Schisms in the Church

[Ironhold]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I didn't know Drag Queen story hour was so prevalent.

This occurred in Pocatello, Idaho?

I was unaware of this.  That's a rather large LDS stronghold (high in Church membership) so, unexpected to me that it would occur there.  I had heard of this happening on one area, but was unaware that this was happening all over the nation (Drag Queen story hour).

When did this start becoming a thing?

Pocatello is a growing city, and as cities grow that means people from wider backgrounds come to live in those cities. In the case of cities where the church has historically had a strong membership, this means secularization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPKY

For example, one of the media outlets in Pocatello is KPKY-FM, currently owned by Rich Broadcasting and Townsquare media. 

KPKY airs a "classic rock" format, focusing on rock and metal from the 1960s to the early 1990s. This means they have Townsquare's "Ultimate Classic Rock with Uncle Joe Benson" on Monday - Friday from 7 PM to Midnight local time, with Saturdays being a double feature of "Sammy Hagar's Top Rock Countdown" and "The House of Hair with Dee Snider" during the same time slot and Sundays being a rebroadcast of the latter two shows. These shows are, generally speaking, only interrupted for Utah Jazz games and the like. 

In fact, this is *how* I know of Pocatello, as I listen to all three of the aforementioned radio shows and found KPKY's live stream when they initially ceased being available in my area (KLFX-FM dropped HoH in favor of Monsters of Rock Radio, while Townsquare flipped KLTD-FM from classic rock to Spanish hits. KIXT-FM has the HoH again, but they're infamous for their technical issues). 

There are those in the church who would freak if they found out I listened to shows like this. 

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

There are those in the church who would freak if they found out I listened to shows like this. 

Why? 

[Ironhold]

1 minute ago, LDSGator said:

Why? 

Simply put, they're against the stereotypical idea of what a "proper" member of the church should be doing. 

A lot of members have a very rigid, almost fundamentalist idea of how we as members should be living our lives, and there's no room for even the slightest degree of variance. 

And if you'll recall, rock & roll has been regarded as "devil music" practically since it first became popular in the 1950s. 

[LDSGator]

Just now, Ironhold said:

Simply put, they're against the stereotypical idea of what a "proper" member of the church should be doing. 

A lot of members have a very rigid, almost fundamentalist idea of how we as members should be living our lives, and there's no room for even the slightest degree of variance. 

And if you'll recall, rock & roll has been regarded as "devil music" practically since it first became popular in the 1950s. 

Not really. When I was in the church a grand total of zero people cared about my long hair, tattoos and piercings. Much less my personal interests. Oh sure, you’ll always find fussy people but if you are looking to be transgressive and counter culture by listening to “rock and roll devil music” (and I never heard it called that. Not really into music) you’ll have to do much much better. This isn’t 1986.

[LDSGator]

Just to be clear, I’m not saying you are totally wrong @Ironhold. If you are looking for fussy church ladies/men who disapprove of everything you’ll find them at the ward. You'll also find them in a church, synagogue, mosque, and home on Sunday mornings doing nothing. 

[Ironhold]

10 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Not really. When I was in the church a grand total of zero people cared about my long hair, tattoos and piercings. Much less my personal interests. Oh sure, you’ll always find fussy people but if you are looking to be transgressive and counter culture by listening to “rock and roll devil music” (and I never heard it called that. Not really into music) you’ll have to do much much better. This isn’t 1986.

If you'll recall, a year or so back people *on this forum* dogged me because as an entertainment writer I occasionally watched R-rated movies for review. 

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, Ironhold said:

If you'll recall, a year or so back people *on this forum* dogged me because as an entertainment writer I occasionally watched R-rated movies for review. 

Nope, don’t recall it. Sorry.
 

 Like I said, you’ll find people like that but the majority (yes, even in Mormonism) will not care or be terribly interested in your hobbies. And if they are, who cares? They can’t stop you. 

[LDSGator]

In fact, one of my biggest surprises when I joined the church are how chill most LDS are. One of us was stuck in his 1986 mind frame, and it was 100% me. 

