basis of right-wing ideas that they inherited from the right-wing, not from the
church. You know, the church is very um uh let's say more left-leaning on issues
like like immigration. um all the people that turned on the on the church because um a doctor, you know, had the gall to
say that that he thought vaccines were inspired of God. Um and and uh and and
all of a sudden it's like, well, how could he say that? you know, when has the church ever had the right to talk about a health code? You know, and and
and I I think I think my point is that like early on even in our history, we
were stronger when we were a voting block that could go one way or the other. We were stronger when we knew
what we were. And sadly, honestly, that is what led to some of the violence against us because it's like these darn
Mormons need to be put in their place. They are too powerful if they can go one way or the other. And um I don't know. I
mean I think the problem is you know as you're bringing this up I I think the issue is more the the
you know a lot of people say and even the church says well we got to separate separate politics from from church. You know church and politics church and
state you know what whatever we're going to separate all these things. You can't do that. I I I don't believe that that
is a possibility. The most political book on earth is the Book of Mormon. I I think it it is full of politics. It is
full of identity. It it is full of conflict and and
uh um you know how are we going to hold this together? How do we hold this nation together? How do we fight against
our enemies? It is it is war. It is theology. It is politics.
It is uh defending our our wives, our children, our land, our liberty, our our
religion and our God. Right? It it's it's a very political book. And I think
that it has to be because even in today's you're we're finding more and more
that our own core beliefs and I think it's going to go further to the core are
political. You know, the family proclamation has become a very political document
because ultimately at at a fundamental level, those issues are political,
but not partisan. They're political, but not partisan. Well, they lean toward maybe one party, but
but or one ideology, but but but other things don't, right? Other things don't. Jake, you have
something something to say about this separation of church and state that I think often gets um set aside is like
what does that what does that mean? It's a legal term. It's establishmentarianism that the state has a state religion like
England has the church of church. Yeah. Exactly. And so if you are in
England, you must attend the Anglican church. That is the union of church and state. To separate church and state is
to say these are two separate bodies. Two of those by the way as of yesterday. We have a dem democratically elected
government. We have a church or other churches. It doesn't necessarily matter.
Over here they can influence each other in terms of values because that is impossible for someone to say I am going
to go into government and completely set aside my religious convictions. That doesn't make any sense. Mhm.
And I think when people, and I've heard this from people on the Christian right, say that, "Oh, Mormons are unable to
separate church and state. They want a democracy. They're bringing their Mormon principles into government. It's not
separating church and state." It's like, what are you talking about? That's not what that term means. So, anyways, I
just wanted to get that out there. Well, that's all anybody does. And if you're religious at all, you're going to bring that religion into your politics.
It's Well, and and that's I mean, religious is a term we we again abuse. It's like
moral, ethical, you know, belief. Do do we want do we want politicians who don't
believe anything who are willing to just be opportunists and and sort of play the part for whoever whoever uses them? I
don't think so. You know, moral convictions upset people and they they turn people. And I'm I'm sure that in in
our conversation about this, Jake and I are going to get push back or people, you know, suspicious of like what's the
agenda here? And like I can be really clear, the agenda is like we need to do
an evaluation on the basis of culture and identity and spirituality. Like you're 100% right, Greg, that like
everything is political and that the scriptures. In fact, Jake was teaching me about about some of this before our
um before our interview. you you have some really good quotes I think you should share Jake from from peculiar
people on this basis on the the political threat that the Latter-day Saints uh posed.
Yeah, I I do have a quote that's kind of interesting. So, this is um this is
Stephven Douglas uh the the Illinois senator I think is
what he was. He beat Abraham Lincoln for the senator position. So speaking in Illinois in 1857,
he Steven Douglas presented himself as having been duped by the Mormons. Who
could have known that the Mormons would be guilty of anything other than religious peculiarities?
Given the field reports, Steven continued, "It seemed that the inhabitants of Utah as a community are
outlaws and alien enemies unfit to exercise the right of self-government.
