Fascinating!
If atheism was included, it’d be the biggest along a variety of states
This is clearly counting Mormons as Christians here, despite their significant divergence
Probably because that “significant divergence” isn’t enough to make them not Christians. Joseph Smith’s bible fanfic might be as ridiculous and idiotic as he was but that’s not enough to distinguish it from the previous iterations.
Not really. It’s basically as divergent as islam. Mormonism isn’t even monotheist.
Usually adding a new prophet gets you a separate category, in abrahamic religions.
And sometimes a bad Twilight fanfic gets turned into a book and a couple movies. Doesn’t happen for them all.
No, they’re True Christians.
Not sure why you got downvoted… They believe they are.
Of course every religion believes they are the “true” ones.
Is Mormonism considered a form of Christianity here? Even with the stuff about planets?
That’s a nice slippery road Christians really do not want to travel down.
Baptists dislike Catholics. So of course they have a problem with Mormons. Just like they all have a problem with all other religions. Of the three brands I just named the Catholics are to me the most tolerant of others. Not that they are that tolerant. Mormans hide their intolerance with some fake happy smile but they are still just as intolerant. Especially to their own people.
It’s Christianity+.
The plus is just extra craziness.
Jesus, the Mormons change their doctrine all the time, just like mainstream ‘Christians’. They have even backed away from the ‘stuff about planets’ in recent years. They want so badly to be bland.
Christians don’t change their doctrine.
I’m curious what doctrine you think has been changed? I’m a member of the church and can happily answer questions to the best of my ability.
I will agree that policy has changed over time (for better and for worse, it’s run by a bunch of regular people and people make both good and bad decisions) but the core doctrine is pretty static.
⚠️🚨I FOUND ANOTHER MORMON ON LEMMY!!!🚨⚠️
There are actually quite a lot of Mormons on Lemmy. I stick around anyway because the majority of them have moved beyond the mythology they were spoon fed as youth. Those who have done that work are usually very knowledgeable about religion and have a lot to offer the discussions.
I would estimate that maybe 20% of the insightful and thoughtful posters or commenters in religion topics (English language) are Mormons who do not affiliate with the religion offered by the Corportation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
There is no way I will engage with you on Mormon subjects. I was raised in that hateful cult and will have nothing to do with its current members. Frankly, most of them are profoundly ignorant of their own history beyond the official white-washed (like literally) versions.
You are free to use a search engine or go to the official church pages to find their press releases over the last few years.
The core doctrine is white supremacy, and there have been significant changes to the way that is portrayed over the years.
If you want a more substantial answer to your question about how the doctrines have changed, read “This is my doctrine” by Charlie Harrell. If you want a more detailed example of what doctrine is and how it changes, read “second class saints” by Matthew Harris. If you want even more examples, just read the BOM and see how doctrines in it are at odds with the D&C. Seriously - take the BOM at face value and compare it. It’s wildly incompatible. Ignore the context of what you’ve been taught about the BOM. Read it like someone in 1828 would.
Even something like the doctrine of the atonement has fundamentally changed because Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both advocated for blood atonement (yes, Joseph did teach and advocate it). And the Adam God doctrine was literally taught in the temple. These two things alone show that even something as seemingly static as the atonement of Christ is anything but static within the history of the church.
Doctrine changes all the time and no one in any position of authority wants to take a firm stand on what it is because it’s impossible to define. The reason why I use the atonement is to prevent (well intentioned, I’m sure) tbm’s from using the motte and bailey fallacy: something that someone says isn’t actually doctrine, according to you, (like Africans being descendents of Cain, for example) so you retreat to something more fundamental like the atonement. This is also similar to moving the goal posts.
At any rate, good luck with working your salvation out with fear and trembling. I gave most of my life to the church. I’m better now that I’m out. I’m much better now that I’m out. That’s not going to be true for LITERALLY everyone, but you should at least be willing to give it serious thought.
Hey there. I don’t know this history by heart, so I’ll assume this Wikipedia article is fairly accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_segregation_and_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
Black segregation in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a part of the religion for over a century. The LDS church discouraged social interaction or marriage with Black people and encouraged racial segregation. The practice began with church founder Joseph Smith who stated, “I would confine them [Black people] by strict law to their own species”.[1]: 1843 Until 1963, many church leaders supported legalized racial segregation.[2]
I’m hearing your argument as this: “The LDS church is essentially fine because the core doctrines are good. The bad things are merely policy, and it’s okay for mere policy to change over time. That doesn’t disprove the core doctrines.”
