Us Protestants No Longer A Majority

[changed]

Here's the 2012 PEW survey: http://www.pewforum....n-the-rise.aspx

LDS is constant, unaffiliated is up, generic Christian and Protestant is down.

Edited October 12, 2012 by changed

[Ahab]

Silence is a sign of agreement. The fact that they say nothing implies that they approve of their actions.

Oh bull pucky, big time. Sheesh. I hate it when I see sillly statements like this. Like now I have to post a post every time someone says something I don't agree with.

Where's that picture I saw not too long ago of this guy sitting at his computer late at night telling his wife he'd come to bed after writing a post, while saying something like "Someone on the internet is wrong!" Jeepers Creepers. Dlo you have any idea how much of my time would be used up if I tried to correct every bonehead comment I saw and didn't agree with!?!

*!$#^@*!

Whew. Okay. I feel much better now, but I'm not going to let this become a bad habit. I have much better things to do with my time.

[Ahab]

Zerinus and friends...

Maybe you read my question without taking into consideration the source. I thought I had been on here long enough for you to know what I meant if others don't. I think I recognize the distinction between Restoration and Reformation, and have argued that Restoration thinking is Protestantism brought to its logical conclusion. My impulsive question was undoubtedly not directed to the idea that you were trying to explore. My apologies for that. More on similarities between two different kinds of Protestantism later if anyone is interested.

So what do you call it when people think Reformation is the logical conclusion of Protestantism, as if the true Church of Christ can be reformed from the remnants of an apostate church? I'll tell you what I call it. Short sighted thinking. The true Church can't and could never be restored from an apostate church. The apostate church could be reformed, but an apostate church can't and could never be restored to a church that never fell into apostasy. The true Church needed to restored by the same authority that was present in the Church before an apostate church presumed itself to be the true Church.

You do understand that the true Church of Christ didn't and never can become an apostate church, don't you? Some people seem to think it happened that way, but it didn't, and couldn't, because the true Church of Christ can never become an apostate church, in itself. That's why John described the Church as going away for a while and then coming back, rather than the Church falling into apostasy, as if that could happen.

There was the true Church of Christ, and then an apostate Church raised it's ugly head while claimiing and considering itself to be the true Church, at which point the true Church went away for a while and then later came back to the Earth, through it's authorized leaders with keys, so that more people could join with the Church. All an apostate church can ever produce is more apostates.

[Gervin]

Can you imagine the Evangelicals having the missionary force like the LDS? That's probably where their angst or anger comes from. They probably feel like it's war. Now with more missionaries coming on the horizon it'll only get worse. They have a problem with our missionaries proselytizing to their families.

There is a war, indeed, but it's not the one you imagine.

Can you imagine an LDS missionary force like that of Christians?

Missionaries and Christian Workers:

In the unevangelized world, there are 20,500 full-time Christian workers and 10,200 foreign missionaries.

In the evangelized non-Christian world, there are 1.31 million full-time Christian workers.

In the Christian world, there are 306,000 foreign missionaries to other Christian lands. Also, 4.19 million full-time Christian workers (95%) work within the Christian world.

Frontier Harvest Ministries

[TAO]

Gervin, generally, I have found that the Evangelical Missionary Experience is a bit different from the LDS one. I think that's what Tacenda was pointing out... an effective missionary force that's increasing in numbers.

Edited October 12, 2012 by TAO

[Gervin]

Gervin, generally, I have found that the Evangelical Missionary Experience is a bit different from the LDS one. I think that's what Tacenda was pointing out... an effective missionary force that's increasing in numbers.

I would argue that full-time missionaries of the traditional Christian variety provide greater effectiveness because they meet and live with people where they live, work and hurt. From teachers to medical staff to church planters these are people that invest their entire lives in missionary service and, thus, in the lifeblood of individuals and communities. A knock on a door and a few minutes of conversation from an earnest missionary, in my opinion, doesn't compare.

[Calm]

Oh bull pucky, big time. Sheesh. I hate it when I see sillly statements like this. Like now I have to post a post every time someone says something I don't agree with.

Where's that picture I saw not too long ago of this guy sitting at his computer late at night telling his wife he'd come to bed after writing a post, while saying something like "Someone on the internet is wrong!" Jeepers Creepers. Dlo you have any idea how much of my time would be used up if I tried to correct every bonehead comment I saw and didn't agree with!?!

