Hegseth ruled the influenza shot would become voluntary in April 2026. Hegseth said the mandate was overly broad and not rational. Service members should not be forced to choose between their conscience and the county.
Since the ruling only 40% of new recruits have gotten their flu shots. And what happened? There are up to 159 confirmed cases the flu at Lackland AFB, the Air Force base for basic training.
He made a similar decision about COVID inoculations earlier.
Not so far. But I wouldn’t put it past him to misapply Matthew 10 v 34.
I did not come to bring peace but a sword.
Oh, I've seen that a few times already from his fellow travellers.
That's the same passage with "I come to turn [various close relatives against one another]" and "a man's enemies shall be the members of his own house". It certainly would be a misapplication for them to quote it, because Jesus is clearly predicting(if not outright endorsing) interpersonal strife carried out in his name, not state-led aggression.
[The above sat as an unposted draft for months. Upon seeing it again after Gramps' necromancy, I tidied it up for posting, but just out curiousity checked to see if Hegseth had, in fact, ever used the verse in question. Turns out, he has visual tattoos on his body that he himself says represent Matthew 10 v. 34. They appear to be non-textual(just a cross and a sword), and I wonder if he quotes the full context to admirers of the tat.]
Excuse my ignorance. I don’t see any necromancy in this thread.
I assume @stetson meant “thread necromancy”—reviving a thread that has been dormant for a long period of time. I leave it to others whether two months qualifies as a long period of time.
Excuse my ignorance. I don’t see any necromancy in this thread.
Sorry. I meant something like "resurrection" of the thread, but "necromancy" sounds funnier and imparts more agency to the reviver.
But thanks for the tattoo information. I’m not surprised. He’s a very strange person with some strange religious affiliations.
I'll read into the record his attempt about a week ago to reclassify Mormons in official DoD listings as non-Christian. I don't think it was gonna have much practical impact on how Mormons are treated in the US military, but I'd speculate it was an attempt to symbolically denigrate Mormonism's recent claims to Christian orthodoxy, in line with Hegseth's theocratic calvinism.
That move was quickly scrapped after opposition from some GOP senators from Utah. I speculate that Joseph Smith probably wouldn't have minded his church being classified as an entirely separate religion unto itself, but still, as a general rule, if a relatively powerful and affluent group of religionists in your coalition are now enthusiastically calling themselves Christian, it's probably a bad idea to openly contradict them.
(In Korea, the most conservative region of the country, the southeast, is also the most heavily Buddhist, which unfortunately didn't stop the right-wing protestant Lee Myung-bak from pulling stunts like trying to remove Buddhist temples from national tourism maps, right after he came to power in 2008. That went over about as well as Hegseth's reclassification of Mormonism, and Lee eventually dropped his sectarian crusade.)
Excuse my ignorance. I don’t see any necromancy in this thread.
I assume @stetson meant “thread necromancy”—reviving a thread that has been dormant for a long period of time. I leave it to others whether two months qualifies as a long period of time.
Correct. And I wasn't criticizing @Gramps49. In fact, there are a few threads older than this one that I'd like to revive, but I'm trepidatious about how that might be received.
Thanks both! Summoning up a dead or moribund thread is hardly the same as necromancy but I get the allusion. I did read it as a “dig” at @Gramps49 and am pleased it wasn’t.
(As an ex host I used to like the revival of old threads. It showed I hadn’t been lazy in delaying confining them to Oblivion!}
Absolutely fascinating information about Hegseth and Mormons. He really is weird. Not all fundamentalists are stupid but he appears to be both.
FWIW "necromancy" is (or used to be) common terminology on boards with a similar structure to the Ship for replying to a thread that had been untouched for an extended period. On one I used to frequent it was not uncommon to see a post begin "Arise, thread".
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines necromancy primarily as the practice of claiming to communicate by magic with the dead, typically in order to learn about the future.
More broadly, it also refers to the general use of magic, sorcery, or witchcraft—especially involving supernatural or evil forces.
I wasn’t aware of the colloquial use @Arethosemyfeet describes. I need to get out more!
Perhaps a clarification is in order? Personally I accept the James Barr view that Christian Fundamentalism is intellectually incoherent. But not all those who accept it are stupid by any means. Some engage seriously in argument and do their best to rationalise its incoherence. You need to be pretty bright to do that.
In my opinion however, Pete Hegseth is a stupid man who also embraces Christian Fundamentalism.
Re Mormonism, I agree with @stetson particularly re Joseph Smith.
Hegseth ruled the influenza shot would become voluntary in April 2026. Hegseth said the mandate was overly broad and not rational. Service members should not be forced to choose between their conscience and the county.