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

You can watch Pastor Tom Ellis on the Angle Lake Neighborhood Church YouTube channel, and see for yourself.  I like his Sunday School lessons better than his sermons (though I admit to not watching as many of the sermons) - sorry PC.  He's mentioned us once or twice in a negative light - after all, we don't fit with his beliefs.  But I can't remember if he's answered this specific question.

I have a mix of experiences from various individuals in other faiths.

I asked a Catholic about it.  He said that they basically don't even think about anyone in other faiths.  Not a priest, just a layperson.  But that's what he said.

I grew up with a WHOLE BUNCH of evangelicals.  Even those who considered me a friend, if pressed on it (they were reluctant to actually tell me) said that they thought I was damned.  One of them did NOTHING to try to win me over.  All he ever did was insult, ridicule, and name-call, etc.  I considered him a friend in elementary school.  But by the time we were in high school, he was all about calling out Mormons as the greatest threat to Christianity.

Wow, I didn't know we were that powerful.  But, ya know, the FBI, CIA... (us and Texas A&M.)

Other priests I've had occasion to speak with all had about the same responses.  They didn't want to respond to the question directly but were very polite about the topic.

[The Folk Prophet]

50 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

If you'll recall, a year or so back people *on this forum* dogged me because as an entertainment writer I occasionally watched R-rated movies for review. 

I don't think anyone really cares about the R-rating so much as the WHY the movies are rated R. Moreover...I think that interpreting discussion points as being "dogged" is a bit of a mischaracterization.

But suggesting that people who don't think watching shows with nudity, extreme violence or gore, and tons of f-bombs is a good idea, that must mean they would therefore have a problem with "rock music" doesn't equate.

FWIW, I love Metallica. One of my favorites. But I will not listen to Am I Evil or Last Caress.

There is, certainly, a bit of "just for good measure" when it comes to members not watching R-rated shows. For example.... The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is rated R. But good golly....why?!? It's SO mellow compared to even most PG-13 movies nowadays. I think there's a strong case to be made that disregarding that rating is fine.

That being said...I certainly wouldn't think badly of someone who determined to not watch it "just for good measure", so to speak, because of the rating. But I'm pretty positive there aren't many who would doggedly demand that another not watch it because of the rating either.

If someone is watching Babylon or The Wolf of Wall Street or the like then that's another matter. Rate them R...NC-17, PG-13, or G and I'd still say they shouldn't be viewed. It's the content. But to suggest that my view on those equals "how dare you listen to that devil music?!?" is just silly.

I will say, however, that my views on the "no R-rating" thing has changed somewhat in recent times.

[zil2]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Other priests I've had occasion to speak with all had about the same responses.  They didn't want to respond to the question directly but were very polite about the topic.

Well, it's putting someone in a difficult position to even ask the question: "So, do ya think I'm goin' to heck cuz I'm a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"  I mean, it's kinda rude just to ask...   Of course, I suppose if you phrased it right, it wouldn't be rude: "I just want to know what you believe and I promise not to be offended by your response."

[Carborendum]

19 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Well, it's putting someone in a difficult position to even ask the question: "So, do ya think I'm goin' to heck cuz I'm a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"  I mean, it's kinda rude just to ask...   Of course, I suppose if you phrased it right, it wouldn't be rude: "I just want to know what you believe and I promise not to be offended by your response."

One of them was the "rude" way because I was young and hadn't really ironed out my social graces.

The other two were done as politely as possible.

[zil2]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

One of them was the "rude" way because I was young and hadn't really ironed out my social graces.

The other two were done as politely as possible.

I believe you, and didn't mean to condemn (saying that just in case).  This scenario makes me smile because if I put myself in @prisonchaplain's shoes, @The Folk Prophet has just put him in a difficult position.  But if PC could be in TFP's head, I'd bet he'd find what he'd find in mine - something like, "Your answer, whatever it is, won't bother me in the slightest.  I just want to know what the answer is."

[Carborendum]

6 minutes ago, zil2 said:

"Your answer, whatever it is, won't bother me in the slightest.  I just want to know what the answer is."

Regardless, we already know what the answer is and why it is unpleasant to both say and hear.

[The Folk Prophet]

21 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Well, it's putting someone in a difficult position to even ask the question: "So, do ya think I'm goin' to heck cuz I'm a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"  I mean, it's kinda rude just to ask...   Of course, I suppose if you phrased it right, it wouldn't be rude: "I just want to know what you believe and I promise not to be offended by your response."

