Download Print-Friendly Version

National Religious Freedom Day stings a little this year.

The past few months have brought some painful experiences to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In September, a shooter and arsonist took the lives of four members of the Church and wounded several more in Michigan. Just hours before, the Church’s senior leader, President Russell M. Nelson, had passed away. In our mourning, many online expressed great sympathy and kindness. But sadly, some saw fit to focus on hurtful arguments that Latter-day Saints aren’t Christian—and in some cases, argued that we’re simply demonic.

Around the country this fall, explicit chants about “Mormons” echoed through several college football stadiums where BYU played, including at a game where survivors of the Michigan attack were in attendance. Although apologies followed, they claimed that the actions did not represent the university, and no actions were taken to help remedy the students’ animus. (I do note that some schools took intentional steps to prevent these hateful chants, which I gratefully applaud.)

All this in a time where Pew Research Center has reported a great irony: while Latter-day Saints are unique for feeling positive—and in most cases, very positive—toward all faith groups (and even atheists), they are, in return, disliked by nearly all those groups. (A shout-out to our Catholic friends, the only surveyed group to feel positively.)

The way that Latter-day Saints face religious hostility in America is unique. Commentator Jonah Goldberg of The Dispatch said it well after the Michigan shooting: “I think extreme anti-Mormonism may be the most reactionary form of hatred in America” because it is “hating people solely for what they believe.” The hatred “is overwhelmingly theological and abstract” and does not appear to be inspired by “anything that Mormons”—or as we’d kindly suggest, Latter-day Saints—“actually, or even allegedly, do.” 

This peculiar theological hate often leads to a strange cultural tolerance for degrading Latter-day Saints in the public square in ways that would not be deemed permissible for other faiths. For all the talk in recent years of shedding hate and cultivating tolerance, love, and respect, it hasn’t seemed to apply in a widespread way to members of The Church of Jesus Christ. As Simran Jeet Singh of Religion News Service reported, “Hating Mormons remains socially permissible in modern America, just as it was nearly 200 years ago when they were forcibly displaced and almost exterminated.”

Yet despite the peculiar flavor of religious animus prevalent toward Latter-day Saints in America, I don’t think most of these cultural slights weigh too heavily on Latter-day Saints. Most of us have (perhaps sadly) grown accustomed to routine maligning by the media and the entertainment industry. We know we are countercultural—or in scriptural parlance, a “peculiar people.” The scriptures teach us to expect persecution and pay no heed to the world’s judgment. We focus on living our faith and finding joy in Christ, and we don’t spend much time fretting about this mistreatment.

But the violent attack—that was different. That pain pierced our historical consciousness, searing into our remembrance the violent persecution the early Saints in Missouri faced nearly two centuries ago. A much different context, yes. But the common thread? Hate-fueled violence toward Latter-day Saints.

I have followed religious freedom conditions around the world for nearly six years. My interest in advocating for the persecuted drove me to law school and inspires me to volunteer my free time to the cause. I frequently read horrific reports of mass atrocities, including war crimes and genocide. My heart grieves every time. Sometimes I become so consumed that the suffering persecuted are all I can think about.

And yet the Michigan attack shook me differently. Perhaps because Latter-day Saint meetings and chapels are so universal, and because I have spent nearly every Sunday of my life in them, I felt that I could visualize every moment of the attack as if I had been there. I could see the lay bishopric member at the stand when the truck drove into the building, the unassuming carpet on which the members would have run as they scattered, the hallways with gospel art where each member would have frantically searched for a safe way out. 

I wept for days after this attack. And I felt intense guilt that I do not weep every time I read of one. It is my firm conviction that every human life holds equal inherent worth and dignity. This belief is what drives me to advocate for the religious freedom of all people. And yet I suppose we are all most emotionally affected by what we are most intimately connected to. 

But now I no longer view my emotional response to my own faith’s suffering with shame. Instead, I see it as an impetus for me to better bear the burdens and “mourn with those that mourn” outside of my faith community in the wake of religious violence. Having briefly tasted, if only from a distance, the sting of religious violence aimed at my own faith community, I can more empathetically engage with others who have endured it too.

And sadly, many have. Just a month before the Michigan attack, an attacker opened fire on Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis, killing two children. In June, a heavily armed man opened fire on CrossPointe Community Church in Michigan and was fatally shot. In May, a Jewish couple who worked for the Israeli embassy was shot and killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Similar attacks have happened to various people of faith and houses of worship across the country in recent years.

And for minority faith groups in America, religious persecution in the form of hate crimes, even if not violent, is too often a real and pervasive part of their experience. Of the 3,096 hate crimes motivated solely by religious bias in 2024, the three most affected groups were minority faith groups: about 69 percent of the religious hate crimes were targeted at Jews, 9.3 percent were targeted at Muslims, and 4.9 percent were targeted at Sikhs.

Antisemitism in the United States is surging. In 2024, the Anti-Defamation League reported the highest total number of antisemitic incidents since it began tracking data in 1979. 77 percent of Jews have reported feeling less safe in the U.S. since Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attacks in Israel, according to a report by the American Jewish Committee. And the same report indicated that more than half of U.S. Jews avoided a behavior in 2024 due to fears of antisemitism. 

Islamophobia is also increasing significantly. 70 percent of Muslims have reported facing increased discrimination in American society since the Hamas–Israel War began. The Council on American-Islamic Relations reported the highest number of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab incidents in 2024 since the group began compiling data in 1996. 

These trends are not limited to the United States. Just days after the Michigan attack on The Church of Jesus Christ, a Manchester synagogue was attacked during Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. The Manchester attack had startling similarities to the one in Michigan: the attacker drove a vehicle toward the sacred space (though this time, not into it), then exited in an attempt to violently attack the worshippers. 

As Latter-day Saints engage in dialogue about religious persecution—which I fully encourage—we must make sure we understand the broader context of religious persecution and hostility in the U.S. and abroad. As we join the conversation, we must neither understate or overstate our own case. Yes, we are often treated in highly unusual ways, particularly culturally, that should be adamantly condemned. But in so many ways, we fare much better than others in our acceptance, freedom, and safety in society. We are not persecuted the way we were in the early days of the Church. We are not victims of atrocities like ethnic cleansing or genocide because of our faith ties. Many of our fellow human beings are not so lucky.

If we plan to advocate for ourselves, we should first become better aware of the other faith groups experiencing religious hostility and persecution. We should realize that we do not carry the same fear that many Sikhs or Muslims or Jews carry when they leave their homes dressed in religious apparel. We do not know what it is like to have an ethnic-religious identity, with both aspects triggering acts of discrimination against us. We should try to better understand the experiences of our brothers and sisters for whom these forms of persecution are daily realities. And we should understand hostility toward or persecution of Latter-day Saints in this broader context. 

If we wish to advocate for ourselves, there is always the question of whether to turn the other cheek or to defend a righteous cause. In my own view, while we must seek to turn the other cheek and achieve personal reconciliation, and we must forgive those who have persecuted us, scripture teaches it can be righteous to advocate for ourselves as a group when we are persecuted as a faith community (so long as we did not provoke the offense). Restoration teaching adds that this advocacy should be peaceful.

In fact, I think it is important for members to peacefully and respectfully advocate for our faith community when we experience persecution: first, because it is just, and second, because it signals the standard of how we believe all human beings and their religious beliefs should be treated. If we don’t speak up about cultural desecration of the Book of Mormon in a musical, are we implying it’s okay to desecrate the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), the Qu’ran, or the Bible? If we imply that hate speech against us is okay, do we think it’s okay against Buddhists, Sikhs, or evangelical Christians? Would we stand for explicit chants against them at sporting events or vile tweets against them on X in the wake of religious violence aimed at their communities? 

Even if you don’t want to deal with the question of whether self-advocacy is righteous, one thing is surely just: advocating for the religious freedom of others. In so doing, we honor the human dignity—the inherent, unchangeable, equal worth—of every person. We recognize that to be human is to have a conscience, and that from this follows the corollary human right to follow it. We emphasize that all human beings deserve to be treated with kindness, respect, and love—no matter what aspects contribute to their identities.

The Good Samaritan in Jesus’ parable was the unlikely advocate and rescuer for the injured Jewish man. Jews viewed Samaritans as religiously impure and heretical. Samaritans saw Jews as arrogant and wrong. And yet, the Samaritan man was the one who both noticed the wounded Jewish man and addressed his needs. Laying aside the tension between their communities and perhaps their inabilities to fully understand each other, the Samaritan had compassion for the Jewish man. However different from himself, the Samaritan saw the humanity in the other, “shewed mercy,” and helped the broken Jewish man heal from what he had so cruelly been a victim of. The Jewish man was not the Samaritan man’s enemy, but his neighbor and his brother.

This is our example. We must set aside our differences to advocate for the religious freedom of other faith groups. We may not fully understand them, and they may not understand us. Sometimes, there may even be significant theological rifts or cultural tensions between us, including harsh words uttered. But we can choose to see the humanity in one another and to stand for it.

So, on this National Religious Freedom Day, when persecution strikes my faith group, I commit to peacefully but firmly condemn it. And when it strikes others, I will condemn it too—perhaps even more vigorously. 

The post Latter-day Saints Must Stand With the Religiously Persecuted appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

I was seven when I learned to disappear—not with footsteps, but with thought—because silence meant survival. In post-revolutionary Iran, an honest question could lead to prison, exile, or worse. Before I had words for any of this, my mind built an invisible checkpoint: Don’t say that. Don’t ask that. Don’t look too curious. The wrong word, heard by the wrong person, could alter your life—or end it.

I wasn’t one of “them,” and I couldn’t pretend to be. So I kept my head down and poured myself into work and family, trying to make a quiet difference and raise a daughter whose future might be larger than my survival. Even that carried risk. The regime turned the poor against the successful, stoking envy to keep control. More than once, I was told that any achievement must be luck or appearance.

What happened there explains what worries me here—and the small civic habits that can interrupt the slide.

A Pattern Learned in Iran

Ideological tyranny weaponizes belief, envy, and resentment to divide and rule. In Iran, the regime co-opted the moral authority of religion to suppress opposition. Questioning those in power became synonymous with questioning God. Censorship, exile, and even execution were justified as moral acts. And in time, people not only lost faith in the regime, but also lost faith in faith itself. Suspicion replaced solidarity. Society fractured into millions of pieces.

I tried to raise a daughter whose future might be brighter than mine. But even that came with risk. When my daughter grew older—bright, outspoken, and unwilling to tolerate injustice—I knew what her boldness could cost her. I didn’t want her future to be one of quiet survival. I wanted her voice to grow, not shrink.

Before the 1979 revolution, Iran was politically and socially fractured. Communists, monarchists, nationalists, theocrats—each group believed it alone held the moral high ground. Everyone had a cause. Everyone had a criticism. But no one had a unifying vision.

The revolution succeeded not because it was inclusive, but because one faction, Khomeini’s theocratic movement, was more organized, more absolute, and more ruthless. The rest of those critics, visionaries, students, and intellectuals were silenced, exiled, or killed.

One of the promises that helped with the revolution was Khomeini’s vow to make electricity, water, and bus fares free. It was seductive rhetoric, devoid of any real plan, a lie. My family remembers the applause. They also remember the decades of suffering that followed.

So I made the hardest decision of my life: I left everything behind to start from zero in a new country. I believed in the promise of free speech. I believed that talent and hard work could still open doors. I believed in the American ideal.

But today, I’m concerned by the familiar patterns I once fled. I don’t worry that America is Iran. I worry that no democracy is immune to decay. 

American Echoes

In this new homeland, outrage is often harvested for influence. Pain is politicized for gain. People are labeled, deplatformed, publicly humiliated, and shamed, all because they expressed a different opinion. What I fled from was a system that blurred the line between faith and power. What I now observe is a culture where ideological certainty plays a similar role, enforced not by the state, but by tribes of public judgment and algorithmic enforcement.

From Polarization to Fragility

In this environment, we no longer debate; we condemn. We no longer ask questions; we assign guilt. The moderate voice isn’t just overlooked; it’s erased.