*!$#^@*!

Whew. Okay. I feel much better now, but I'm not going to let this become a bad habit. I have much better things to do with my time.

Mind if I borrow your rant because I feel the identical way on this point....and am too tired of it and other stuff to type it all out myself?

[Calm]

I would argue that full-time missionaries of the traditional Christian variety provide greater effectiveness because they meet and live with people where they live, work and hurt. From teachers to medical staff to church planters these are people that invest their entire lives in missionary service and, thus, in the lifeblood of individuals and communities. A knock on a door and a few minutes of conversation from an earnest missionary, in my opinion, doesn't compare.

I don't think one should really compare them as they are such different approaches, each being effective in the way they are meant to work by their adherents.

Btw, I have extreme admiration for those who have chosen to live their entire lives sacrificing for others to help brig them to Christ, a truly noble life.

Edited October 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[3DOP]

From my point of view, there is no such thing as "restoration movement," or even "restoration thinking". There is one and only one Restoration Reality, and that is Mormonism. It is only after that Restoration Reality had taken place that others jumped on the bandwagon, and created what has been misnamed "restoration movement," or "restoration thinking". We need to get that right first. Mormonism is not "part" of a "restoration movement". It is the one and only Restoration Reality. That is the right place to start.

I think you are starting off on the wrong note by calling it a "restoration thinking;" or as some people have called it, "restoration movement". Mormonism is part of neither. It is unique and stands alone from any such "movement" or "thinking". It is the one and only Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ on earth. Once we get that into proper perspective, you are welcome to discuss your point, whatever that is.

Zerinus,

What do you hope you would be if you had been born in 1730? Catholic, Reformist, or Restorationist? I have made my choice. I am Catholic and as convinced of it as you are of your beliefs. Although it is distant, the next most plausible position in my opinion is Restorationist. If I rejected the established Church in the West as a western Christian, or the established churches of the East if I was an eastern Christian, I would hope now, as a "Monday morning quarterback " in 2012 that I might find myself in 1730 tending towards "Restorationist thinking". I have referred before to the idea of "Restorationist-in-waiting" to signify those Christians who believed that the true church was not present at the time in which they lived. If I ever, God forbid, became disenchanted with the Catholic Church, I would, if I were not something that is presently available, be a "Restorationist-in-waiting".

I first believe in God.

I secondly believe in the revelation of His Son, Jesus Christ

I thirdly believe in the Catholic Church of which Christ is the Head.

If I stop being Catholic, it can not lead to atheism. Something even more spiritually disastrous would have to happen to make me question my belief in God. The Catholic Church teaches that I know of God separately from the Catholic faith and so I have and did. As I understand it, the Catholic Church did not lead me to God. God leads me and keeps me in the Catholic Church as of October 2012.

But if in a different setting I wasn't Catholic or Orthodox in say, 1730, I would suppose that I would think that the Reformers were correct in discerning that the Catholic Church was not the one true church. That would be an extremely important truth which would make me be thankful for the Reformation. In one very important sense, the sense I had in mind with my original question, it would make me Protestant. But when I see them trying to reform apostasy, I would hope that I would perceive it as folly. By understanding an important truth and an important error in 1730 the closest I could get to the truth is by engaging myself with "Restorationist thinking".

Furthermore, as regards the claim to uniqueness of LDS claims, I heartily disagree. Islam does not ignore, but embraces too much of the Christian revelation. If I were not Catholic, I could not lightly reject Islam. Nor could I lightly reject the Bahai Faith which appears as a kind of hybrid. Finally I could not lightly reject Salt Lake Mormonism. There are plausible copycats, even if the LDS movement is true. But if none of them could capture my will and intellect, I think the best scenario would be that I would retain hope in something not present. I hope I would hope. I hope I would be a "Restorationist-in-waiting" embracing Restorationist thinking. It seems like during the shorter or longer periods when there is no true church on earth, God's nearest disciples, those who pleased Him best, would understand the need for Restorationist thinking.

I could not very well understand any Restorationist, whether Mormon, Muslim, or Bahai who wouldn't appreciate how "Restorationist thinking" must precede any true Restoration.