 

Just now, Carborendum said:

One of them was the "rude" way because I was young and hadn't really ironed out my social graces.

The other two were done as politely as possible.

It's really context based, which was the point I was trying to make with @Just_A_Guy. We believe there's Christ's church and the church of the Devil. Which means that from a certain point of view we believe all faiths that are not part of what we believe to be Christ's legitimate church are part of the the church of the Devil. But we can understand that there are degrees. It's not like understanding that means we believe you're either a baptized member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or you're a Satan worshipper.

I expect that's true of most reasonable Christians too. It's a context thing. From their perspective, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is part of their idea of the church of the Devil in the same way we believe theirs is. And their goal, accordingly, just as ours, would be to lead as many as possible to believe in their "correct" faith tradition instead of the corrupted faith tradition.

I'll grant there's more of a narrative in our church now-a-days to see the good in other faiths, which narrative doesn't exist in other Christian denominations. But I still think that narrative is in context to the battle being fought. Sure...if we're talking about conversion the "Christian" goal is to eradicate "Mormonism". They don't want us preaching or teaching, leading souls away from their ideas of God and truth. But when it comes to fighting for child protection or the like, I don't think that's an argument against us joining together in a cause.

Moreover, I don't think most reasonable people, no matter what faith, would be like, "We must defeat pornography, the trans epidemic, the homosexual agenda, and.......the Mormons. Because all are equivalent!" Don't get me wrong. I have no delusions that there aren't some "Christian" preachers and denominations who do just that. I just don't think it's as common or pervasive as suggested, or that it means we're acting the hypocrite by joining together with other Christians to fight against these things because they see us in a negative light.

I expect they see it in a hierarchy or priority.

Just_A_Guy's argument that the sit-in is the wrong method is fine. But applying the "they'd do the same to us if they could" idea doesn't connect. Because surely, were the method correct per his thinking, JaG would agree that joining forces with other like minded individuals who also happen to belong to other church's, some hostile to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to legally, politically, and culturally curb these damaging things is a good idea. And that refusing to join with them because they would legally, politically, and culturally remove all Mormonism from the world isn't related to whether we should join hands in noble and good causes in the proper time, place, and way.

[The Folk Prophet]

31 minutes ago, zil2 said:

This scenario makes me smile because if I put myself in @prisonchaplain's shoes, @The Folk Prophet has just put him in a difficult position.

Haha. Well... a few things. 1. You're probably right, and probably less than ideal of me. But: 2. I've been around and seen enough of PC's posts and thoughts to think I know that, yes, while he would, ideally, see us all converted away from our faith traditions to his, that doesn't mean he would wish to do so by staging a sit-in in our chapels so we cannot attend, nor does he even come anywhere CLOSE to believing the idea that our church and faith traditions are equivalent in wrongness to a drag queen reading time session. 3. I must admit that bringing PC into the matter was a tactic. For which, if I have made him uncomfortable, I apologize. But the tactic was just that...does @Just_A_Guy really think people like PC believe "Mormonism" is in any way equivalent to transvestites on display for kids? But the weakness of the tactic (which JaG may well point out because...you know...he's JaG....) is that PC is clearly not representative of all "Christian" ministers or the like out there, in that he's part of this forum and they are not. That and his behavior and input is civil, respectful, and fair. The fact that PC is like that is possibly (probably) an anomaly. Particularly when we see a lot of other so-called "Christian" folk come in and behave rather badly regarding our doctrine.

31 minutes ago, zil2 said:

But if PC could be in TFP's head, I'd bet he'd find what he'd find in mine - something like, "Your answer, whatever it is, won't bother me in the slightest.  I just want to know what the answer is."

No. If @prisonchaplain considered my being a Latter-day Saint just as problematic and evil as were I a groomer transvestite it would bother me.

Edited February 24, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

But by the time we were in high school, he was all about calling out Mormons as the greatest threat to Christianity.

I wonder if he's still see it that way with the astounding drop in religious affiliation that's occurred since.

I was going to suggest that he'd maybe view the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ stuff as more threatening...but then I realized that most of Christianity seems to have embraced that stuff and doesn't view it as a threat at all.