Technology accelerates these dynamics. Social media amplifies rage. Performance replaces substance. Remote work and fragmented communities weaken the civic bonds that once tempered our most reactive impulses. Loudness trumps logic. Outrage substitutes for outcomes. We reward those who stir emotion, not those who offer answers.

And as we fragment into increasingly isolated factions, we grow more vulnerable, not to reasonable compromise or better ideas, but to those willing to exploit the chaos. 

I’ve lived this story before.

What to Rebuild

We are not doomed to repeat the past, but we are not exempt from it either. I don’t believe the solution lies in going back in time. In moments of uncertainty, humans romanticize obsolete systems. We tend to retreat, not toward innovation, but toward the familiar. That impulse is a symptom of fear, not a path forward. 

We need to move beyond performance and toward pluralistic, rational solidarity—rather than blind allegiance or nostalgia. This solidarity is grounded in mutual respect, shared responsibility, and the discipline of critical thought.

That begins by rebuilding the habits of thinking critically and asking the hard questions:

• Ask for evidence and trade‑offs. Reward arguments that grapple with costs, not just causes.
• Separate people from positions. Disagree without dehumanizing.
• Protect conscience and respectful dissent. Honor moral agency and religious liberty. The freedom to make mistakes is part of what helps us grow and develop. 
• Prefer outcomes to outrage. Celebrate solutions, not just slogans.
• Assume partial knowledge. Speak in drafts; listen for revision.
• Rebuild local ties. Thick communities make thin caricatures harder to sustain.

I’m not writing this as an expert. I’m writing this as someone who has lived the consequences of silence, of tribal fracturing and dogmatic chasms. I don’t have all the answers. But I’ve seen what happens when a society abandons the effort to find them, when it replaces thoughtful debate with emotional absolutism.

That’s why I’m speaking now to provoke reflection. To ask: How far are we willing to go down this path? And what are we giving up along the way? And to achieve what? 

If we lose the courage to ask those questions, we may soon find ourselves unable to ask any at all.

So I leave you with a question: while we are all busy criticizing, resenting, and defining ourselves by what we oppose, who is guarding our freedom? If we mistake outrage for civic action and replace deliberation with denunciation, our liberties can be hijacked sooner than we imagine, and an entire country can be held hostage to a new form of dictatorship.

The post I Fled Post-Revolution Iran. I’m Worried for America. appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

On a winter night in Montgomery, 1956, a young pastor stood at a pulpit preaching nonviolence while the movement’s enemies slipped a bomb onto his home’s front porch. When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. learned his home had been bombed—with his wife Coretta and their infant daughter inside—he rushed home to find an angry, armed crowd gathering in the street. King raised his hands and pleaded for peace: “We must meet violence with nonviolence … go home and don’t worry. We are not hurt.” Then he sent people back to their families and back to their faith. The church remained the movement’s shelter, and the movement remained the church’s work.

That is one of our nation’s defining images of what sacred space is for. A sanctuary is not a fortress; it’s a promise. It promises that there is at least one place where the human person is not a problem to be solved by force but a soul to be received, heard, and protected. It promises a time‑out from vengeance long enough for justice, mercy, and reason to do their work.

But that promise has been pierced—again and again.

When the sanctuary is torn

The wounds are old. On a Sunday morning in 1963, terrorists placed dynamite under the steps of Birmingham’s 16th Street Baptist Church. The blast killed four little girls and shook a nation awake. Their names—Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, and Cynthia Wesley—still invite us to say never again with our whole chests.

Two years later, the deadliest church shooting in American history struck First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, Texas—twenty‑six slain, twenty‑two wounded—on a Sunday that became a long Good Friday for a small town. That same autumn near Nashville, gunfire ripped through Burnette Chapel Church of Christ as worshipers were leaving morning service; one was killed, and several were wounded.

In 2019, at West Freeway Church of Christ, an attacker killed two congregants; the livestream captured the trauma of a sanctuary violated. 

In 2022, a gunman opened fire at St. Stephen’s Episcopal in Vestavia Hills, Alabama, during a potluck, killing three retirees. That same spring in Laguna Woods, California, political hatred targeted a Taiwanese congregation meeting at Geneva Presbyterian; one man died shielding others as five were wounded.

And then came this late summer: a school‑year Mass at Minneapolis’s Annunciation Catholic Church was transformed into a scene of horror. Two children were killed. Twenty‑one people were wounded. A community of parents and grandparents in their Sunday best learned the meaning of intercession under fire.

And it’s not only bullets and bombings that have pierced the promise of sanctuary.

For years afterward, our government tacitly restored a norm. But in January 2025, federal officials rescinded those “sensitive locations” protections and announced that churches would no longer be treated as off‑limits. 

And now, as I write, we are once more confronted by blood on the sanctuary floor. On September 28, 2025, in Grand Blanc Township, Michigan, a man rammed his pickup into a Latter‑day Saint meetinghouse, opened fire on worshipers, and set the building ablaze. Four were killed and eight wounded; the suspect died after an exchange of gunfire with police. Investigators say he harbored a hatred of Latter‑day Saints. Whatever the motive, we can say what it was: an act of targeted violence against a people at prayer.

If sanctuary is the promise, these are its betrayals.

Why sanctuaries matter—still

Sanctuary is older than our nation and broader than our denominations. The Hebrew Scriptures created “cities of refuge”—an early recognition that justice without mercy becomes mere force. 

American churches have tried. Black congregations made their sanctuaries waystations on the Underground Railroad because conscience and Scripture would not let them return the image of God in chains. Civil rights churches kept their doors open to people who had been beaten by deputies and attacked by dogs. In the 1980s and again in our own decade, congregations of every stripe opened basements and parish halls to immigrant neighbors facing sudden separation from their children. 

Even those skeptical of religion should recognize what is at stake. Houses of worship are where communities knit trust, where hungry people find food, and addicts find companions who will not give up on them. When our cycles of violence treat churches like just another address—or when hatred treats them like just another “soft target”—it sends a message: there is no place you can assume a modicum of peace. That message corrodes the very social capital our neighborhoods need to be safe.

What “re‑enshrining” sanctuary should look like

A renewal of sanctuaries in America does not require turning churches into islands above the law. However, it will require the re-entrenching of norms that the state respects. It requires recovering the moral wisdom that our law should serve.

We can re‑establish a bright‑line norm against enforcement actions in sanctuaries. Congress can codify what was once policy into law: absent a true, immediate threat to life or a judicially‑authorized exigency, federal agents do not conduct arrests in churches, synagogues, mosques, or their immediate grounds. This would align enforcement with religious liberty and with long‑standing American instincts about sacred space.

Name and resist hatred for what it is. The Charleston murderer did not just kill; he desecrated hospitality offered across a color line. The Grand Blanc attacker allegedly nursed a bigotry toward Latter‑day Saints. We need moral clarity that the attack on a worshiping community is an attack on America’s promise to itself. Hate‑crime statutes and domestic‑terror tools should be used—fairly, consistently, and without fear or favor—to confront that reality. 

And then we need to turn hatred into love. An Amish community in Pennsylvania put this into practice when they forgave and then helped the family of the man who murdered many of their daughters. Similarly, Latter-day Saints have raised more than $265,000 (at the time of publication) for the care of the family of the man who died while attacking their chapel. 

A plea

Return, for a moment, to the home of Martin Luther King Jr. Glass on the floor. A baby’s cries. A crowd bristling with weapons. And a pastor who refused to let his people become what their enemies hoped they would become. King did not deny the danger or minimize the evil; he simply insisted on a better way. That choice—on a porch, in the dark—saved lives that night, and arguably the movement itself.

We need sanctuaries. We need places where the command ‘do not harm here’ holds.

The promise of sanctuary will never be perfectly kept; the list of violated spaces proves that. But the alternative is a country where nothing is sacred—not our neighbors, not the truth, not even the peace we claim to seek. That is not a future worthy of our children, or of the God so many of us worship.

The post “Sanctuary” Must Mean Something Again appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

The Wall Street Journal used to know the difference between covering a faith and staging it. In “‘Exmo’ Influencers Mount a TikTok War Against the Mormon Church,” that line isn’t blurred—it’s crossed. The piece does more than report on critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints; it puts their reenactments front and center, including a posed photo of an ex‑member wearing sacred temple clothing and descriptions that turn baptisms, initiations, and other temple rites into shareable spectacle. What is sacred is not content. And when a national newspaper treats it that way, it isn’t tough reporting—it’s trespass dressed up as journalism.

The Journal even said so when a boundary was breached elsewhere. In 2022, an Israeli TV reporter snuck into Mecca, a city non‑Muslims are forbidden to enter. The Journal’s opinion page ran the headline “Mecca Rules Are Up to Muslims” with the sub‑line that a “reckless Israeli journalist” had put others at risk. Another column debated whether Mecca should ever be opened to non‑Muslims (“Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Should Open Mecca”), and a third reflected on rare, leadership‑sanctioned exceptions (“The Secret Mission to Sneak Into Mecca”). The throughline wasn’t hard to miss: Mecca’s boundary is real, and crossing it isn’t a media stunt—it’s a violation. Respect for sacred limits isn’t a parochial ask; it’s a newsroom norm.

Now look back at the Journal’s Latter‑day Saint story. It spotlights ex‑members who re‑create or display elements from temple worship that practicing Latter‑day Saints treat as sacred and private. A decade ago, when the Church itself chose to explain its temple clothing and asked that the press treat it as other faiths’ vestments are treated, responsible coverage did exactly that—embedding the Church’s own explainer and letting the institution’s visuals carry the story (Church Newsroom; Washington Post story and video). The Journal chose the opposite: a promotional image of an ex‑member in sacred clothing, plus social‑video reenactments. If even HBO—a profit‑minded entertainment brand—apologized for offending believers when Big Love dramatized a temple scene in 2009 (LAT; Reuters), why is a flagship newsroom now lowering the bar?

When reached for comment, a Wall Street Journal spokesperson replied,

“The Journal’s reporting is accurate, fair and meets its established and trusted high standards. The Journal practices ‘no surprises’ journalism. As noted in the article, our reporter was in touch with the church, which declined to comment. We took great care in preparing this story and stand by our reporting.”

The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics is unambiguous: provide context; avoid pandering to lurid curiosity; consider cultural differences; minimize harm (SPJ Code). It also cautions that legal access to information is not the same as an ethical justification to publish. You don’t earn trust by telling believers to brace themselves while you stage their sacraments. “No surprises” is not “no standards.”

The Journal insists its story is “accurate, fair,” that it practices “no‑surprises” journalism, that it contacted the Church, and that it “stands by” the reporting. But fairness isn’t a phone call. (Especially one that the Journal reporter has mischaracterized as “no comment.”) It’s the package: headline, art, framing, context. On all four, this piece comes up short. The Journal’s own public standards promise to “fairly present all sides of the story through rigorous, fact‑based reporting” and to uphold “appropriate professional conduct” (WSJ standards overview; Dow Jones Code of Conduct). By any normal test—especially the one the Journal applied when a reporter snuck into Mecca—this isn’t it.

The Wall Street Journal may stand behind their reporting. But they didn’t meet the accepted journalistic standards. They didn’t even meet their own journalistic standards. They acted less like reporters and more like a carnival barker telling the passersby that for the cost of a pageview they can come gawk at a secret religion. 

The Journal once set the curve on restraint. Yesterday it flunked it. On matters of worship, judgment—not just facts—is the test. Here, the Journal didn’t just miss the mark. It moved the line. Pull the piece. Apologize. And then do what the best newsrooms do next: be better than your worst day.

The post Consent not Curiosity: WSJ’s Double Standard on the Sacred appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

As I’ve previously discussed, there is an ascendant civic religion in the United States. This religion puts expressive individualism at its epistemological and moral center, with Rogerian humanism as its soteriology. 

The effort to establish this as the de facto social religion at the exclusion of others is one of the long-term challenges that people of those other faiths and those who prioritize religious freedom face in the United States. These movements, like other forms of secular extremism (such as French Laïcité), can seek to exclude or delegitimize religious expression in public life. That these acts are often done in the name of neutrality constitutes one of their risk factors.

As we consider ways to approach these long-term risks, we would be wise to look at the lessons and experience of our religious friends around the world. 

