[Image: Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon.] I feel like there is so much going on in the world right now, it requires some sort of review and comment as opposed to my usual musings on this or that LDS topic. In brief, the US military unleashed substantial attacks on Iran a few days ago, in concert with the Israeli military doing the same thing. While a buildup of US forces was observed for a few weeks, the attack itself came with no explicit warning or declaration of war, kind of like what the Japanese did when attacking Pearl Harbor in 1941. That “sneak attack” inflamed public opinion in the United States, and overnight the US isolationist movement simply collapsed. Now we’re the ones doing sneak attacks. Times have changed.
My line of thinking here is inspired by a recent Atlantic article, “The Israel of October 6 Is Never Coming Back.” That article recounts how before a hundred or more Israeli citizens were kidnapped (and others killed) on October 7, 2023, Israel and Netanyahu largely avoided substantial military action when earlier conflicts arose. They were a little gun shy. But that has changed now, as seen in the extended Israeli incursion into Gaza against Hamas following the October 7 incident and now joining the US in attacking Iran. The trauma Israeli citizens and its government experienced post-October 6 decisively changed Israel’s civilian, military, and government outlook on military action. They crossed a line and there is no going back. Likewise for America, Dec. 7, 1941, crossed a line that, after isolationist retrenchment following World War 1, led instead to deep and protracted involvement with the rest of the world that has continued right up to the present day. You might have thought that under Trump 2.0 that was changing. If that’s you, the last few days should lead you to say, “Well, not so much.”
That leads to an initial question about the United States: Do recent — and largely unprovoked — military actions against Venezuela and Iran signal that a new line has been crossed, perhaps from defensive use of US military to outright offensive use to achieve this or that short-term goal or maybe just to plunder assets and resources? There is a certain momentum to these things so that a third or fourth such use of the military is so much easier to undertake. This is even more the case if the first one or two attempts are successful and do not generate significant blowback from Congress, the Courts, or the Citizenry. Who knows what future presidents will choose to do or may be forced to do by adverse circumstances. Another aspect of this possible line-crossing is the complete capitulation of Congress (remember, it used to be a significant part of the federal government) in favor of warlord presidents using the US military however they want, whenever they want, however arbitrarily.
This being an LDS blog, we should note that the Church released a short statement on the Iran situation. Dated February 28, 2026, it states in the first paragraph: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is closely monitoring the evolving situation and military strikes that occurred this morning in Iran and elsewhere in the region. We express our profound concern and heartfelt compassion for all those living in harm’s way. We join in prayer with families worldwide who have loved ones in the region.” It has a “can’t we all just get along” vibe. When people and countries can’t get along, it often threatens LDS operations and missionary activities in the country or region, even in the Middle East. The statement later notes, “This region is home to thousands of Church members.” Let’s hope they stay out of harm’s way.
We should also extend the conversation about crossing lines to LDS history and experience. Are there any lines that have been crossed such that going back from a move or change was simply unimaginable for the Church and/or its membership? I’ll take polygamy and let a commenter argue for the end of LDS racial exclusions under President Kimball starting in 1978.
From a late-2oth-century perspective, terminating polygamy certainly looked like a “never going back” change. For three or more generations in the 20th century, the had Church worked tirelessly to separate itself from the practice of polygamy, actively exing anyone caught practicing it and also quietly excising the topic from the LDS curriculum. Polygamy was, for a period, something we just didn’t talk about anymore.
There are three problems with positing the termination of polygamy as a “never go back” change. These have become more evident over the last two decades. First, while the practice was convincingly and publicly repudiated in the present, the doctrine was definitively *not* repudiated (see: D&C 132) and multiple subsequent sealings of men and women if one or the other spouse died were quietly still allowed. I don’t really object to performing temple sealings along with a second marriage — it seems to make the participants happy, which is generally held out as a goal of the LDS “Great Plan of Happiness” — but it does raise questions, doesn’t it? If Dad is eternally sealed to two different women, it sure seems a lot like the practice of polygamy, even if one of them is dead.
Second, the termination of the practice of polygamy was not a one-time event or shock. While 1890 stands as something of a turn with the issuance of the First Manifesto, the language was rather ambiguous. The practice, including by LDS church officials, simply went underground. It took twenty years, the Smoot Hearings, and a Second Manifesto for the Church to *unambiguously* come out against the practice, and another twenty years to bring all levels of leadership around to excommunicating LDS who did continue the practice in one form or another. There was no single “never go back” moment. It was a long and painful divorce.
