Pew poll: Americans playing musical chairs with religion
posted at 2:17 pm on February 25, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
44% have switched affiliations? Good, er, lord. Catholics bleed the worst, with roughly 1 in 10 adults describing him- or herself as lapsed, but overall numbers are holding steady thanks in part to John McCain: Illegals, it seems, are doing the jobs American ex-Catholics won’t do.
Biggest gainers? Unaffiliated, although about half of that number is comprised of people who consider themselves religious but subscribe to no particular denomination. Atheists + agnostics + secular unaffiliated (people to whom religion doesn’t much matter) = 10.3%, good for third place behind Protestants and Catholics and larger than all other faith groups combined.
Be sure to scroll down to the end for factoids about religious communities. The data on those with the biggest families and the highest degree of education is interesting, if only because it’s so unsurprising.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
There are several passages in Hebrews, especially 6:4 and 10:26, that make it clear that sin still has the power to draw people away from Christ and into damnation. To me the message of Romans 6 is not that we are freed from the penalties of sin, but rather the Holy Spirit gives us the power to escape it. You are right that Christians do sin, and that those sins are forgiven, but to continue sinning willfully thinking you have a Get of Hell Free card is a big mistake.
pedestrian on February 25, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Might want to do a bit of research on how the book you are quoting was written, and modified, and edited, rewriten, then modified during translation…
I understand that many say that the writers were “inspired by God” and therefore every word is exactly as God intended…
But the Moslems say the same thing about the Koran too.
And Angels came down and gave the book of Morman to Smith…
Remember, there are MANY testaments that never made it to the Modern King James version….
Romeo13 on February 25, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Lolreligionthread
Asher on February 25, 2008 at 4:32 PM
No one said you’re not allowed to comment, that’s why we all come here. And on occasion we disagree, that’s OK too.
It wasn’t your disagreeing I had a problem with, rather the way you expressed it …… “Sure. Die and be dead.” I think that was over the top, unnecessary and provoking on it’s face.
And my philosophy was not lashed to Live and Let Live alone. You overlooked my caveat of accepting others … if they do no harm.
We’ll just have to disagree. I’m content with my philosophy, and I assume you are with yours.
fogw on February 25, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Question asked and answered within the same post.
calicon might be joking, but it’s not an unheard of testimony. Even if gay people are born that way, it doesn’t mean that people can’t choose to be gay. After all, many gay people choose a heterosexual lifestyle, living with and/or marrying someone of the opposite sex despite wanting to sleep with someone of their own sex and/or eventually leading homosexual lives.
And while you could argue that homosexuals choose heterosexual lifestyles because of pressure from society, many people feel pressure to “experiment” with their sexuality.
Esthier on February 25, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Ok…roughly 80% of America is Christian.
Too bad the Godless heathen 20% control the media and hollywood. A new media and new hollywood is something desperately needed. Remember Mccarthy’s crusade against the atheist commie’s? 80%-90% of them were in Hollywood.
SaintOlaf on February 25, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Absolutely right. The issue really is about what we place our faith in.
People want faith in their own personal definition of God, and want to make up their own personal individualized doctrines.
But in doing this we place ourselves as the arbiter of who and what God is, effectively redefining God in our own personal imaginations, which is just another personalized form of idolatry.
Lawrence on February 25, 2008 at 4:38 PM
So Christ died and raised from the dead, but His sacrifice isn’t as powerful as my sin?
Yes, and for good reason.
Esthier on February 25, 2008 at 4:39 PM
McCarthy’s “crusade” was against commies of any religion working in the White House. He didn’t care so much about people in Hollywood.
Esthier on February 25, 2008 at 4:40 PM
The Bible also says that some people have sinned so much that their hearts are hardened and they will never be saved.
highhopes on February 25, 2008 at 4:47 PM
II Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: [4] In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, …
II Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, … your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”
There is always a reason to deny Jesus Christ. I’m not trying to convert anyone. Their faith, or lack thereof, is their prerogative. Those who choose to deny Jesus Christ, will always find a reason to do so. My purpose, in quoting Scripture, is to show the reasons for said rejection.
OhEssYouCowboys on February 25, 2008 at 4:47 PM
He’s baiting you. He’s LDS.
Vanceone, you’re charactarizing those who know they are saved by grace to also adhere to the statement “let us sin, that grace may abound all the more.” We actually believe the whole book, which includes the response to that quotation.
Weren’t you calling someone giboted recently?
TexasDan on February 25, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Assuming that is true, how does one get from the universe was designed by someone powerful to the idea that the Christian Bible is the infallible, complete, and only Word of God? That second piece, I submit, is not self-evident.
hicsuget on February 25, 2008 at 4:49 PM
But Esthier, there’s a big difference between someone who might experiment with gay sex a time or two, and someone who is born gay. Just sayin’, you can’t take teh ghey out of someone, and change them.