Congress should apply the knife and cut this loathome, disgusting ulcer. So
that's just one quote of many of how Latter-day Saints in their political
potential posed a very real threat to both sides of the American two-party
system. And this is in this admittedly is in part because we did try and play both sides very actively early on in our
history to see who would give us favors because we knew that people hated us
mobed. We were getting mobbed and our property destroyed and
stolen and our women were being raped and all this stuff. Pre- polygamy. This is this is in Ohio and this is Missouri
and this is in Illinois. So why not try and play both sides? Of course, that's unwise in some ways and it definitely
blew up in the proverbial hour faces, but it's uh this is a very old and
storied tradition to be very concerned about the political power of Latter-day Saints.
Do you think that uh
I know a lot of people that are very politically involved? um
I can't quite go to that level even though I often times support them in the
issues that they're focused on, right? It's like there are certain issues I may focus on those as well in terms of at
least speaking about them. Um, I just can't this I I can't invest that far for
myself usually, which is why on this show I don't talk
about party politics. I don't talk about candidates unless it's a different topic, right? There's no support there
for any of them. It's I I don't
how political. policy. I believe we have to be very political, but I think we have to be really careful
about uh
again I I think we have to be very political about our own identity.
Uh very careful about our political identity. Sure. In in terms of
what we represent, right? And and and by the way, I also say I I will say with a caveat, I don't
if I if I'm saying I'm part of the I'm the of the party of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I may not
agree right with what a a a the church leaders might even say on a political side. And I know
that they would say vote your conscience. Um or the way the church sometimes would
land on an issue right there. There I may not agree with it. I think that's okay. To me, that's okay. I'm going to
vote my conscience and I'm gonna vote. I certainly hope it's okay. The moral issue. What did you say, J?
Very bad for everybody in the church if that wasn't okay. Um because I don't,
you know, I have to do what I I have ultimately I have a responsibility over my my own person and my family above all
things, right? I I think that that's that's the way I look at it. and and I'm
going to vote my conscience on those things. What do you say to that?
Well, at least at least my thoughts are are that that's that's a Latter-day Saint value and and virtue. And like I
you know, part part of the reason I I don't love how much we've, you know, culturally drifted to just one side is I
don't think it is I don't think it's consistent with what our actual doctrinal values are, which are more a
mixed bag. Um I I think there is power and beauty and moderation and the idea
that you know of of of compromise and that that kind of in our in our more
holistic view of of of truth being circumscribed from all places into a
great hole like I I you know for me personally um that must account for
opposing views. uh Joseph Smith said that um by proving contraries is truth
made manifest you know and so that there there's there's dialogue and early Latter-day Saints that was some of the
ideas that like it that the millennium even would be full of rich diverse
views and opinions in including political um and and I don't think people should tear themselves up about
you know policies they may find on themselves on on one you
one side or the other, even in opposition to maybe what the church um standard is. Um I think this is, you
know, Jake and I talked about this. We didn't want to drift too far into politics just because it's on the basis
of theology and religion and identity, but those things are not, you know, they they they they can't be separated. And
so, um, that would be my thought is just like in as much as a political identity
and a sort of myopic, um, you know, coalition is concerned, um, I I think it
would just do us all some good to understand exactly where we fit, exactly
who we are, what what our values actually are on a doctrinal basis, then
decide whether we, you know, kind of come to a reckoning with those things. Um, and and you I I wish we had the
People's Party again, like the the the the Latter Day Saint party that's like, "Hey, this is kind of what we what we
think and believe." Um, at least in in terms of how our interests go. I mean, you've seen this, Greg. You've seen
strains of apostasy that are coming from both like ideological and motivate, like
politically motivated places. I'm going to, you know, make a little hot take here. The the polygamy denier movement
is completely politically motivated 1,000%. It hijacks an existential fear
that it doesn't understand because people don't know their history. They're obsessed with Nauvoo. They're obsessed
with Joseph Smith instead of knowing the entire breadth of plural marriage. and they they marry it with these
