Quite a few people enjoyed making the joke that JD Vance killed the Pope. Both Francis and the new Pope Leo were critical of Vance’s view that Christian love should be doled out based on proximity to oneself rather than applied universally. In Vance’s view, love is like concentric circles, placing the self at the center, and eventually the love wanes out as it gets to those who are less relevant to oneself, e.g. starving children in another country. Both Francis and Leo felt that Vance’s statements diminished the responsibility of Christians to show mercy and charity towards the poor rather than blaming them for their plight.
I was amused recently to hear about an emerging trend in Catholicism to discuss cultural clashes between “cradle” Catholics and “convert” Catholics.
1. Cultural vs. Chosen Catholicism
- Cradle Catholics often see Catholicism as part of their identity and family history.
- They may be more culturally embedded, with looser boundaries between tradition and practice.
- Some may take the faith for granted, others carry trauma or fatigue from institutional experience.
- Converts often come in with a conscious, deeply researched commitment.
- Many are drawn to the Church’s tradition, liturgy, and moral clarity, especially if coming from Protestant or secular backgrounds.
- They may take doctrine and liturgical norms more seriously than cradle Catholics who grew up with a more relaxed or cafeteria-style approach.
✝️ Tension: Converts may see cradle Catholics as lukewarm or casual; cradle Catholics may see converts as rigid, overly zealous, or lacking nuance.
2. Theological Rigor vs. Lived Catholicism
- Converts often develop a strong attachment to orthodoxy, apologetics, and Church authority.
- They’ve usually gone through RCIA, read the Catechism, and made an intellectual and spiritual leap.
- Many engage in “online Catholicism” (YouTube apologists, blogs, trad forums).
- Cradle Catholics may lean more on lived experience, local parish culture, and generational faith.
- They may not have read the Catechism cover-to-cover but are deeply shaped by Catholic ethos (Mass, sacraments, holidays, school).
- Some are more open to pastoral flexibility and synod-style dialogue.
🗣️ Tension: Converts may emphasize “what the Church teaches”; cradle Catholics may emphasize “how we actually live it.”
3. Liturgy and Aesthetics
- Converts are often drawn to reverent liturgy—Latin Mass, incense, traditional music, and solemnity.
- Cradle Catholics may be more used to modern parish life—guitar choirs, felt banners, and casual community Masses.
🎼 Tension: Converts may feel the liturgy has been watered down; cradle Catholics may see traditionalism as performance or inflexible nostalgia.
4. Belonging vs. Proving
- Cradle Catholics often assume a natural sense of belonging in the Church, even if they disagree with aspects of it.
- Converts may feel they have to prove they belong — by being more loyal, vocal, or orthodox than others.
👥 Tension: Converts may feel cradle Catholics don’t value the faith they inherited; cradle Catholics may feel converts are trying to “out-Catholic” them.
5. Political and Cultural Differences
- Converts often arrive with strong convictions about moral teachings, especially in areas like abortion, gender, and marriage.
- Cradle Catholics may be more diverse politically, or more inclined toward social justice, pastoral nuance, or skepticism of political entanglement.
🧨 Tension: Converts may be perceived as culture warriors; cradle Catholics may be viewed as too soft or accommodating.
What draws someone to Catholicism is often very different than what draws them to Mormonism. Converts to Catholicism might be drawn to the liturgy, the high Church, the ancient traditions, the smell of incense, the millennia of worship, the grandeur of the buildings, the feel of being part of something other-worldly inside the Cathedral. These are not features of Mormonism. Converts to Mormonism are more likely to be drawn to a sense of the modern or the stripped-down-to-the-studs features of worship in the Church, as well as the individuality inherent in having one’s own “path” to follow with increasing commitments toward temple admittance. Joining such a Church (in either case) is a choice, often cutting ties with everything one has been taught growing up.
And yet, none of these features are really what Church is about to those born in the faith. They could find those things appealing, but they were in their faith long before rational thought entered the picture. For them, Church is their family tradition, their childhood friendships, the teachers and leaders of their youth who wished them well and planned their activities. Church is memory and lived experience. Church is not a choice. Leaving one’s Church is the choice; staying is the default.
1. “Born in the Covenant” vs. Converts
- Lifelong (cradle) members are often raised in the Church, immersed in LDS culture, family traditions, seminary, missions, etc.
- Converts (especially adult converts) may come in with intense personal conviction, having chosen the faith despite family, social, or theological differences.
✳️ Tension: Lifelong members may take the faith for granted or embody cultural Mormonism more than theological depth; converts may be viewed as idealistic, overly strict, or “trying too hard.”
2. Doctrinal Knowledge and Zeal
- Converts often come in with a deep study of LDS scripture and a strong commitment to doctrine (Word of Wisdom, chastity, temple worthiness).
- Lifelong members may have been socialized into the faith more gradually, and sometimes blend it with cultural norms or personal interpretation.
📘 Tension: Converts may interpret teachings more literally or expect uniformity; lifelong members may roll their eyes or see that as naive or overzealous.
3. Culture vs. Global Faith
- Many converts come from diverse cultural, racial, and national backgrounds, especially outside the U.S.
- The LDS Church originated in a very Utah-centric, white, American cultural context that still shapes much of its institutional tone.
🌎 Tension: Converts may struggle to feel fully accepted if they don’t fit that mold; lifelong members may be unaware of how narrow or exclusionary their cultural assumptions can be.
4. Intellectual vs. Experiential Faith
- Some lifelong members go through faith transitions, reconciling history, doubts, or social issues.
- Converts often arrive with idealism and certainty, having resolved those questions to join.
⚖️ Tension: Faithful doubters may feel unseen; converts may feel destabilized by nuance or see “Nuanced Mormons” as disloyal or unorthodox.
5. Institutional Access and Visibility
- Lifelong members, especially in areas with large LDS populations, often have deep social networks in the Church — family lines, leadership experience, BYU ties.
- Converts may lack those informal pathways, even when highly committed.
🔐 Tension: Converts can feel left out of leadership or cultural inclusion; cradle members may unconsciously reinforce a kind of “insider privilege.”
This exercise can be done across various faiths (Evangelical Christianity, Judaism, Islam), and there are some patterns that emerge pretty consistently. Converts feel pressure to prove themselves, to out-righteous the complacent “lifers,” and they may be critical of the cultural congregants who take their faith for granted, but also seem to have extra access due to their insider status. Born congregants may roll their eyes at the zealotry of the converts, preferring the community benefits, the cultural norms, and extending grace to those with doubts who also want to participate.