JetBoy on February 25, 2008 at 4:50 PM
This is the part of the Bible that really lays it out there. You want to know why this country is in such deep shit? 2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
cjs1943 on February 25, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Might be interesting to analyze this poll with one eye on changing mobility & work habits as well. How many of us had parents who stayed in one church, one town, with one (or just a few) jobs? Now we move around for work, stay a few years before relocating, and also move from church to church. The relational ties in family, work and faith are often looser today than a generation or two ago.
cs89 on February 25, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Testaments to what? Baal? Allah? Vishnu? Yeah, I think it is pretty obvious why these didn’t make it into any accepted version of the Bible.
The documents we now have as Bible text undergo rigorous academic study (religious and secular) on a daily basis from the most original manuscripts available. And even the secular linguists embrace the current translations of the Bible as accurate.
If the Bible message is inspired by God then it is true, regardless of man’s intervention in the process. If the Bible message is false, then this debate is pointless.
If you don’t believe in the Bible message and it really isn’t that big a deal to you, why must you mock and ridicule those who believe?
I’ll answer for you:
Because you know in your heart that rejecting God is a sin according to the Bible. So you have two choices. Either embrace the Gospel message of salvation in face of sin. Or ridicule the message as nonsense to feel justified in your rejection of God’s Word.
Lawrence on February 25, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Do you really know that people who believe they are born gay can’t change?
I could just as easily say I was born Christian, so I can’t change. Or I could say I was born Atheist, so I can’t change.
Lawrence on February 25, 2008 at 5:04 PM
And the Gnostic “testaments” – the ones which, according to Gnosticism, denied the deity of Jesus Christ, because they rejected any notion that anything which was Holy would take the form of a man.
I can’t imagine those “testaments” not being made a part of the Bible.
;O)
OhEssYouCowboys on February 25, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Yes, but what about the Gospels of Thomas, Mary, and Q? Those were supposed to be written around the time of Jesus, so they should be included Bible too. /sarc
Mallard T. Drake on February 25, 2008 at 5:22 PM
The “Gospels of Thomas and Mary” were gnostic. I’ve read [a little] about “Q,” but I never could get a handle as to what it actually was.
OhEssYouCowboys on February 25, 2008 at 5:29 PM
I’m not saying that. Since we are all sinners, each one of us is either saved or not depending only on God’s grace. But those who are saved will know it by being empowered by the Holy Spirit to resist sin, or in the words of Paul, will not be slaves to sin. Christ’s sacrifice is powerful enough to save anyone who God chooses, but God has choosen to leave some in a state where they succumb to the temptation of sin and are not held fast by Christ.
pedestrian on February 25, 2008 at 5:30 PM
You can’t “change” gay. You can suppress it, deny it, whatever. And to compare gay with what religion you’re born into? Not even close.
More like being born a certain race, and trying to live like another. Or being born a brunette, but dying your hair blonde. Sure, you can hide it, but you’ll always be brunette at the roots.
JetBoy on February 25, 2008 at 5:31 PM
What’s the big deal? Religion exists for your benefit. It’s there to help you out. So if it satisfies you to switch from one to another, why not? That’s what it’s there for.
paul006 on February 25, 2008 at 5:35 PM
My perception of (non-Hispanic) Catholics is that they are becoming younger, more conservative, and more orthodox. Hispanic Catholicism is pretty different stylistically-speaking (much more charismatic, more family oriented), and I don’t know enough about it to characterize it’s level of orthodoxy or conservatism.
Overall, Catholicism seems to be moving away from the liberals that sprouted up in seminaries, etc. in the 60s. At our parish here at Oregon State, the younger, more conservative and orthodox people are taking over and the older, established, more liberal Catholics are losing popularity– a sort of quiet, conservative revolution, if you will.
If this is what is happening elsewhere in the world (and I think it is, especially considering JP II and Benedict’s influence), then expect the Catholic Church as a whole to become perhaps a little smaller, but much more conservative/orthodox over the next 20 years.
PaisleyCow on February 25, 2008 at 5:36 PM
I’m not baiting anyone; I’m just disagreeing with the idea that works are useless. In fact, works are required. The Protestants I talk to seem to think you cannot have both grace and works, and that’s simply not true. I’ve never understood why that concept is so hard to understand: just because you are required to do something to merit grace does not mean you “Work yourself to heaven.”
I’ve met plenty of people who claim that I as an LDS person am going to hell because I believe good works are necessary. It’s one of the staple arguments that Protestant ministers use to label us as a cult: “Mormons believe they have to do good works–grace is all you need!” But if you actually ask them to explore that argument, you come to the conclusion that “grace” is a “sin all you want and there’s no punishment!” theology.