assumptions that happen to conveniently match some libertarian ideas, some kind
of uh conspiratorial ideas. And it's political and we wouldn't see this kind
of we wouldn't see this kind of um schisming if we had a better understanding of who we are, what our
past is, what our values are at least in institutionally and and then kind of coming to terms
with those things. So, I hope that's not too bold, but that's that's my feeling on it. And I'll It's very political, and you can see it
also in where it's moving to because it's it's it's very much uh anti-church
eventually. It just gets there. And I know there are a lot of people that believe that, but they don't believe in in in in the the the
movement, but are faithful members of the church. I get it. But you you're going to see more and more,
as we've seen recently, you've got a a marriage between uh the Doctrine of Christ people and and even Tim Ballard
now. and you know where where it's you've got this group coming together now and it's like this is not new. This
is the same stuff that happened with the schisms in the church when Brigham Young came along. It's the exact same thing,
the same arguments. Exactly the same thing. And if Tim Ballard is this hyper
rightwing, the deep state is everywhere. it's in the church and and and thereby
turns on the church when it doesn't like him doing the things that are immoral that he thinks he can do. This is why
these things matter because if he can appeal to your values, if you happen to
align on this sort of political identitarianism with him, then it is no
different from from some hyper secular,
extremely woke ex Mormon appealing to your values on something that it's like,
man, the church really is pretty dang problematic, isn't it? I I think it's it's it's toxic and it's patriarchal and
it's go and and all of a sudden you're creating this phantom church and who pays for it? The Latter-day Saints.
Every time the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pays for it. Well, it's the woke right. It's that's what they you call it now. It's it's the
woke right doing the exact same thing. It's it's anti- athoritarian. It is it does exactly the same kind of
patriarchal power. They just call it something different. That's right. It is. It's same issues going on. So, back to
Driscoll and what's going on often times in the evangelical world. Driscoll,
where do we stand with all of this? Is it ever going to end? What about bridge building? And you know the examples I
give of of the woman at the well, right? And and and working at with that
example. And I mean that worked, right? The woman
at the well, the example of the woman at the well, that that worked. It was actually he actually treated that as if
okay you're a Samaritan but yes she's looking for the Messiah. Yes.
Right. There there's there's enough there to you know there obviously missionary work
but it's not just missionary work. It it's it's a a commonality
that is worked with and and where so where do we stand with this? Is it ever
going to end? And what do we do about it? Yeah, it's it's a great question because
it's like has it ever ended between any of the great or small religious sects?
It's one of those things where religion is so deeply tied into identity and values. The things that we bring into
the world to say this is right or wrong, this is worth more, this is worth less. It's all mixed up. And to say that we
will all just take each other at face value
and love each other. Everybody will love each other and respect each other's
beliefs. I don't think that that can ever really happen just because of human nature and our desire, not even desire,
our impulse to form tribes and say what we are not. And so as long as the human
race is still doing that, we will see tension. However, that is not to say
that we cannot build just massive six lane highway bridges to
communicate and show service and love and admiration and even holy envy
between um the different Christian sects, between the different world religions, between cultures and
ethnicities and all of these things. I think that's what circumscribing all truth into one great hole is is it's not
just finding what is scientifically correct, finding what is doctrally correct within our church. Bingo, there
you go. I think it's taking the entirety of the human experience and bringing the gift of discernment to bear upon it and
seeing what aligns, seeing what doesn't, but what is still beautiful and taking
it into ourselves and taking it into ourselves as a church. That's unique to
Latter Day Saints. It is. Is it is very unique to Latter Day Saints. Let me say this. You've got Barrett, you've got
a This is again going to go to theology, right? You've got a a uh
you've got a worldview of the majority of Christians
where the thought is, okay, if if you don't accept Jesus the
way I think you should accept Jesus, you are damned to hell.
All right? So, so think about that worldview for a second. I think Latter Day Saints don't understand it. They don't get this. It's like, look,
what does that say? That if you don't accept Jesus the way I do it, the way I'm presenting it to you right now, and
you won't accept that, what do I now think of you?