Since the ruling only 40% of new recruits have gotten their flu shots. And what happened? There are up to 159 confirmed cases the flu at Lackland AFB, the Air Force base for basic training.
And he's now required the Lackland recruits to get the flu shot. He knows it works. He just didn't care until loads of people got sick.
I want to differentiate the Christian Nationalism of Pete Hegseth from classic American Christian fundamentalism. In its basic form, fundamentalism emphasizes personal salvation, personal morality and purity and personal conversion. Fundamentalists traditionally recognize nations can rise and fall under God's judgement, and Christians owe loyalty to Christ, not the state. In other words, patriotism can become idolatry. Historically fundamentalists believed that politics corrupt the church. The world is fallen and cannot be redeemed through the government.
On the other hand, the Christian Nationalism Hegseth espouses emphasizes national destiny, military righteousness, cultural combat, and divine protection of the nation. For Pete, and people like him, politics is the battlefield of good and evil. He thinks America has a divine calling, and the military is an instrument of God's will. For him political enemies are spiritual enemies. He merges God's will with America's will. Military action for him is spiritually ordained. Spiritual warfare language is applied to geopolitics.
Looking at it this way, I think you can see how Pete can go into the NATO conference and shred the alliance. When the European allies refused to allow American assets on European bases to be used in the Iranian conflict, that amounted to sin against God.
And he's now required the Lackland recruits to get the flu shot. He knows it works. He just didn't care until loads of people got sick.
Did Hegseth give the order or did the command come from somewhere else in the chain (perhaps the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Keith Bass) make flu vaccination mandatory temporarily to contain the outbreak? Note it still takes time for the vaccine to provide immunity so the outbreak may get larger. Also Hegseth lifted the mandate after the last northern hemisphere flu season and this is an out of season flu outbreak among new troops. We won't see the full effects of the non-mandatory flu vaccine on the US military until the next northern hemisphere flu season.
Absolutely fascinating information about Hegseth and Mormons. He really is weird. Not all fundamentalists are stupid but he appears to be both.
On one hand, I don’t hold that all fundamentalism is wrong or stupid, some is a tad naive, but Hegseth certainly gives it all a bad name.
FWIW, as far as his attitude toward Mormonism goes, I don't think the issue is Hegseth being stupid or naive. In fact(and I suspect I am not alone among Shipmates on this), I tend to find it more intellectually impressive when someone DOES know the theological distinctions between various faith groups.
Where Hegseth effs up on these matters is not his stupidity or naivety(though he does appear to have both in spades), but his fanaticism. Because he obviously knows that Mormons identify as Christian, and almost certainly knows that they're a solidly Republican bloc of voters, but is willing to antagonize them in order to carry out a symbolic purge of the military with no other purpose than aligning the listings with his own sect's views on the saved and the damned.
One thing that was interesting about Hegseth's thwarted lese-majesting of Mormonism was that he left Jehovah's Witnesses, who hold Christ to be a created angel separate from God, on the Christian list. Whereas given how few JWs join the military or vote, he probably could have given them the taxonomical middle-finger while creating not much political blowback.
That move was quickly scrapped after opposition from some GOP senators from Utah.
Refreshing my knowledge on this controversy, apparently the Pentagon responded NOT by reclassifying Mormonism as Christian, but by removing the "Christian" label from 20 other faiths, including Catholic, Lutheran, and Pentecostal. And I'm guessing a lot of the other mainstream denominations as well.
That move was quickly scrapped after opposition from some GOP senators from Utah.
Refreshing my knowledge on this controversy, apparently the Pentagon responded NOT by reclassifying Mormonism as Christian, but by removing the "Christian" label from 20 other faiths, including Catholic, Lutheran, and Pentecostal. And I'm guessing a lot of the other mainstream denominations as well.
“Christian” was removed for all denominations/traditions. In other words, instead of saying “Christian-Catholic” or “Christian-Lutheran,” the list now just says “Catholic” or “Lutheran.” Ditto for other denominational families or traditions (“Eastern Orthodox”). “Christian” is only used for the category “Christian (Non-denominational).”
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines necromancy primarily as the practice of claiming to communicate by magic with the dead, typically in order to learn about the future.
More broadly, it also refers to the general use of magic, sorcery, or witchcraft—especially involving supernatural or evil forces.
I wasn’t aware of the colloquial use @Arethosemyfeet describes. I need to get out more!
In tabletop RPGs Necromancy tends to cover both communication with the dead and also the creation of undead such as zombies and animate skeletons. Anything that makes the dead less dead, if you follow.