Southeast Asia, while vastly different in its historical and religious background, is also wrestling with their own versions of pluralism, secularism, and religious conflict—and have been since long before the American experiment began.

Today, countries like the Philippines, Myanmar, and Malaysia are learning how to embed these principles in young democracies. To be clear, their story is not one of uninterrupted success. But it is one that offers important lessons to a West that is staring down a threat to religious freedom, unlike one it’s faced before. 

Today, the threat to religious freedom in Southeast Asia often comes from state control or nationalist movements seeking religious conformity. Coalitions like the Asia and Pacific Interfaith Youth Network (APIYN) and the King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz International Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue (KAICIID) have emerged in response to these developments. 

The APIYN is a regional initiative that is part of the larger Religions for Peace group. APIYN brings together young people from diverse religious backgrounds. They engage in interfaith dialogue and mutual understanding exercises. The group and its actions are youth-led. 

The KAICIID is much more of a top-down organization. It was established in 2012 by Saudi Arabia, Austria, Spain, and Vatican City. They have focused much of their efforts in Southeast Asia.

Lesson 1: Fostering Inclusive Interfaith Dialogue

KAICIID’s Dialogue Cities Southeast Asia initiative, launched in 2024 in Davao, Philippines, exemplifies how interfaith dialogue can bridge divides between distinct worldviews, without resorting to erasure.  Bringing together religious leaders, city officials, and civil society from diverse hubs like Yogyakarta and Bangkok, the initiative uses a “5Cs” framework—collaboration with media, connecting generations, creative arts, common spiritual values, and environmental conservation. In Davao, participants visited temples and churches, building trust without compromising their beliefs. This practical, community-driven approach produced media campaigns and art projects that celebrated shared values, reinforcing religion’s relevance in public life.

Lesson 2: Empowering Youth to Counter Extremist Narratives

APIYN’s 2024 youth camp in Manila showcases the power of young people in countering extremist narratives, both religious and secular. Gathering Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and others, the camp trained participants in interfaith literacy and digital storytelling, fostering relationships across faith lines. Youth-led media campaigns highlighted religion’s role in peacebuilding, challenging secular ideologies that dismiss faith as irrelevant. In a region where urban diversity amplifies tensions, APIYN equips young leaders to advocate for pluralism while staying true to their beliefs.

In the U.S., where many young people view religion through a lens of skepticism or polarization, APIYN’s approach could be useful. American youth, often distanced from organized faith, are hungry for meaning and community. And at this moment where teens are beginning to return to traditional religion, a U.S.-style interfaith youth network, modeled on APIYN, could host retreats or online platforms where young Christians, Muslims, as well as those who adhere to the new religion, can explore issues like mental health or racial justice through their faith’s moral frameworks. Picture a digital campaign showcasing stories of faith communities aiding hurricane victims or supporting refugees—narratives that counter secular tropes of religion as outdated. By empowering youth to articulate faith’s public value, such initiatives could shift cultural perceptions and strengthen religious freedom.

Lesson 3: Advocating for Inclusive and Sustainable Policies

KAICIID’s 2023 partnership with the ASEAN Institute for Peace and Reconciliation trained Southeast Asian officials to navigate religious diversity, ensuring policies respect faith without favoring one tradition. Similarly, APIYN’s Southeast Asian Youth for Humanity (SEA Y4H) network empowers young activists to engage legislators, proposing inclusive policies that protect religious minorities. These efforts embed religious perspectives in governance, as seen in advocacy against restrictive laws in Indonesia.

A Call to Action for American Believers

While the West has long dealt with denominational disputes, we do not have nearly as much experience handling fundamental worldview differences. If we are going to learn to navigate such profound differences, we would do well to look at those who have experience navigating these more fundamental problems. Southeast Asia, with its robust religious diversity, can serve as a lesson in how to effectively bridge these differences. 

Southeast Asia’s interfaith coalitions remind us that religious freedom thrives when faith communities engage the public square with confidence and collaboration. APIYN and KAICIID show how dialogue, youth empowerment, and policy advocacy can counter erasure efforts while honoring diverse beliefs. 

For American believers, this means building local coalitions, inspiring young advocates, and shaping policies that affirm faith’s role in public life. Resources from KAICIID (www.kaiciid.org) and Religions for Peace Asia (rfpasia.org) offer practical guidance. As we struggle with the emergence of these distinct worldviews and how to integrate them into our religious landscape without letting them take over, these lessons can be helpful.

The post America’s Interfaith Problem Isn’t Denominational: Learning from Southeast Asia appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Now my oldest daughter, 8, is old enough to try the parent run-around. After only a few attempts, she realized it didn’t work. One of my proudest parenting moments was when she said, “Dad said I can’t do this, and it’s not fair, and don’t say you’re on the same team. I hate it when you’re on the same team!”

***********

A few years ago, the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ made a distinct shift to more frequently referring to our Heavenly Parents rather than just the Father. The existence of a Heavenly Mother is one of the most unique doctrines of the Restored Church and it is one of great significance to women. Further, “[our] understanding [of Heavenly Mother] is rooted in scriptural and prophetic teachings about the nature of God, our relationship to Deity, and the godly potential of men and women.” Knowing that we are patterned after a divine woman brings greater understanding of the eternal nature of the family because women can live knowing that Heavenly Mother has felt what we have felt and has been through what we have been through. Fundamentally, we know Heavenly Mother by knowing the love and character of our Heavenly Father because they are one in purpose and intent. It has been exciting to see more discussion online between Latter-day Saint women on this topic as well as beautiful artwork depicting not only the Father but also the Mother reaching out to Their children on earth. I, like many other women I knew, bought the books, followed the Instagram accounts, and shared the artwork.

However, what seems to be happening here is the old parent run-around, but on a Heavenly scale. People have tired of waiting for the Church to change its doctrines or adopt a particular worldview, so they’ve sought after a new God, one who, since we know much less about, is much easier to make in our own image. Elder Renlund warned against using Heavenly Mother as a replacement God for the Father in his April 2022 General Conference Women’s Session message: “Speculation will not lead to greater spiritual knowledge, but it can lead us to deception or divert our focus from what has been revealed.” 

Unlike the Romans or the Greeks of old, Latter-day Saints do not have a pantheon of self-serving, humanlike Gods who rarely get along and are consulted on an as-needed basis depending on the area of need (and the likelihood that they’ll side with you). Our theology instead teaches of a Heavenly Family who work in unity to bring about the salvation of mankind. If I were to speculate about why we don’t know more about Heavenly Mother or why she does not play a more central role in our worship, I would assume it is exactly to reduce the likelihood that we will pick and choose a favorite God and assign to them reductive characteristics or think we can pit them against each other.

I do think, however, that it is possible to come to know our Heavenly Mother more solely based on the scriptures and the knowledge God has given us so far. In his October 2024 General Conference address, Elder David P. Homer taught, 

God gives His word according to the attention and effort we devote to it. If we heed God’s word, we will receive more; if we ignore His counsel, we will receive less and less until we have none. This loss of knowledge does not mean that the truth was wrong; rather, it shows that we have lost the capacity to understand it. 

There is much to learn about our Heavenly Mother if we are open to hearing the Spirit. So I’ll share a few things that I have learned about Heavenly Mother.

I’ve learned about Heavenly Mother from my parent’s marriage. They recently celebrated their 41st wedding anniversary. Now, instead of trying to set my parents against each other, I look to them for insights on each other. If my father urges me to make a decision, my mother will remind me of how much wisdom and experience he has. If my mother expresses a concern to me, my father will remind me how my mother knows me better than anyone else in the world and that she is worth listening to. Both consistently demonstrate a great deal of respect and deference to one another in front of their children. Likewise, I can look to my Heavenly Father and his teachings to learn more about Mother. I can remember that anything that separates me from the Father also separates me from the Mother.

I’ve learned about Heavenly Mother from the scriptures. If God is the Father and the Mother united as one, then we know many of Her godly characteristics:

• She knew us before we were formed in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5)
• She has all power, all wisdom, and all understanding (Alma 26:35)
• She has a perfect balance of justice and mercy (James 2:13)
• She is steadfast and forgiving (Psalms 86:5)
• She finds joy in her children (Zephaniah 3:17)
• She hates wickedness, cruelty, immorality, idolatry, and dishonesty (Colossians 3:5 and many others)

I could go on at length about the many attributes of God in the scriptures, but suffice it to say that when we are coming close to Him, we are coming close to Her.

The post Reimagining the Divine: Heavenly Mother and the Temptation of Speculation appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

But to me, faith and its challenges are neither relics of history nor mere fodder for Hollywood. They became so much more on August 16, when a man broke into my missionary apartment and stabbed my companion and me multiple times in our sleep. We woke up and fought with the man for about 10 minutes, just struggling to preserve our lives. This experience was extremely rare and was so targeted and so unheard of that it was simply unpreventable. Through God’s mercy alone, we were eventually able to call 911 and escape. I sustained 9 stab wounds. I was 19 years old and had been serving as a young missionary for just ten weeks of what was supposed to be an 18-month assignment. My area of service was just north of Houston, Texas, and the COVID-19 pandemic was in full force.

When I look back on that night now over four years later, I view it all as the most sacred night of my life. Every wound, every scream, every breath, every prayer was the making of a miracle and has brought me closer to God than I could ever imagine. However, in my mind’s eye, I can still see and feel the original terror of that night. Blood soaked the carpet and stained the walls like the zombie escape room I did with friends in 11th grade. We were trapped inside our own home fighting for freedom, with one man preying on our sleeping innocence and vulnerability: an eerie parallel to Heretic’s setting. Bleeding out on our floor with a stab through my stomach—my companion with one to her neck—made a striking comparison to Heretic’s ending for the fictional Sister Barnes and Sister Paxton.

I could not have been more mistaken. Although Heretic’s directors and actors showed a marked effort to improve representation in many areas, nothing could justify the targeted emotional and physical consequences that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could experience from this film. It is almost as if the writers built a trojan horse of happy interviews showing their good faith to build an accurate wardrobe, research the Book of Mormon, and learn missionary lingo, while deep inside the film was an attack that, whether advertently or inadvertently, could significantly harm members, missionaries, and investigators of the faith. They justify and say this is a fictional film, but that’s because they have not heard my story.

From the very first day, I described the physical scene as a real-life horror movie. Many people reached out after my recovery, good-naturedly suggesting that it could be made into a movie someday. But I knew four years ago that something like what I went through should not be made into a movie—at least one could never attempt to show what actually happened in that apartment. I could not imagine anyone else having to see or feel that violence, and I knew the full experience could never be captured. I cringed after returning home when I realized how many people find entertainment in movies with gore and terror every single day. 

Yet, for every captive audience fascinated by horror, there are people around the world who live captive in horror as their reality. Sure, you can say, the movies are just fiction, but Heretic is not a fictional world. The writers and directors, Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, made it off of real life: the lives of righteous, virtuous, hard-working young adults all around the world dedicating themselves to bringing hope and salvation to others. Their mission is to save, and yet this movie, with actual missionary outfits, with their conversations, their name tags, their teachings, and their sacred calling, strikes harm against their message and against missionaries themselves.

Originally, I will admit I was hesitant to speak up about this movie at all because of my proximity to its controversial nature. I resolved long ago that I never wanted my story to be used for anything but a promotion of love and faith in God. After careful consideration though, I do not believe that this runs contrary to that purpose. Since God saved my life, I promised that I would stand for Him with every breath, and I cannot help but feel that He would be weeping to see His precious missionaries portrayed in violence and His sacred doctrine used in the context of horror for entertainment. Add my mission experience to my undergraduate studies and career beginnings in journalism and religious freedom advocacy, and it almost seemed as if God had given me a perfectly tailored background to prepare me to speak up when Heretic was released. 

I know that not all Latter-day Saints or even all missionaries will view Heretic the way I do. It is important to note that the A24 team did make an effort to correctly portray some of the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I also have returned missionary friends who feel that Heretic brings new understanding and compassion towards the missionary experience. Acknowledging all of this, my experience has shown that the good does not outweigh the bad in this case, and both the creators and innocent viewers may be completely unaware of what a movie like this could promote.