Can I and I'll go this far and and please, I've got a lot of evangelical friends and and but I would ask them the
same question. What does that mean in terms of what you think of me
in my eternal value to God and to others? If I am doomed to
burn in hell because I don't accept Jesus the way you accept Jesus and to be with a
some red creature with horns and a and a spiked tail forever as a demon basically.
What value do I have? What what value am I really? Is that
going to be different than what you were just bringing up, Jake? in terms of a worldview that says all
truth is circumcised into one hole, one eternal round, right? It it's what is
the difference there? Does that theological divide
create a worldview that is going to show the manifestation of those two sides of
the coin? That's what the word Christian means to a lot of people, by the way, to heaven. Jake, you had a thought. Um, I thought I
apologize. I just don't want to forget it. But this is something that I I thought the other day. I think I mentioned this to you, Barrett, but it's
this really I think there is real tangible implications of these different
doctrines of salvation between most creed Christians and Latter-day Saints where for a Christian to be saved is to,
you know, profess Christ or to be baptized depending on if you still believe in in ordinances or not. And and
then like you ascend into heaven after you die. those who are on essentially
the wrong team go down to heaven or go down to hell. It's very it is ultimately very tribal and there is so much
beautiful stuff out there in all the different Christian sects of like what
is heaven going to be like and like are the boundaries permeable and there's all the sex of Jesus. when it comes down to
the rank and file of the I I think as I see it the the Protestant Christian
America um it is either you go to heaven or you go to hell and that comes down to being
on the right team and once you're there I don't know
you're God it's just like we'll see we'll see you're one of the cre you're one of the spirit creations of God you get to be in
his presence you get to bask forever and so you chose was right. You were on the right team. What do Latter- Day Saints
believe? We believe in something like eternal progression. We believe in degrees of glory that I don't know. Some
people, some even church leaders have said that there's progression between the the levels of glory after death. I
don't know whether or not that's true, but that's kind of beside the point. But regardless, it's it's a working heaven.
It is a progressing heaven. You're becoming more like God. You're becoming better all the time. you're involved in
the process of creation. This whole thing of like, oh, I get my own planet when I die. Like, that's such a goofy
misconr at least as far as I understand it, which is like you get to participate in
the generation of new life and new worlds forever, whatever that process looks like. Like, that is a very
different vision than just being in the imminent presence of God. And I think that is what we see here
with the like, oh, you're going to hell versus like, we'll see. That's the ultimate thing for Latter Day Saints is
like, we'll see what happens after life where you fall in because everybody gets a shot and we're all progressing upwards
so long as we continue to choose to do so. Barrett, does that does that play into
politics? Today's politics, one million% it does. I mean, Latter-day
Saints are are become, in my view, more generous, more humble, more moderate,
more open-minded while maintaining the boundaries of the covenant when they
better understand their theology. I don't want to misrepresent evangelicals
or or Protestants or Catholics. And there are variations and degrees of these of the kind of the binary of
heaven and hell. a lot of them and and and and some people some people interpret that uh that sort of binary of
heaven and hell with a sense of urgency and Christian compassion that I it's like I have to do this ministry and like
I'm saving you from the from the the octopus of Mormonism as they used to
kind of portray it. It's like you you know you poor you know you poor like Christian thing that that got corrupted
by you know by Joseph Smith and and so I don't you know, and and I I I don't want
to be as and nor do I think your portrayal of it was, Jake, but just I want to be clear for any, you know, any
of our Christian friends who might listen to this this interview is like I don't want to mispret or be reductive
the same way that we don't like that to happen. I I know that some people believe that that's sort of what's handed to them that it's like well this
is the this is the you know kind of the demands of a just God and in in his mercy he sent Jesus Christ and there's
the only the one way and and the the theology is not robust enough or or full
enough to account for the you know the the the infidel to account for the
person who's never heard of Jesus Christ. Where I think it does get political is because we essentially have
a universalist theology. You know, we we really focus on the celestial kingdom and an exaltation, but like to some
extent everyone's going to heaven. They're going to a heaven. They may suffer for their own sins. They may miss
out on the the progression or the glory, but Joseph Smith talked about the celestial kingdom and who would go there
and what it would mean. Um, it I think it makes it easier to understand that
we're all of God's children and that he has a plan of salvation for all of us.