That move was quickly scrapped after opposition from some GOP senators from Utah.
Refreshing my knowledge on this controversy, apparently the Pentagon responded NOT by reclassifying Mormonism as Christian, but by removing the "Christian" label from 20 other faiths, including Catholic, Lutheran, and Pentecostal. And I'm guessing a lot of the other mainstream denominations as well.
“Christian” was removed for all denominations/traditions. In other words, instead of saying “Christian-Catholic” or “Christian-Lutheran,” the list now just says “Catholic” or “Lutheran.” Ditto for other denominational families or traditions (“Eastern Orthodox”). “Christian” is only used for the category “Christian (Non-denominational).”
Yeah, that's what I was assuming when PBS mentioned 20 Christian religions getting the label yanked.
So I guess Hegseth's gone from enforcing an exclusionary policy over the listing of Christian faiths, to an ultra-inclusive one, ironically by doing to all the faiths what he originally tried to do just to Mormons.
Assuming this was actually an intentional rebuke of Mormonism(*), or even just as a self-perceived neutral attempt to line up the listings with actual reality(as Hegseth sees it), I really do wonder how he thought it would go unnoticed in powerfully-connected Mormon circles. Another aspect that reminds me of Lee Myung-bak's ACME PRODUCTS campaign against Buddhism.
(*) While I am indeed familiar with the New Religions section of various fundamentalist bookstores, my overall impression is that, outside of Hegseth's Reconstructionist crowd and other demominationally-scattered types who give Babylon Mystery Religion as a wedding gift, there aren't a lotta votes to be mined anymore from christian-conservative paranoia against sui generis heresies of the 2nd Great Awakening. I only ever saw one fundy, the main anti-Mormon propagandist of our era, denounce the Romney candidacy in 2012, to what I assume was of little influence among the denouncer's intended audience.
I only ever saw one fundy, the main anti-Mormon propagandist of our era, denounce the Romney candidacy in 2012, to what I assume was of little influence among the denouncer's intended audience.
I think I was confusing two different guys, Ed Decker and William Schnoebelen. Pretty sure it was the late Ed Decker who had the anti-Mormon site that denounced Romney, but I thought he had a Dutch name, like Schnoebelen does.
Schnoebelen is still alive, and appears to have the trademark sartorial and grooming style of high-profile Reconstructionists(who could non-faceitiously be accused of idolatrizing Calvin's beard), but apparently also pushes the old Jesus Freak storyline of having been involved in various forms of satanism(in WS's case, Church of Satan, Mormonism, and the Catholic priesthood) before getting saved.
A recent Schnoebelen video is called PEACENIK POPE - WHILE MILLIONS DIE, the topic and thrust of which you can probably guess. It opens with the "I bring a sword" quote, but leaves out the filicidal/parricidal, presumably since that would pretty much obliterate the literalist reading Schnoebelen is desperate to impart.
There is practically no evidence that evangelicals voted against Romney because of his religious background. It seems the American electorate at the time voted for those who shared similar political views, than their religion.
There is practically no evidence that evangelicals voted against Romney because of his religious background. It seems the American electorate at the time voted for those who shared similar political views, than their religion.
Thar was my impression at the time, yeah. I think the last time I heard about Mormonism being controversial in US politics was the 2007/2008 GOP primaries, when households in South Carolina got fake Christmas cards supposedly from the Romney family, with messages on the back extolling God's wives and general polygamy.
And apparently a Santorum backer in 2012 attacked Mormonism as a cult. Overall, though, Romney that year was more hurt by his image as an outta-touch elitist, not to mention Clint Eastwood denouncing the Afghanistan War at the REPUBLICAN convention.
The defining moment of Romney's 2012 campaign was his characterization (caught on tape at a closed door fundraising dinner) of 47% of Americans as takers:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/
This wasn't an image problem. This was a reality problem.
The defining moment of Romney's 2012 campaign was his characterization (caught on tape at a closed door fundraising dinner) of 47% of Americans as takers:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/
This wasn't an image problem. This was a reality problem.
True enough. When I wrote, the incident in my mind was the controversy about the dog on the roof of his car. Though I suppose that's more of an animal-cruelty issue than an elitism issue.
@Stetson ... ahem ... '20 Christian religions.' Eh?
There is one Christian religion, but plenty of variations within that.
I don't see Roman Catholicism, for instance, as a separate 'religion' to Protestantism or Orthodoxy, say. It's a different form of Christianity yes, but it's not a different religion.
A different religion would be Islam or Hinduism or Jainism or Animism ...
@Stetson ... ahem ... '20 Christian religions.' Eh?