It has always seemed to me that Catholics are a little more forgiving of “bad Catholics” than Mormons are of “bad Mormons.” That’s something I’ve seen as a feature of the longevity of the religion. When Mormonism matures, it will feel less threatened by doubters or non-conformists (e.g. in Catholicism, someone divorced would be considered a “bad Catholic.”) I’ve seen evidence of this in recent years as more Mormons express doubts or obviously do things like drinking coffee or not wearing garments. On the other hand, there seems to be a weakness emerging as community within the Church erodes. I’ll blog more about that in an upcoming post.
- Do you see this tension between “cradle” and “convert” Church members?
- How do you view this tension in Mormonism vs. other faiths?
- Do you think Mormonism is handling the tension better or worse than before?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I was born within 3 years of my parents converting to the church and raising all of us in the church. However, my father’s great-great-grandfather was part of an active LDS group settling in Idaho, so I have pioneer heritage too.
I relate more to the “Convert” perspective, especially in ways of “proving self”, maybe because of my parents’ experience. We also had a lot of quasi-unconventional family and generational trauma that the church theology didn’t help with and the church community helped with some of it.
I don’t think our culture pays any attention to these contrasts. I see similar life approaches as creating “mixed faith marriage” tension because we don’t talk about the different approaches like this list when we are talking about marriage. NOTE: I have managed to miss out on the “Eternal Marriage” classes in Sunday School or Institute – so these topics might actually be talked about in those areas.
I have known three “converts” to Catholicism during my lifetime. One was a disillusioned Mormon who liked the ceremonies of the formal Catholic Church and it was a church she saw as “little better but still slightly better” than Mormonism. She had been hurt by the cover up of sexual abuse in the Mormon church and at least the cover up of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church hadn’t hurt her personally. So, she was luke warm at best, hardly the devoted convert you are talking about here.
The other two were “converts” because that was the only way they could marry the girl they loved. One didn’t last past the divorce. The other was my mother’s cousin, and lived next door when I was a child. They had a girl my age and I was in their house as much as my own. But can you imagine a guy from a good pioneer family in the 1940s marrying into “the Great and Abominable”. Talk about scandal in Provo. Anyway, he hadn’t been a great Mormon and wasn’t any better of a Catholic. Attended with family Christmas and Easter and his children were raised Catholic. But to be fair, he was most likely disillusioned by the hatred of nonMormons he saw when our common relative married a nonmember from Missouri before he did. I know my Mom was very disillusioned by the whole thing but that is another story.
So, I highly suspect that is the kind of Catholic we have with Vance. He converted to marry and at heart is no more Catholic than the two guys I knew. But he will use it to try to buddy up to the new Pope, because he is too stupid to realize the Pope thinks he is a less than kind human.
To put this in a Mormon perspective. I had a bishop once who is a very good man. Loving, kind, but less orthodox. He kept Sunstone magazine in his bishop office. He converted to Mormonism to marry the girl he loved. For him, one Christian church was as good as another. He had a very nuanced view of everything Mormon and always put his Christianity before his Mormonism. I couldn’t say what he “really thinks” about Joseph Smith, because he never shared that with me. He was never one to bad mouth anything or judge. He saw the church as over all good, and mostly as a way to do good for others. He was faithful enough to be bishop, but during a temple recommend, when ask if I believed the church president was a prophet, I said I believed that yes, he *could* receive revelation for the church…just like I believe the Pope can receive revelation for his church, whether he does or not is another question. Yes, I said that. Bishop was good with that.
So, yes, there are the zealots who are converts and there are zealots who are BIC. But not all converts are equally converted. I guess I don’t like lumping converts into one group and BIC into another. I don’t think those labels tell us anything about how someone believes now. I think the TBM designation tells us more about what kind of believer and I don’t like that either.
Some faith traditions require converts to complete a lengthy and rigorous process to join the faith. Examples include Judaism and some orthodox traditions.
Our faith traditions are willing to baptize on the spot.
I think that difference matters. Our converts only know a few of the rules when they join. While they may feel attached to those rules, they may feel less attached to the pile on of rules they learn about after they join.
I feel like the call to go on a mission is the major difference between “Catholic Born vs Convert” understanding of doctrine and the “Mormon convert vs born into it” because the male catholic isn’t socially forced to drop their whole life for two years and learn and preach the gospel. Throw in women that also go on missions and seminary and you have a serious indoctrination beyond just growing up in the church.
So a convert to Catholicism will want to be there because they’ve tended to seriously studied it and spent a year as a catechumen vs. those born into just went to mass and checked the boxes.
The convert to Mormonism is almost the reverse with little studying are quickly baptized into the faith vs the members who are comprised of many RMs.
Covenant theology is a Calvinist construct. In the strictest form, children born and baptized into the Reformed Church are Christian until they show that they are not. Restoration churches (aka Church of Christ aka Stone Campbell) rejected this, requiring conscious faith and baptism. Mormonism started out this way, but within a few years adopted a form of covenant theology
I think the mission angle is an interesting difference, as is the lay clergy angle in general. Converts who serve missions are probably more indoctrinated than those who do not, but a good friend of mine left the Church during the pandemic. She was a convert who served a mission. I was somewhat surprised as a result, thinking that the mission service was an anchor, but she said in her case she knew that being outside the church wasn’t scary, so leaving it wasn’t like jumping off a cliff. However, she was the first one in her marriage to say she was leaving, and she had teen and adult kids as well. They mostly all left after she told them why she would no longer be doing daily scripture study with them.
The family I was raised in was a mix of BIC and convert. My parents converted when my oldest sisters were already born, so 3 of us were BIC and 4 were kids when they joined a new church. I have a hard time seeing how that impacted commitment levels, but those that served missions definitely had more consistent long-term commitment to the church than those who did not. Even so, that doesn’t translate immediately into how TBM someone is. People get different things out of church attendance.
Which brings me to a weird conversation I had with my daughter’s college roommate. She’s not Christian (raised by Hindu parents but not very religious either). She said that there’s a real trend among their college age friends of kids “becoming Christian” all of a sudden, marrying younger and starting to have kids. It’s anecdotal, but she’s linking it somewhat to the MAGA stuff being so prevalent, that young people are attracted to this trad-relationship stuff again. In some cases, they are translating their own homophobia or racism into religion. In other cases, they are just into the community and family support. I’d be surprised if this really is a demographic shift given the historical waning of religion in public life, but who’s to say? It happened in Nazi Germany.