That that basically solves the paradox of both the one way, you know, the the
the exact way and the the circumscription of truth and and
accounting for all truth. Um, and and I think that when you believe that someone is hellbound, and when you especially
believe that they're hellbound on the basis of those rotten things they think that you don't like, it is much much
easier to dismiss them as a person and to essentially guard, you know, kind of
gatekeep of who's in and who's out because because that's a that's a a black and white now.
And that applies to dialogue between the the faiths. Yes. Now, I I want to be really clear on
something, Greg. Um, answering your earlier thought, I've I've spoken really like with a lot
of passion about this. I don't want to give the impression that we ought to just, you know, stop talking to to, you
know, other sects of of Christianity or I I have a chart. It's from a a website
called usefulcharts.com. That's a whole chart of of the um of
sort of the progression of Christianity at all the different sects and breakoffs. And they're so interesting
and they're beautiful and we have a lot to learn from them. I think Latter-day Saints um would do better to learn more
about what other Christians actually believe and what the difference is between a Presbyterian and a Methodist
and an evangelical and a non-denominational and a Catholic and an Orthodox and the you know the the first
among equals versus the bishop of Rome. Like if if you can't speak with some
education to what another Christian is or believes or what their own disputes
are about the sacraments or whether baptism is is is really needed for salvation, then then we have work to do
on our side and we can understand better why they why they think what they do about us. Um, you've done a lot of great
interfaith work, Greg, and I've I've I've studied a lot of interfaith work, um, especially here in East Tennessee,
and kind of looked into what's effective. And one of the things that, um, experts in really productive
interfaith work suggest is that the natural tendency is to is to want to
just really hyperfixate on the commonalities. It's like, oh, hey, you know, did you know um Eastern Orthodox
uh they they believe that in a sort of apotheiois that, you know, man will will
be like God. And did you know that Eastern Eastern Orthodox focus on the resurrection instead of the the crucifixion and that there's all these
commonalities? The commonalities are really important, but to have a healthy
like a relationship of mutual respect, you also have to focus on the differences and the boundaries. I think
that's some of what I think you've done a really nice job of with Hello Saints and Pastor Jeff. Like there is a great
relationship there because you relate to each other because you understand each other and like hey we're on different
kind of planes here of what we think but but here's what's alike and here's
what's different. I don't know. I I think that Latter-day Saints could lead
the world in interfaith work because of our unique beliefs about about truth being in
everything. And and here's the here's the kicker. I don't think that we need to be more invested in interfaith
relationships with other Christians than we do with other religions generally who also believe in God. I mean, here's a
rhetorical question for both you and the audience is like, is it more important to align with another Christian than it
is with with a Muslim or someone who's Jewish or somebody who's a follower of Krishna or somebody who uh you know
believes in any any number of a Buddhist or or you know any number of beliefs? I
don't think so. I think they're all expressions of the same thing and that that one of our unique beliefs is that
we have the fullness of the everlasting gospel and that all of these children have received a portion of God's light.