There is one Christian religion, but plenty of variations within that.
I don't see Roman Catholicism, for instance, as a separate 'religion' to Protestantism or Orthodoxy, say. It's a different form of Christianity yes, but it's not a different religion.
A different religion would be Islam or Hinduism or Jainism or Animism ...
Just sayin'.
I think a reasonable case could be made that Mormonism is a separate religion.
Sure, which is why I didn't include them on my list, even though they would claim to be Christian themselves. That may sound harsh, but to all intents and purposes I'd regard them as an offshoot of Christianity.
There may be a term already, such as 'marginal', which was a category I've seen them under in old 'Pray For The Earth' evangelical prayer manuals which had stats for religious affiliation globally.
Otherwise we'd have to coin a term that somehow condenses, 'A group having Christian roots/heritage which has diverged from mainstream Christianity to the extent that it effectively becomes a different religion' into a conveniently short phrase.
Sure, which is why I didn't include them on my list, even though they would claim to be Christian themselves. That may sound harsh, but to all intents and purposes I'd regard them as an offshoot of Christianity.
There may be a term already, such as 'marginal', which was a category I've seen them under in old 'Pray For The Earth' evangelical prayer manuals which had stats for religious affiliation globally.
Otherwise we'd have to coin a term that somehow condenses, 'A group having Christian roots/heritage which has diverged from mainstream Christianity to the extent that it effectively becomes a different religion' into a conveniently short phrase.
I thought Parachristian included that in its definition.
I have fond memories of Jensen minor ( brother of the then Archbishop of Sydney. And at time Dean of St Andrew’s Cathedral) describing the RCC as a “subchristian cult”🙄
Otherwise we'd have to coin a term that somehow condenses, 'A group having Christian roots/heritage which has diverged from mainstream Christianity to the extent that it effectively becomes a different religion' into a conveniently short phrase.
Hmmm ... 'apostates' assumes that contemporary Mormons, rather than the original ones, have deliberately chosen to 'fall away' from the received Christian faith.
If you've been bought up Mormon or are several generations Mormon then you might not be aware of 'conventional' or traditional beliefs to the same extent as Smith and his immediate followers.
But yes, I know the devilish emoji is there to mark over-statement.
@Hugal, thanks for the term 'Parachristian', I wasn't aware of that one but can see that it could be an apt discriptor.
I think 'cult' is a slippery term as even quite orthodox - small o - or Big O Orthodox splinter groups can become quite cultish in the way they behave, even though their theology may not differ dramatically from more 'mainstream' groups.
Heck, I'd go as far to say that individual parishes and congregrations within the historic Churches and denominations can become cultic if checks and balances are over-ridden or ignored.
I'd even suggest there might be 'cultic' elements in Hegseth's particular grouping or congregation, at least compared with more 'mainline' versions of his tradition.
Technically they're a Christian heresy. Not that they'd appreciate the term.
And historically they were not in favor of being called Christian, as even now their official stance is that all Christian groups have fallen away from the truth, which they alone possess. There were some rather nasty mocking bits about us all in the temple ceremonies once upon a time; I don't know if these have been dropped now.
As I understand it, the push towards identifying as Christian came as a result of an attempt to go mainstream and attract more converts.
Describing them as 'Parachristian' wouldn't preclude use of the 'h' word, of course.
Yes, of course they are heretical. Seriously so.
Some Big O Orthodox people bandy the 'h' word around too freely in my view. Some wouldn't hesitate to apply it to RCs, Oriental Orthodox and mainstream Protestants. I wouldn't and I'm certainly not alone in that. I think I may have told the story of a Greek Bishop who said he'd only met one heretic in his life, and that was a former Orthodox cleric who'd abandoned Big O Orthodoxy for some form of Nestorianism.
His view was that you aren't a heretic unless you have wilfully and deliberately departed from an Orthodox/orthodox position.
I'm always wary of the 'N' word too. I know some Orthodox zealots who'd apply the charge of Nestorianism willy-nilly to almost anyone and everyone, particularly Protestants.
The irony, of course, is some of the Oriental Orthodox we accused of being 'monophysites' also accused us of Nestorianism ...
And so the name-calling goes on ...
There seems to be an epidemic of online Orthodox (or quasi-Orthodox) key-board warriors who are hell-bent on proving they are more Orthodox than anyone else and who nit-pick through synods, Councils and canons to prove it.
It's a bit like the spate of 'heresy-hunters' within particular strands of US evangelicalism who, in the otherwise laudable attempt to call-out the excesses of 'Word of Faith' prosperity gospellers and the like became obsessive and singularly unattractive.