That’s not how to read Paul, though, and so Protestants recoil from that. But then they have to admit your works DO matter. Put more bluntly: Mormons believe you have to be faithful to your wife; if you commit adultery all your life and die in bed with the neighbors daughter, you ain’t gonna make it, even if you were “saved” at one point. What do Protestants believe? Either the guy is getting grace or he isn’t. If grace gets him in, there’s no incentive at all to not live it up in this life: morality doesn’t matter if you all make it anyway. If it doesn’t get him in, then works do matter.
And those of us who believe the latter, are still legitimately Christian.
Vanceone on February 25, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Whoops. Nit-picky grammar mistake.
The big deal is that the different religions all claim to be the one true religion. Therefore, if people are switching, it implies that those “free agents” don’t believe their previous religion was right.
PaisleyCow on February 25, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Really? Would some of those reasons be secular power? Politics? Adopting other religions tenents and beliefs and coopting their holidays so the “masses” would find it more acceptable?
This Book was written by MEN. Edited by MEN. Changed and modified and translated by MEN…
Tell me, is the comandment “thou shall not kill”? or “thou shall not commit murder”? Pretty big difference there.
Is the Creation story that God created the world in 6 days? Or is the literal translation from Hebrew not days, but basicly a period of time? (in which case Creationism really pretty well follows how things evolved…).
It it thou shall not suffer a witch to live? or is it really thou shall not suffer an evil practioner of majic to live…. pretty big difference there… and one that led to the wipeing out of a lot of Midwives in the Middle Ages, not to mention witch burnings in Salem…
Let me try to explain… Tell me, how would you explain an Airplane to a Peasent Shepherd who can’t read, or write, and thinks the world is flat and thunder is the voice of God? That Shepherd would have NO way to even conceptualize what you are trying to say, they would have no frame of reference…. they would have to put it into concepts they COULD understand… and for them to try to explain it to someone else from their time period???
Well, the Bible was written a couple of thousand years ago, with THEIR frame of reference and with THEIR understanding of the Universe…. even if divinely inspired, they could NOT put concepts into words that they had no reference for.
I might add that Christianity has changed, and continues to change as time passes. Middle Ages Christians believed in the works theory of gettin to heaven… and thus indulgences and such… and penance… and they had the same book you have… so how come they believed differently… and how are YOU so sure that you now have it right?
Romeo13 on February 25, 2008 at 6:02 PM
I don’t know. I was born with dark brown hair; it fell out while I was still a newborn and was replaced with whitish blond hair, and now my hair is so dull it’s practically brown.
Still, you don’t deny that some gay people choose to sleep with someone of the opposite sex. It happens for years sometimes. The same thing happens with people who choose to sleep with someone of the same sex.
Your statement stands only because those who change from one preference to another are relabeled with detractors saying either that they never were gay/straight or that they’re actually just denying who they are.
OK, but then people who have accepted Christ do basically have a “Get out of Hell free” card.
Esthier on February 25, 2008 at 6:16 PM
You write as though you have the impression you are writing something novel.
You are not.
I left my answer short, because that’s all I cared to write on the subject. If you’d even read any of the books that were left out, you might have a clue as to why they were not included.
You know, Hot Air has codes you can use to bold text or to italicize it. They’re just as effective as all CAPS and much less annoying since they don’t carry the impression that you’re yelling at people.
Esthier on February 25, 2008 at 6:19 PM
If by accepting Christ you mean you understand how much pain God feels from sin, and as a result to humbly accept his sacrifice on your behalf and to henceforth always try to avoid sinning, then yes.
pedestrian on February 25, 2008 at 6:35 PM
You are of course correct. I was being tongue-in-cheek. I grew up in a fundamentalist home; I know how they think.
When I was a teenager, it struck me one day that my peers, more or less universally, belonged to whatever religion their parents belonged to. This suggested that religious preference was an accident of birth, and not the result of independent, critical thinking. I would subsequently conclude that all religion was a ruse.
(By the way, I was raised in the Church of Christ, which is the one true church. The rest of you are going to burn in hell.)
paul006 on February 25, 2008 at 6:41 PM
No doubt you have run into people who have misconceptions Protestantism, but that doesn’t mean all Protestants believe that. The standard Protestant way that the word grace is used is to mean “the freely given, unmerited favor and love of God.” If works are prerequisite, then by definition it is not the Protestant meaning of grace.
The misunderstanding of “sin all you want” is that the Holy Spirit fills us with desire to serve God. While the desires of the body remain, we are supposed to know better. It is like we are at a sumputous all-you-can-eat buffet, but we can read the sign that says the food is contaminated.