Third, and somewhat puzzling, is a change in tone from LDS leadership over the last couple of decades. Plural marriage is back in the LDS curriculum. LDS leaders are rather more forthright now in defending the *historical* LDS practice of polygamy, while at the same time decrying any idea of current LDS practice (this is a very tricky position to articulate and defend). It just seems fairly clear that current LDS leadership deep down still really likes the idea of plural marriage. They have not moved on. Like measles, polygamy might yet make a comeback. This is more of a live possibility with a changed American legal landscape that can’t quite figure out what to do with purported plural marriages.
So in my view LDS polygamy never quite reached “never go back” status. The ghost of polygamy still haunts the Church. For some, it’s more of a cherished memory (and some sort of future hope?) than a haunting ghost.
Lots to talk about. Just let it fly.
- Is the US-Iran War (what else can you call it? We killed their president) going to last a week, a month, a year, or a decade?
- The biggest loser if commercial ship passage through the Strait of Hormuz is interrupted is China, which gets a big chunk of its oil from the Middle East. Will China become involved, either to help mediate a cessation of hostilities or more aggressively to assist Iran? I have read that Iran is desperately seeking to buy some of China’s CM-302 shipkiller missiles, and we know where they would be pointed. Ironically, the US Navy is the primary guarantor of freedom of the seas that enables China’s reliance on oil tankers traveling 6000 nautical miles to deliver their oil cargo. There be pirates on the high seas.
- Does anyone think this US-Iran War will somehow link up with the Russia-Ukraine War (supposed to last a couple of weeks, now over four years old)? That’s how world wars happen, when separate regional conflicts somehow merge to become global conflicts.
- Did you once think LDS polygamy had reached “never go back” status? Do you still think so now?
- The termination of LDS racial exclusion practices in 1978 was at least a single event that changed the practice overnight. But ugly doctrine/folklore persisted for decades and, for some LDS, still persists. Was 1978 a “never go back” change?
Wheat & Tares 
Ironically, the Church’s embracing of polygamy under Nelson and Oaks will have consequences that they would be appalled by. It will lead to the return of polygamy, but not in the form that they wanted.
When the Church clings to the doctrine of polygamy, it is essentially attacking the monogamy that Western culture views as “traditional marriage “. When one claims that alternate forms of marriage are acceptable, one must eventually accept same sex marriage as well. The rules of logic demand it.
This will put the Church on the path to having to accept polyamorous relationships of every kind or its polygamy argument will fall to pieces. The Church will not be able to logically defend one form of alternative marriage, while attacking all other forms.
Nelson and Oaks will both roll over in their graves when the logical consequences of their actions come to fruition. The Church will be full of the same free love communes that worship Dua Lipa in the Portland area.
I don’t know what it is with US republican presidents dragging the UK Labour prime ministers into their Middle East conflicts. The Iraq conflict was very unpopular over here, and I can only see this Iran conflict being even less so, yet somehow here we are allowing use of our bases, and moving a warship. There was already a lot of opposition to Israel’s action in Gaza.
“Now we’re the ones doing sneak attacks. Times have changed.”
No, we’ve always been the ones doing the sneak attacks, even before WW2
lines have been crossed going back to the 19th century in the wars of extermination against the Indigenous Americans and the colonial oppression and genocide in the Philippines, Caribbean, and Central America
the pre-WWI isolationism was mostly a fiction, at least on the part of the people in charge, joining the war was a forgone conclusion from its inception because the American banks had become western Europe’s main creditors prior to WW1 and there was no they were going to set back and let all that money go up in flames
American workers, however, were largely isolationist, which is why the powers that were had to pretend to go along with them for while, later public expressions of antiwar and isolationist sentiments could get you thrown into jail
“Israel and Netanyahu largely avoided substantial military action when earlier conflicts arose. They were a little gun shy.”