I don’t see tension between cradle and convert Mormons. Tension requires someone pulling on both ends, and (at least in the US) cradle Mormons vastly out number the converts. It’s not much of a game of tug-of-war. More than anything else, Mormons are fabulous at correlation. It’s the primary value we’ve been practicing for decades now. Converts are almost never in any positions of power or authority until they’ve been active members for decades and we’ve sufficiently squished them into the Mormon mold. Converts who find the mold uncomfortable aren’t likely to stay. I don’t see any difference between those who were BIC and those who are converts of 20-30+ years.
And in my experience, converts almost *never* “come in with a deep study of LDS scripture”.
Anna, Shillbilly Vance’s wife is Hindu. His conversion to Catholicism had nothing to do with Christianity. The marriage ceremony was Hindu. And in so far as a brief Google search provides, popes are not prophets and do not receive revelation
I meant to say his conversion had nothing to do with marriage. But the second sentence might be true.
“Converts often come in with a deep study of LDS scripture and a strong commitment to doctrine (Word of Wisdom, chastity, temple worthiness).”
Angela, we must have very, very different experiences with converts because I have literally never seen this to be true in my many decades as a member. As others have suggested, we baptize investigators long before they ever have a chance to do much more than read 3 Nephi and agree to live the Word of Wisdom. And then the vast majority of them are long gone before their first anniversary in the Church. I’ve certainly met enthusiastic converts, but that was generally unrelated to their depth of study and much more the result of some intense personal experience that had convinced them to join the Church.
Not a cougar & others: I agree with you that converts usually know jack all about the church, at least in my personal experience as a missionary. This was a chatGPT claim, and honestly, I think it only holds up if you consider converts who stick with it (maybe) which is not a very high % of converts! Either that or ChatGPT is hallucinating again, LOL. Then again, I just spent the last half hour arguing with TBMs on X about some really bad takes of theirs, and my guess is that they would consider themselves to also have done a lot of “deep study” before arriving at their dubious conclusions. I question what exactly “deep study” means. As to whether most converts truly understand the Word of Wisdom, Law of Chastity, or TR questions, well, again I can only say that most of them I taught probably did not. Those were not hurdles to membership so much as they were cleanup for the ward to handle. But for those who stayed, they had to come up with justifications for their newfound commitments.
Like Dave W. I don’t see tension between cradle and convert Mormons. I see the tension being between lifelong members who are super zealous, and lifelong members who are more casual.
Converts who are casual get a pass because “they’re still learning”, and converts who are zealous are welcomed with open arms.
But my opinion is that lifelong members who are casual are looked down upon by the lifelong zealous members because “They should know better”. And lifelong casual members are generally annoyed by the lifelong zealous members because “Chill out. Christ didn’t ask for exact obedience to everything in the BITE model. He just wants us to love one another.”
Vajra2, my point was that I don’t think the Mormon prophet gets any more inspiration for his church than the pope does for his. My bishop caught that I was saying that I don’t really believe our “prophet” is anything special. I used a couple of other examples too, like the POTUS can get inspiration to lead the US. I was not really discussing the pope’s relationship with God, only that I think sincere people can be given inspiration and that our church president is no different. I won’t deny that he can recieve inspiration, but also would not say that he *does*. And my point was that this convert bishop was nuanced enough to not deny me a temple recommend over my lack of testimony.
And I will stand corrected on JDV’s reason for his conversion. Just my impression of Vance was that his conversion is not sincere, not the kind of change of heart required to be a real Christian but the kind of person who uses religion to bully and harm others. I didn’t know much about his wife, except that Vance treats her abominably even in public. Come to think of it, he isn’t a decent enough human to convert as a favor to his wife. I was giving him far too much credit. So, perhaps your Freudian slip is correct that his conversion to Catholicism had nothing to do with Christianity.
I agree with DaveW above who says that he doesn’t see any difference between converts of more than about 10 years and life time members. Once someone gets pounded into the mold they are pretty much the same as any other who has been pounded into the mold and those who won’t be “church broke” get driven out, convert or cradle.
I do see tension between “Utah Mormons” and “mission field Mormons” and “mission field” tends to have more converts, but the strongest tension seems to be between locals and move ins or Utah transplants not according to time in church.
Regarding the “tension,” I’ve seen some of the same Utah / “mission field” tension mentioned here, but I’ve also seen a type of “pedigreed” vs. newer families tension as well. Because there is so much nepotism in church leadership, there tend to be mostly these pioneer-bred names in leadership. Even in local stakes, there is often nepotism among the “anchor” families of the stake. I also recall feeling a little chuffed when some pioneer-stock families in my home ward where almost nobody had any pioneer ancestry insisted we “celebrate” Pioneer Day. I said “Why are we celebrating the founding day of another state?” and “Basically, you want us to throw a party to celebrate your ancestors. What about ours?” Even a few years ago when Trek started to become a thing across the church and not just in Utah, it was pitched to the youth by having them stand up if their ancestors were in this or that pioneer company. Of course, none of that applies to those who were born to convert families. To me, it looked really insular.
I know very few converts, other than the ones I met on my mission. Having lived my whole life along the Wasatch Front, I can say that converts are scarce. Every so often, someone would mention converting to the Church as an adult, perhaps because they’d married a Church member and eventually joined. One such convert I know told me straight out that she got baptized to strengthen her marriage.
The people I taught and saw baptized on my mission had barely any understanding of what they were getting into. I was in Kyiv, not long after the Iron Curtain fell. The country had been forced to be secular for 70 years. And while some few people practiced Eastern Orthodoxy in secret, most had only the most surface level ideas of any religion. One of our Church members thought Jesus was the son of Adam and Eve, for example.
Interesting take. One big difference between Catholicism and Mormonism is that the former is a long-standing world religion that comprises hundreds of millions of people. Members of Catholicism are just sort of there. There is no large push to gain converts. By contrast, in Mormonism there is a big push. Ever member a missionary. Investigators are asked to commit early on and to commit largely because of feeling, not because of study. Converts often don’t seem to know a whole lot about Mormonism. Without deep cultural ties to the religion, they often seem not as committed.
Additionally Catholicism has a formal lay-clergy split. In Mormonisn, the members are asked to act as clergy without going to special training. Members are asked to commit a lot of their time and energy to the cause. In the so-called “mission field” there is not much room for peripheral, free-rider Mormons. The most devout Mormons I know are BIC. In Utah I see the free-rider issue to some extent. There are some cultural Mormons, myself included.
I’ll add my two bits about ‘highly-researched’ converts. Basically everybody we baptized in Argentina were what I would call surface-level-understanding people. I was approached by a serious scholarly man in Buenos Aires who asked me what Mormon books I had – I had nothing new to offer him; he had stumbled onto a Mormon-related book at a BsAs bookstore several years before, and was interested enough to keep searching and reading everything he could find. As he rattled off the books he had already read, I realized he was 100x the Mormon scholar I would ever become. When I asked him if he would like to join the church, he declined, saying he had an intellectual tie to its teachings but didn’t feel any spiritual compuction to align himself with it.