As for whether Mormons are Christians, I would doubt that informed Protestants would really get worked up anymore about works vs. whatever outside of purely theological debates. The real concern is that Mormonism isn’t monotheistic and that causes all kinds of logical problems. Perhaps you can explain where the power comes from that makes us like a god to rule over a planet.
pedestrian on February 25, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Pedestrian: Mormonism is just as monotheistic as any Christian religion–if you ask any Jew or Muslim, they’d say Christianity as a whole is polytheistic. And the reason is simple: 3 divine beings is not one divine being. If you will explain to me how God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are meaningfully different from each other (i.e. no modalism), I will explain how we are monotheistic.
As for “the power comes that makes us like a god to rule over a planet” I just take Christ at His word when He said He will allow us to sit in His throne, and inherit all things the Father hath. After all, are we not “joint-heirs” of Christ, and heirs of God? That has to mean SOMETHING, does it not?
Vanceone on February 25, 2008 at 7:03 PM
I find this article interesting.
I am one of those who have switched religions. I was raised Anglican (my mother was British and as a result I was raised church of England), my father was…I don’t know. My step-Father was methodist which is Anglican-lite as far as I’m concerned. I came from a pretty religious and god-fearing family. For me, the whole organized religion think just wasn’t doing it for me.
Not to offend anyone, I just saw a lot of hypocrisy among the church and it’s patrons. I know I shouldn’t fault the religion because of my experiences with less than moral followers, but I just don’t believe some of what the Bible says. I believe in a creator, I believe Jesus was a man who walked the earth and overall I think the Abrahamic faiths have a good moral fiber to base a society from. Some of the stories or fables in the Bible however aren’t original by any means and are regurgitations of older polytheistic religions. While it’s assumed Judiasm is the first monotheistic religion because it’s documented, it’s not really known for sure. To me there is just to much relative similarities between all of the religions stemming from the Middle East to discount. All have some the same characters in their religious texts, all pretty much teach the same values and all teachings began with the same Israelite inhabitants of the region. The fact that other faiths in other regions in the world formed and have their own beliefs is reason enough for me to believe most of the supernatural writings whether they’re Christian or Mayan are in fact made up. I find it ironic a lot of people believe in miracles and that God saves people, but I don’t believe it. Some say bad weather is punishment for wronging their particular deity, well what about the nice days? Some say their particular deity watched over them and that’s how they made it out of a scenario alive/unhurt/better off. What about the seven year old girl who was hit by a drunk driver and killed? One can say, “god has his reasons”, well that could apply to whatever supernatural being you believe in, or more logically, it’s just bad luck.
The other thing that bothers me is the lack of belief in evolution, which clearly takes place and while not perfect, has science backing up the claims of the scientists that support it. I understand not all religious types discount evolution, it just seems the church’s official position is the earth is xxx thousands of year’s old and that we came from one man and woman and lived with dinosaurs or that dinosaurs didn’t exist. While I can’t speak for every church’s views, it’s just what I find among the Christians I know, including my parents. They just seem hostile towards evolution.
I do believe however that in general Christians/Jews and even some Muslims are good people whose morals come from their religion, which isn’t a bad thing at all. I do also believe the MSM has a beef with Christianity and while I do not believe personally, I will defend Christianity and Judaism since the morals of these religions do tend to support values such as free speech, freedom and liberty. I will fight against any religion or ideology (such as communism and fascism) that take away freedoms.
p.s for the record I believe in a god, I just don’t think he has much to do with what we do here on a daily basis. When you create and maintain a whole universe, you’re probably pretty busy…..
bentman78 on February 25, 2008 at 7:05 PM
I looked up modalism, and it says that God takes on one of three forms at any given time. The trinity holds that God is all three persons at all times, or more specifically, as our creator, God exists unconstrained by our universe of time and space and so appears to us as unchanging and eternal. However, when he interacts directly with us at particular times that interaction will appear to us as a person, and he has choosen to manifest himself sometimes as the Holy Spirit and sometimes as Jesus. My understanding of the Father is rather vague, but is closer to the concept of his infinite power, love, and so on.
What little I have read about Mormonism, is that the believer becomes a god of their own planet. So to the people of that planet, they have a god that is not the same god that we have. How can that be monotheistic? My question about where the power comes from is to ask which one is the real god, or does the universe just exist and these god-like beings inhabit it according to some eternal rules that just happen to be?
pedestrian on February 25, 2008 at 7:39 PM
If you read Paul, he addresses the issue of “sin all you want for you are saved by Grace.” In essence, because you can doesn’t mean you should. In order to receive Grace, we have to first understand what sin is and how we have sinned and how we can not redeem ourselves from sin. We’re doomed. When we have that realization, then we accept Grace and hang onto it for dear life. And we honor and worship the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by whom we receive the Grace. If we were drowning and someone threw us a preserver, we would treat that person very special and would honor them the rest of our lives.
James states that faith without works is dead. The works are the tangible evidence of our faith, but the works do not give us faith or grant us favor with God. God can’t love us more than he does, so how can we win his Grace by works. Through Grace we are justified. We work out or sanctification through works until the day we are glorified in Heaven.