I read hundreds of reviews praising the acting and the masterful cinematography—and I kept asking myself, where are the people disturbed by Heretic’s message? Where are the believers banding together to push back and promote faith? Where are the watchdogs saying that something about this movie goes a little too far? I thought if I just kept scrolling, I would surely find a wise internet stranger who shared my concerns, yet there was nothing more negative to be found than simply calling the movie ‘slow-paced’ or boring. So, in its absence, I hope in good faith to shed some light and speak here for the other side: to counter the popular narrative and raise a voice for believers, for missionaries, and for the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ, which I hold sacred.

Hollywood’s Fascination with Latter-day Saints 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long been a favorite feature religion of Hollywood. Many have referred to the faith as an easy target, with its mysterious and sensational elements like visiting angels, modern temples, ‘extra scripture,’ sacred underclothing, and even the iconic missionary duo being used to capture an audience. Heretic’s writers are no exception. With this high intrigue, the Church has been held under a very close microscope for the public eye, where Hollywood has managed to portray just about every facet of the Church … except the truth.

Our current prophet, President Russell M. Nelson, has invited “responsible media” to be “sympathetic” in using the correct name of our church, but even these directors and actors who claim to accurately represent the Church have referred to it in slang terms disregarding the religion’s central focus on Jesus Christ. These inaccuracies snowball to simply perpetuate the preexisting stereotypes of misrepresentation, and religious misrepresentation is religious persecution so long as it engenders doubt, disbelief, mistrust, or disrespect toward any religious sect.

Along with such negligent factual errors, the movie’s villain, Mr. Reed, concludes that the underlying factor and the only true form of religion is control. Specifically, misogynistic control. This theme seems to push a very niche concern from former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where some attack priesthood leadership or claim, like Mr. Reed, that members are blinded from the Church’s history or accept teachings just because it is what they have been taught throughout their lives by religious authority figures. 

As a practicing adult and covenant woman in the Church of Jesus Christ, I strongly reject this claim. While fully fleshing out a counterargument to this could be an entire article by itself, it is sufficient here to say that I have felt loved and empowered by leaders of both genders within the Church and learned that, although naturally imperfect, they are called by God. This knowledge has come from a witness of the Holy Spirit, which is the only way to find the truth of these things, and yet remains an element completely unaddressed by Heretic’s writers.

It’s about Heresy, not a Heretic

I do not expect everyone to believe as I do, nor do I oppose open discussion if that is Heretic’s intent here. After all, asking questions in pursuit of truth is central to the gospel of Jesus Christ. But the way Heretic raises questions—through displaying violence and disrespecting sacred beliefs—could never create bridges of understanding. It only serves to endanger young, faithful men and women seeking to do good and does so under the guise of “religious dialogue.”

Perhaps the most sacrilegious moment comes when a woman lifts a missionary’s skirt, exposing her temple garment—a private, sacred expression of faith akin to the Muslim hijab or Jewish yarmulke. The film’s creators had no qualms about violating a young woman and this intimate aspect of her belief. 

“First, they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

At its core, Heretic is not just a movie about Latter-day Saints. The film is not concerned with whether the heretic is a missionary leaving their former beliefs or Mr. Reed attacking their traditional religious upbringing because the individual believer or religion was never the main point. No, this movie is not about a heretic at all. It is just about heresy—about promoting disbelief or irreligion—and the most disturbing part is that the actors and directors enjoyed generating this doubt and did so intentionally.

Real Religious Dialogue Will Speak the Truth

As someone who has experienced a very similar reality to what was portrayed, I can confidently say that Heretic completely misses the mark. From the doctrinal attacks to the physical ones, the movie was designed to engender doubt. But I have heard just about every doctrinal argument Mr. Reed raises (trust me, they would be no surprise to real missionaries). I have suffered extreme violence as a missionary that could give me every reason to turn against God. I have had my faith tested and tried, almost to the point of dying for it, but unlike these fictional characters, every one of these experiences proved to build my faith. Beck and Woods thought they were making a movie to question absolute truth—to even question the existence of God—but what they did not know is that they were portraying my path to learn the truth about God with absolute certainty. 

Simply put, what Heretic got wrong is not so much the doctrinal inaccuracies as it is the missed potential that this movie had to finally represent the truth of a path shared by millions of church members and billions of believers all around the world.

Indeed, the truth is that one of the only reasons I survived my own completely unpredictable danger is because my companion remembered and followed instructions we read only the day before in the missionary handbook as part of our routine studies. The truth is that my priesthood leader felt inspired months prior to utter a blessing with minutely specific protections that would save my vital organs. The truth is that any missionary who lay dying would not, like the fictional Sister Paxton, use her last breaths to deny the reality of prayer. The real truth is that God would have never left them as He never left me, and that as I wrestled in the darkness against a force of death greater than I could overcome, I prayed with all the energy of my soul and felt the presence of God save me as clearly as if He were standing before me. 

The truth is that people like Mr. Reed do not win and that God protects and provides, whether in life or in death so that we can witness of His love and mercy.

This is the true story of our faith, the power of belief. The spiritual witness, the miracles, the connection to heaven—this is the real truth of religion, and no attempt to portray members or missionaries is complete without it. This is the opportunity for true religious representation that Heretic lost and that the media misses any time they fear promoting religion or deny its good fruits for lack of tangible evidence.  But if you, like Mr. Reed, are looking for something tangible in your experiment of belief, start with my story. Because I am tangible evidence that tragedy and horror, when fought with Christ, will build faith, not destroy it, and that with true religious dialogue this same story can make anyone a believer, not a heretic.

The post Heretic in Real Life: A Missionary’s True Story of Survival and Faith appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Book-length fulfillment of this prophecy began a decade later as Eber D. Howe published Mormonism Unveiled (1), followed by hundreds of antagonistic broadsides, pamphlets, and publications by others containing basically similar messages—across 190-plus years. 

Among all these Church-hostile publications, it appears that none experienced a more rapid or broader public distribution and impact than what is now known as The CES Letter, authored by Jeremy Runnells—which soared across the Internet in 2013. Scholars familiar with its content, however, immediately recognized that few, if any, of its accusations were new, and most had already been repeatedly refuted. In fact, a large part of the essay, further analysis confirms, reflects a condensed version of writings and concepts that the author borrowed or rephrased from other long-time, prominent anti-Latter-day Saint writers.

We observe at least four forces that converged in 2013 to create an ideal atmosphere and opportunity for such an antagonistic 75-page publication to easily fill cyberspace with its anti-Christ, anti-Restoration allegations. This perfect storm resulted from:

1. The expanding popularity of the Internet and the establishment of PDF as a document standard—within a society still naive to its full implications. 

2. The disbanding at Brigham Young University (BYU) of the Foundation of Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) in 2010 and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute’s subsequent pivot away from the day-to-day defense of the Church. 

3. The lack of easily accessible and comprehensive discussions of subjects like those raised in The CES Letter, now available in the Gospel Topic Essays, that thoughtfully explain many complicated and sometimes controversial issues. 

4. The CES Letter’s clever wrapping of a set of concise arguments against the faith in a personal story—that being a supposed search for truth and subsequent betrayal by the Church—all contained within a compact, easy-to-distribute PDF document. (This fourth dynamic was discovered to be false and documented at length in Michael Peterson and Jacob Hess’s Were These Ever the Sincere Questions of an Earnest Truth Seeker?)

1. The Expanding Popularity of the Internet and the Establishment of PDF as a Document Standard.

The World Wide Web rapidly expanded in popularity and accessibility during the 2000s. By 2013, nearly three-fourths of the inhabitants in developed countries had access. 

During this same period, electronic publishing technology also expanded, thus allowing for the rapid distribution of electronic books and articles in ways previously unimaginable. Critical to this development was a computer program that produced a fixed-page-layout file format that could be opened in a variety of computer operating systems without losing its book-like qualities—including pagination.

In 1993, Adobe Systems led the programming competition with its Portable Document Format (PDF). After guarding it as intellectual property for fifteen years, Adobe displayed shrewd business logic in 2008 by offering the PDF as an open format (PDF 1.7)—allowing software developers worldwide to develop and provide tools for the creation, modification, viewing, and printing of PDF files if they adhered to Adobe’s original PDF specifications. 

Also, in 2008, Adobe offered its Reader 2.0 as a free download. This enabled web designers and authors to offer their publications as PDF downloads with an accompanying link to the free PDF viewer. Readers could easily download both the app and the book or article and view the original text as it was designed to be read.

Advanced distribution capability. Soon other free PDF viewers became available, and popular Internet search engines incorporated them into their browsers (2).

A new world began to emerge, empowering individual authors and content creators to distribute their views instantly, in increasingly persuasive ways, across a mammoth distribution channel: the World Wide Web. 

The reality is that before the early 2010s, it would have been difficult to widely distribute any computerized books or extensive articles such as The CES Letter. Documents circulated as Microsoft Word or WordPerfect files would have been susceptible to formatting changes when the files were opened, as well as alteration from other readers.  

Facebook and Reddit as catalysts. Another online dynamic occurred simultaneously with the PDF expansion: the increasing popularity of Facebook. The year he introduced his CES Letter, Jeremy Runnells expanded his online footprint by creating a “CESLetter” Facebook page. Begun in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook social networking service had over 1.3 billion users by 2014. It was a natural fit for Runnells since people familiar with Facebook would likely understand how to download a PDF file and viewer. So, he advertised his essay on the platform, with a link to a separate location where a PDF version of the document could be downloaded. He also used Reddit, another forum social network, to provide updates regarding his personal saga with the Church.

The rapid growth of Reddit contributed to the spread of Runnells’ letter. By the 2010s, Reddit was expanding its footprint on the internet—with 46 million users by 2012 and 90 million by 2013—exceeding 174 million users in 2014. Through a Church-hostile Reddit pseudonym —Kolobot—the author attached drafts of his essay, promoted it, attacked critics, crowdsourced material for responses to rebuttals of his essay, and advertised his website.

2. The disbanding at Brigham Young University of The Foundation of Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) in 2010 and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute’s subsequent pivot away from the day-to-day defense of the Church. 

The second factor catalyzing this perfect storm involved the dissolution of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) at BYU. Organized by Dr. John W. Welch in 1979, FARMS consisted of an informal collaboration of academics devoted to Latter-day Saint historical scholarship. 

But this foundation later became more institutional. In 1998, President Gordon B. Hinckley of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints formally invited FARMS to join Brigham Young University—stating: “FARMS represents the efforts of sincere and dedicated scholars. It has grown to provide strong support and defense of the Church on a professional basis.”(3) Yet less than a decade afterward, there was a significant change, as the entity was subsumed by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship (NAMI) and effectively disbanded.  

“Those guys were warriors.” Prior to this, FARMS’ association with BYU (sponsored and funded by the Church, during the 2000s) gave these advocates of the faith much-needed backing and resources that contributed to an ever more effective defense of the gospel of Jesus Christ. “Those guys were warriors,” remarked one prominent Church defender—a common sentiment. It seemed that whenever any new book or conspicuous article appeared on the scene attacking the Church, FARMS was there, with effective and credible scholarship, sourcing, and writings to document and defend the truth.

The effectiveness of this concentrated defense of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from a strong professional, academic, and faith foundation was powerfully illustrated in the aftermath of Grant Palmer’s 2003 anti-Latter-day Saint book: An Insiders View of Mormon Origins. This volume was released on the market with great fanfare by Signature Books (known for its longtime publication of works that criticize the core doctrines and principles of the Church, the policies revealed through modern prophets, and the history of the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ).

The FARMS Review—a twice-yearly journal comprised of peer-reviewed articles from many faithful scholars defending the Church—took notice.  