Ergo, it's just as important to to minister to and do interfaith work with
a non-Christian as it is with our our Christian brothers and sisters. Yeah. Well, there's no difference in
value. That's that's one of the main theological points. we don't see a difference in you know number one identity you're a child of God
right right and so that that really does make a difference now and on the point of
uh communication and the theology and the worldview the the point of salvation
there's two points I would make one one is we do have a way I mean Jesus is the truth the light and the way right there
there's a specific way the difference is we apply that to
exaltation right? That that is exaltation. And and and you know, we could kind of
look at that like maybe the way they apply it to the general idea of heaven. The problem with that theology
that that we see with with most of Christianity is is that if that divide
then is well, you haven't followed all of the things you're supposed to do or you haven't accepted Jesus the way
you're supposed to accept him, again, you're doomed. And and there's so many
implications to that in terms of the value of the person in terms of the love
of God. Right. Right. It that that changes the nature of everything. It changes the nature of
existence. It changes the nature of future. It changes the nature of God. It
it changes a world view. Um there's so many changes that that would go along
with that. Is that also I would say for example a Driscoll. I'll bring him up
again. That world view, that theology, a basis
for the rhetoric that that is often what we receive.
I think that it's I think that it certainly appears to be united at least in the sense of such extreme tribalism.
I mean, I know this has probably happened to you, Barrett, probably you too, Greg, but certainly to me and and
even a like young mom in my ward who bore testimony where some
frustrating encounter happens with a often evangelicals or other Protestant or
Catholic Christian where they feel the need like just in the park or sitting at dinner to to remind you that you're
going to hell. It's like why does this keep happening? Why is this such an
integral part of so many people's expression of their faith is to remind
them, oh well, you're going to hell. Because in their sotiology,
their doctrine of salvation, that matters so much that you are professing
Christ in the right way or that you are in the right sect or that you're just in the greater Christian umbrella at large
that I really don't think that it comes from a place of hatred. I think that
oftenimes it does come from a place of care and concern. But the outward expression aside from being abrasive
lends itself towards dehumanization I think and that is a very big problem and
I think that it's something we have to keep our eyes out for as Latter-day Saints. Well and and it's not that we don't
believe that Christ is the only way. You know we do but but we also believe that
Christ and the father have prepared a way and that includes that includes posthumous ordinances. you know that
that our our our theology of judgment seems to be I mean the Book of Mormon talks about the final judgment and there
are kind of judgments along the way but that the Lord's going to do everything he can to give you every opportunity to
repent even if you've had opportunities. It's like, well, there's the millennium to account for and there's the spirit
world and that that's another paradox, right? It's like that's not to say to procrastinate the day of your
repentance. I don't want to sound like, you know, every faith expression willy-nilly is just going to, you know,
cut the mustard in terms of in terms of Jesus Christ being the way, the truth, and the light. However, it is Jesus
himself that that kind of well, one teaches some of this in the New
Testament, but even more so accounts for through Latter-day Saint theology that he'll he'll hunt you down and save you.
You know, he wants you there with him. And he does not judge people according to their knowledge and understanding.
He's not going to judge them um you know, harshly if if if they believe they were doing the right thing according to
the tradition that was handed to them. And that probably has some light and truth. Well, certainly has light and
truth and may even have some some little nuances that we're missing. Like we have the fullness of the ordinances in the
gospel, but Jake mentioned a term earlier, holy envy. Um, and uh I learned
that term from Alonzo Gasill at uh at BYU. Um it it is the it is the in fact I
have the book over there somewhere if I uh sitting on my shelf about uh there
there's a BYU class that's world religions and our approach is to like what do they have that we can claim that
we can that we can admire because that's part of what Mormonism is. It's a claim on all truth. It's like where it where
it lands it belongs with us. I don't know that we culturally live that way. I don't think that's how we express the
restored gospel but that is what the doctrine is. And so, so, you know,
whereas Jake's experience or this this girl in his ward might, and all of us have had it, somebody sitting there
well-meaning, it's eating at them, right? It's like, I got to tell them, you know, as I'm watching my food cook, I'm like, they're they're going to cook
in hell. Um, uh, a Latter-day Saint might ask questions and learn upon learn
about what someone else believes. And as Joseph Smith to President Hinckley said, um, take the truth you have and let us
add to it. You know that that informs every part of politics. That informs every part of how you see children of
God. I think it's why the church is not as harsh on immigration. I think it's why the church is not as harsh on
refugees because we were there. That's been us. And they're children of God. And policies are policies and yes,
they're important. But the vitriol that suddenly accompanies these these these
issues um has to come in some part from theology.