[Just_A_Guy]

7 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You made the point that "the Church" loses spectacularly and catastrophically when things become physical. I was pointing out that this isn't "the Church" vs. the mob. It's half the country vs. half the country. Really it's more than that if people would get involved. I'm not using it as justification for violence. I'm simply saying that your argument that "the Church" loses when things turn physical isn't a correct paradigm. I'm saying the premise of your argument in this point is flawed.

But it is violence, @The Folk Prophet; or pretty darned near.  We aren't talking about rational debate, discussion, elections, and the traditional civic process.  We're talking about physically breaking up someone else's meeting, which has historically been a precursor for mob violence.  Whether the rationale is "well, if it does turn violent, we can definitely take these losers!" or simply "the [silent] majority of the country actually agrees with us"--that doesn't make it right, or effective in the long term.  

Quote

I think the premise here is flawed too, in that I think the fight IS being carried out via the political, legal, cultural, intellectual, and spiritual arenas...and it's not being effective in many cases, and these sorts of actions are, in part, a response to that reality.

OK, your verbiage about a "lost cause situation" threw me for a loop there.  Apologies for any misinterpretation. 

Quote

I also think your implication that there was "intimidation" involved here is wrong. I mean I can't speak for everyone involved. But as I read it, these weren't big, burly folk carrying baseball bats and chains.

I surmise we'd feel rather differently if it had been one of our own church meetings that was broken up.

Quote

That being said... and I'm not sure this is directly related, the intimidation idea just made me think of it...l My father-in-law was a member of a group called BACA for several decades. For anyone unfamiliar, that's Bikers Against Child Abuse. One of the things they engaged in was escorting in certain situations where there was need. They did this escorting exactly for the purpose of intimidation in order to ensure peace and security. The children and adults involved could more confidently travel to the appropriate courts and what-have-you knowing a bunch of burly bikers had their backs. That was the idea at least. I'm curious if you have a view on BACA. I expect you're familiar with them. Like I said...not exactly related (except in a very conceptual way, I suppose).

[Tangent] I've never encountered BACA.  Some of my colleagues did, ten or twenty years ago.  Their impressions were:

1)  BACA tended to go off half-cocked without knowing all the facts; and in a significant minority of cases were unwitting deployed as pawns in some sort of child custody spitting match;

2)  BACA often showed up at hearings where the child wasn't even present;

3)  Courthouses (at least, in our neck of the woods) have long had procedures to prevent direct contact between victims and accusers in courthouse hallways or what-have-you; and

4)  At least on courthouse premises, never was there ever a genuine security threat that court security personnel were unable to handle without BACA assistance.  

BACA's hearts, I think, are in the right places.  And maybe it serves some sort of therapeutic purpose for the child just knowing that their abuser is now as terrified as the child used to be.  But I'm not convinced that there's not a little element of BACA that just enjoys bullying people who society has agreed ought to be bullied.

Quote

On a side side note: My father in law only looked like a biker in that he had a big beard and wore black leather when he rode. Otherwise, he used the beard for a different purpose. This painting is of my father-in-law:

Awesome. 

 

Quote

Anyhow...back to the "disruptive" idea... I'm just not convinced that such a thing is wrong. The "how" you disrupt matters. One (with enough money) could disrupt, for example, by purchasing a major social network company to allow more free speech. Or one could lie down in the freeway to block traffic. One could run a campaign to boycott something. Or one could burn down buildings. All these things are "disruptive" and not specifically the political. legal, cultural, or what-have-you arena. Some of them are good ideas. Some of them are terrible evil ideas. Though one could make the argument that all of them could be good ideas in the right time and place.

Sure; and I think the issue of "well, how would we look at it if it were being done to us rather than by us", is an appropriate part of feeling out the contours as to what is a good idea versus a neutral idea versus a terrible idea.  My old debate coach used to say "never run an argument you can't beat, because in the next tournament you may be assigned to argue the opposite side and someone will remember your 'bulletproof' argument from the last tournament and use it against you." 