Mormonism is a cult in that they do not preach the Trinity and do not accept that God is three in one. There is one God, not three gods. The Father is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God. They are all God; they are one. An imperfect illustration is water. Water can exist in liquid, solid and vapor forms. It is still water. The three forms are one. I know LDS argue against the three in one. I am not about to get into an endless discussion about that. I am just stating that trinitarinism is the reason that LDS are considered a cult.
Mallard T. Drake on February 25, 2008 at 7:57 PM
I was born and raised Catholic. Last year, when I turned 17, I started thinking a lot more about philosophy (mostly political since I’d soon be voting, but also some spiritual/religious). I came to the conclusion that I don’t agree with or believe in every part of Catholicism. Thus, I simply identify myself as Christian now and nothing more. I guess I’m non-denominational or independent or whatever.
I don’t think I’ll ever belong to a religion again, because I’d rather spend my time reading the Bible and formulating my own opinions than researching all the denominations out there to see if there’s any with which I wholly agree.
I suppose that’s just my nature. I’m a free thinker and believe in Individualism. Guess that’s why I’m a conservative.
Gunhaver on February 25, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Good to see atheism/agnostics growing. One thing I didn’t know was that 20% of the U.S. is Baptist. Growing up in Atlanta, I can believe it. I went to a Southern Baptist private high scrool, and it opened my eyes to everything I don’t like about organized religion. Also, the Southern Baptists are essentially the Republican base (in principles if not also numbers). I wonder how much of the erosion of the evangelical population has to do with their declining influence in the Party?
Viscount_Bolingbroke on February 25, 2008 at 8:17 PM
We believe that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are eternal and perfect Beings. We believe that They grant an authority to act in Their name, and that power is referred to as the priesthood. This priesthood is well-referenced throughout scripture, refer to OT and NT. We are created in God’s image, children to that God. The expectation is that we would all engage in a plan which would culminate in our return to His presence. Christ was and is the Example and the Sacrifice. It was that way from the beginning. If we accept His Sacrifice, and follow His example, He has promised us all that He has—to be as Vanceone states, joint heirs with God. These promises are all throughout the Bible, and they are also echoed throughout the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. Each prophet in the OT and the apostles in the NT all testified of Christ. They also testified of what individuals need to do to return to God. God conducts everything through order and purpose. All light and truth come through Him. As we embrace and pattern our lives according to that truth, not shading or blunting that truth, we prepare ourselves to receive the Atonement and the blessings of forgiveness and redemption.
There are many misconceptions on Mormonism here on this thread, in certain media circles, and even in some churches. If one is an honest seeker of truth, they will pray and ask their Maker for that truth. We as Mormons believe that God is an active participant in His creation, and that He does answer prayers. The God of the OT and the NT is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Cold Steel on February 25, 2008 at 8:17 PM
There are many witnesses to Christ’s resurrection. There are references to three distinct Beings: at Christ’s baptism, at Stephen’s martyrdom. Also, if we are in God’s image, and his image is ethereal, what is the necessity of bodies? Why was it important for Christ to come and take upon Himself a body? What is that purpose? What is the purpose of our Resurrections? If we are resurrected to a body of flesh and bones, as was Christ, will we do interchange said bodies? I understand the role of faith in an individual relationship with God, but that does not mean we accept fallacies in spite of inspiration. Also, if we are to believe in truth, why do we so readily stop at superstition instead of pursuing truth wherever it may lead?
Cold Steel on February 25, 2008 at 8:25 PM
What’s the big deal about so many switching “affiliations”? I was raised nominal Roman Catholic. At the age of 18 I was born again (I’m now 46), & since then I’ve been part of several denominations. I think that’s a testament to Protestantism’s unity–I can go from one church to another without compromising my theology.
jgapinoy on February 25, 2008 at 9:06 PM
They counted mormons in with Christians?? Huh???
Mormons don’t even believe in the same God as Christians. That’s a fact. Mormons believe God was a man on another planet and he followed his god’s laws and became the God we know now of this universe. Mormons believe they become a god of another universe if they follow LDS and mormons believe all Christians will go to hell and they also believe Jesus and the devil are brothers!
It’s very simple…mormons added to the Bible(and believe in a completely different god)and therefore mormonism is a cult.
Very simple.
Get out of your cult while you can mormons, come home to the true God of Christianity.
Make no mistake about it…when the rapture happens(and it will soon)you mormons will be left behind.
Come on home! There’s still time. God has warned us all about adding to the Bible. God has warned us about false prophets such as Joe Smith…there’s no excuse. Pick up a King James Bible and study it…see for yourself.
SaintOlaf on February 25, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Does this sound like Christianity to you??