On June 1, 2004, four separate reviews of Mr. Palmer’s book were simultaneously published in the journal’s “Review of Books.” All of these “heavy hitter” reviewers possessed PhDs, several of them in history. All had significant academic experience and fluency with the subject material and the specific areas of attack Palmer made upon the Church of Jesus Christ—demonstrated by the strength of their reviews: 

• Dr. Stephen C. Harper’s Trustworthy History? incisively demonstrated the manipulation of data and evidence Mr. Palmer engaged in to support his Church-hostile thesis while highlighting significant scholars, topics, and sources the critic had selectively ignored. In his well-referenced critique, this historian summarized Palmer’s book as “a pitiful failure to write credible history” through a failure to “obey rules of historical methodology,” concluding that the work was “not trustworthy history.”
• Dr. Davis Bitton’s The Charge of a Man with a Broken Lance (But Look What He Doesn’t Tell Us) remarked on Palmer’s claim to be an “insider” in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While “wearing the toga of a retired institute director” Palmer had “lived a life of deceit for many years” by remaining affiliated with the Church’s education system while he was a closet doubter. Bitton also revealed that Palmer “presents information as his own that is straight out of previous anti-[Latter-day Saint] works” (including Jerald and Sandra Tanner), “publish[es] them within the covers of a newly minted book,” and thereby “tries to shock the reader”—while ignoring incredible amounts of scholarly work disproving his claims. 
• Prying into Palmer by Dr. Louis C. Midgley focused on evidence that “Insider’s Guide” is actually based on a previous work from Palmer written over a decade earlier under the pseudonym “Paul Pry Jr” and titled New York Mormonism—a work that was not “the product of original research, but instead, a compendium of anti-[Latter-day Saint] arguments … infatuated with … many of the affidavits in E.D. Howe’s notorious Mormonism Unveiled (1834), all of which [Palmer] wove together with opinions drawn from some marginal contemporary critics of the faith.” Midgley’s review then laid waste Palmer’s bizarre theories about the origin of the Book of Mormon.  
• A One-sided View of Mormon Origins by Dr. Mark Ashurst-McGee effectively refutes every major section of Palmer’s book and summarizes it as “a piece of disingenuous advertising.” The book, he argues, “intends to present Palmer as a seasoned gospel teacher who will shepherd those who wish to learn more about the origins of their faith” but then seeks to “discredit the integrity of the foundational claims upon which the faith of the Saints rests.” McGee again reveals that the book “fails to follow the basic standards for historical methodology.”

Six months later, on January 1, 2005, the FARMS Review released a fifth review of Palmer’s book: Asked and Answered: A Response to Grant H. Palmer, by Dr. James B. Allen—focusing on Palmer’s individual criticisms of the Book of Mormon. Allen references several scholarly studies that counter much of the author’s attack while demonstrating the ancient text’s truthfulness. He also effectively takes apart the author’s odd theories surrounding the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. 

This barrage of academic artillery in five separate academic reviews effectively illustrated the shallowness of one anti-Latter-day Saint book—leaving it essentially impotent. Over subsequent years, Grant Palmer’s book was generally ineffective in persuading others to leave the faith or remain away from it—except among some of the more uninformed or already hardened detractors of the Church. Its faith-draining influence, over time, became a blip. 

What if FARMS had been around when The CES Letter was written? Imagine what likely would have happened with the 75-page CES Letter had the same FARMS weaponry still been in place in the spring of 2013. We can easily see each of the essay’s seven or eight areas of attack upon the faith answered by a separate academic scholar—all released simultaneously. Then each of these potential refutations would likely be followed by its author’s comments or interviews, online discussions, and further dissemination. 

The impact of such FARMS activity might have been substantial in reducing the widespread and corrosive effects of Jeremy Runnells’ writings.

In the years following the release of Runnells’ letter, it’s true that several major refutations were eventually published, including FAIR’s initial online response in 2013, (4) Bamboozled by the CES Letter by Michael R. Ash (2015), A Faithful Reply to the CES Letter by Jim Bennet (2018), and Sarah Allen’s The CES Letter Rebuttal (2021-2022). Allen’s voluminous work not only painstakingly refuted the entire contents of Runnells’ writings but also exposed the manipulation techniques and background deception of the essay. Yet this series of responses was sporadic and irregular—lacking the concentrated efficiency and cohesion for which FARMS was known.  

Different emphasis from scholars. Clearly, not every Latter-day Saint scholar has an appetite for raising their voice in a defensive posture concerning the faith—with some scholars feeling little interest in defending the Church generally or at all. Among those who do show such a willingness, there are varying levels of engagement—ranging from those who write things about the faith while mainly leaving it to others to repackage them to be of use to everyday members, to those scholars who identify current, specific claims against the Church from specific authors and refute those particular claims on a day-to-day or real-time basis.

Never shying away from controversial subjects or defending the Church’s official and unofficial positions, scholars at FARMS were consistently among the most actively engaged in the most relevant issues and conflicts.

A vacuum begins. Nevertheless, in the years after disbanding FARMS in 2010, BYU’s Neal A. Maxwell Institute (NAMI) unfortunately also chose to discontinue this level of day-to-day Church defense—even taking the step of removing archived FARMS articles from its website.

Yet among all the podcast notes, titles, and publications of the Maxwell Institute available between 2013 and 2015—right when the popularity of The CES Letter ballooned—we could not identify any addressing the specific issues raised in Runnells’ essay.   

Hesitation among some believing academics. The reluctance of any believing scholar to actively defend the Church is perhaps understandable. Religious authors who write for a religious audience can explore ideas in the relative comfort of a mutually accepted paradigm regarding the supernatural. But when religious authors advance narratives that defend the reality of the supernatural before a more pluralistic audience, they risk professional disrespect, ad hominem attacks from activist naturalists, and public notoriety (positive from believers and negative from secularists). 

In short, defending the Church’s truth claims positions the scholarly defender against critical voices who, for the most part, have received broad popularity and society-wide endorsement. Even at Church-owned universities, performing extensive apologetic work may be less advantageous to tenure advancement than publishing articles in respected secular peer-review journals or authoring books printed by prestigious university presses.

More recently, scholars at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute have expanded the definition of “apologetics” to include scholarship that anticipates believers’ questions and responds accordingly. “Good traditional apologetics,” according to this expanded definition, “leaves neither the Book of Mormon nor ancient history in the state it found them. It transforms both in the name of faith, seeking insight and understanding.”

While good things are afoot at Maxwell and other faith defense organizations like Scripture Central, and FAIR, this relative vacuum during the early 2010’s may have contributed to some unfortunate effects. 

Over subsequent years, youth and young adults oftentimes starkly confronted the claims of The CES Letter, along with other online church attacks contained in the writings and podcasts of other prominent church critics—absent the scholarly strength FARMS could have provided. Soon after FARMS was dissolved, the Church of Jesus Christ essentially lost its primary institutionally-supported defense organization—leaving FAIR and other good organizations, such as The Interpreter Foundation (begun in 2012), to soldier on to try to make up the difference.

3. The lack of easily accessible and comprehensive discussions of subjects like those raised in The CES Letter, now available in the Gospel Topic Essays, that thoughtfully explain many complicated and sometimes controversial issues.

During the first 170 years of the existence of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, leaders largely led the Church’s narrative. When most members learned religious teachings and doctrines from official sources like the scriptures, manuals, and books written by believers, critics often struggled to obtain an audience among the Latter-day Saints using the media of the times.

By the 2000s, the rise of the Internet impacted the Church’s communications with its members and conveyance of its message—with critics’ vigorous criticisms and negative evaluations over the web impacting the faith and necessitating an adjustment in educational efforts.

General caution and care. There are at least two good reasons for care and caution in how Church history is shared: 

• Milk before meat. Even before the Church was organized, the Lord Jesus Christ warned Joseph Smith not to give “meaty” doctrines to those who could only tolerate milk, “lest they perish” (D&C 19:22; see also 1 Cor. 3:2). Due to the fledgling faith of some learners, the revelation emphasized that certain more complicated principles and practices should only be taught under the right conditions. Members’ natural hesitancy on complex and controversial matters was exploited by some online, who accused the faith of a lack of transparency.    
• Limited teaching time. A second factor is the limited amount of time and opportunities the Church has to teach the membership the core gospel of Jesus Christ. Within relatively short Sunday meetings, there is an understandable prioritizing of core doctrine that results in a curriculum of scripture, doctrine, and history that builds faith yet naturally makes the controversies and other complex subjects secondary.

Gradual release of additional resources. During this rise of critical voices on the Internet, many documents in the Church’s vast archives had yet to be cataloged, analyzed, and used to clarify various aspects of Church history. 

The Joseph Smith Papers project (formalized in 2008 and completed in 2023) provided additional human resources to inventory pertinent archival data, and voluminous numbers of new documents were added to the official catalog. However, for some time, such content remained largely unknown to researchers, church leaders, and members. For example, as independent scholar Don Bradley researched the subject of plural marriage in 2009, Church historians occasionally directed him to recently cataloged manuscripts dealing with that sensitive subject. In several cases, Bradley appeared to be the first external researcher to evaluate their contents. Today the Church’s documentary holdings are freely offered to the public and often as digital downloads. Josephsmithpapers.org is a treasure trove of easily accessible historical information. 

Years before The CES Letter was released, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognized the need to expand the Church’s resources to members, specifically to produce “straightforward, in-depth essays” on a number of more complicated topics. So the Church commissioned historians and other scholars to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of ChurchofJesusChrist.org. The first of these essays was released in the fall of 2013, just six months after Runnells’ letter was made public. Between 2013 and 2015, thirteen Gospel Topic Essays were added to the Church’s official website. Surely this was an inspired development, coinciding with Runnells’ aggressive marketing of his writings during those same years.

Certainly, an earlier introduction to the Church’s essays may have inoculated members of the Church from the antagonistic “CES Letter”—with adequate time to absorb their contents well before Runnells’ essay’ first became public. Lacking such prior understanding, it’s easier for a believer to be unsettled by an antagonist’s ‘gotcha’ question—“Did you know X…” “Why do you think Y happened?”—in a way that leads to doubt.    

4. The CES Letter’s clever wrapping of a set of concise arguments against the faith in a personal story—a supposed search for truth and subsequent Church betrayal—all contained within a compact, easy-to-distribute PDF document.  

As already noted, this fourth dynamic that contributed to the wide dissemination of Runnells’ essay—the false nature of the origin and purpose of his letter—was outlined in detail in Michael Peterson’s analysis with Jacob Hess, “Were These Ever the Sincere Questions of an Earnest Truth Seeker?”

After reviewing the overwhelming evidence documented there, they concluded: 

“Unmistakably, across thousands of affected readers, it was this shiny wrapper of an “earnest questioner” that gave the so-called letter its broadcastable power, functioning as a compelling personal and online brand. For many, it was simply too hard to resist the allure of Runnells’ professed need to get “faith crisis” questions answered by the Church, followed by the presumed heartbreak of official Church silence in response.

From the scope of the actual online record, it is patently obvious that Jeremy Runnells constructed his so-called “CES Letter” not to get personal “questions” and “concerns” answered—his pretense—but as a device to rocket ship his carefully planned, full-throated public attack upon the faith of those who believe in Jesus Christ and His restored Church. 

While intentionally preparing his faith-attacking essay to be disseminated over the web and through email (from its beginning), he was long past any sincere inquiry stage of religious doubt.”  

The Improbability of Another Perfect Storm

In the years following the release of The CES Letter, additional copycat letters followed and became available online. These authors may have expected their refined antagonistic offerings to supplant, or at least replicate, The CES Letter’s reach. Yet additional technology shifts and more easily available faithful resources caused the perfect storm to lift—The CES Letter’s homemade rocket launch to stratospheric levels, its dominance and widespread notoriety not only faded but now increasingly looks unlikely to recur. 

Moreover, the information technologies employed to defend the Church’s truth claims have dramatically diversified and expanded. For example, the Church’s history is open to anyone to research using literally tens of thousands of pages of full-text primary sources available at the Church History Library and Joseph Smith Papers Project websites. How’s that for transparency?

Independent Defenders

There is still more positive change in the air. Although no institutionally sponsored organization has adopted FARMS’s comprehensive everyday efforts to defend the Church regarding specific accusations, several independent 501(c)(3) corporations have appeared or expanded their efforts to fill the gap. Their work not only defends the faith but tends to be devotional and inoculative. 