There’s another key difference. As the Catholic church grew, it quickly became apparent that the church would need to take a large-tent approach, not in trying to win converts, but in recognizing that there may be multiple ways to look at an issue. All Catholics do not think alike on all issues. Let’s not let a Molinist and a Dominican get started on what kind of grace saves us. Catholics can agree on the big points but allow for divergence on the details, and can do so without labelling other Catholics as heretics. We generally (to my dismay) take a small-tent approach, demanding agreement on a lot of detail and minutiae. In other words, we get too dogmatic too quickly on too many issues.
D&C 20:68 has a solution to people not knowing much at baptism, which is to delay confirmation until after the elders or priests have had a sufficient time to teach what we believe. It seems like we ignore this instruction, and we confirm people either immediately after baptism or within a day or two, but there is no teaching over a period of time. Maybe baptism is for repentance and confirmation is for entry into the church, but we treat them as two sides of the same coin, or two halves of one process, when maybe each should be a stand-alone operation, separated by time, teaching, and understanding.
aporetic1 completely agree. I feel like the online world has also thrown a bigger divide between casual and the zealous members. As a teen the line seemed to be between those who watched “R” rated movies and those who did not. Now my teen daughter talks about peers who only watch “PG” or in some cases only Disney movies. I have also seen a growth in home schooling and the LDS version of religious schools that did not exist when I was growing up in the ‘80s/‘90s.
@AO,
Recently one of my children planned to watch a Disney movie for a youth activity. Another youth asked if they could change the activity to something else, because he claimed the movie “Is a satanic film created for evil purposes”. He proposed that instead of watching the Disney movie, he could have his dad come explain to the quorum all the ways that the movie is Satanic and evil.
On principle, I fought to make sure they didn’t change the activity because I didn’t want my son to somehow think that he had planned a Satanic activity. They other child’s parents were very upset and made it publicly known, claiming that the activity violated the church handbook in several ways.
So yeah, I agree with you. When I was growing up there was tension between those who watched R rated movies or not. Now I’m having tension with someone who thinks Disney movies are satanic. (And yeah, that family does home school their kids).
I was a teenage convert in California in the 1970s (only one in my family). I served a mission in Europe, lived in the Midwest and West, and then ended up in Utah. I see this divide more between Intermountain West mormons and those from elsewhere. I think there is a lot of tradition and culture that makes up Utah mormonism, much of it not gospel in any way (insular, judgy, John Birchy, prosperity gospel, etc.). I have never felt “less” of a Mormon than old-timers in all my time in the Church, except in the time I have lived in Utah where it seems to be in the air (converts are “less than”). I think converts like me tend to be more “okay” with and accepting of people who smoke and drink (like my family and relatives) and less concerned about things like white shirts and strict orthodox Sabbath day practice. Maybe this has only been my experience.
“Even a few years ago when Trek started to become a thing across the church and not just in Utah, it was pitched to the youth by having them stand up if their ancestors were in this or that pioneer company. Of course, none of that applies to those who were born to convert families. To me, it looked really insular.”
I am a Utah-based member of our church, who left Utah in 1984 and never moved back. It is hard to figure out just how we ought to value our pioneer roots at this point. By “our” roots I mean this: The Utah pioneer period remains enormous in terms of our beliefs and our culture. Our “western” heritage (by this I mean intermountain west heritage, not geopolitical western heritage) looms large. This western base likely is an explanation, for example, for the extremely Republican, and anti-Washington point of view of many members of the church, as it is a frequently held point of view in Utah, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, and other states that look at the Federal government as evil overlords rather than well-meaning stewards.
From the point of view of a member of the Paris France ward I am now in, I can’t see any connection to this heritage for the many African, Asian, and occasional French converts to our faith. I am indeed proud of my Utah-pioneer ancestry, but I also believe that others could and should be just as proud of their Basque, Norman, Venetian, Japanese, or Indonesian heritage, if it applies.
By having “Treks” we are allowing a peek into what it may have been like for an early member of our church. I am not sure that Trek was a religious experience for our pioneer ancestors themselves. If they were “trekking” they were almost certain to be less affluent members of the movement. They were trying to join with the Saints in the Great Basin, to be sure. Should we stop celebrating our pioneer heritage? Should we try to let others participate in our celebration by (lamely) trying to let all members see that they all have a “pioneer” ancestor who joined the church at some point.
I think Faith Over Fear hits the nail on the head. I am a non-Utah convert who went to BYU after a tour in the military and after a mission, and I have family in that part of the world through my spouse, and work gets me there from time to time. I have no problem sitting at a table where coffee is served, or in a restaurant where someone orders an alcoholic beverage, and I’m fine being in someone’s house and smelling tobacco, even while they light up in my presence: no judgment, no condemnation. There is a different vibe in Zion, where converts are really looked at as second class citizens and as late-comers to the cause. Much of what passes here at W&T as talk about Mormons (social, political, religious) really describes Utah-Idaho-Arizona lifetime Mormons, and not Mormons in general, although admittedly this is where the greatest concentration is, and where almost all of the leaders are from.
I see zealots and those who are faithful but less zealous. The zealots are both lifers and converts, but sometimes some converts need to show that they’re more faithful than others, so we do sometimes see converts as more dogmatic, but generally while they might be more dogmatic, maybe they are also more tolerant. They can insist of 10% of the gross and two years of wheat, but they’re OK visiting the home of someone who watches football games on Sunday, or who smokes. True fact: one of my missionary companions from Zion was absolutely convinced that smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol was a sin, and a very dirty and vile sin; when I told him that the word of wisdom only applied to those who had made the covenant of baptism, he insisted that smokers and drinkers were sinners no different from adulterers, thieves, liars, and the like. And heaven help sinful men who wore tank tops and were badly immodest, and sinful women who showed what garments should cover. My obervation is that converts from the mission field tend to be more tolerant than our lifelong compatriots from Zion.