But yes, by anyone's standards I think it's pretty axiomatic that The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-Day Saints is heretical on the grounds of received Christian orthodoxy (Big O and small o).
Would I be prepared to declare Hegseth a 'heretick' and a member of an 'heretickal conventicle'?
I'm tempted ...
But I'd be on safer ground I think to say that he's not a Big H Heretic but misguided.
"Heresy" (Note I did NOT say "heretic", which gets a bit more emotionally charged, as it describes a person, not a belief) is in my post a technical term from the field of theology. It refers to a doctrine or system of doctrines that had its origin in orthodox Christianity (or Judaism, etc.) and then veered so far away from its roots that it no longer qualifies to be considered Christianity. In other words, it is not a mere variant, like the thousands of denominations around the world. It's a new thing, though with Christian roots.
I am aware that plenty of people use "heretic" as a pejorative. This is doing everybody a disservice, as it takes a useful word and ruins it for the purpose it was developed for. Now I have to write disclaimers like this to avoid being suspected of hating Mormons. I don't. I'm simply identifying their religion as something fundamentally different from orthodox Christianity. And I would not be angry if someone were to identify Christianity as a Judaic heresy. I would believe them wrong when it comes to the facts, of course, but I would understand precisely what they were saying.
Where Hegseth effs up on these matters is not his stupidity or naivety(though he does appear to have both in spades), but his fanaticism. Because he obviously knows that Mormons identify as Christian, and almost certainly knows that they're a solidly Republican bloc of voters, but is willing to antagonize them in order to carry out a symbolic purge of the military with no other purpose than aligning the listings with his own sect's views on the saved and the damned.
To the extent that the military's classifications of religions have a use, it is to determine which members of the military are willing to accept the ministry of which chaplains.
I'm an Episcopalian. Naturally, I would prefer a priest of my own tradition. If one wasn't available, I'd prefer an ELCA pastor. Next on the list would be a Catholic, Presbyterian, or UMC. I'd choose the Rabbi or the Imam before I chose the Mormon or the Jehovah's Witness.
@Stetson ... ahem ... '20 Christian religions.' Eh?
There is one Christian religion, but plenty of variations within that.
I don't see Roman Catholicism, for instance, as a separate 'religion' to Protestantism or Orthodoxy, say. It's a different form of Christianity yes, but it's not a different religion.
A different religion would be Islam or Hinduism or Jainism or Animism ...
Just sayin'.
Okay...
A: What's your cousin's religion?
B: Buddhist.
A: What's your cousin's religion?
B: Zen Buddhist.
I would say the second person in each exchange could be answering the question correctly, depending on the expected conversational assumptions in each case.
As I understand it, the push towards identifying as Christian came as a result of an attempt to go mainstream and attract more converts.
As did dropping the "Curse of Ham" racism when it became unfashionable.
It wasn't the Curse of Ham. The Mormon myth about white vs. Black people was based on which side their angelic ancestors had fought on during the war in Heaven.
@Lamb Chopped which is pretty much what I was saying about the 'h' word and about Mormonism.
@stetson - I'm not sure I follow. A Zen Buddhist is a Buddhist. They aren't a 'different religion' to non-Zen Buddhists.
A Hindu is not valid Buddhist. They belong to a different religion.
A Presbyterian is a Christian. So is a Roman Catholic. They aren't members of different religions but different versions of the same faith.
Whereas a Mormon is a member of a religion which has roots in Christianity but which has diverged from it to the extent that it can no longer be regarded as Christian in any meaningful sense, whereas more small o orthodox- and indeed 'heterodox' Christian groups can.
Where we draw a line on 'heterodoxy' is going to depend on which particular Christian tradition we come from.
That's another discussion. Someone can be thoroughly orthodox on some issues and somewhat 'heterodox' on others. That doesn't put them 'beyond the pale' of generally accepted Christianity or mean that they belong to a completely different religion.
Comments
Absolutely crazy!
Oh, I've seen that a few times already from his fellow travellers. And "anyone who doesn't have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one".
Hegseth ruled the influenza shot would become voluntary in April 2026. Hegseth said the mandate was overly broad and not rational. Service members should not be forced to choose between their conscience and the county.
Since the ruling only 40% of new recruits have gotten their flu shots. And what happened? There are up to 159 confirmed cases the flu at Lackland AFB, the Air Force base for basic training.
He made a similar decision about COVID inoculations earlier.
That's the same passage with "I come to turn [various close relatives against one another]" and "a man's enemies shall be the members of his own house". It certainly would be a misapplication for them to quote it, because Jesus is clearly predicting(if not outright endorsing) interpersonal strife carried out in his name, not state-led aggression.