Mormonism in a Nutshell
Mormonism teaches that God used to be a man on another world and that he became a god by following the laws and ordinances of his god on his home world. He brought his wife to this world, a woman he had married on the other world. She is, essentially a goddess.
In his present god-state, he rules our world. He has a body of flesh and bones. Since god and his wife are both exalted persons, they each possess physical bodies. In their exalted states as deities, they produce spirit children that grow and mature in the spiritual realm. The first spirit born was Jesus. Afterwards Lucifer was born along with the rest of us. So, Mormonism teaches that we all pre-existed in the spirit realm having been produced from the union of god and his goddess wife. Therefore, we all existed in spirit form before coming down down and entering the bodies of human babies that are being born on earth. During this ‘compression’ into the infant state, the memories of their pre-existence is ‘veiled.’
God the father, who is called Elohim, was concerned for the future salvation of the people on earth. In the heavenly realm, the Father had a plan for the salvation of the world. Jesus endorsed the Father’s plan. Lucifer did not. Lucifer became jealous and rebelled. In his rebellion he convinced a large portion of the spirits existing in heaven to side with him and oppose god. God being more powerful then they, cursed these rebellious spirits to become demons. They can never be born in human bodies.
The remaining spirits sided with God. Since they chose the better way, when it comes time for them to live on earth, they have the privilege of being born in races and locations that are relative to their condition and choice made in the spirit realm.1
In the Mormon plan of salvation there needed to be a savior: Jesus. But Jesus was a spirit in heaven. For him to be born on earth, Brigham Young the second prophet of the Mormon church said that instead of letting any other man do it, God the Father did it with Mary. He said that the birth of our savior was as natural as the birth of our parents. Essentially, what this means is that Brigham Young taught that god the father came down and had relations with Mary, his spirit daughter, to produce the body of Jesus. Though many Mormons will not entertain such incestuous thoughts about God and Mary, this is what Brigham Young taught and as far as we know, this has not been denied by the Mormon church.
Nevertheless, Jesus was born, got married, and had children. He died on the cross and paid for sins — but not on the cross only. According to Mormonism, the atonement of Christ was not only on the cross. It began in the Garden of Gethsemane before he went to the cross.
In Mormonism, men and women have the potential of becoming gods. President Lorenzo Snow said, “As god once was, man is. As God is, man may become.” In order to reach this exalted state of godhood, a person must first become a good Mormon, pay a full ten percent tithe to the Mormon church, follow various laws and ordinances of the church, and be found worthy. At this point, they receive a temple recommend whereupon, the Mormon is allowed to enter their sacred temples in order to go through set of secret rituals: baptism for the dead, celestial marriage, and various oaths of secrecy and commitment. Additionally, four secret handshakes are taught so the believing Mormon, upon entering the third level of Mormon heaven, can shake hands with god in a certain pattern. This celestial ritual is for the purpose of permitting entrance into the highest level of heaven. For those who achieve this highest of heavens, exaltation to godhood awaits them. Then, he or she, will be permitted to have his or her own planet and be the god of his own world and the Mormon system will be expanded to other planets.
This is not Christianity…stop claiming it is.
http://www.carm.org/mormon.htm
SaintOlaf on February 25, 2008 at 9:15 PM
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Restored through Joseph Smith, Jr. We believe that Christ is the head of His Church, so logic reasonably follows that we are Christians. So, I’ll repeat the claim and continue to assert. As for your thoughts and believes, that is your choice and your agency, and I won’t presume to force anything otherwise. My only admonition is to seek truth. Don’t limit God: He does answer prayers, and He is continually active in our lives. He also has a plan for you, regardless of whether you embrace it or not. As a follow-up, always remember the axiom: judge not…. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Before you go slandering someone else beliefs and practices, ensure that you’re dialed into your relationship. Check your foundation before launching attacks.
Cold Steel on February 25, 2008 at 9:26 PM
By the way, I was raised in the Church of Christ, which is the one true church. The rest of you are going to burn in hell.
You must be talking about the Prots and poor AP, proud lil’ infidel that he is. I’m Catholic so we take a detour to purgatory and straight on towards morning…er, or something like that. ;-)
(AP: so do you like your red meat rare of more well-done? hehehe)
JohnAGJ on February 25, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Well I personally agree with you that Mormonism is not orthodox Christianity, but I could care less what the “great” Matthew Slick has to say on the matter. CARM has some of the worst and most pedestrian apologetics articles I’ve ever seen. If Mormons want to call themselves Christian, fine. I don’t agree but I’m certainly not going to stamp my foot about it…
JohnAGJ on February 25, 2008 at 9:44 PM
“Make no mistake about it…when the rapture happens(and it will soon)you mormons will be left behind”
SaintOlaf, get back on the meds. The rapture?? HA HA HA HA!!! What a fairy tail. What a buffoon. Dude, you better look both ways when you cross the street, because you are going to that real hot place…you know…HELL. Say hi to Huckabee and his dog hanging son when you get there.