I think several of the last comments have made important points about something that has long been a sticking point for me: the lack of pluralism that sometimes exists in Mormon culture (where there are enough Mormons to form a culture, that is). That kind of intolerance is a huge turn-off for potential converts, and frankly, those doing it don’t care. They don’t want a big tent. The small tent elevates their personal standing. When we look at the two-millennia history of Catholicism, to me it seems more valuable to think of it as the Roman Empire than a mere church. My entire life I’ve heard a few leaders here and there mention the idea of being a “global church” yet utterly fail to comprehend what that would entail. It entails a whole lot less uniformity. They think it would mean they have a lot more power, but it really means they have wider influence and much, much less control. Control is anathema to growth. Pluralism requires letting go of the need to dictate everything. Far right zealots are killing all churches, not just the LDS church. At least in Catholicism they have their own little factions and are thereby kept on the inside but in check.
raymondwinn1941: I too have met quite a few investigators who had fairly deeply researched, but to your point, those who really research the church seldom join it, and those who do so after being in it seldom stay.
I agree that the divide in the LDS church is mostly playing out online between different factions of lifelong Mormons, rather than in the everyday local ward setting (I’m sure there are more examples like the one aporetic1 shared, I just haven’t seen it, personally). For example, the Orthodox Bro apologists seem really, really triggered by the Nuanced-Mo apologists. Which is pretty hilarious and also weird. Aren’t they basically on the the same team, only coming at it from different angles?
Anyway, I think the AI robots are right about cradle vs convert Catholics. Of all the Catholics I’ve ever known, I don’t think any of them ever read a single cyclical published by the Pope. Unlike Mormons with whomever the current prophet is, the average Catholic is paying very little attention to the Pope. I do agree that that Catholic converts tend to dive into the deep intellectual heritage of the Church more than cradle Catholics. (Admittedly, the only evidence I have for this is from online spaces. I cannot think of one Catholic convert I know personally). In the online religious world, I’m seeing two types of Catholic: CCC Catholics (communion, community and conservatism) and AAA Catholics (Anselm, Aquinas, and Augustine) – and let’s be clear, the latter group pronounces it August – in, not August – een. Just sayin’. It’s a thing. They go deep.
Committed Mormon converts who stick also go tend to go deep, but it’s not like they are diving into the cosmological musings of Orson Pratt. Instead, they seem to be really into whatever the current prophet is saying (and maybe a few other GA’s) as well as whatever the latest Wilcox book is or whatever theologically rich (sarcasm) stuff Desert Book has to offer. They also tend to be super, uber temple attenders. Good on them. Not judging. It’s just interesting that unlike with Catholicism, the most intellectually curious Mormons tend to be on the fringes or on their way out the door. It’s unfortunate.
Brad D – “In the so-called “mission field” there is not much room for peripheral, free-rider Mormons.”
I am soon to be smothered by at least four temples near the Salt Lake/Utah county line. I am PIMO and somewhat of a free-rider but also with circumstances befitting a temple worker. Rhetorical question – what should I tell the bishopric when they come calling?
Maybe I could ask what they know about the following:
-Elder Poelman
-Mark Hofmann
-SEC fines
-freemasonry
Chet, a few predictions:
– E. Poelman. “Who?” or if they are really in the know “Evidence that even a liberal can be an apostle, ergo the church is true and above politics.”
– Mark Hoffmann. “A rogue evil person. Even good people can be fooled by bad people.”
– SEC fines. “A technicality, and they paid the fines.”
– freemasonry. If they are old “both have ancient origins.” If they are young “he was just using what was familiar to him to convey important spiritual truths.”
It’s easy to defend things when you know something but just not that much. Buncha lazy learners, I tell ya.
Chet,
I doubt they are going to ask you. In my area north of SLC, they called those they were most comfortable with (you can likely guess the demographics), then asked for volunteers over the pulpit when the numbers fell short. In my mind, it was a recognition that the local hierarchy knew that the belief spectrum and situation of members was wider and more nuanced than they publicly acknowledge. I also consider it cowardice on their part to not get to know members and their perspectives and situations. A little compassion goes a long way.
Chet,
Since you mentioned the SEC fines, I think probably you don’t pay tithing, and you don’t hold a recommend. So they know you aren’t fully committed. In my experience, they won’t ask you to do anything to with the temple. You may be asked to do other things that don’t require a recommend
lws329 – still problematic – I have heard of stake presidents leaning on bishops to help folks get their recommends renewed.
Let me just play the organ and attend other meetings if/when the mood strikes me. If someone tries to rescue me, I will ask them about Poelman, Hofmann etc.
I just need someone who will defend my right to wear metaphorical sweatpants and crocs.
Chet, you could respond, “temple work, that’s great. I could really use the extra money right now. How much does it pay?”
I couldn’t help think about the disconnect between what converts are taught vs what the lived Mormon experience requires. It makes me think of my Danish great great-grandmother and her family who had some nasty shocks when they arrived in “Zion”. She married one of the missionaries who taught her in Denmark before making the trek to Utah. It was only the day after she gave birth to my great-grandfather that she discovered that she was a second wife when the first wife and the local sheriff showed up at her door to evict her and her newborn from the house her husband had settled her in. The first wife had only just discovered that there was another wife when her neighbor, who was the midwife at the birth, told her about my GG-ma being a secret wife of her husband. No law of Sarah was here, so GG-ma and her baby were forced to move home with her family. (The husband was conveniently out of town at the time.) Also, the missionaries had never mentioned polygamy in Denmark or the fact that they now owed exorbitant interest on their on their Perpetual Emigration Fund loan. They couldn’t move anywhere until the loan was paid off. My GGGG-pa was commanded to take another wife and refused.
Today’s converts don’t have to deal with polygamy or paying off PEF loans after their baptism and entry into Zion but still often don’t realize what all is entailed in church membership that the missionaries never mention. The latest shock, if the new convert comes from Africa or is a Pacific Islander, is that the BoM they read conveniently has no reference to the “skin of darkness” issues that are in the English language BoM. There have been several videos, blogs and podcasts about this subject. Can you imagine what they must feel when they discover that this pernicious theme in the BoM was purposely left out? What happens when they decide to learn about church history, or are confronted, after their baptism about the SEC scandal, the church’s treatment of girls and women, the longstanding racism, etc and discover the truth? It appears that some things never change.
Stranger, How do Books of Mormon in African and Pacific Island languages address the the “skin of darkness”?
Why Torah views the new testament and koran as avoda zara. The definition of abomination!
Israel only accepted two commandments at Sinai before we feared that we would surely die and therefore demanded that Moshe receive the rest of the Torah. What’s the “rest of the Torah”, not just the 611 commandments within the language of the Written Torah but all the halachot capable of rising to the sanctity of time oriented tohor commandments from the Torah itself! Herein defines the intent of the 1st Sinai commandment … to obey the revelation of HaShem לשמה.
LORD not the Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment and therefore LORD comes under the 2nd Sinai commandment. The same apples to God, Yahweh, Jesus or Allah etc.