3DOP

Edited October 13, 2012 by 3DOP

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...anada-19892837#

It proves that Protestantism (especially Evangelicalism) in the US is in decline; whereas Mormonism is on the rise.

Hopefully the truth is on the rise, and non-truth is in decline; whatever the label.

[3DOP]

Ahab

So what do you call it when people think Reformation is the logical conclusion of Protestantism, as if the true Church of Christ can be reformed from the remnants of an apostate church? I'll tell you what I call it. Short sighted thinking. The true Church can't and could never be restored from an apostate church. The apostate church could be reformed, but an apostate church can't and could never be restored to a church that never fell into apostasy. The true Church needed to restored by the same authority that was present in the Church before an apostate church presumed itself to be the true Church.

3DOP

Yes. I think Restorationist thinking is much more plausible than Reformist thinking.

Ahab

You do understand that the true Church of Christ didn't and never can become an apostate church, don't you? Some people seem to think it happened that way, but it didn't, and couldn't, because the true Church of Christ can never become an apostate church, in itself. That's why John described the Church as going away for a while and then coming back, rather than the Church falling into apostasy, as if that could happen.

3DOP

I disagree Ahab. Is there an apostasy from "true worship of Jupiter"? No. Only the true church can apostasize. The Church only went away? That doesn't mean much. Why did it go away? Was it being obedient and faithful and went away? This seems like a novelty. Restoration without apostasy?

Ahab

There was the true Church of Christ, and then an apostate Church raised it's ugly head while claimiing and considering itself to be the true Church, at which point the true Church went away for a while and then later came back to the Earth, through it's authorized leaders with keys, so that more people could join with the Church. All an apostate church can ever produce is more apostates.

3DOP

I disagree because I believe that only a true church can fall away. It is a misuse of the word apostasy to apply it willy nilly to anyone who isn't in the one true church. Apostasy means falling away. An apostate church isn't one that was never true. An apostate church is one that was at one time true.

[Batgirlsmom]

I'm not understanding why all of the objection to the concept that the primitive Christian church could become apostate. Apostasy is the abandonment of a religious belief. Since LDS believe the primitive church abandoned much of the essential truth of the Gospel why would it be incorrect to state that LDS believe the primitive Christian church apostatized? Or is it only persons that can reach apostasy and their religious beliefs then die (ie "go away"). I guess in a figurative sense I see the restored Gospel as a resurrection of sorts of the primitive church - the church died by being separately from the truth (since we teach death as a separation if varying sorts) and its resurrection restored the truth back to the church.

[spartacus]

Neither Jesus nor His Apostles spent their time tearing down other people's religions.

Really zerinus? That old LDS "go to"? The Old Testament is constantly deriding others' religions (e.g. - idols). As for Jesus, I'm pretty sure the Pharisees didn't appreciate His critique of their brand of religion. In fact, idols and legalism are the same categories of criticism that traditional Christians usually lay against the LDS Church. So...

But, anyway, I thought it was funny how you replied to your own post.

Also you seemed to miss or ignore the correction of your reasoning in the OP from others and me. And you seem to be misdirecting your own thread.

Interesting.

[danielwoods]

That's why John described the Church as going away for a while and then coming back, rather than the Church falling into apostasy, as if that could happen.

Just curious where this quote of John is found so I can read it?

[Law22]

The sad part of it is that those who become disillusioned with Evangelicalism seem to abandon religion altogether, and simply become irreligious.

I don't know if this is true for ex-evangelicals, but it is certainly true for ex-Mormons.

The causes of disillusionment with Evangelicalism is another interesting question worth exploring. I think it has lost its capacity (if it ever had any) to "feed the sheep". It has become a hate-mongering anti-religion rather than one of teaching and promoting the gospel

You need to get out more.

Neither Jesus nor His Apostles spent their time tearing down other people's religions.

Like you just did?

Zerinus is banned from the board for religion trashing. Get back on topic.

[Law22]

Yes, but where are they coming from? The population of the US is not rising that fast. Even if it did, why are they not adopting Protestantism as their forefathers did, instead of just becoming irreligious?

Because organized religion is by and large a load. ALL organized religion.