[The above sat as an unposted draft for months. Upon seeing it again after Gramps' necromancy, I tidied it up for posting, but just out curiousity checked to see if Hegseth had, in fact, ever used the verse in question. Turns out, he has visual tattoos on his body that he himself says represent Matthew 10 v. 34. They appear to be non-textual(just a cross and a sword), and I wonder if he quotes the full context to admirers of the tat.]
But thanks for the tattoo information. I’m not surprised. He’s a very strange person with some strange religious affiliations.
Sorry. I meant something like "resurrection" of the thread, but "necromancy" sounds funnier and imparts more agency to the reviver.
I'll read into the record his attempt about a week ago to reclassify Mormons in official DoD listings as non-Christian. I don't think it was gonna have much practical impact on how Mormons are treated in the US military, but I'd speculate it was an attempt to symbolically denigrate Mormonism's recent claims to Christian orthodoxy, in line with Hegseth's theocratic calvinism.
That move was quickly scrapped after opposition from some GOP senators from Utah. I speculate that Joseph Smith probably wouldn't have minded his church being classified as an entirely separate religion unto itself, but still, as a general rule, if a relatively powerful and affluent group of religionists in your coalition are now enthusiastically calling themselves Christian, it's probably a bad idea to openly contradict them.
(In Korea, the most conservative region of the country, the southeast, is also the most heavily Buddhist, which unfortunately didn't stop the right-wing protestant Lee Myung-bak from pulling stunts like trying to remove Buddhist temples from national tourism maps, right after he came to power in 2008. That went over about as well as Hegseth's reclassification of Mormonism, and Lee eventually dropped his sectarian crusade.)
Correct. And I wasn't criticizing @Gramps49. In fact, there are a few threads older than this one that I'd like to revive, but I'm trepidatious about how that might be received.
(As an ex host I used to like the revival of old threads. It showed I hadn’t been lazy in delaying confining them to Oblivion!}
Absolutely fascinating information about Hegseth and Mormons. He really is weird. Not all fundamentalists are stupid but he appears to be both.
On one hand, I don’t hold that all fundamentalism is wrong or stupid, some is a tad naive, but Hegseth certainly gives it all a bad name.
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines necromancy primarily as the practice of claiming to communicate by magic with the dead, typically in order to learn about the future.
More broadly, it also refers to the general use of magic, sorcery, or witchcraft—especially involving supernatural or evil forces.
I wasn’t aware of the colloquial use @Arethosemyfeet describes. I need to get out more!
@sionisais
Perhaps a clarification is in order? Personally I accept the James Barr view that Christian Fundamentalism is intellectually incoherent. But not all those who accept it are stupid by any means. Some engage seriously in argument and do their best to rationalise its incoherence. You need to be pretty bright to do that.
In my opinion however, Pete Hegseth is a stupid man who also embraces Christian Fundamentalism.
Re Mormonism, I agree with @stetson particularly re Joseph Smith.
And he's now required the Lackland recruits to get the flu shot. He knows it works. He just didn't care until loads of people got sick.
On the other hand, the Christian Nationalism Hegseth espouses emphasizes national destiny, military righteousness, cultural combat, and divine protection of the nation. For Pete, and people like him, politics is the battlefield of good and evil. He thinks America has a divine calling, and the military is an instrument of God's will. For him political enemies are spiritual enemies. He merges God's will with America's will. Military action for him is spiritually ordained. Spiritual warfare language is applied to geopolitics.
Looking at it this way, I think you can see how Pete can go into the NATO conference and shred the alliance. When the European allies refused to allow American assets on European bases to be used in the Iranian conflict, that amounted to sin against God.
Did Hegseth give the order or did the command come from somewhere else in the chain (perhaps the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Keith Bass) make flu vaccination mandatory temporarily to contain the outbreak? Note it still takes time for the vaccine to provide immunity so the outbreak may get larger. Also Hegseth lifted the mandate after the last northern hemisphere flu season and this is an out of season flu outbreak among new troops. We won't see the full effects of the non-mandatory flu vaccine on the US military until the next northern hemisphere flu season.
FWIW, as far as his attitude toward Mormonism goes, I don't think the issue is Hegseth being stupid or naive. In fact(and I suspect I am not alone among Shipmates on this), I tend to find it more intellectually impressive when someone DOES know the theological distinctions between various faith groups.