If we have a perpetually-sustainable physical means to prevent our meetings from being hijacked by the same sorts of antics that these guys deployed against the drag queens--well, knock yourself out, I guess.  But if we don't, then you'd better get ready to make a persuasive argument to the civic authorities about why we should be afforded a civic right (in this case, to meet unmolested in our own spaces) that we weren't willing to afford to others.  And, "they're perverts and we aren't!" is not a persuasive argument to civic authorities.  

Quote

This particular instance at the library strikes me as falling somewhere in between a good idea and a not-so-great idea. I'm not making the argument that it IS the way, and it definitely SHOULD have happened, and we should ALL be doing likewise. I don't know on that matter. I am, however, judging it a lot less harshly than you. In fact I'm judging it as a net positive thing. I do not see it as the end all perfect response however.

That's fair.  I guess what I'm seeing, is a paradigm of reciprocity in civil discourse that is rapidly fading away; and antics like this speed that process.  

It's easy to dismiss a certain class of conservative as being too process-oriented to accomplish much; and much of the 2016 Republican primary revolved around that issue.  But I continue to maintain that we're going to sorely miss those procedural safeguards when they're gone. 

There seems to be a broad belief among many conservatives (and frankly, liberals as well) that we can tweak each other as much as we please but that our fundamental civic order will endure regardless of our own actions. 

By contrast, I find our civic order to be a terrifyingly fragile thing; and for all their talk of SHTF scenarios--I don't think conservatives understand just how horrific things are likely to get when the status quo disappears.  (I mean yeah, eventually Christ comes and everything's great.  But before then there's short-term riots and looting and rape gangs; intermediate possible armed intervention by foreign troops breeding more looting and rape gangs as well as re-distribution of children and forced re-education and relocation; and the longer term, probably some form of slavery or other perpetual human trafficking slavery.  It's been the default human condition for almost all of recorded history.)

Quote

I don't think that's the point. As you correctly pointed out, the kids of the parents who would take their kids to such an event are probably pretty doomed whether there are drag shows at the library or not. My point is that having drag shows in the community, just like having strip clubs or bars, actually affects the community. The idea here is to curb these things. I don't think the objective is a one time preservation of 2 or 3 or 10 children. It's to remove the offending event from the community. It's one battle in a war. It may not be the most effective tactic...though in this case there was was positive result in that the article stated the Library is reconsidering holding such events moving forward. The idea is that if the people putting on drag shows for children don't get the children or the people who want to see said show, but instead a bunch of sour-faced conservatives sitting there with crossed arms and not really watching...and again and again this is the case...how long before they give up? It's a long game related to community standards. It's not a single case of saving a single kid from witnessing a single thing. And it's about building momentum against the ideology. It's getting people talking. It's helping to put people in the know. It's generating news articles. It's making people aware. It's causing debate.

The assumptions here are that a) they will give up at some point; b) there's momentum to be built through this tactic that can't effectively be built through other means; c) we aren't actually undercutting our own momentum by letting dozens of kids see us engaging in behavior that we would typically associate with bullying; and d) the news coverage we get is, if not overtly favorable, at least balanced.  I see little reason to accept any of those four assumptions.    

Quote

Maybe I missed it when you suggested such a thing, and you assumed I tacitly agreed then. But that isn't the case. I would assume the proper "how" has been, and is being tried, but it is failing. Per my best understanding, the proper "how" is getting shut down again and again across the country. Those in power, by and large, seem to have bought into the trans narrative. It's a protected class and the only way to help people is to uphold, support, and defend all things trans related. This seems to be true in most all centers of power -- government, social and traditional media, business, etc. Maybe that's cynical of me. But that's how it seems to me.

 

My take is largely the same as yours here; though I think Pocatello is probably a pretty favorable playing field for getting the local authorities to act to end this kind of nonsense.  

And if it is true that we have lost all hope of prevailing through the democratic process, then the simple fact is that if we want to get what we want, it has to be through bloodshed (or emigration, I suppose).  Which I think should make us think long and hard about what it is, exactly, that we want.  

1.  Are we really willing to see the remnants of our democratic republic fall apart so that we can dictate to LBGTQ-friendly parents, how they ought to raise their kids?  

2.  Or is the specter of someone else corrupting their own youth something we're willing to live with, so long as we can effectively raise our own children in accordance with the dictates of our own consciences?  