[spartacus]

Who are those people then who on the Internet and other media oppose and wage war not just against Mormonism, but against practically everything else that is not Evangelicalism, including Catholicism, JWs, Christian Science etc. Who are the "counter-cult" movements like CARM etc. who spread this kind of hate-mongering? Who are the "street preachers" who come to Salt Lake City at conference times carrying hateful signs calling Mormons names, pulling the Book of Mormon on a string along the street etc.? They are all from the "Evangelical" movement. How many times have you seen or heard Evangelical pastors and ministers (who berate Mormonism and other faiths from the pulpit) say a word disapproving of those kinds of behaviours and practices? I know not of any. This is not and never has been the Christian faith. Christianity preaches the gospel and lives at peace with its neighbours. It doesn't preach hatred against any other faith.

From personal experience I can tell you that the vast majority of Evangelicals don't even know about Evangelical missions to mormons, let alone their character.

From personal experience with these kinds of discussions I can tell you there are plenty of people who you would call "anti"'s who do condemn the actions you report.

And as you said in other posts, the people who do the truly hateful things - not missions, but the name-calling and desecration - wouldn't change one bit if the mainstream complained. They would just accuse the mainstream of becoming lukewarm and unsalted, if not children of the Devil.

And a reminder, zerinus, your own hate is not a proper response to that of others - tempting sure, but not of Jesus.

[spartacus]

From my point of view, there is no such thing as "restoration movement," or even "restoration thinking". There is one and only one Restoration Reality, and that is Mormonism. It is only after that Restoration Reality had taken place that others jumped on the bandwagon, and created what has been misnamed "restoration movement,"

Wow, zerinus, you are way wrong with that last sentence. Have you even just tried googling "restoration movement" - they began years before the LDS Church did in 1830.

or "restoration thinking". We need to get that right first. Mormonism is not "part" of a "restoration movement". It is the one and only Restoration Reality. That is the right place to start. I think you are starting off on the wrong note by calling it a "restoration thinking;" or as some people have called it, "restoration movement". Mormonism is part of neither. It is unique and stands alone from any such "movement" or "thinking".

It is the one and only Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ on earth. Once we get that into proper perspective, you are welcome to discuss your point, whatever that is.

Wow, zerinus, you are something. I believe it is the moderators who determine who is not welcome. And considering that you started off with "From my point of view", are you really demanding that people who post on this thread or talk to you have to accept this statement from your point of view?

Besides, unless you are confusing your belief that the LDS restoration is the true restoration with it being the "only" restoration movement - which would just be meaningless and silly- then you are wrong. There was all kind of talk and organization about restoring Christ's true church in America before, during, and (probably) after the LDS Church started in 1830.

Correction: I see your clarification on page 3. That's a little better, but it's a bit like saying "My restoration is specialer than your restoration".

Edited October 13, 2012 by spartacus

[spartacus]

Can you imagine the Evangelicals having the missionary force like the LDS? That's probably where their angst or anger comes from. They probably feel like it's war. Now with more missionaries coming on the horizon it'll only get worse. They have a problem with our missionaries proselytizing to their families.

Tacenda, I don't know what you are saying here. The number of non-LDS/Catholic/Orthodox Christian missionaries is greater than the number of LDS missionaries, so you must mean if the Evangelicals had the same percentage of their population as missionaries, but then the rest of your comment doesn't make sense. Do you really think there is less than 60,000 missionaries out of hundreds of millions of Evangelicals, let alone Pentecostals, or Protestants?

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not understanding why all of the objection to the concept that the primitive Christian church could become apostate. Apostasy is the abandonment of a religious belief. Since LDS believe the primitive church abandoned much of the essential truth of the Gospel why would it be incorrect to state that LDS believe the primitive Christian church apostatized? Or is it only persons that can reach apostasy and their religious beliefs then die (ie "go away"). I guess in a figurative sense I see the restored Gospel as a resurrection of sorts of the primitive church - the church died by being separately from the truth (since we teach death as a separation if varying sorts) and its resurrection restored the truth back to the church.

Apostasy literally means a falling away, but it doesn't mean an abandonment of all religious beliefs. In the LDS concept of the Apostasy there were still good, and true Christian people. But the full truth was abandoned, or changed, and the authority from God was removed.

Edited October 13, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[harfad]

Oh bull pucky, big time. Sheesh. I hate it when I see sillly statements like this. Like now I have to post a post every time someone says something I don't agree with.