The day of Shabbat approaches, but this tohor time oriented commandment does not rest at one day of not doing מלאכה/work but all the rest of the six days of not doing forbidden עבודה on the 6 days of “shabbat”. Raising positive and negative commandments – which do not require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna to tohor time oriented commandments which do require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna – as learned in the first Book of the Written Torah – בראשית. This first word of the Torah בראשית, it contains both a רמז, meaning words
within words of ראש בית, ברית אש, and ב’ ראשית but more it contains a סוד: the idea of tohor time oriented commandments which includes all the halachot contained within the Talmud! Hence the Gra taught the kabbalah that בראשית contains all the commandments of the Torah. Torah, by definition includes all the Halachot of the Talmud, according to the B’HaG’s Hilchot Gadolot, a commentary that Pre-Adamites the Creation of Adam and the Garden.
The next three Books of the Written Torah contain תולדות commandments; positive and negative commandments do not require k’vanna as do tohor time oriented commandments. What distinguishes a tohor time oriented commandment from תולדות commandments and halachot contained within the Talmud? A tohor time oriented commandment requires the dedication of the Yatzir Ha’Tov which breathes tohor spirits from within the heart. The בנין אב/precedent by which Torah common law\משנה תורה/ learns בכל לבבך\כם within the kre’a shma as publicly taught by Rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi in one of his Mishnaot within the mesechta of ברכות, the concept of עבודת השם – the key יסוד (which contains סוד) of doing mitzvot לשמה, a person must dedicate tohor middot (( The revelation of the 13 tohor middot revealed to Moshe at Horev 40 days after the substitute theology known as the sin of the Golden Calf )), by sanctifying a tohor spirit which breathes within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart. JeZeus when asked by his disciples did not understand this fundamental and basic kabbalah/סוד. He taught his disciples: “Our Father who lives in Heaven …” Wrong. Tefillah a matter of the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the Heart. Dedicating a spirit does not compare to blowing air from the lungs as expressed through the precedent of blowing the Shofar. Its not the blowing of the shofar that elevates this mitzva unto a time oriented tohor commandment! But rather the affixation of t’keah, tru’ah, and sh’varim to the positive, negative commandments all as tohor time oriented commandments which remember the oaths the Avot Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov swore the oath ( ONE in the opening p’suk of kre’a shma. ), to serve HaShem לשמה through time oriented commandments.
Because both the gospels and new testament never teach this fundamental סוד\יסוד Jews recognize JeZeus as a false messiah. M0-0-Ham-Madd referred to JeZeus as a prophet. Despite the heretic Rambam’s validation of Islam, neither it nor Xtianity bases their judicial courts strictly upon the revelation of Torah common law. Its this fundamental and most basic of errors which exposes both JeZeus and Moo-Ham-Madd as Av tumah false prophets.
The gospel narrative very much resembles the style of rabbi Natan’s validation of Sabbatai Zevi – the Ottoman mystic. The Pauline replacement theology famously known for its “Original Sin & expulsion of Adam from the Garden” false paradigm, served to subvert the core oath alliance acceptance of Torah curses. Specifically, that the worship of avoda zarah results in g’lut/exile of the chosen Cohen people. Both Xtianity and Islam ignore the chosen Cohen People – the central them of Torah blessings of the oath brit alliance.
Raising Torah commandments from static positive & negative commandments to dynamic Oral Torah time oriented commandments – this latter type of Torah commandment requires employment of either the toldot positive and negative commandments or prophetic mussar found within the language of T’NaCH mussar common law – raises static statute law fixed ritual Greek/Roman fossilized commandments to dynamic Oral Torah living commandments – which requires k’vanna. Neither the imaginary man Roman fiction – JeZeus, nor the false prophet M0-0 – Ham – Madd, did not gasp the k’vanna of tohor time oriented commandment such as expressed through the mitzva of Shabbat and tefillah.
Both of these counterfeit religions introduce a perversion of the tefillah דאורייתא known as קריא שמע. This tefillah from the Torah requires tefillen which permits a chosen Cohen Jew to swear a Torah oath which specifically remembers the 3 oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov wherein they cut an oath brit which creates the chosen Cohen people, in all generations – throughout time – through the sanctification of tohor time-oriented commandments. Therefore the last word ONE, does not testify to belief in Monotheism – an Av tumah avoda zarah belief system – but rather that a Jew, in any generation wherein he lives accepts the 3 oaths sworn by the Avot as ONE within his Yatzir Ha’Tov. The theology of monotheism, it defines Avoda Zarah far more clearly than does the worship of wood or stone idols.
The phrase “The Kingdom of God is within you”, Luke 17:21. The phrase “The Kingdom of God is within you” (Greek: ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν) is often cited by Christian theologians as evidence of a spiritualized, internalized kingdom that supersedes Jewish political-national hopes. In Luke 17:20–21, the P’rushim (Pharisees) ask JeZeus when the Kingdom of God would come.
It’s a theological dismissal of the national Avot sworn oath brit alliance which creates יש מאין the chosen Cohen people and swears the oath alliance brit wherein this Chosen people inherits the oath sworn lands. The reference “kingdom of God”, refers to the mitzva of tefillah which requires שם ומלכות. However if a person observes with a critical eye, neither the tefillah from the Torah: kre’a shma, nor the rabbinic commandment of tefillah: the Shemone Esrei, neither this nor that contains the fundamental requirement which rabbi Yochanon defines the qualities which separate making a blessing contrasted by saying Tehillem … a blessing requires שם ומלכות.
So what makes kre’a shma and shemone esrei a blessing rather than a praise like Tehillem which does not contain שם ומלכות? Answer: both kre’a shma and shemone esrei exist as positive tohor time-oriented commandments … which by definition requires k’vanna. Specifically the k’vanna of the wisdom which discerns swearing a Torah oath by means of making a blessing FROM saying or reading praises like as contained in the Book of Tehillem with its 150 prayers. Tefillah not the same thing as prayer. Just as shabbat requires the wisdom of making a הבדלה distinction between shabbat and chol at the beginning and end of the Day of Shabbat so too swearing a blessing oath requires the wisdom which discerns between making a blessing, which requires שם ומלכות, from saying a praise like Tehillem which lacks שם ומלכות.
What defines the abstract concept שם ומלכות ie “kingdom of Heaven” which the P’rushim asked JeZeus? JeZeus did not know this kabbalah. His answer not even in the same proverbial “Ball Park”! The Oral Torah mitza of Moshiach, gospels and new testament make the claims of JeZeus being “the messiah”, requires – just as do blessing – the wisdom which discerns the k’vanna of שם ומלכות.