I disagree. If the church’s founder and high leaders advocate for legal racial segregation, using the church’s authority as backing, then it does not matter whether we are talking about doctrine vs. policy or divinity vs. human fallibility. Whatever it is, it’s a negative effect caused by the church as a whole.
And from a skeptic’s perspective, this makes it impossible to have any faith in the LDS church. If the founder can be wrong about something so harmful, and if core doctrines can later be rejected as mere “policy”, then really I should always be engaging my critical thinking. And if the human leaders can be wrong, then I have no way to be sure that they’re right about any of the doctrine.
It sounds like the church still has a pretty strong stance against same-sex marriage and homosexuality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_and_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Homosexuality
Whereas I believe gay marriage has majority support among typical Americans.
What are we supposed to make of this?
God comes down from Heaven and inspires prophets to build and run His church, but when His prophets are wrong about policy, wrong in a way that hurts marginalized people like Black people and gay people, God just lets that happen? In His name?
Religion should be an excuse to be good, not an excuse to be wrong.
If you draw a line around the LDS church and ask what goes in and out of that boundary, I see a highly-political entity that collects a lot of money and exerts control over people in ways that a good church would not do. I don’t see innocent doctrine.
Religion should be an excuse to be good, not an excuse to be wrong.
I couldn’t agree more. The church absolutely has bad history in regards to black segregation and current issues with LGBTQ+ peoples. One of the big parts of our doctrine is that everyone here on earth is flawed, no one here is perfect. This very much includes the prophets and apostles (they have said so themselves), and - if one is in a good ward/congregation that understands the doctrine - we look into these past atrocities and try to be better. We teach church history and encourage members to look through archived documents and research materials.
If the founder can be wrong about something so harmful, and if core doctrines can later be rejected as mere “policy”, then really I should always be engaging my critical thinking.
Critical thinking is great, and definitely encouraged! Joseph Smith did his best to follow the doctrine and lead the church according to how he interpreted the scriptures, but at the end of the day he was just a human like you and I and subject to his own biases.
I do try and make a distinction between policy (how leaders understand doctrine and apply it to church functions. Current policy can be found in the General Handbook) and doctrine (what’s actually written in the scriptures, and often interpreted differently by different people). As far as I’m aware, church doctrine has never supported not giving blacks the priesthood. Church policy on the other hand was dictated by the times at the hands of men, and men decided that blacks could no longer receive the priesthood, and we can and do all agree that it was a Bad Thing to do and is a blemish on the church’s history.
What about the fact that if the Book of Mormon was translated from Egyptian written 2500 years ago, it would not have the translation Christ, because that comes from the Greek translation and instead would have Messiah, making it anachronistic?
How do you feel about the fact that Joseph Smith claimed to be the first person in the world able to translate hieroglyphics, with no training or understanding of languages or translation?
[Cricket chirp sound intensifies]
Anybody else just see a tumbleweed roll through here?
The Kinderhook plates are a fun one to bring up. As are the Books of Abraham and Moses, which are literally scripture to Mormons, but deeply embarrassing in their origin story.
Momos would say yes (a recent change), most Christians would shrug, some Christians would be offended that you would suggest it and say that mormonism is a heresy.
The ones who shrug probably don’t know what mormonism is. Anytime I’ve told a Christian who didn’t know, their immediate reaction was “WTF”
Protestants say that about Catholics, they are both still Christian
That’s a niche viewpoint. Even then a lot of the time it’s rejecting Roman Catholicism as true. Or the common one “you can be a (Roman) Catholic but not a Christian” or at the most extreme (usually this person engages with strawmen) “There are Christians in the Roman Catholic Church, but they aren’t really Roman Catholics”
So glad everyone is on the same page /s
Yeah, we’re pretty generous about what counts. I’d argue most evangelicals aren’t sincerely Christian either but whatever.
Wouldn’t say “most”, but a sizable portion. Same can be said about Roman Catholics.
I mean, if they believe Jesus was *Christ then that makes them christian yes?