Specifically, at least five organizations have demonstrated a willingness to actively defend the Church’s teachings and doctrines: FAIR, the Interpreter Foundation, the More Good Foundation (including Saints Unscripted and Public Square Magazine), Scripture Central (including Book of Mormon Central and Pearl of Great Price Central), and the B. H. Roberts Foundation (Mormonr). In particular, Saints Unscripted and B. H. Roberts Foundation give youth and young adults interesting and concise material and persuasive advocacy in defense of the Church. 

Besides these organizations, increasing numbers of other websites, podcasts, and YouTube channels provide useful dialogue and insights for those encountering The CES Letter and other anti-Latter-day Saint claims, including The Stick of Joseph, Thoughtful Faith, Ward Radio, and Let’s Get Real with Stephen Jones.  Within the Church, hundreds, if not thousands, of believers have taken to heart the instruction, “It becometh every man [and woman] who hath been warned to warn his neighbor” (D&C 88:81). As these members of the Church recognize the deceptions, half-truths, and misrepresentations promoted by critics, they share their own cautions and witness of Jesus Christ with those who will listen. 

Other channels and podcasts strengthen faith by profiling inspiring stories of those who have returned to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after stepping away for a season, such as the Comeback Podcast, Called to Share, and Faith Matters.

The good news is this: the days are largely over when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and defenders of the faith need ever be caught again in a reactive state or behind their quick-footed online adversaries. There is far too much current, easy access to voluminous, reliable sources defending the faith of Christ for that to happen. 

Though the claims in Runnells’ essay, as noted, have now been exhaustively and directly refuted many times—with content largely echoing accusations that had been repeatedly addressed in the past by Latter-day Saint scholars. Upon its initial release, however, that alluring doubt bomb just happened to be in the right place at the right time, where random but synergistic forces increased its impact far beyond the significance of its message. 

The internet “icon” ultimately faded. By rising in popularity so quickly, The CES Letter morphed into the world of antagonistic iconography, becoming, for some detractors a symbol of imagined anti-Latter-day Saint domination. One of the stranger things we witness even today is some who still stubbornly cling to Runnells’ essay and the background storylines behind it, fruitlessly attempting its defense—perhaps partly because upon that shaky foundation, they based or reinforced their decision to step away from the faith.  

Our observation, in summary, is that the “perfect storm” dynamics that enabled Runnells’ “CES letter” to go viral have changed fundamentally. The Church defense community today is better positioned than ever to truly fulfill the charge given to us all by President Jeffery R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: “to define, document, and defend the faith.” (7)

Then one day in the future, when the truth of God has indeed “penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear,” the world will know that Joseph Smith spoke the truth when despite the ominous possibilities he foresaw (“persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame”), he nonetheless testified that “no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing” and declared that “the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent … till the purposes of God shall be accomplished.”

Resources:

1. The term “Mormonism,” employed by antagonists as a substitute name for the restored Church of Jesus Christ, was “invented in the 1830’s by bitter detractors, as Michael wrote earlier, and “used in the same way the word ‘Nazarenes’ labeled the members of the ancient church of Christ—hurled forth as an epithet, a denigration, a sometime demonization, and consistently employed for the same purposes by their successor critics for over 190 years, even to this day.”

2. For example, the Google Chrome browser added a PDF viewer in late 2010. Microsoft Internet Explorer (final version 11 released in 2013) never included a PDF viewer, but add-on viewers were allowed. Microsoft Edge’s first release in 2015 included its own PDF viewer. Google Chrome version 6.0.472 was released September 2, 2010 (https://google.fandom.com/wiki/Chrome_version_history)—though the PDF reader needed to be manually chosen as the default position or it would not load on startup.

3. See “Farms Joins BYU Community,” Y Magazine, Spring 1998 Issue.

4. FAIR stands for “Faithful Answers, Informed Response, and is a nonprofit organization devoted to sharing the gospel and defending the restored Church of Jesus Christ, through its websites, books, and conferences. FAIR’s writers have accomplished remarkable work, considering they are all volunteers. Most are not academic historians with advanced degrees, but lay writers. These church defenders might be characterized as a modestly funded, scattered collection of researchers who all have day jobs, church callings, and families. They use their precious discretionary hours refuting attacks against both the Church and believers.

5. “Seven Questions for MSR editor Spencer Fluhman,” (March 27, 2013) at https://mi.byu.edu/seven-questions-for-spencer-fluhman/.

6. For instance, they discuss at least three helpful factors in considering the Church’s early practice of plural marriage. First, it has scriptural and biblical roots. Second, it is a spiritual principle. Third, it has been initiated or discontinued at the Lord Jesus Christ’s discretion. When these elements are understood, as well as its true history and practice, along with the family solidarity and other benefits within the early modern Church, then the topic need not be a stumbling block to faith and testimony.

7. The Second Half of the Second Century Address,” BYU, August 23, 2021.

The post Doubt in the Digital Age: How a Perfect Storm of Random Forces Inflated the CES Letter Beyond Its Merits appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Like racehorses frenzied in anticipation for the starting horn to sound, each team’s starting five took to the floor, anxious for the opening tip-off to let them loose. The atmosphere buzzed as the crowd fixed their gaze on the court. The muted shrieks of sneakers on the playing surface composed the rhythmic symphony of competition.

The ball was tipped, and the trail-bound Cougars removed the bounds holding the game clock. With 40 minutes of basketball underway, the countdown had begun. Who could have expected this basketball game would not be remembered for its result but for the hateful and bigoted jeers of the student section?

It wasn’t long before a ball flew out of play near the Providence student section. A moment of dead air was suddenly invaded by a coordinated chant.

“F— the Mormons! F— the Mormons!” 

The message was clear and poignant: the visitors were not welcome in Providence due to religious intolerance. In no uncertain terms, the home crowd joined as one to spread hatred.

Neither happened. The collective roar from a sea of fans loyal to a school nicknamed “Friars” was active in disparaging another sect of Christianity. Bigotry is blind, I suppose.

To make matters worse, BYU would suffer an embarrassing 19-point defeat to the host team, returning home with no response to the inexcusable act of intolerance directed toward them in the early minutes of the game. Salt meets wound.

If this were an isolated incident, time could wash this polluted occasion into triviality. As Brigham Young University and its sponsor religion, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have experienced, this instance is indicative of a greater pattern that has been directed at “Mormons” for years.

While it is not often this publicized, private instances of this level of hatred towards the Church and its membership are hardly infrequent. 

Jake Retzlaff, BYU football’s Jewish quarterback, shared his unique perspective on this phenomenon with McKay Coppins of the Atlantic. The head of the Cougars’ football team wears his religious beliefs as a badge of honor, especially at an institution with an overwhelmingly LDS student body.

“The blatant disrespect for their faith—it’s something to think about. What if there was a Jewish university that had a Jewish football team, and they were saying that in the stands?” Retzlaff questioned, appalled. “Imagine if that hit the papers. That would be a big deal.”

“There’s a lot of people who just don’t like Mormon people for no reason,” he insisted. “That’s what happened to the Jews all throughout history.”

The man who fans affectionately dubbed “BYJew” has experienced more anti-Mormonism during his time at BYU than anti-Semitism, but the lack of outrage from bystanders is especially noteworthy.

At football games at Oregon University’s Autzen Stadium, “— the Mormons” chants showered the field, much to the disgust of an LDS recruit in attendance as he was considering a commitment with the Ducks. Identical jeers from the University of Southern California arrived when BYU competed in the Colosseum. Ironically, the Trojans’ starting quarterback was likewise a member of the very church they were disparaging. That player’s exit from USC in the following offseason didn’t come as a surprise to many.

Anti-LDS rhetoric seems to be more socially acceptable than other religious bigotry, and I have a theory as to why that could be—it all stems from the victim’s response (or lack thereof).

The New Testament’s instructions on responding to opposition are clear: “Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” The Savior’s Church, and its latter-day leaders, share this sentiment and insist that followers of Christ resist any impulses that would rupture any remaining civility in hostile interactions.

Simply stated, members of the Church are encouraged not to fight back. In some ways, this makes “Mormons” an easy target. Conversely, this perspective allows for more constructive rhetoric in our interactions. Rather than biting back when a stranger’s hostility shakes your composure, re-routing conversations to be uplifting and positive can build a stronger resolve to stand for good. Returning hatred for hatred is a horrible way to live.

President of the Church, Russell M. Nelson, declared in his April 2023 discourse, Peacemakers Wanted, “The Savior’s message is clear: His true disciples build, lift, encourage, persuade, and inspire—no matter how difficult the situation. True disciples of Jesus Christ are peacemakers.”

Your response to opposing forces will mold both who you are today and who you can become tomorrow. Opposition is inevitable, but a strong resolve can shape our character. The anecdote from the opening was not the first instance of religious bigotry aimed toward the Church or its members, and it certainly won’t be the last.

Take faith in knowing that persecution comes and goes, but your reaction can greatly affect your circumstances—for good or bad. Turning the other cheek isn’t a sign of physical weakness; rather, it’s a strong indication of moral resolve.

The post Religious Intolerance As Sport: Turning the Other Cheek appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

When you mention conversion therapy, most people think of antiquated, barbaric, and discredited therapeutic techniques like aversion (shock) therapy or the coercive, repressive, and shaming techniques that are still happening in some unlicensed “Christian” residential programs. If the law banned obviously harmful and dangerous practices like these, no one would object. Because today, as even proponents of conversion therapy bans admit, such practices either died out long ago or are not regulated by mental health licensing laws in the first place. Very few therapists, even Christian therapists, seek to change sexual orientation anymore. 

The problem is that the law is vague and overbroad, causing it to infringe not only on client self-determination but also on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and America’s broad tradition of religious liberty. The next sentence in the Washington law is especially problematic, which states that the definition of ‘conversion therapy’ includes “efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex” (emphasis added). The Washington law effectively states that therapists must affirm whatever behaviors or gender expressions the client currently engages in, even if the client themselves may want to stop. If the therapist helps the client stop a behavior or reduce the intensity of their conflicted feelings, they will face discipline. Twenty other states have enacted similar bans on “conversion therapy,” defined in an overbroad way.

The Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Most bans on “conversion therapy” violate the freedom of speech by defining conversion therapy so broadly. In another Supreme Court case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), a website designer did not want to be forced to design websites for gay weddings. The Supreme Court ruled that the creation of websites is “pure speech” (communication through written or spoken words), and forcing her to say something she did not believe in violated the core of freedom of speech. Because almost all therapy is done through verbal dialogue, not allowing a therapist to speak with a client about homosexuality in a non-affirming way is also a direct violation of free speech.

The opposing argument was that the bans do not violate free speech because they prohibit “conduct,” and the kind of speech therapists engage in is a form of conduct that can be regulated by the state. However, in NIFLA v. Becerra, decided in 2018, the Supreme Court said that “this Court has not recognized ‘professional speech’ as a separate category of speech. Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by ‘professionals.’” And as Justice Thomas stated, quoting a similar case out of Florida, “If speaking to clients is not speech, the world is truly upside down.”

The Tingley case also undermines our country’s history of protecting freedom of conscience and religious pluralism. Though America has often fallen short of our ideals, our history includes a robust tradition of accommodating religious differences. During the Revolutionary War, the Quakers, for religious reasons, did not want to fight, and they were granted religious exemptions in many colonies. This exception survives today under the rubric of “conscientious objectors.” Our tradition of allowing religious liberty for all permits a variety of beliefs to coexist without requiring conformity to any specific religious belief. Courts and legislators should protect religiously motivated counselors and their beliefs from being trampled under the excuse of ridding the country of homophobia.

Washington argued that the government has a compelling interest in protecting homosexual minors from harm by clearly dangerous practices. If this was their real motivation, they could easily have defined conversion therapy more narrowly and more specifically. By upholding such a broad definition, the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court are penalizing religious beliefs held by professional therapists who do not want to affirm homosexual behavior. This is the opposite of religious freedom in which such differences are allowed, and matters of belief and conscience may not be compelled.

The fundamental disagreement is over what constitutes “harm” in this context. It is argued that therapists occupy a position of power relative to their clients, many of whom are in an emotionally vulnerable state. Many therapists believe that anything less than full acceptance of LGBT+ identities and behaviors is harmful, even if the clients themselves do not want affirmation. Within this perspective, the person is defined (in significant part) by their experienced sexual desires and gender identity. Any accommodation of traditional views about sexuality or gender is harmful because it could prevent people from living authentically according to their “true selves.” 