JeZeus taught no Oral Torah common law precedents when he declared his “lord’s prayer”. His prayer make no reference to the dedication of Moshiach to the righteous pursuit of judicial justice which makes fair restitution of damages inflicted by the guilty upon the innocent among our conflicting Jewish people!!! The one repeated rebuke made concerning king David, he profaned his annointing as Moshiach by the prophet Shmuel in the matter of the dedication to pursue righteous judicial restoration of damages in the matter of Bat Sheva’s husband.
The false messiah JeZeus had absolutely no knowledge what so ever of the Oral Torah dedication of the k’vanna of the time oriented Av commandment of Moshiach! The very question the P’rushim challenged JeZeus as being a false messiah and false prophet.
Greek Text and Ambiguity, the phrase “ἐντὸς ὑμῶν” can mean either: “Within you” (internalized, spiritual) or “In your midst” (among you, i.e., the presence of the Messiah himself)!!!! Xtian commentators often prefer the first, reading it as an internal spiritual reign — supporting a Pauline model of personal salvation and supersession of Jewish law and statehood. However the false messiah JeZeus’s Lord’s Prayer testifies to the latter interpretation of the vague Greek language phrase.
Replacement theology (also called supersessionism) is the idea that the Church has replaced Israel as the true people of God. Luke 17:21 fits this mold in key ways. (1) It denies the oath brit which continually creates the Chosen Cohen people יש מאין through the service of dedicating tohor Av Torah time-oriented commandments! (2) The gospel counterfeit hogwash delegitimizes halachic Oral Torah פרדס logic as taught through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva which the gospel counterfeit never once refers to!!! All the rabbis in both the Mishna and Gemara, all of them, base their opinions upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva interpretation of the heart and soul of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, as taught through the logic system of פרדס inductive reasoning. The JeZeus Roman counterfeit had absolutely no knowledge what so ever of this fundamental kabbalah which defines the whole of Oral Torah as codified in the Mishna, Gemara, Talmud, Siddur, and Midrashim.
Later Christian traditions (from Augustine to Luther) cite this kind of passage to argue that Israel is no longer a physical nation, but now a metaphor for the Church or believing souls. This exactly duplicates, or to use the language of the gospels themselves … “fulfills” the prophesy of the Sin of the Golden Calf in all generations unto this very day!
Torah, Talmud, Siddur, and Midrashim establishes the Jewish identity, culture and customs to this very day. Defined through the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev following the sin of the Golden Calf. Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive reasoning logic system defines the k’vanna of the revelation of the Oral Torah which the church denies. JeZeus’s statement in Luke 17:21 dismantles that framework — it moves toward an ahistorical, non-legalist, inward “kingdom”. That shift aligns not just with Pauline theology, but with Gnostic and Hellenistic notions of salvation as inner knowledge or enlightenment rather than collective political redemption.
The foundational fracture between שם ומלכות sworn oath blessings, such as the blessing which Yitzak gave to Yaacov but did not give the non שם ומלכות praise given to Esau! Torah oral torah common law judicial jurisprudence – the gospel narrative counterfeit did not know. Torah jurisprudence rooted in brit-based chosen Cohen people pursuit of justice as the definition and essence of faith, the gospel/new testament replacement theology perverts to some spiritualized abstraction of Christian “kingdom” theology, which knows absolutely nothing of the k’vanna of שם ומלכות oath sworn brit alliances. This refutation equally applies to the koran, Moo-Ham-Madd did not know how the Torah defines the key term prophet just as the gospel counterfeit does not know how the Torah defines love – as defined through the Torah commandment of marriage known as קידושין. The essential legal-theological rupture that defines the gulf between Torah brit jurisprudence and the theological counterfeits presented by both the Christian New Testament and the Islamic Koran.
Yitzchak’s blessing to Yaakov was an oath-bound legal act. It therefore serves as THE fundamental בנין אב common law precedent by which the generations of Israel discern the distinction between making a Torah blessing commandment from saying a Tehillem prayer praise. JeZeus response utterly ignorant. Yitzak gave Esav a non-binding, non brit, non blessing/Tehillem to his second son who sold his Cohen first-born birthright to Yaacov! This structure underlies all Torah jurisprudence: no blessing (ברכה) without שם ומלכות, and no true faith (אמונה) without justice-rooted obligations. Faith equals fidelity to oath, not vague belief.
JeZeus and the gospel writers show no knowledge or respect for rabbi Akiva’s Oral Torah kabbalah of the revelation at Horev. Hence the church fathers deny to this day the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev as expressed through the 13 tohor spirits of HaShem. The gospel book of john declares the word as God! The very definition of the Golden Calf wherein the ערב רב mixed multitude replacement theology sought to replace the Spirit Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment with the “word” אלהים — the definition of the replacement avoda zarah known as the sin of the Golden Calf.
The gospel narrative slander the Sanhedrin courts as corrupt and perverse. This negates the Torah concept of faith all together. An no whitewash can conceal this new testament perversion. This same mussar equally applies to Islam. Moo-Ham-Madd’s claim to prophecy lacks any brit-based legitimacy; does not transmit or interpret precedent-based halacha Oral Torah common law. Totally ignores T’NaCH Talmud common law. And equally likewise its substitute theology reduces prophecy to visionary utterance divorced from legal authority and nation-building. As with the gospel counterfeit, the Koran appropriates the term “prophet” while stripping it of its brit-legal definition and context. The gospel’s redefinition of love as universalized sentiment is as empty as its redefinition of kingdom and prophecy. Without brit, there is no legal structure to sustain love, justice, or nationhood. It is all mystified abstraction, which cannot create the chosen Cohen people through tohor time oriented commandments. The JeZeus abomination knowns nothing of what separates the Yatzir Ha’Tov tohor spirits from the Yatzir Ha’Ra tumah spirits.
Faith without oath-bound brit law is no faith at all, and any theological system — whether gospel or Koran — that dismisses or replaces the brit framework is not a continuation of revelation but a counterfeit rebellion against it. Yitzchak’s blessing to Yaakov is not merely narrative — it is precedent. It is the בנין אב, the archetype, of what constitutes a Torah-commanded blessing.
The blessing to Yaakov: A sworn, oath brit legal transfer of Cohen inheritance, complete with שם ומלכות implications (even if not verbally explicit, its legal force is absolute), just as kre’a shma, shemone esrei, the mourners kaddish, the blessing of the Cohem to the people of Israel – all visually lack שם ומלכות and therefore require the wisdom to know how to swear שם ומלכות within and through the spirit of the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the Heart! JeZeus makes no reference to this essential kabbalah taught by rabbi Yechuda the Head of the Great Sanhedrin!