demonstrably not true, Gaza has been under siege for decades and regularly bombed, occupied, and civilians murdered by IDF snipers, the difference with Oct 7 is that some Palestinians dared to fight back in a substantial way. the IDF was humiliated, and the Biden and Trump administrations were uninterested in reigning them in the same way that previous administrations were
the line was crossed the moment Israel was established, extermination of the Palestinians was always part of the plan
with Iran it’s much the same story, American involvement in violence in Iran goes back decades and there’s a contingent of elites that have been pushing for more direct action ever since Iran very publicly humiliated the Reagan administration’s attempts to topple it
the point of all this is to say that never really has been a period of equilibrium in American history, lines have always been crossed in the service of violence wealth accumulation
as the standard bearer for capitalism and as a settler colonialist state, the USA operates on the ideology of the cancer cell, endless expansion and destruction, isolationism for the USA has always been a fiction, intervention and violence in service of economic expansion are prerogatives that the USA will always take regardless of which party happens to be holding the reigns at any given moment
the role of the Church in all of this is interesting, mormonism is also (at least in part) predicated on the idea of endless growth. There was always more land out west to retreat to, always additional wives to acquire (whether here or in the afterlife), always more converts to find, and, like a barnacle, the church rides on the back of the American colonial machine, putting down roots in the furrows left by the violent churn of the american machine
the question is what happens to the church when the machine eventually breaks down and collapses in on itself? America operates on endless expansion and it cannot survive not expanding, does the church (also predicated on endless expansion) go down with it?
All I know is they told me if I voted for Kamala Harris there would be a war in Iran. I did in fact vote for Kamala Harris so I guess they were right.
I’ve tried to make logic about Church statements of current events but honestly I really have no idea what prompts them to write something. Some deaths gets press releases and some do not. ICE terrorizing our citizens? Crickets. A war in South America in a country with an LDS presence? Nadda. A war in the middle east in a country with miniscule LDS presence? A press release. Make it make sense.
I don’t think the administration has the stomach for a prolonged war, because they know the American people don’t. The decision to do this was done by a person who has a long history of impulsive decision making who had a belief (possibly to be proven wrong) that it would be quick and easy. I think it could last weeks, but likely not a lot longer. I don’t think anything this administration does will be viewed decades in the future as a turning point that resulted in a fundamentally different approach to the world, but rather a period of chaos instigated by person known for creating it, and a slow return to normal after he left the scene.
On your questions about the church, I would say there’s no return on polygamy or universal male ordination. And yet those past policies still haunt us, for various reasons. Polygamy because elements of it are still enshrined in current policy, and both because leaders don’t like to acknowledge mistakes. I think it needs to happen and the church will be better for it when it does.
What the pope said about the “War in Iran” is what the LDS church should have said. What it said was lukewarm at best.
I agree this latest sneak attack is just the latest in a long series of “police actions”. Once boots are on the ground, it’s another years or decades long conflict. Congress has become a doormat for any trigger happy president to wipe his boots on. The question is, who is making the most money off of this latest round of warmongering?
Polygamy can still come back. However I don’t think they could rescind priesthood privileges for all worthy males without tearing the church apart. They wouldn’t be able to deny accusations of racism at all if they reverted to only white men receiving the priesthood.
I have lots of complicated, uneasy feelings about this conflict, especially as a veteran of a previous “forever war” in the same region. I seem to recall Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn rule when referring to the Iraq invasion: you break it, you bought it. Once a country chooses to violently, non-reversably assert their will upon another sovereign state, they assume ownership of all the problems that come along with it. The key difference now is that our current administration is famously allergic to taking responsibility for problems (personal, domestic, legal, economic, diplomatic and otherwise), especially the problems they directly cause. That, and they offer no clear long-term strategy or desired outcomes; leadership without vision or follow-through. Just as with the abduction of Venezuela’s president, taking out the leader was the easy part–what happens in the coming weeks and months will truly reveal the character (or lack thereof) of our leaders. So far in Venezuela, things are fairly status quo under the new interim president, so I don’t have much hope for meaningful long-term positive changes in Iran.
Which makes me think of another leader of a global oragnization who has a track record for avoiding responsibility, denying wrongdoing in spite of irrefuteable evidence, refusing to apologize for causing harm, and truly believing he is above any criticism or scrutiny. Nothing good will come of that as long as he is in power. The only consolation is that, given his age and health, there is a limit to the damage he can do. As the last living apostle practicing eternal polygamy, we can hope the practice dies with him, and that his successor formally outlaws multiple sealings. I don’t think the Church can ever go back to openly endorsing polygamy if it ever wants the rest of the world to view it as legitimate and relevant. If they did, the COJCOLDS would become the new Scientology; a super-wealthy cult with a small following of loyal believers, but exists as a sad, hollowed-out version of its former self and the constant butt of jokes, without a shred of respectability remaining.