Where's that picture I saw not too long ago of this guy sitting at his computer late at night telling his wife he'd come to bed after writing a post, while saying something like "Someone on the internet is wrong!" Jeepers Creepers. Dlo you have any idea how much of my time would be used up if I tried to correct every bonehead comment I saw and didn't agree with!?!

*!$#^@*!

Whew. Okay. I feel much better now, but I'm not going to let this become a bad habit. I have much better things to do with my time.

I am a lurker here, and don't post very often, but I think that zerinus has a point. Imagine what would happen if a whole swathe of "Mormons" started publishing all kind of hateful stuff about other churches and religions on the Internet and in print, established hundreds of websites dedicated to that purpose alone, and sent out protesters and "street preachers" to the doorsteps of other churches denouncing them with hateful signs and posters etc, and did it all in the Name of "Mormonism;" what would the reaction of the rest of the Church be? What would the reactions of Church members be? What would the reactions of Church leadership be? Would they sit back and tolerate it? I don't think so. I think the Prophet would be the first to speak at General Conference and denounce such behaviors and declare that they do not speak for nor represent the LDS Church. I would go further, and say that such persons would be cautioned to desist from such activities; and if they didn't, they would be ultimately excommunicated from the Church. The fact that such activities take place on a large scale within the Evangelical movement and in their name; and (with a few rare exceptions) the Evangelical movement as a whole does not condemn nor disapprove of it, and their pastors, community leaders, and prominent academic and theological etc, don't condemn or voice their disapproval, that can only be understood to mean that they are OK with it. I don't see how else one can interpret that. I think that is the point that zerinus was making, and I can find no fault with it. I can see the logic of his argument.

[Calm]

I'm not understanding why all of the objection to the concept that the primitive Christian church could become apostate. Apostasy is the abandonment of a religious belief. Since LDS believe the primitive church abandoned much of the essential truth of the Gospel why would it be incorrect to state that LDS believe the primitive Christian church apostatized? Or is it only persons that can reach apostasy and their religious beliefs then die (ie "go away"). I guess in a figurative sense I see the restored Gospel as a resurrection of sorts of the primitive church - the church died by being separately from the truth (since we teach death as a separation if varying sorts) and its resurrection restored the truth back to the church.

Which LDS is objecting to the idea?

Addon: never mind, I forgot Ahab's comment.

It would help if you quoted the posts you are referring to for those of us that aren't reading the thread in one sitting or whose lose track of what has been said.

Edited October 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

From personal experience with these kinds of discussions I can tell you there are plenty of people who you would call "anti"'s who do condemn the actions you report.

There are many of the former civil 'street preachers' who no longer 'street preach' due to the atmosphere created by the more rabid variety. I believe there have been comments in the news from these ministers condemning the antics in fact ( which is how I found out about the discontinuation of the more civil variety) and even a few counterprotests.

[Calm]

I am a lurker here, and don't post very often, but I think that zerinus has a point. Imagine what would happen if a whole swathe of "Mormons" started publishing all kind of hateful stuff about other churches and religions on the Internet and in print, established hundreds of websites dedicated to that purpose alone, and sent out protesters and "street preachers" to the doorsteps of other churches denouncing them with hateful signs and posters etc, and did it all in the Name of "Mormonism;" what would the reaction of the rest of the Church be? What would the reactions of Church members be? What would the reactions of Church leadership be? Would they sit back and tolerate it? I don't think so.

The Evangelical movement is not one cohesive organization which has a strong central authority to appeal to or that establishes proper cultural behaviour. To compare the two is to compare apples and oranges.

In fact, I've gotten the impression there is a strong cultural tendency to not interfere in other denominations/congregations within the Evangelical fold. (Much like one Lds bishop does not generally tell another how to run their ward as there is no sense of authority or right to do so.). I hope an Evangelical will correct me here if I have misinterpreted this attitude.

Edited October 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[harfad]

I agree that evangelicalism is not centrally organized, but it does have prominent leaders both at the local level and national level whom the evangelicals recognize and defer to. How many of those do you know who have voiced their disapproval of those kinds of activities? Also, although evangelicals are not centrally organized, they are not completely disparate either. They do have a sense of community among them which they express in various ways, and they do have a recognisable identity as belonging to a theologically distinct religious movement.