A beracha requires brit. A brit requires oath. An oath requires שם ומלכות and k’vanna. Without this, you have mere praise. JeZeus shows no awareness of this distinction — a fatal flaw for anyone claiming prophetic authority within the brit tradition.
Marco Rubio Sanctions ICC Judges After They Target U.S. and Israel in Explosive Rulings
In a sweeping move, Senator Marco Rubio announced sanctions against four International Criminal Court justices.
________________________________________
________________________________________
Marco Rubio’s sanctions on ICC judges—in response to politically driven rulings targeting the U.S. and Israel—represent the first serious American pushback against the expanding overreach of international legal institutions. But these sanctions merely scratch the surface. If Israel were to bomb the International Criminal Court in The Hague for the crime of judicial overreach, it would unleash a shockwave through the foundations of the post-WWII European imperial legal order.
Such an act would shatter the illusion that the Rome Statute and its court represent binding global authority. In truth, the ICC is a political weapon wielded disproportionately against Western democracies and their allies, while shielding rogue regimes. Its authority rests on consensus, not enforcement. The Rome Treaty would be exposed as not worth the paper it’s written on.
Europe forfeited its moral right to judge the Jewish people the moment it orchestrated the Shoah. Any European claim to universal justice—especially when applied selectively against the Jewish state—is hypocrisy cloaked in humanitarianism. The ICC’s rulings against Israel are not about war crimes; they are ritual acts of expiation for Europe’s own genocidal guilt. But that guilt is not Israel’s burden to carry. To bomb the ICC would be to formally reject Europe’s post-Nazi pretensions to legal supremacy and declare: “You have no right to judge us.”
Bombing the ICC would have the same historical effect as the 1956 Suez Crisis: the end of European claims to independent geopolitical authority. Just as France and the UK’s failed bid to reclaim the Suez Canal revealed their imperial impotence, an Israeli destruction of the ICC would reveal the EU’s inability to project legal-moral power beyond its own borders.
What the EU has is not law, but a narrative infrastructure—paper treaties, postmodern guilt, and international NGOs wielding legal language as a substitute for lost religious and imperial confidence.
A targeted Israeli strike on the ICC would not trigger war. It would trigger disbelief, followed by narrative collapse, and finally a global reckoning with Western legal hypocrisy. The EU would be faced with the question: do we escalate to save face—or submit to an Israeli dictate which radically limits the EU authority in the balance of power in the Middle East and in Europe.
If Israel bombed the Court of the Hague for the crime of judicial over-reach. This would set a precedent that the establishment of the ICC through the Rome Treaty – not worth the paper the Rome Treaty written upon. Widespread EU condemnations Big Deal. England and France have already broken off diplomatic relations with Israel.
The Trump Government in Washington most likely would support Israel if Israel bombed the Court of the Hague for judicial over-reach. The Rome Treaty established Court would most likely dissolve. It would most definitely challenge the judicial jurisdiction of a European Court over Israel!
Post Shoah Europe lost its rights to judge Jews. The destruction of the Pie in the Sky Rome Treaty would establish a major political precedent that European imperialism stops at the borders of the EU member states alone.
The assertion that bombing the ICC in The Hague would lead to a collapse of the EU’s prestige is a strong viewpoint that reflects significant concerns about the authority and effectiveness of international institutions.
If a member state or a country with significant geopolitical influence, like Israel, were to attack an international institution such as the ICC, it could be perceived as a direct challenge to the authority of not only the ICC but also the broader framework of international law that the EU supports.
In short: bombing the Court of the Hague would radically change the balance of power in Europe. For the first time since the Muslim invasion of Western Europe a major disruption of European political autonomy would result.
The EU would either put up or shut up: either they would declare War against Israel or not. The Nato alliance, if the US backed Israel would unquestionably collapse. The EU’s credibility as a defender of international law would cease to exist – gone like a puff of smoke. Israel would have called the bluff of the EU, like as if bombing the ICC compares to a hand of stud poker! This could lead to a more fragmented international order, challenging the EU’s role as a global actor.
An attack on the ICC could set a precedent that undermines the enforcement of international law, leading to a situation where states feel empowered to act unilaterally without regard for international institutions.
The incident could complicate diplomatic relations not only between Israel and the EU but also between other countries and international organizations. It could lead to a reevaluation of how states engage with international legal frameworks.
The UN itself would most likely collapse like as did the League of Nations. If nothing else, the historical relationship between Europe and Israel, particularly in the context of the Shoah and post-war UN attempt to compare Israel to the European Nazi crimes against humanity, adds layers of complexity to this European projectionism of its own Nazi guilt and the moral bankruptcy of both Western and Eastern Roman church moral authority over European civilizations.
The implications of such an act would resonate deeply within the historical narrative of European-Jewish relations and radically shift the narrative reversing the role of Jews as dominant and the church as dhimmi slaves – utterly rejected and despised.
The entire European security architecture is underwritten by the United States, both financially and militarily. Without U.S. backing, NATO becomes functionally hollow. France and the UK retain nuclear capability, but their conventional power is insufficient to act independently against a U.S.-aligned state like Israel.
No EU state would risk confrontation with the U.S., their most vital ally, over a non-NATO event like an Israeli action against the ICC. EU states are deeply post-military in culture. Their battlefield is law, narrative, and diplomacy—not armed force.
Even in the face of Russian invasion (Ukraine), EU states have limited direct engagement, preferring economic sanctions, legal resolutions, and humanitarian aid. Against Israel, the EU’s instinct would be: denounce, sanction, isolate—not mobilize or fight.
Much of EU condemnation of Israel is a projection of its own unresolved guilt over colonialism and the Holocaust. This moral outrage stops at the threshold of real cost. That’s why you see relentless UN resolutions, ICC motions, and media warfare—but not realpolitik confrontation. Israel calling their bluff—if the U.S. holds firm—exposes their impotence. If Israel bombed the ICC in the Hague – No War. No boots. No tanks. NO Article 5 Nato involvement. The collapse of Nato as an alliance.
Symbolic institutions (like the ICC) to claim moral authority—but has no spine when force or geopolitical will counters that narrative. If Israel, backed by a U.S. administration, were to shatter a legal myth like the ICC’s authority … No war, but rather most likely the total collapse of EU imperialist Post WWII illusion of legal hegemony on par with England and France failure to capture and seize the Suez canal in the 1956 War. It would clearly reset the terms of European involvement in global legal power.