Speaking of crossing lines: Today I’ve been reading reports of dozens of US military commanders advising their troops that President Trump has been anointed by God to invade Iran as the necessary precursor to Armageddon and the Second Coming of Jesus. Anybody now doubt the inroads of Christian Nationalism at the Pentagon and throughout the rest of the Trump Administration?
we can hope the practice dies with him, and that his successor formally outlaws multiple sealings
It is conceivable (but not likely) that his successor will abolish multiple sealings for living men. But the practice of sealing a person to all of his or her spouses after he or she is dead will continue. Discontinuing that would lead to understandable despair among those who regret their earthly sealing but not a subsequent marriage.
As far as “never go back on polygamy” up until about 1970, there was open talk about “when we go back” to polygamy. When I was growing up, it was an assumption that as soon as the US government got out of the way, we would go back to polygamy. Probably as we were all walking back to Missouri. As late as 1969 when I was in seminary it was “we will probably go back to polygamy” before the second coming. See, the US government would be hanging by a thread, we would be pulling our handcarts as we trekked across a destroyed (probably nuked) US, and most of the men would have been killed by war, so there would be so many women, and we women would be so desperate(for what we women would be desperate, I never figured out. Sex??? Nah, women had no sex drive. At least that was what the men seemed to believe and teach and we girls experiencing a sex drive wondered what was wrong with us that we lusted after those half naked boys playing basketball in the church gym) anyway, that was why polygamy had to come back, because all you guys were dead. Sorry, guys but you are all dead. And you don’t get a wife because we all got sealed to the few surviving old men and 10 year old boys who survived the war. I honestly expected to be a multiple wife of some supper old dude, because it got talked about like it was next year.
Then suddenly, it was like the prophet announced that it wasn’t all that close and we all decided the women were most likely going to be fighting in that big war too, so there wouldn’t be any need for polygamy ever to come back.
So, unlike Dave B, who imagines that polygamy has become more likely to be brought back, I see a steady decrease in belief that it will ever be brought back. More and more women are willing to say they think it was never of God and a big mistake, and they would much rather be single than married polygamously. So, thanks but no thanks. I will do without eternal marriage if it is going to be polygamy. So, in the feminist world, polygamy is closer to never again than it has ever been. Of course, I don’t know what the guys talk about in Elder’s Q, so, there’s that. Maybe the men are talking about it coming back. Who knows. Maybe Dave B just lives in a different world than I do.
I wondered why my spouse was praying for the people of Iran when they don’t pray for other places like Venezuela. It seemed out of the blue. Now I know. There was a statement from the church about it. It kind of makes me sick. The church statements affect who gets prayed for and who doesn’t. Who we care about who we don’t.
It is reported here that Trump asked to restart . Talks 2 days after the attack but the Irianians said no we don’t trust you. We were talking, and expected to be safe while we were talking, and you bombed us and killed our leader.
Trump Putin Netenyahu. Trump is destroying any trust/ respect for America.
Geoff, even Americans don’t trust America. That my fellow countrymen could be SO stupid just boggles my mind. People do not pay attention to the news, or refuse to believe it when they hear it. Things like I was talking to someone who has always been pretty smart. They said that both sides of the political parties are just as corrupt. I said, we have never before voted into office someone who is a convicted felon. They claimed that Trump has never once been convicted of anything. He has been accused, they claimed, but never convicted. 34 counts of fraud don’t count for anything, and a guilty of sexual abuse is not at all important apparently. At that point, I ended the discussion because, well, it’s a relative. And how do you tell a relative that your respect for then is in the toilet…no, already flushed down.
Speaking of point of no return, do you think the US can ever regain the trust of other countries, or do we need to do a French style revolution?
Iran could completely reshape the global system as we know it. The regime is deeply entrenched throughout the country. The ideology of Khomeinism is alive and well. Taking out the 86-year-old Supreme Leader and a few other important figures in the regime will do nothing. Aerial bombardment will not do much. Iran has a choke hold on the Strait of Hormuz, a vital lifeline for Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE (all essentially extensions of the US) and an extremely important conduit for the global oil market. Additionally Iran has been preparing for this war for over 20 years. They have an eschatological worldview of the crisis, much more dangerous to deal with than realpolitik. They’ve stockpiled missiles and cheap drones. These drones give Iran complete and total advantage. They can evade some radar systems and are being shot down by very expensive interceptor missiles, of which the US is running low on supply. Iran will keep deploying the drones to sabotage Gulf Arab countries’ infrastructure. Hit some desalination plants and the Arab Gulf states will be brought to their knees in weeks. Iran cannot be fought as is. It is almost as if they don’t even need a nuclear weapon to fully deter the US and Israel. Trump needs to declare victory now and sue for peace. He needs to force the issue on Netanyahu. They cannot beat Iran. Ground troops to a country of 92 million will be a death sentence for thousands upon thousands of US soldiers in a war that was not pitched to the American public, was not deliberated on or voted upon by Congress, and was not coordinated with through the global community. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US built international coalitions. Trump has built nothing of the sort for Iran. Go back to carrot and stick diplomacy before it is too late. Don’t let hubris lead us down the path of global devastation. But I great this war will completely reshape the world order as we know it.