Yeah. All right. All right. Well, let's finish on this. We've talked a little bit about the DNA
of of America, of of religion in America, of of the othering of where
Latter-day Saints have have been in the past. Is that going to change at all in the
future? And how should we see ourselves moving forward? And why is it important
to see ourselves in a certain light moving forward?
I think my answer to that is is relatively simple which is let's let's change it let's make it happen each of
us in our individual lives and bring more compassion to the interactions that
we have with people be disciple of c be disciples of Christ and also be willing
to accept that we are different and that that's not only okay but it's good and that we don't need to we don't need to
press our foreheads to the ground for anybody. Um I mean I think that's a beautiful
answer and I think I think that um again like all things you know the right hand
and the left hand and it's the it's the straight and narrow way. We turn neither one way or the other um in our personal
disciplehip that like we need firm masculine boundaries and we also need
the open you know the kind of feminine openness to to understand and be patient
be tolerant and not I think I think first and foremost we should not get whipped into the frenzy of the of the
vitriol of hating other groups including including other Christians
um that we should continue to be friends with them but I think we would benefit from some some boundary setting a little
bit and from some clarity and learning about them and learning about ourselves. Um Jake Jake mentioned uh a scripture
earlier that I I really found a lot of inspiration from um when I was preparing
for this and and and uh and I'd like to share and you gave some really welcome push back on it Greg
and I think it's wise to consider that push back. Um, so I I propose this with the suggestion that we interrogate it.
But um but but this is this is what uh if I'm if I might just mean re read um
read these notes I wrote that perhaps we should consider as President Nelson kind of differentiated um that we should be
disciples of Christ over Christians. Right? Christ did not give us that term in taking his name upon us. In fact, he
said, ' Not everyone that saith unto me,Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the
will of my father which is in heaven. Or many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy
name, and in thy name have cast out devils, and in thy name done many wonderful works, and then I will profess
unto them, I never knew you. Depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Or in the Joseph Smith's translation, ye never
knew me. And uh or you never knew me. So um then he goes on to say, "By this
shall men know that ye are my disciples, that you love one another versus just
calling yourself Christians." Um the disciples were called Christians by others, not by Christ. Not that that
matters, but um just just as they were called Mormons by others, not by Christ.
Right? The Book of Mormon states that the followers of Christ were called Christians by those who did not belong
to the church. And as a community, as members of the church, we are Latter-day Saints. But as individuals who follow
our savior, we are disciples of Jesus Christ. So, we're the Latter-day Saints as a group. We're disciples of Christ in
our heart. And as as Jake said, I would just like to read it because I think it's such a powerful uh testimony. And I
think it's really poetic that it's his name that we were kind of maybe overusing. Um he says uh uh you know in
the Book of Mormon, Mormon says, "And behold, I am called Mormon, being called after the land of Mormon, the land in
which Alma did establish the church among the people. Yay, the first church which was established among them after
their transgression. Behold, I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, the son of God. I have been called of him to
declare his word among his people that they may have everlasting life."
um makes me emotional to read it. Um we are disciples of Jesus Christ. He's our Lord and Savior. And uh how how
important and how beautiful that he was misunderstood and rejected by his own by
the church group that was supposed to welcome him. And so as we take more more
glory in Christ, ironically, I think we can understand that the church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints does not need to be part of the whole of the rest
of Christendom because it already has it. And and we can lead the way in making friends and brotherhood of these
of of of our Christian neighbors by understanding that we are something entirely distinct. Um and and that
that's okay. So, sorry to get a little uh No, that's good stuff. Any final words, Jake?
No. Amen. Thank you for having us on and yeah,
this is this has been really great. Well, this is an important topic. It's a great topic. It's very apppropo here in
in in our time and with the latest events that have happened recently. And so, anyway, we're Barrett Bergen and
Jake Taylor. Thank you so much. We'll get you back on soon. Okay. Thank you for having us.