” I am not about to get into an endless discussion about that. I am just stating that trinitarinism is the reason that LDS are considered a cult.”
That strikes me as the kind of comment you would get from somebody named Mallard T. Drake.
Roger Waters on February 25, 2008 at 9:49 PM
It seems a little strange to me to define any non-trinitarian religion as a cult. By this definition, Abraham, David, and all the other historical (and modern-day) practitioners of Judaism are cultists, because the concept of God the Son was not invented until much later. Further, the pre-pentecostal “Christians” would have been a cult because the concept of “God the Holy Ghost” had not yet been invented. John the Baptist never mentioned the Holy Spirit. By your very broad definition, he was a cultist, too.
hicsuget on February 25, 2008 at 10:01 PM
I guess Jesus was a cultist because Mallard T. Drake says anybody who doesnt accept trinitarism is a cultist and since Jesus said he was God’s son…. well, you follow the logic.
Roger Waters on February 25, 2008 at 10:04 PM
So any religion which adds to the Bible and believes something a-traditional about the nature of God is a cult? The Christians added twenty-odd books to the Bible. Drop by your local synagogue sometime and check their scripture for the book of Matthew—I’d be willing to bet that you won’t find it there. You won’t find anything about a Son of God in there, either.
I, for one, find it rather… convenient that the admonitions against adding and deleting from the Bible come in the last four verses of the last chapter of the last book. It’s almost as though somebody… added them in at the tail end as an afterthought.
Pick up a King James Bible, you say? If only the King James version is valid, then the scripture that Jesus studied was heresy.
hicsuget on February 25, 2008 at 10:13 PM
John wrote 3 John in the new testament after he wrote the Book of Revelation so John the Beloved is in biiiiiiig trouble according to this St.Oaf.
Roger Waters on February 25, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Theological differences by themselves should not cause a church to be considered a cult. It becomes a cult when members are told to cut off all relations with an apostate. The Bible talks about sending out members who are in open sin, for their own good. Some churchs go further and do that for challenging church doctrine, which starts to sound like doing it for the benefit of the church rather than the member. In the case of the Mormon church, the allegation is that they keep people in line by threatening the loss of all connections to the community. If true, that is cultish behavior.
pedestrian on February 25, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Roger Waters on February 25, 2008 at 10:04 PM
hicsuget on February 25, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Saint Olaf and Mallard aren’t interested in the logic on the discussion. They’re more into stoning infidels…. the true way of bringing people to grace. Details like rational discussion get in the way of bashing. Religiosity which segregates and seeks to stamp out agency is not of Christ. The same individuals who espouse incendiary rhetoric against other faiths have no moral justification. Christ never brow beat people into following Him. Christ never pitted His disciples against each other. Truth sells itself. It does not require force. Christ could have easily waged war when He first came. That’s what many Jews looked in earnest for. Many missed the mark when He taught parables on man’s relationship with God. If you’re feeling inadequate and you feel the need to lash out, take a look inward. See what you need to reconcile yourself to your beliefs.
Cold Steel on February 25, 2008 at 10:23 PM
And you simply dismiss my point and don’t bother to answer.
Along with complaining about my writing style, instead of the content therein…
Sure sign you HAVE no answer.
Using quotes from a suspect source, to validate that same source? Please…. I’m sure those infidel Moslems and Mormans feal much the same as you, and amazingly, use the exact same arguements…. does that not make you stop and think a bit?
Romeo13 on February 25, 2008 at 10:26 PM
The article is somewhat misleading. There may be a decline in people associating themselves with ‘organized’ religion. There is no spiritual incentive in legalism. But, Christianity is alive, well and growing.
labrat on February 25, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Cult is thrown out quite a bit as a derogatory term. Like so many other words, it’s been co-opted by those who just cannot state overtly that Mormons are occultists or Satanists. It’s a nicer, PC way of saying that Mormons and other “non-Christian” sects are going to hell.
With regards to excommunication: people don’t lose connection with their community.
If you’re really interested in how Mormons feel on this subject,
go here:
lds.org: A Chance To Start Over
Cold Steel on February 25, 2008 at 10:33 PM
The admonition in Revelation not to add anything was concerning the prophecy given in that epistle, not for the whole New Testament, since the Bible was obviously not around at the time. But we are admonished in Galatians to reject any gospel that contradicts that which the apostles gave to the first churches even if an angel were to bring it.
Rose on February 25, 2008 at 10:35 PM
…growing.
labrat on February 25, 2008 at 10:36 PM
The writers of the Bible were “inspired”. It was not “dictated” to them word for word as Muhammed claimed he received the Quran. Thus four Gospels, from four different perspectives, all teaching the same message.