But as Carl Trueman and others have shown, this understanding of the “true self” is a relatively recent invention. It is not obviously true, as many of its supporters suggest. Reasonable people of good will can disagree about the extent to which certain desires or experiences should inform our understanding of who we are and how we should live.

Even recent legislation and court decisions by Democrats and Democratic-appointed judges clearly show that traditional views about sexuality and marriage need not be based in ignorance or bigotry. In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the case that required all states to recognize same-sex marriages, the Court stated that “many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here.” Further, Congress recently passed the Respect for Marriage Act. This law provided federal recognition of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage while also recognizing that “diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises.” This clearly includes believers in traditional marriage. Professional counselors who do not abuse their clients physically or psychologically and instead help them reconcile their religious and moral values with their sexuality should be allowed to help such individuals, even if they are minors. It should not be criminal to disagree with LGBTQ-affirming beliefs or for clients to seek therapeutic support in reconciling their faith with their attractions. LGBTQ individuals who want therapy that affirms their identity and behavior should be able to find it. 

Too often, we make this more complicated than it needs to be. LGBT+ individuals who want therapy that affirms their identity and behavior should be able to find it. LGBT+ individuals who want therapy that affirms other aspects of their identity, such as their religious faith, should also be able to find it. Instead, the course chosen by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holds, in the words of Justice Thomas, that “expressing any other message [besides LGBT+ affirmation] is forbidden—even if the counselor’s clients ask for help to accept their biological sex.” Why should individuals not be able to access the therapy they actually want?

Though the Supreme Court declined to hear Tingley v. Ferguson, the Court should take the next available opportunity to rule on this important issue. Therapists and clients should be free to discuss issues related to gender identity and sexual orientation without fearing punishment from the state. Whereas it was once the case that homosexuals were treated as sick and subjected to dubious “treatments,” the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Those who wish to live a traditional moral code have largely been abandoned by therapists, legislatures, and now even the Supreme Court of the United States. Freedom to explore these issues should not mean the empty freedom to agree with the government. For years, gay activists demanded that the government “get out of our bedroom.” Government should also get out of the therapy room.

The post Disciplined For Disagreeing appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Heretic is a horror film distributed by A24. It arrives in theaters this fall. It stars Hugh Grant, as well as relative newcomers Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East.

What is Heretic About?

Heretic is about two sister missionaries from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Sister Paxton and Sister Barnes. Hugh Grant plays Mr. Reed, who requests a visit from the missionaries. Reed kidnaps the sister missionaries.

Who is involved in creating Heretic?

The film was written, directed, and produced by childhood friends Scott Beck and Bryan Woods. They are known for writing the script for the popular film series A Quiet Place. This is the largest production Beck and Woods have directed themselves. In a Q&A at the film’s world premiere, they described themselves as lapsed evangelicals.

Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East, both former Latter-day Saints, portray the sister missionaries. Hugh Grant describes himself as not a believer.

Heretic hasn’t come out yet. How do you have details about it?

While the film has not been released nationwide, it has had its premiere. The Q&A below is spoiler-heavy based on previous screenings of the film. While most Latter-day Saints will not want to watch the film, we felt that it was important to discuss the portrayal of sister missionaries in an open and honest way so members can participate in and be aware of the dialogue surrounding the film. 

How does the film begin?

The film opens with the two sister missionaries sitting on a bus bench with a condom advertisement. They discuss condom sizes and which sizes Sister Barnes’ ex-brother-in-law wears, which leads Sister Paxton to describe watching pornography. She describes watching a video where the performers were interrupted by the person in the next room. One performer looked aghast “like her spirit left her.” Paxton says that this helped her testimony.

We learn that the senior companion, Sister Barnes, has taught many people who have been baptized, while Sister Paxton hasn’t taught anyone who was then baptized. Sister Barnes commits that they are going to get Paxton a baptism.

We are then shown a montage of them doing unsuccessful street contacting. 

They then approach a group of teenage girls because Paxton says she has “a good feeling about them.” Those girls then ask Paxton about her “magic underwear” and then pull her skirt down, revealing her temple garments before she can answer. Paxton is very embarrassed.

How do the missionaries meet Mr. Reed?

The missionaries had received a referral for Mr. Reed, but someone in their ward warned them not to go. They go anyway because Barnes wants to get Paxton a convert. Mr. Reed is very friendly and invites the missionaries in. 

They inform him that they cannot come in if there is not another woman present. Reed says his wife is in the kitchen cooking a blueberry pie. 

The missionaries walk in and start a conversation. Reed says he thinks people should have some belief and the conversation begins on a friendly basis. Sister Barnes shares a story of her father’s illness, and Mr. Reed uses this as a reason to question her faith. Barnes says when she dies she wants to come back as a butterfly. He then begins to lecture them about what he sees as the weaknesses of their religion.

When his wife does not appear within a few minutes, the missionaries press that she needs to come out or they need to leave. Mr. Reed goes into the kitchen to get her, and the sister missionaries realize that the blueberry pie they smell is actually from a candle. 

While Mr. Reed says he’s getting his wife, he’s actually stealing the missionaries’ bikes from the front so no one will know they’re there. 

They decide to leave, but the door is locked. The windows are too small to escape from, and their cell phone doesn’t have reception.

How does Reed begin to mistreat the missionaries?

The missionaries ask him to let them go, but he tells them that his locks are automatic and cannot be unlocked until the morning. 

Mr. Reed is obsessed with the idea of control, so at this point, he never physically hurts the missionaries but rather tells them they can make their own decisions. He tells them they must go into the back room if they want to get their coats and that the house exit is out the back. When they get their coats, they realize that the key to their bike lock has changed pockets.

Reed continues to insist they can leave at any time they’d like through two doors from that backroom.

Worried about being harmed, Barnes convinces Paxton to stay and listen to a lecture Mr. Reed wants to give them about religion. 

What is Reed’s Theory of Religion?

Reed begins to tell the missionaries that religion is about iterations. He claims that the story of Jesus Christ is merely a reworked myth of previous cultures like the Persian Mithras or the Egyptian Ra.

He compares Judaism to “The Landlord’s Game ” and Christianity to “Monopoly,” which is substantially similar but better marketed. He compares Islam to “Monopoly: Ultimate Banking Edition” and the Church of Jesus Christ to “Monopoly: Bob Ross Edition.”

He also plays the songs “The Air I Breathe” and “Creep” by Radiohead, which share similar melodies and chord progressions.

While in this room, Sister Barnes sees a letter opener which she gives to Paxton to put in her pocket. Barnes tells Paxton that if she says the phrase “magic underwear,” that means to stab Mr. Reed with the letter opener.

Is there any way for the missionaries to get out?

Mr. Reed insists throughout that the missionaries are not locked in the house but that there is an exit through the back, and they just need to go that way. 

There are two doors out the back, and when he finishes his lecture, he tells them to leave either through a door representing belief or disbelief. Sister Barnes convinces Paxton that they should go through the belief door, and they proceed even though it clearly leads to a basement. Reed immediately locks the door behind them. 

When they get into the basement Barnes notices a loose floorboard with nails in it. Soon, they see a woman walking across the room with a blueberry pie. They hear Reed through a speaker. He lectures them about miracles and says that he brought them here to witness a miracle. The woman is going to eat the pie, which has been poisoned, and she will then come back to life. Reed calls her “the prophet.” She is elderly and in rags. Her eyes have thick cataracts, and she doesn’t speak. She scoops the pie with her hand, eats it, begins to spasm, and then dies in front of the missionaries. Reed forces them to check for a pulse, which she does not have.

Does anyone come to check on Sisters Barnes and Paxton?

Yes, there are occasional scenes with Elder Kennedy. He is a single, middle-aged man played by Topher Grace. He wears a missionary tag, and we see him cleaning the local chapel. When he notices that the missionaries aren’t back at the chapel by the usual time, he goes out into the snowstorm to find them. 

He stops by several homes, including Mr. Reed’s. Reed insists that the missionaries have never come, and Elder Kennedy leaves before returning for a brief second to pass along a pamphlet to Mr. Reed.

While Mr. Reed is at the door, the missionaries are screaming and getting a set of matches. They use them to try to create smoke that Elder Kennedy might see, but it doesn’t work.

Has Mr. Reed planned this encounter?

Yes. We see Reed in a study where he has created a model of his house and has planned in detail how he expected the sister missionaries to act throughout his plan. The entire architecture of his house, including metal roofs to block cell phone signals, has been built with this abduction in mind.

What happens to the woman who ate the pie?

When Sister Barnes and Paxton go back down, Paxton notes that it appears like the woman has moved. Eventually, she sits up and, in bursts of words, describes a vision of a train in the clouds, ending with the words, “It’s Not Real.”

Mr. Reed then comes into the basement. He lectures the missionaries, insisting they call what happened a miracle. Barnes argues with him, saying that it’s an illusion. She calls it “magic—” and in suspense, we see Paxton is ready to stab Reed if Barnes says “underwear,” but instead, Reed stabs Barnes, killing her. 

He then insists that when the prophet said, “It is not real,” she meant that life is actually a simulation. To illustrate this, Reed recounts a Daoist thought experiment where a man had a dream of being a butterfly but wondered if he was really a butterfly having a dream of being a man. Reed says Barnes was not a real person but part of the simulation. He then cuts open her upper arm and pulls out what is clearly subcutaneous birth control, claiming it is actually evidence of the simulation. 

Paxton then says it’s birth control and (inaccurately) says Barnes would have faced church discipline if anyone knew she had it. 

How does the movie end?

Reed then tries to convince Sister Paxton of the miracle, but Paxton says that what happened is that the old woman actually died, and a second woman was brought into the room to replace her. Paxton tells Reed that she doesn’t believe his trick went according to plan. She believes that when the second woman said, “It’s not real,” it was a warning to the missionaries.

Reed is skeptical, saying if that is true, there must be a door underneath the basement. 

Paxton immediately finds the door and discovers the dead body of the woman she saw before and cages filled with women dressed exactly the same as the one who had died eating the poison pie.

Paxton then says Mr. Reed actually believes “the one true church is control” and that he had been controlling them the entire time. Reed then lectures Paxton about how much she is controlled, cutting off a finger of one of the women to demonstrate. He then uses the example that Paxton has even been told she has to wear “magic underwear.” At this, Paxton stabs Reed with the letter opener and runs back up into the cellar, but she’s still locked in. 

Reed follows and then stabs Paxton. She then admits that she doesn’t believe that prayer works, but she thinks it’s nice anyway. 

Sister Barnes, who had been presumed dead, stands up and impales Reed with the loose floorboard, and he dies. Barnes immediately collapses again. Paxton then goes back into the sub-basement, finds the bicycle lock, which she unlocks, and then goes outside. She briefly hallucinates a butterfly landing on her finger before passing out in the snow, presumably dead.  

Is the movie good?

It is suspenseful. The set design is above average. There are some moments of great cinematography and other moments where it’s poor. The dialogue is not written very well. Hugh Grant is a strong actor, but both Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East, who play the sister missionaries, feel like amateurs who can’t communicate with much nuance or carry the weight of the narrative. 

Because of its heavy emphasis on lecturing about atheism, the plot often feels weighed down and dull. In that way, it’s kind of like overly preachy religious cinema like “Saturday’s Warrior,” but for atheists.

In terms of its artistic merit, it’s average, certainly not great or even good. It also doesn’t have the makings of a cult horror movie, nor is it good enough to be an award contender. It’s unlikely to be remembered in a year by anyone except academics who study Latter-day Saint depictions in movies or horror movie buffs.

Who is the Heretic?

A heretic is someone who believes the wrong thing. The title is likely intended to make its audience wonder if the missionaries are heretics because Reed “proves them wrong” or whether he, as the non-believer predator, is the heretic.

Does Heretic have an agenda?

The creators say they want the movie to spark conversations about religion. Mr. Reed is portrayed far and away as the most intelligent character in the movie. Paxton’s vision of the butterfly at the end is portrayed as a hallucination. Barnes briefly coming back to life to kill Mr. Reed could be seen as a miracle.