Regarding Iran and Trump’s other decisions… “Blowback” is an old CIA term that certainly can be applied here. And I’ll make a prediction: today’s younger political leaders will grow to deplore Trump’s presidency in hindsight.
As for the return to polygmay… it is not returning to my house.
You don’t have to think too hard to find the LDS connection to this topic. The majority of Mormons supported – and still support – the man who is so compromised by whatever Epstein related material Netanyahu has on him, that he will do whatever Bibi wants, including leading the US into another endless, bloody war in the middle east. This is Bibi’s war, make no mistake about it. It is an extension of his genocide of the Palestinian people, to which Trump, Republicans and any Democrat who voted to fund Israel are have taken AIPAC money, are complicit.
Bibi knows that American Evangelicals literally equate the modern state of Israel to the ancient Israel of the Bible – meaning that Israel is entitled to all the land they are going after, and any conflict in the middle east is somehow the fullfilment of prophecy that will eventually lead to rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem and the return of Jesus. People in Trump’s cabinet as well as many magas in congress hold this view as well, and this is informing their policy making decisions. Most Mormons hold this view as well. Perhaps this is why the Church’s public response to these events had been so tepid. They don’t want to offend the tihing-payer base who are secretly ( or maybe openly) cheering for WW3 to happen in order to speed up the Second Coming.
While it’s 100% obvious to me at least that Trump broke constitutional law in his actions, I’m not at all opposed to Iran’s top leaders being gone. They literally just murdered 10s of thousands of their own citizens last month for protesting against their brutal regime. Their entire theocratic regime is a cancer on humanity. 80% of Iranians agree and wanted them gone. The biggest issue is that because of how oppressive the regime has been for so many decades, there is no coherent opposition in the country to “rise up and take over” as Trump wishes. It would be great if there were, but any credible alternative regime doesn’t exist because they haven’t been able to enter Iran for such a very long time. Trump’s encouragement for the military to hand over their power to “the people” sounds great on paper, but which people? How? What type of government would replace it and who would run it? It’s not very well thought out.
In order to protect the regime, four level deep successors were named for all important positions, so it’s far more likely that Trump / Netanyahu will agree to back off with a more centrist / less extreme leader in charge of the same exact government. That’s still an improvement, even if it’s not good enough. But maybe a more centrist leader who is cowed by western forces will finally quit being an asshole and allow people to flourish which is where change will come from. I’d prefer if it were a democratic country that doesn’t oppress its people or crack down on protestors, but I’d also prefer that for our country which is apparently no longer what we are. It’s rich for the US (or Netanyahu) to be lecturing other countries about being too authoritarian, but so far we’ve been picking the right ones to lecture.
Approaching the climax of the US-Israel war against Shiite fanatics ruling Iran.
Venezuelan compares to Kharg Island. Just as the Cuban house of cards collapsed with the US capture of the Venezuelan oil fields so too China’s house of cards will collapse after US marines capture and occupy Kharg Island. Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil export terminal, critical for the country’s economy. It handles a significant portion of Iran’s oil exports, making it central to both domestic revenue and international trade partnerships. Approximately 90% of the oil refined and sold by Iran is exported to China through Kharg Island.
This relationship underscores China’s role as a major player in the Iranian oil market, providing Iran with a vital economic lifeline amid sanctions and trade restrictions imposed by the West. Just as Communist Castro Cuba will most likely become a US protectorate territory like Puerto Rico. In similar fashion should US Marines capture Kharg Island, this will terminate the US/Israeli War against Iran.
Iranians themselves must choose their own government. But loss of Kharg Island will cripple the Iranian economy like as Cubans experienced when Us Troops captured the President Maduro of Venezuela in one day. The collapse of Venezuela’s anti-US government directly impacted the economy of Cuba. Just as the collapse of the Shiite fanatic government of Iran will directly impact the economy of China.