It’s that type of rigity that will cause the eventual collapse of Islam under its own weight.
labrat on February 25, 2008 at 10:49 PM
…rigidity, rather.
labrat on February 25, 2008 at 10:50 PM
YES!!! Tear each-other apart! Love seeing this theological discussion.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on February 25, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Atheists have no problem with attacking the beliefs of Christians and making derogatory remarks about them but they condemn believers when they discuss theology among themselves.
Rose on February 26, 2008 at 12:15 AM
I guess they feel left out.
Rose on February 26, 2008 at 12:15 AM
Must be because they reject the premise, no?
Viscount_Bolingbroke on February 26, 2008 at 1:59 AM
Correct.
Peter refers here, not to the end of the world, but to the cataclysmic events of 70 A.D.
The same events to which Christ refers in Matthew 24.
The Temple was destroyed by the “abomination of desolation” (prophesied also by Daniel), the Roman army under Titus, and Judaism, as they knew it, ended.
It was also marked the end of the age of inspired writing. Thus anything written after 70 A.D. is considered apocryphal.
It has been theorized that John was inspired to write the Revelation around 90 A.D. I find this highly unlikely for a few reasons. One being that the Temple and Jerusalem are mentioned numerous times in Revelation, albeit in a symbolic sense, yet no mention of the destruction is ever made.
labrat on February 26, 2008 at 5:25 AM
The history of the formation of Christian Scripture is interesting in itself, hardly anything “black and white”. Consensus among Christian churches took a long time, which is seen in patristic writings. Probably the most famous example comes from Eusebius of Caesaria. He chronicles that many of the NT books considered canonical today were in dispute as late as the 4th century. These include Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and the Apocalypse of John (Revelations). Even the Gospel of John was disputed at one time, especially whom its author was. Ironically, the Apocalypse was in dispute partly because of its use by sects considered to be heretical by mainstream Christianity as well as the fact that its apostolicity was in question. Considering how this book has been exploited through the centuries to support any number of kooky ideas it seems understandable why it was held in doubt for some time.
Then of course there are the books of the OT that differed in the early Christian churches. Are the deuterocanonical books Scripture or not? Opinion was divided but it is interesting to note the NT’s heavy reliance upon the Greek Septuagint that included many of these books.
A good book to read on more about this is The Canon Debate.
JohnAGJ on February 26, 2008 at 8:30 AM
Yes, because your point is trite and has been addressed so many times here that it’s not worth anyone’s time, not even yours.
And you’ve just given a sign that I wasted my time commenting on your style. If you won’t listen to me on something that trivial, why should I talk to you about something as important as my faith?
I can’t convince you I’m right. It isn’t within my abilities. And if you won’t even listen, then really, what’s in it for me? I didn’t start this argument. All I did was comment that there is a very good reason weird “gospels” didn’t make it into the Bible, something which is apparent to all who read those weird “gospels” except for you.
And that’s just another reason why a debate with you is pointless.
I haven’t been doing that. I’ve been quoting scripture to explain my theology, which is the only logical way to explain a person’s theology. I haven’t once tried to convince you the Bible is true by quoting the Bible. You must be thinking of someone else.
1. Muslims call people infidels, not Christians. If you’re going to arrogantly denounce religious people, you should at least be able to tell us apart.
2. You don’t even know my arguments on the subject since I haven’t argued with you.
I don’t mean any offense at all, but you’re still young and may change your mind. It’s great that you’re reading your Bible and figuring things out on your own, but if you can meet with a group of like-minded people to study the Bible with, you’ll likely find you gain so much more.
I’m not currently going to a church either, but I believe that Christians were meant for fellowship with other Christians. We are the body of Christ after all.
That’s what it means to repent and accept Christ’s sacrifice and lordship.
Actually, if you must do something in order to earn grace, then it’s not grace by definition.
That’s not just the Protestant way. That’s the actual definition of the word. If you go to dictionary.com you’ll find that definition word for word.
Vanceone, believe whatever you want to believe. I’m not trying to convince you otherwise, but if you believe that people can earn grace, then you aren’t understanding what the word “grace” means in English. You’ll just have to use another word.
So far as I understand Romans, the Bible makes it very clear that salvation cannot be earned.
“For all have sinned and fall short…”
“For the wages of sin are death…
but the gift of God is eternal life.”
I don’t know about you, but when my husband gives me a gift, he doesn’t make me do a trick first. It’s just something he wants to give to me because of his love for me and his desire to see me happy.
Unlike the paycheck I receive each week for going to work and doing my job.
See, the “wages of sin” earn you death. You can actually earn death the way you earn a paycheck, but God gives a “gift”, something that cannot be earned.
Why is this a problem?
Legalism is a distortion of that gift, something Jesus fought against while here.
Esthier on February 26, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2