In the Q&A, the directors said that they were influenced by the “new atheist” movement’s writers, such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.

Could this result in missionaries getting hurt?

A copycat attempt is one of the worst possible outcomes here. The creators don’t seem to be trying to create them, though. It is shown that Reed has spent years planning this, including building the very architecture of the home to enable it. It also requires strong manipulation from Reed to work around the missionaries’ safety standards. 

What criticisms could Latter-day Saints face as a result of the film?

While Mr. Reed mocks Latter-day Saints generally throughout the film, there are only three cogent criticisms that he makes:

1. Joseph Smith instituted polygamy for his own sexual satisfaction. This is an old criticism, and recent research into the timeline of Smith’s polygamous marriages is making this claim feel more out of touch with reality. 

2. The story of Jesus Christ is a reworked myth from other ancient cultures. Interestingly, the screenwriters have Reed, who otherwise seems well-read, repeat easily debunked claims about mythological Gods to make this point. 

3. Religion is all about control. This is Reed’s main conclusion in the film, so it may be picked up on by others as well. 

How does Heretic make Latter-day Saints and the Church of Jesus Christ look?

Different viewers will have different takeaways, but a group of those who have seen the film reported having, on average, more positive feelings about missionaries but worse feelings about the Church of Jesus Christ as a result of the movie.

Is Heretic Insulting to Latter-day Saints?

Those who feel insulted will likely notice that the film spends a lot of time implying that all faith is unintelligent. In the end, Sister Paxton reveals the reality of her lack of faith. The missionaries are sexualized in ways most missionaries would be uncomfortable with. The film also seems to revel in embarrassing the sister missionaries, such as pulling down their pants, comparing their religion to Bob Ross Monopoly, and repeating “magic underwear” ad nauseam.

One person who watched the film said, “Whoever wrote that was really angry that a sister missionary said no when he tried to hit on her.”

Those who feel the film respects Latter-day Saints will likely focus on the fact that the missionaries are the protagonists and that, in the end, Sister Paxton outwits Mr. Reed. 

In our assessment, however, the creators of the film wanted audiences to take the message that religion is obviously wrong but might make you a better person anyway. Different viewers will certainly make their own interpretations.

The post Heretic Movie: All Your Questions Answered appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

An Egyptian government official once told the future President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Howard W. Hunter, that if a bridge between Islam and Christianity is ever to be built, it will need to be built by the Church of Jesus Christ. And while there are many similarities between Latter-day Saints and Muslims in general, there is certainly a striking similarity with the Ahmadiyya community. 

Ahmadiyya In the History of Islam

Born around AD 570 in Mecca, Muhammad belonged to the Quraysh tribe, guardians of the Kaaba, a center of worship filled with tribal gods’ images. Although illiterate, Muhammad, influenced by surrounding monotheistic faiths, received revelations from an entity claiming to be Angel Gabriel. These revelations became the Quran. With converts like his wife, Khadija, cousin Ali, and friend Abu-Bakr, the religion spread. Yet, upon Muhammad’s death in AD 632, disagreements arose about succession, dividing his followers into Sunnis and Shi’as. Sunni Muslims followed the sunna or customary practice of Muhammad, while Shi’as believed leadership should reside within Muhammad’s bloodline. Today, Sunnis represent roughly 87% of global Muslims, while Shi’as dominate in nations like Iran and Iraq.

The History of the Ahmadiyya

In 1889, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad founded the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in India with an initial group of 40. His mission was to restore a deep connection between God and humanity, emphasizing love, sincerity, and a pure understanding of God’s unity. Now present in over 207 countries with tens of millions of members, the Ahmadiyya Community has established more than 15,000 mosques and numerous educational and healthcare facilities. After facing persecution in the region where they were founded, their headquarters are now in Great Britain. 

Ahmadis align with core Islamic beliefs, like the five pillars of Islam. But there are distinct differences. They believe the Caliphate is a spiritual rather than political entity. They interpret “jihad” differently, preferring intellectual and written advocacy (“jihad of the pen”) over violence. They are widely seen by Muslims as being outsiders or not Muslim. The community’s global footprint includes prominent mosques and centers from London to Chicago, always echoing their motto: “Love for all, hatred for none.”

Our Similarities

In a recent visit to the Baitul Futuh Mosque in Morden, South London, a remarkable resemblance between the Ahmadiyya community and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints emerged. Behind the worship areas of the mosque, the Ahmadi have built a large gymnasium, complete with basketball hoops, which is also used for large meetings and community events. As I spoke with Mr. Fareed Ahmad, the National Secretary for External Affairs of the Ahmadiyya community, the commonalities became more pronounced.

Dedication to Missionary Work: Both communities emphasize spreading their faith. Ahmadiyya missionaries, trained as Imams at their theological seminary, go door-to-door, much like Latter-day Saint missionaries. Their conversion philosophy aligns with the Quranic teaching, “There shall be no compulsion in religion” (2:256), indicating a faith choice made out of genuine belief, not force.

Personal Revelation: The Ahmadi believe in 124,000 prophets visiting various peoples. This is reminiscent of Ammon’s words in Alma 26:37 and Nephi’s revelation in 2 Nephi 29:12, emphasizing that God is mindful of every people and speaks to them.

Jesus’ Ministry: Ahmadis, like most Muslims, recognize Jesus as a prophet. Their unique belief is that after surviving the crucifixion, Jesus traveled to Kashmir to continue his ministry. This resonates with Latter-day Saints’ belief about Jesus ministering to various groups, as illustrated in 3 Nephi 16:1-3.

When this subject came up, Mr. Ahmad had enough familiarity with our beliefs to know that The Book of Mormon is an account of a visit to the House of Israel.

Community Infrastructure and Resources: Both communities offer substantial resources for members and seekers. The Ahmadi mosque in London, capable of accommodating 5,000 worshippers, also houses a library with materials on comparative religion, including copies of The Book of Mormon. There’s also a broadcasting center offering continuous content on Islam and the Ahmadiyya community, similar to the Latter-day Saints’ efforts in media outreach.

History and Heritage: The Ahmadis, with their 20 mosques in England and the oldest mosque in the US, emphasize their heritage, much like the Latter-day Saints. Mr. Ahmad’s connection to the first Ahmadi missionary to England and his role on the National Committee for the UK mirrors the Latter-day Saints’ emphasis on lineage and service.

Ongoing Prophetic Guidance: A cornerstone of both communities is the belief in continuing revelation through prophets. Ahmadis believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be the Promised Messiah and one who partakes of the prophetic spirit, indicating that divine guidance didn’t end with Muhammad. Similarly, Latter-day Saints believe in an ongoing line of prophets leading the Church, starting with Joseph Smith up to the present day. For both, this belief signifies a living faith, continuously guided and refreshed by divine instruction.

While the nuances of both faiths are complex and varied, it’s clear that both the Ahmadiyya and Latter-day Saints have foundational similarities in their approaches to missionary work, belief in prophetic guidance, and community involvement. Such parallels are a testament to the diverse tapestry of global faith, drawing unexpected connections between communities.

A History of Persecution

The Ahmadiyya community, founded by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, has experienced significant persecution since its inception, especially in countries where their beliefs deviate from mainstream Islamic views. Much like some in mainstream Christianity question the Christianity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, many traditional Muslims reject the Ahmadiyya as genuine Muslims due to their belief in post-Muhammad revelation.

The persecution is particularly intense in Pakistan, where Ahmadis are legally barred from identifying as Muslims, calling their worship places ‘mosques,’ or engaging in proselytization, and meeting houses are routinely vandalized. Simple acts, such as offering the standard Islamic greeting, can result in imprisonment. The state-sponsored persecution escalated in the 1970s under the leadership of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, influenced by Saudi pressures. His successor, General Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, intensified these repressions. Blasphemy laws under Zia’s regime made practicing the Ahmadi faith punishable by death, with vigilante executions often overlooked or even facilitated by law enforcement.

The persecution has transcended borders. In Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation, Ahmadis face violence incited by groups like the Islamic Defenders Front. Disturbingly, the first Ahmadi Muslim was killed due to his faith in the UK in 2016. An alarming projection by Ahmadi leaders suggests that if intolerance continues against the Ahmadi, other minority groups might soon face similar persecution.

The Ahmadiyya community actively raises awareness about their plight. In 2016, the UK House of Commons held a debate addressing the state-sponsored persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan, acknowledging their contribution to UK society and voicing concerns for their safety in their homeland and other countries.

The parallels between the Ahmadiyya and Latter-day Saints communities are evident. Joseph Smith, the Latter-day Saints founder, championed religious freedom and tolerance, emphasizing the intrinsic rights of individuals to their beliefs as long as they didn’t infringe on civil liberties. Both communities, despite being minority factions in their respective religious traditions, have faced prejudice and persecution.

In drawing parallels, Elder Russell M. Nelson, from the Latter-day Saints, once stated how important it is that we live together with mutual admiration and respect, regardless of religious differences. Given the shared histories and values of the Ahmadiyya and Latter-day Saints, building bridges of understanding seems more than achievable. Echoing the sentiments of an Ahmadi leader, both communities continue to “live in hope.”

References

Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. About us. Retrieved June 15, 2018 from https://www.ahmadiyya.us/about-ahmadiyya-muslim-community

Balzani, Marzia. 2010. Dreaming, Islam and the Ahmadiyya Muslims in the UK. History and Anthropology, 21. 3. 293-305.

Berberian, Linda J. 1987. “Pakistan Ordinance XX of 1984: International Implications on Human Rights.” Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 9, 661-692. 

Burhani, Ahmad Najib. 2014. Hating the Ahmadiyya: the place of “heretics” in contemporary Indonesian Muslim society. Contemporary Islam, 8, 2. pp 133–152

Dahl, Larry E., and Cannon, Donald Q. eds. (1997). Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith’s Teachings. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book.

Dawood, N. J. 1990. Introduction. The Koran. New York: Penguin.

Hopfe, Lewis M. 1983. “Islam.”  Religions of the World. New York: Macmillan.

Hunter, Howard. 1979. “All are alike unto God.” BYU Speeches of the Year. 

Hanson, John. 2007. Jihad and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community: Nonviolent Efforts to Promote Islam in the Contemporary World. Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions,11(2), 77-93. doi:10.1525/nr.2007.11.2.77

Mehmood, Rabia. 2012. “Police demolish Ahmadi worship place minarets in Kharian.” Retrieved June 15, 2018, from https://tribune.com.pk/story/406708/police-demolish-ahmadi-worship-place-minarets-in-kharian/

Moore, James. 2015. “The Sunni and Shia Schism: Religion, Islamic Politics, and Why Americans Need to Know the Differences.” The Social Studies. 106, 226–235

Nelson, Russell M. 2002. “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Retrieved June 1, 2018 from https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/10/blessed-are-the-peacemakers?lang=eng

Nigosian, Solomon Alexander. 2004. Islam. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Parliamentary Debate. 2016. The persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslims and other Religious Minorities in Pakistan. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community UK: London.

Peterson, Daniel C. 2018. “Understanding Islam.” Retrieved May 3, 2018 from https://www.lds.org/ensign/2018/04/understanding-islam?lang=eng 

Qadir, Ali. 2015. When heterodoxy becomes heresy: Using Bourdieu’s concept of Doxa to describe state-sanctioned exclusion in Pakistan. Sociology of Religion 76:2 155-176. 

Robinson, Francis. 1990. Ahamad and the Ahmadiyya. History Today. June, 1990. 

Sedgwick, Mark. 2000. Sects in the Islamic World. Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 3, 2: 195-240. 

Sedgwick, Mark. 2007. Jihad, Modernity, and Sectarianism. Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, 11(2), 6-27. doi:10.1525/nr.2007.11.2.6

Suhartono, Muktita and Callimachi, Rukmini. (2018). “Indonesia Church Bombings Carried Out by Family With Children in Tow.” Retrieved May 14, 2018 from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/13/world/asia/indonesia-church-suicide-bomber.html 

The post From Pakistan to Palmyra: Bridges Between Minority Faiths appeared first on Public Square Magazine.