Muslims believe that Jesus was the Christ.
If people say they are Christian then they are.
If a whole group does it then they are as well.
I’d love the slippery road of allowing you all to insist the others aren’t true believers, though. The end result of that logic is a nice big tax bill for all of you.
Technically, “Muslim” means “one who submits to God”. A Christian can say they are a Muslim with that logic.
Maybe. If your beliefs run totally counter to Jesus’s teachings, then I’d say you aren’t sincerely Christian. I don’t think the people who preach the prosperity Gospel are real Christians. They just use the veneer of Christianity to hide what they really are.
I mean have you seen the Midwest?
I group Abrahamic religions thusly: Judaism, Christianity, Mormon, Jehovahs Witness, Scientology. But as murderface put it about religion: “It’s all the same shit!”
Wait, Scientology? Scientology isn’t Christian at all… is it? I thought it was sci-fi nonsense?
It is, but the texts are given from aliens in space, and in scientology bad thoughts and actions create engrams of the spirit, one man brought the teachings to earth, sunday services, collars, cross iconography… mostly intentional copy/paste from Christianity stuff, which was a lot of copy/paste stuff from Judaism (mixed with Norse paganism to spice it up!). Ooooh and the best part!? The drive to lure people in to the seats to spread the word, and punish all the naysayers at any cost!
It is, they just don’t explain it to you like that until the mind control is active.
Somebody shoulds tells Murderface that it’s not alsways-ways abouts him.
I don’t know about here on Lemmy in particular but I looked it up and found a 2011 Pew poll that gives some statistics: “Mormons perceive hostility directed toward them from evangelical Christians. Fully half of those surveyed (50%) say that evangelical Christians are generally unfriendly toward Mormons, compared with 21% who think evangelicals are neutral toward Mormons and 18% who say evangelicals are friendly toward Mormonism. Pew Research Center surveys show that roughly half of white evangelicals (47%) say that Mormonism is not a Christian religion, and two-thirds of evangelicals (66%) say that Mormonism and their own religion are very or somewhat different.” It also says that “one-third of non-Mormon U.S. adults (32%) say the Mormon faith is not a Christian religion, and an additional 17% are unsure whether Mormonism is Christian.”
They literally believe in multiple gods, though. At least Roman Catholics and Protestants worship the same God.
I had no idea we have so many Buddhists!
We don’t really. The largest group is obviously Christian. The second largest group in every state is those with no religion, but they are ignored here. And the remaining 1-13 percent is split among a number of minority groups, meaning that the second largest religion in each state is only about <1-6 percent of the population.
The second largest group in every state is those with no religion
How do you count that. I know a lot of people who will call themselves Christian if asked - but they never do anything to show it. They are never seen in Church (not even Christmas), only know the parts of the bible everybody knows because they are common (a couple of the 10 commandments, “The Lord is my Shepard, I shall not want”, Jesus had 12 disciples). Last I checked about 40% of the US attends a christian church, but it appears to me like the majority of the rest of not no religion, but just don’t bother practicing their claimed religion. (though it isn’t clear how their kids will end up) You can thus count them either way.
Having faith is just like being in love. No one can tell you you’re in love, you just know it. Through and through. Balls to bones.
If someone says they are a part of one of the thousands of made up religions—then they are.
Jesus made the church to be community of people not a building to worship in.
I’d say most modern day Christians are very far from their own teachings that no one can possibly “do it wrong” any more than the churches own leadership.
They worship American Jeezuz, and his church is on Facebook and at Walmart. Attendance is almost 100%!
The problem is that these polls are self-reporting, so there’s no way to count nominal Christians separately despite them likely making up the majority of the country and having a lifestyle closer to that of an irreligious person.
No true Scotsman. You can call yourself anything… Except some things… Mostly because of people who call themselves something.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/
If you have any problem with their methods you can take it up with them.
Are Christians and catholics counted as the same religion?
Do you mean Catholics and Protestants? They’re all Christians…
Classifying Catholics as distinct from Christians seems to be a weird American Protestant thing. You don’t see, say, German Lutherans or Anglicans or whoever doing that.
