You're probably here for fountain pen stuff, but what's in the article has to be said.
(And yes, visitors are still welcome in every Church meeting house)
One week ago, on Sunday, 28 September 2025, in Grand Blanc, Michigan, a man rammed his pickup truck into the front wall of a church building belonging to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereinafter, "the Church"; members are sometimes referred to as "Mormons"1). On the other side of that wall, roughly 150 people (children, parents, grandparents) were in the middle of a worship service. The attacker proceeded to shoot at members of the congregation and then set the building on fire, using gasoline as an accelerant. He killed 4 people and injured 8 others before police stopped him. Thankfully, the man never had the chance to use the IEDs he brought with him. (You can read more in this Deseret News article, or just do a web search.)
These were my people.
Most people know very little about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "United" is too weak a word for who we are. Without ever having set foot in that building, I could have given you a tour of it. I could have explained the various rooms, which classes met there, and who would attend the classes. I could have told you about the types of activities held in the building on weeknights, and why there's a full basketball court inside a church house. Their hymnal is my hymnal. Their scriptures are my scriptures. The chapters of scripture and lesson material they had studied that week are the same ones I studied that week. Their prayers and testimonies of faith would have sounded familiar to me. I could have walked in and felt right at home despite the fact that I don't know any of them. And this is true the world over. Even in some other country where I don't understand the language, I could have walked into any Latter-day Saint meeting house and felt at home and told you roughly what was happening.
United is too weak a word. We are one.2 That man didn't attack just one congregation and one building in Michigan, he attacked every Latter-day Saint congregation and building the world over. It has hit me much harder than I would have expected. I know myself well, and my reaction is stronger than I can explain. I am not afraid of something similar happening to me, so that's not it. The victims are my brothers and sisters, but so are you, dear reader, whoever you are. And so was the attacker (no, he was not a member of our faith, he was a human, though). I cannot explain it, and I cannot keep silent about it. Something changed in me last Sunday.
All indications are that the attacker was motivated by hate for Latter-day Saints. Part of it was clearly personal from a failed romantic relationship with a Latter-day Saint many years prior to the attack. Part of it was surely PTSD (from time serving in the military). And part of it was lies. Some of the things he said to friends about the Church, and during the attack, were clearly taken from hateful rhetoric (demons, anti-Christ, etc.) that you can hear from many a "Christian"3 pastor in some parts of the US. What any given person thinks of our doctrine is up to them. The Church teaches us to respect freedom of conscience and agency to choose for oneself what to believe. But hateful rhetoric, filled with lies, half-truths, and mocking tones have no place in any faith, let alone coming from someone claiming to follow the Lord who taught us not to bear false witness and to love our enemies. Yet, the bodies weren't cold before some "Christians" online were repeating the hateful rhetoric, ranging from "cult", "demons", and "anti-Christ" to "the shooter was sent by God" and "it's just the start".
¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;Matthew 5:43-44 (KJV)
To be frank, the Saints are accustomed to hate. We've been getting it for 200 years. The Saturday night before this attack, at a football game at the University of Colorado Boulder against the Brigham Young University (BYU) Cougars (a university operated by the Church), Colorado fans took up the chant, "F* the Mormons". Not "F* the Cougars", not "F* BYU". "F* the Mormons". Had they used that chant with the name (or nickname) of any other religion, there would have been public outrage, and officials would have put an immediate stop to it. But this chant is common when BYU plays away games. We're used to it. There have never been consequences. There was silence from the University of Colorado … until Monday, when news of the attack in Michigan spread and they issued a non-apologetic statement. And there was silence from the Big 12 Conference until Tuesday, when they decided to fine Colorado (the first university fined for this chant). Should people have to die before hatred is condemned?
I'm a "rabid" proponent of free speech. I would rather have everyone free to say the ugliest, most vulgar, most hateful things than to have speech censored or controlled by government (go read Orwell if you don't understand). But that doesn't mean speech has no consequence. Whether it's chants from football fans or hatred from "Christian" pastors or lies from the mainstream media (of every political stripe), some speech has consequences. Charlie Kirk was killed by lies4. Those Latter-day Saints in Michigan were killed by lies. Lies breed hatred and sooner or later, some person with a mental illness or similar issue is going to take that hate and go too far.
I'm not trying to shift the blame. Killers are responsible for their own actions. But speech is action and speakers are responsible for the things they say. Don't ask me how to solve the problem of hatred - I don't actually believe it can be done by mere mortals. But you, if you will, can choose not to hate. I already have, after an experience in my 20s taught me that hate is a terrible darkness that harmed me more than anyone else. I vowed never to hate again, and so I don't, and haven't. You and I, if we will, can help those with whom we interact to reject hate. You and I can choose to never knowingly lie. We can choose not to repeat things unless we have verified their truthfulness for ourselves. This much is possible.
I'm not a fool. I know that there's precious little I can do. But I can invite you to think about what you say and how you say it. I can choose to be careful with my own speech. We can respect each other regardless of whether we agree. Plenty of people do it all the time. So I invite you, dear reader, to do what you can to choose better, and to encourage it from others. Thanks for reading.
Footnotes
1We ask that you use the full name of the Church, and call us Latter-day Saints instead. The term "Mormon" comes from the Book of Mormon, which is a volume of scripture compiled by an ancient prophet named Mormon. There is technically no such thing as "Mormonism", because we do not follow Mormon (any more than we follow Moses, Jeremiah, or Peter). We follow Jesus Christ. For a long time, we tried to make the most of it, including, yes, the "I'm a Mormon" ad campaign. But our most recent Church president (who passed away the night before this event), asked members and the world to use the proper name of the Church, and I'm beyond glad he did, and that we have followed that council. These days, it's mostly only haters who call us Mormons / the Mormon Church / Mormonism. (The proper replacement for that last term is "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ", or just "the restored gospel".)
2No, we are not cookie-cutter versions of each other, and the notion that we're a cult or brainwashed is laughable. Our interests, careers, hobbies, education levels, tastes, political leanings, and faith journeys vary. But we are still one. (John 17:21 (21–23); 1 Cor. 1:10; Eph. 4:13 (11–14); 3 Ne. 11:28 (28–30); D&C 38:27; Moses 7:18. TG Unity.)
3Sorry, but I have a hard time labeling someone as Christian when they so gleefully reject the teachings of the Master (Jesus Christ).
4I wasn't a follower of Charlie Kirk, so I'm not going to go into it, but as far as I can tell, the shooter was enraged by things he thought Charlie Kirk promoted, but those things were lies. Every stated accusation against Mr. Kirk had clear evidence that the claim was based on comments taken out of context and cut short. Once I saw the context and the full quote / clip, it was clear Mr. Kirk was not saying what he was accused of saying.
For a long time, I could not understand why God lumped liars in with murderers (see also Revelation 22:15). The two sins seem so different in severity. Now I understand. (Yes, I know, sin is sin and without repentance and Christ, any sin can keep you from God. This is true in Latter-day Saint theology, but there are also some nuances in our theology not shared by broader Christianity, that we don't need to go into here. The point is, now I understand.)