Where Hegseth effs up on these matters is not his stupidity or naivety(though he does appear to have both in spades), but his fanaticism. Because he obviously knows that Mormons identify as Christian, and almost certainly knows that they're a solidly Republican bloc of voters, but is willing to antagonize them in order to carry out a symbolic purge of the military with no other purpose than aligning the listings with his own sect's views on the saved and the damned.
Refreshing my knowledge on this controversy, apparently the Pentagon responded NOT by reclassifying Mormonism as Christian, but by removing the "Christian" label from 20 other faiths, including Catholic, Lutheran, and Pentecostal. And I'm guessing a lot of the other mainstream denominations as well.
In tabletop RPGs Necromancy tends to cover both communication with the dead and also the creation of undead such as zombies and animate skeletons. Anything that makes the dead less dead, if you follow.
Yeah, that's what I was assuming when PBS mentioned 20 Christian religions getting the label yanked.
So I guess Hegseth's gone from enforcing an exclusionary policy over the listing of Christian faiths, to an ultra-inclusive one, ironically by doing to all the faiths what he originally tried to do just to Mormons.
Assuming this was actually an intentional rebuke of Mormonism(*), or even just as a self-perceived neutral attempt to line up the listings with actual reality(as Hegseth sees it), I really do wonder how he thought it would go unnoticed in powerfully-connected Mormon circles. Another aspect that reminds me of Lee Myung-bak's ACME PRODUCTS campaign against Buddhism.
(*) While I am indeed familiar with the New Religions section of various fundamentalist bookstores, my overall impression is that, outside of Hegseth's Reconstructionist crowd and other demominationally-scattered types who give Babylon Mystery Religion as a wedding gift, there aren't a lotta votes to be mined anymore from christian-conservative paranoia against sui generis heresies of the 2nd Great Awakening. I only ever saw one fundy, the main anti-Mormon propagandist of our era, denounce the Romney candidacy in 2012, to what I assume was of little influence among the denouncer's intended audience.
I think I was confusing two different guys, Ed Decker and William Schnoebelen. Pretty sure it was the late Ed Decker who had the anti-Mormon site that denounced Romney, but I thought he had a Dutch name, like Schnoebelen does.
Schnoebelen is still alive, and appears to have the trademark sartorial and grooming style of high-profile Reconstructionists(who could non-faceitiously be accused of idolatrizing Calvin's beard), but apparently also pushes the old Jesus Freak storyline of having been involved in various forms of satanism(in WS's case, Church of Satan, Mormonism, and the Catholic priesthood) before getting saved.
A recent Schnoebelen video is called PEACENIK POPE - WHILE MILLIONS DIE, the topic and thrust of which you can probably guess. It opens with the "I bring a sword" quote, but leaves out the filicidal/parricidal, presumably since that would pretty much obliterate the literalist reading Schnoebelen is desperate to impart.
Thar was my impression at the time, yeah. I think the last time I heard about Mormonism being controversial in US politics was the 2007/2008 GOP primaries, when households in South Carolina got fake Christmas cards supposedly from the Romney family, with messages on the back extolling God's wives and general polygamy.
And apparently a Santorum backer in 2012 attacked Mormonism as a cult. Overall, though, Romney that year was more hurt by his image as an outta-touch elitist, not to mention Clint Eastwood denouncing the Afghanistan War at the REPUBLICAN convention.
This wasn't an image problem. This was a reality problem.
True enough. When I wrote, the incident in my mind was the controversy about the dog on the roof of his car. Though I suppose that's more of an animal-cruelty issue than an elitism issue.
There is one Christian religion, but plenty of variations within that.
I don't see Roman Catholicism, for instance, as a separate 'religion' to Protestantism or Orthodoxy, say. It's a different form of Christianity yes, but it's not a different religion.
A different religion would be Islam or Hinduism or Jainism or Animism ...
Just sayin'.
I think a reasonable case could be made that Mormonism is a separate religion.
There may be a term already, such as 'marginal', which was a category I've seen them under in old 'Pray For The Earth' evangelical prayer manuals which had stats for religious affiliation globally.
Otherwise we'd have to coin a term that somehow condenses, 'A group having Christian roots/heritage which has diverged from mainstream Christianity to the extent that it effectively becomes a different religion' into a conveniently short phrase.
I thought Parachristian included that in its definition.
Or maybe a Cult
Apostates?
If you've been bought up Mormon or are several generations Mormon then you might not be aware of 'conventional' or traditional beliefs to the same extent as Smith and his immediate followers.
But yes, I know the devilish emoji is there to mark over-statement.
@Hugal, thanks for the term 'Parachristian', I wasn't aware of that one but can see that it could be an apt discriptor.