If you believe that Jesus was a saviour who lived, then died for your sins, then was resurrected and ascended to heaven, then you are a Christian. It’s pretty much that simple. Except there are some Catholics who don’t believe any of that stuff and only practice ritualistically
Why wouldn’t they be?
Depends on who you ask. Generally they, both will claim to be Christians. Plenty of Protestants will say that Catholics have left the teachings of the bible so far behind that they are in name only and perhaps they shouldn’t be counted. (I have never heard Catholics say the same about protestants, but 500 years ago they would have). There are also Mormons who claim to be Christian, but other Christians will say they use the name but not the beliefs. Jehovah’s Witnesses also get some “you are not really Christian”. In general though Christians generaly think of the other sects as just misguided, likely going to hell, but still Christians in the end despite that.
This is simple.
The people who say Catholics aren’t Christian are wrong.
Glad to help and if you have any other questions feel free to ask.
This reminds me of my favorite Emo Phillips joke:
"Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over."
So not only are the non religious people confused, the (not)christians are all also confused as to who is Christian
I have never heard Catholics say the same about protestants
I will say it, but only about certain denominations, prosperity gospel and anything else in the same zip code who think 1. God blesses people in every day life based on how devout they are, and 2. Good works are not required to enter the kingdom of heaven, only faith.
The first just serves to justify existing hierarchy and inaction to achieve a more just society, and the second justifies any sin or inaction as long as you tell yourself you believe.
I have never heard Catholics say the same about protestants
I have. https://fatima.org/news-views/catholic-apologetics-111/
I’m not religous so i always thought they were different enough to be counted as seperate
I actually would have guessed Islam for Utah
Utah stands out on this to me. This map conflates all denominations of shared religions, and Utah is notably 50% Mormon and 13% other Christian denominations. Since some denominations of a shared religion are significantly different from each other and can shape the cultural landscape, it seems like part of the picture is missing with just the information shown.
I think it would also be helpful if this map also noted which states had a second most common religion at more than 1% or so of the population.
Mormons are Christians in the same way Baptists and Catholics are both Christians. It’s not different enough to be considered a whole new religion.
We have such a wide variety of cults to choose from.
Pick one so you can hate the rest!
Misding the democrats and republicans cults
Results are pretty encouraging if you broaden the question slightly to include people who aren’t religious. There are probably people out there who might draw an incorrect conclusion from the map posted here and think that these colors represent the views of the second largest group of people (some of whom may vote) in those states.
They’re conveniently skipping past 20 to 30 percent of the population to show the ~1-2% and smaller fractions.
Yeah this is an almost completely bogus map. Pew research has tracked ‘Nones’ for years and it is the fastest growing ‘religion’ by far nationwide.
Obligatory “absence of religion is not a religion” in case passersby miss the meaning of your second set of “'” but yep.
All good. It is important to clarify stuff like that for a general readership
So, basically all Abrahamic Religions, except Buddhism.
I think even Utah and Arizona would have mormonism as #2, which is abrahamic
You think Hinduism is Abrahamic?
No, I forgot about that one state.
Two
Arizona is basically in Latin America
Source
South Carolina and Arizona out here like, “we built different”
Aye don’t leave out sneaky Delaware
I did not see sneaky Delaware. Thank you. 😁
@The_Picard_Maneuver@piefed.world
Whenever I see these statistics, I wonder something quite the opposite: I wonder which religions or belief systems are the smallest (as in, which religions or belief systems are the ones with the fewest to almost no followers at all).
Problem is: polls and surveys often ask one’s religion from a limited, predetermined list. The person often can’t even write down the name of their religion (or whatever label that closely describes it), so we end up not seeing statistics about non-mainstream religions such as Neo-Hellenism, Neo-Sumerian, Gnosticism, Thelema, among many others… Many end up picking “Non-religious” while they do practice a religion.
Then, there’s the Internet, said to connect people with other people, often tossing Hapax Legomena (words that only happen once across the entire dataset, e.g. “Lilith” only appears once across the entire bible so Her name is a biblical Hapax Legomenon) into the oblivion (to be fair, it’s just a byproduct of Zipf’s Law so the Internet isn’t really to be blamed), so we don’t get to know about very unique (and likely very deep and rich) belief systems that exist out there.
Even when there’s only one individual following some belief system they built themselves, it’d be really interesting to know about it.
DC is not a state.
