Editing Openai/68cb1119-3ba8-800a-9fe6-77c5599d54ad (section)

=== Assistant: Yes — there are several subtle but telling signs that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints tends to take an … ===
Yes — there are several subtle but telling signs that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints tends to take an extra-cautious, passive, or deliberately neutral stance when it comes to modern Israel. This doesn’t mean the Church is indifferent; rather, it reflects a long-term strategy of political and religious non-interference shaped by historical, legal, and doctrinal factors.

Here are five notable “anomalies” or signs that suggest a consistent LDS posture of strategic passivity toward Israel:

==== - The Church believes Jews are God’s covenant people, and the “gathering of Israel” is central to LDS theology (especially in the last days). ====
* And yet… there is no proselyting effort in Israel. No full-time LDS missionaries. No attempts to convert Jews in the Holy Land.
* This stands in stark contrast to LDS efforts in nearly every other nation on Earth — including difficult contexts like Saudi Arabia, China (in limited forms), and Pakistan.

👉 Interpretation: The Church honors its legal agreement, but this restraint—despite prophetic significance—is highly unusual. It suggests Israel is seen as “hands-off,” politically and theologically delicate.

==== - As you already noted, the Jerusalem Center’s existence hinges on a non‑proselytizing agreement, which was legally binding and highly publicized. ====
* Students cannot be Israeli nationals. The Center does not fly a U.S. flag or a Church symbol (despite being funded by the Church).
* Religious services are private. The Center is not used for open worship, even on the Sabbath.

👉 Interpretation: The Church made extraordinary concessions that it has not made anywhere else — including the restriction of religious expression, identity, and outreach. This is deeply anomalous given LDS norms elsewhere.

==== - In 2023–2024, while other churches released clear statements of solidarity or condemnation during the Israel–Gaza war, the LDS Church’s statement: - Condemned violence in general - Offered humanitarian aid to both sides - Avoided naming Hamas or Israel, or taking any position on who instigated the conflict. ====

👉 Interpretation: Even during moments where many churches sided with Israel or Palestine, the LDS Church remained scrupulously neutral. This wasn’t just diplomacy — it bordered on silence.

==== - LDS theology affirms that Jews are still God’s chosen people. ====
* But the Church has never formally recognized the modern State of Israel as the prophetic “gathering” of Israel.
* This is unusual among Christian groups like Evangelicals or Messianic Jews who fuse Israel’s existence with end-times prophecy.

👉 Interpretation: The LDS Church maintains a spiritual definition of “Israel” (lineage + covenant) and doesn’t tie that to the secular nation-state. This is a quiet, deliberate decoupling that avoids entanglement in Zionist or anti-Zionist interpretations.

==== - The Church is very active in interfaith outreach, especially with Catholics, Muslims, Evangelicals, Buddhists, and even secular NGOs. ====
* But very little public engagement is shown with Jewish Israeli religious leaders or political officials.
* Most Jewish–LDS dialogue happens in diaspora contexts (e.g. with American Jewish groups), not within Israel itself.

👉 Interpretation: This suggests a continued desire to avoid stirring religious anxieties in Israel. Even dialogue may be seen as suspicious by certain Israeli factions if it appears to be missionary-adjacent.

==== |     |     |     | ====
| --- | --- | --- |
|     |     |     |
|     |     |     |
|     |     |     |
|     |     |     |
|     |     |     |

==== 1. Strategic access preservation — The Church likely values its physical presence (Jerusalem Center, legal status) over symbolic stances. Any shift might risk everything. ====
# Avoiding political co-optation — Open support for Israel (or Palestine) might alienate millions of global members, including in Arab or Muslim nations.
# Respect for Jewish sensitivities — LDS theology overlaps with Jewish concepts in powerful ways, but the Church doesn’t want to trigger accusations of exploitation or replacement theology.
# Long-term eschatological patience — The Church may see its role in Israel as one of preparation, not provocation — letting prophecy unfold rather than forcing fulfillment.

Would you like me to dig into the 1980s political opposition to the Jerusalem Center’s construction? That’s where this all starts — and it reads like a Cold War–era thriller. 🕵️‍♂️🔥