Quite bluntly--if I'm going to get involved in extralegal activities/government confrontation such that I will lose my job, my savings, and my employability; possibly my liberty; possibly my home; possibly the safety/freedom/innocence of the people I love the most; and, after all that, end my days holed up in a compound taking pot shots at ATF guys in armored vehicles--I'm willing to do that for scenario 2, I suppose; but absolutely not for scenario 1.

Quote

I wonder, @prisonchaplain, do you feel that way about us all here?

This sounds like the same sort of argument I've heard made of we Latter-day Saints. "You do realize that Mormons consider everyone but them to be damned, and all our children are in grave eternal danger for not being Mormons!"

Yes. Some people are like that. I don't think it's as universal as you imply. Moreover, technically, we Latter-day Saints kind of do believe that...and "Christians" kind of do believe that. But you're stating it in a hyperbolic that fails as an ultimate premise. Because even if all non-LDS Christians thought that, It'd be like suggesting we shouldn't fight alongside Democrats to defeat Hitler because "you do realize that Democrats are socialists who believe......"

And "the Church" has very clearly set an example of working with other faiths for good causes. So I think that idea has proper precedent.

Boy, based on some of the replies we seem to have opened the Pandora's box here!  

Let me talk about the broad concept first, and then I can engage in psychoanalysis of our friend @prisonchaplain for a bit. 

The broad concept, again, is that you don't give people tools that are likely to be used against you (or, by engaging in particular behaviors, normalize them such that--again--they get used against you).

Now, as to @prisonchaplain and our Christian (especially:  Protestant) cousins generally:  

My understanding (and I welcome correction) is that our LDS willingness to "grade" sins is something of an idiosyncrasy, at least in Protestant circles.  For many Protestants, sin is sin.  Sin separates us from God, period.  Whoever transgresses one provision of the law transgresses the whole thing, et cetera, et cetera.  Fundamentally you're either saved with Jesus, or you're not.  And, we're the "nots". 

Now, our American tradition of peaceful coexistence means that we don't say this out loud very often; and when we feel compelled to do so for the sake of accuracy in discourse, many (not all) of us couch it in as gentle terms as we can.  In our particular culture, starting fights of this nature is just incompetent communication and bad evangelism.  Additionally, some (maybe many) Christians genuinely mourn to have to say such a thing.  (Others I've met shrug it off, saying that if an impassive God doesn't mind damning people, they as humans won't get too worked up about seeing others damned either).  Whatever their personal emotions may be about our damnability as Mormons, I am fairly confident in asserting that it is what the vast majority of them believe. 

And frankly, given that that's what they sincerely believe-- @prisonchaplain is too much of a gentleman to say it very boldly; but I do want him to want to interrupt my (as he sees them) indoctrination of damnable heresies on impressionable young minds; and to pull my kids away from my home--either permanently or, at least, for several hours of each school day--so that they can be reared (or at least, re-educated) by good, saved, orthodox Christians.  That desire tells me that @prisonchaplain respects my children's humanity, loves them, and wants the best for them (as he sees it); so I don't hold that against him.  To the contrary--I honor him for it.  

But, as a parent who holds his own religious beliefs to be correct and Prisonchaplain's to be erroneous:  I want to live in a society that has agreed that in this material world Prisonchaplain shouldn't have the ability to do this thing that he desperately wants to do; regardless of the purity of his motives.

So when we ally with other Christians for the suppression of dangerous ideas and practices--I think we should always be wary about how that kind of suppression might ultimately be deployed against us; and when the proposal is that we band together to take physical or generally-extralegal measures to get our way--to me, that's an absolute nonstarter. 

The Presiding High Priest over the individuals involved in this particular action, seems to agree.  

Edited February 24, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[Carborendum]

23 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I wonder if he's still see it that way with the astounding drop in religious affiliation that's occurred since.

I was going to suggest that he'd maybe view the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ stuff as more threatening...but then I realized that most of Christianity seems to have embraced that stuff and doesn't view it as a threat at all.

That would be an interesting question to ask.  I lost touch with him upon graduation (go figure).  But I saw his Facebook page about 10-15 year ago (mutual "Facebook friend" from High School).  His full-time job was as a radio show host bashing Mormons.  You don't easily give up something like that.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Carborendum