I think 'cult' is a slippery term as even quite orthodox - small o - or Big O Orthodox splinter groups can become quite cultish in the way they behave, even though their theology may not differ dramatically from more 'mainstream' groups.
Heck, I'd go as far to say that individual parishes and congregrations within the historic Churches and denominations can become cultic if checks and balances are over-ridden or ignored.
I'd even suggest there might be 'cultic' elements in Hegseth's particular grouping or congregation, at least compared with more 'mainline' versions of his tradition.
And historically they were not in favor of being called Christian, as even now their official stance is that all Christian groups have fallen away from the truth, which they alone possess. There were some rather nasty mocking bits about us all in the temple ceremonies once upon a time; I don't know if these have been dropped now.
As I understand it, the push towards identifying as Christian came as a result of an attempt to go mainstream and attract more converts.
As did dropping the "Curse of Ham" racism when it became unfashionable.
Describing them as 'Parachristian' wouldn't preclude use of the 'h' word, of course.
Yes, of course they are heretical. Seriously so.
Some Big O Orthodox people bandy the 'h' word around too freely in my view. Some wouldn't hesitate to apply it to RCs, Oriental Orthodox and mainstream Protestants. I wouldn't and I'm certainly not alone in that. I think I may have told the story of a Greek Bishop who said he'd only met one heretic in his life, and that was a former Orthodox cleric who'd abandoned Big O Orthodoxy for some form of Nestorianism.
His view was that you aren't a heretic unless you have wilfully and deliberately departed from an Orthodox/orthodox position.
I'm always wary of the 'N' word too. I know some Orthodox zealots who'd apply the charge of Nestorianism willy-nilly to almost anyone and everyone, particularly Protestants.
The irony, of course, is some of the Oriental Orthodox we accused of being 'monophysites' also accused us of Nestorianism ...
And so the name-calling goes on ...
There seems to be an epidemic of online Orthodox (or quasi-Orthodox) key-board warriors who are hell-bent on proving they are more Orthodox than anyone else and who nit-pick through synods, Councils and canons to prove it.
It's a bit like the spate of 'heresy-hunters' within particular strands of US evangelicalism who, in the otherwise laudable attempt to call-out the excesses of 'Word of Faith' prosperity gospellers and the like became obsessive and singularly unattractive.
But yes, by anyone's standards I think it's pretty axiomatic that The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-Day Saints is heretical on the grounds of received Christian orthodoxy (Big O and small o).
Would I be prepared to declare Hegseth a 'heretick' and a member of an 'heretickal conventicle'?
I'm tempted ...
But I'd be on safer ground I think to say that he's not a Big H Heretic but misguided.
I am aware that plenty of people use "heretic" as a pejorative. This is doing everybody a disservice, as it takes a useful word and ruins it for the purpose it was developed for. Now I have to write disclaimers like this to avoid being suspected of hating Mormons. I don't. I'm simply identifying their religion as something fundamentally different from orthodox Christianity. And I would not be angry if someone were to identify Christianity as a Judaic heresy. I would believe them wrong when it comes to the facts, of course, but I would understand precisely what they were saying.
To the extent that the military's classifications of religions have a use, it is to determine which members of the military are willing to accept the ministry of which chaplains.
I'm an Episcopalian. Naturally, I would prefer a priest of my own tradition. If one wasn't available, I'd prefer an ELCA pastor. Next on the list would be a Catholic, Presbyterian, or UMC. I'd choose the Rabbi or the Imam before I chose the Mormon or the Jehovah's Witness.
Okay...
I would say the second person in each exchange could be answering the question correctly, depending on the expected conversational assumptions in each case.
It wasn't the Curse of Ham. The Mormon myth about white vs. Black people was based on which side their angelic ancestors had fought on during the war in Heaven.
@stetson - I'm not sure I follow. A Zen Buddhist is a Buddhist. They aren't a 'different religion' to non-Zen Buddhists.
A Hindu is not valid Buddhist. They belong to a different religion.
A Presbyterian is a Christian. So is a Roman Catholic. They aren't members of different religions but different versions of the same faith.
Whereas a Mormon is a member of a religion which has roots in Christianity but which has diverged from it to the extent that it can no longer be regarded as Christian in any meaningful sense, whereas more small o orthodox- and indeed 'heterodox' Christian groups can.
Where we draw a line on 'heterodoxy' is going to depend on which particular Christian tradition we come from.
That's another discussion. Someone can be thoroughly orthodox on some issues and somewhat 'heterodox' on others. That doesn't put them 'beyond the pale' of generally accepted Christianity or mean that they belong to a completely different religion.
Mormonism crosses the line in all manner of ways.