If a Latter-day Saint Converts, is that Considered a Sin?

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No, you cannot be an apostate if you never affiliated. In that circumstance you are a heathen.

I've been called worse!

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I have heard of it happening but it was a very unique circumstance and I am not sure how reliable the story is.

One thing I know for sure ......we sure ain't inactive! Call us what you want, but don't call us inactive and don't call me late for snickerdoodles!

[Navidad]

12 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

The bishop of the ward you attend shouldn't receive financial contributions from you AFAIK.  Nonmembers are not encouraged to partake of Sacrament, bear testimony, offer public prayers, serve in  priesthood callings.  However  unless formally under discipline, they usually are not prevented from doing so either. 

Unbaptised attendees are Investigors. You are well-disposed to ultimately receive the Gospel,  if not in this life then in the intermediate state of the Afterlife we commonly call "Spirit Prison". 

While those who leave the Church, formally or informally,  would be deemed "apostates", if they do not become willful vitriolic adversaries of the Church, it is always possible that their departure was owing to some lack of understanding and that they will have some opportunity to progress in the life to come. 

We donate to special projects and needs, not to the ongoing support of the Church. We have a large LDS academy nearby and we support their work as well. We have no priesthood callings. I believe there are three or four callings we can accept as non-members. He has asked us to assist a couple in the ward with identifying ministry needs in our community. We certainly offer prayers, solos, and bear testimonies. Plus our bishop regularly appreciates donations of my wife's cornmeal muffins! Ha!

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, Navidad said:

One thing I know for sure ......we sure ain't inactive! Call us what you want, but don't call us inactive and don't call me late for snickerdoodles!

You might be what we formerly called a dry Mormon then. It would now be something like “a dry affiliate of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”.

[Tsuzuki]

True story: The CHI was changed to state that formally joining another church was apostasy right after I suggested being multiple religions at once on this very message board 12 years ago. Before then, it didn't say anything. I made a pretty convincing argument with the old CHI, so they had to change it.

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, Tsuzuki said:

True story: The CHI was changed to state that formally joining another church was apostasy right after I suggested being multiple religions at once on this very message board 12 years ago. Before then, it didn't say anything. I made a pretty convincing argument with the old CHI, so they had to change it.

As much as I love some of your posts I really doubt you are the reason they changed the CHI.

[Tsuzuki]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

As much as I love some of your posts I really doubt you are the reason they changed the CHI.

It was pretty well timed, and some people were pretty upset when I told them that the back door was open.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Tsuzuki said:

True story: The CHI was changed to state that formally joining another church was apostasy right after I suggested being multiple religions at once on this very message board 12 years ago. Before then, it didn't say anything. I made a pretty convincing argument with the old CHI, so they had to change it.

😁😁😁

[mfbukowski]

On 10/25/2018 at 12:20 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Yet Smac quoted the  Handbook of Instructions and it clearly said that joining another faith and advocating its teachings was apostasy. 

I think really the key is advocating it's teachings to members of our church to draw them away.

I have known people who have been simultaneously Catholic and Mormon and just kept it to themselves, attending both churches.  I mean if you are baptized Catholic and then convert to Mormonism what's wrong with stopping by the local Parish for one hour a week to attend Mass? Who's even to know?

This is not uncommon in certain traditionally Catholic cultures, especially when some family member joins our church and others follow suit. It's kind of like insurance, and keeping your bases covered. 

Especially if you are not that particular about hard Doctrine like the Trinity at cetera.?  For them there's no difference.

And no I'm not talking about myself !

You know there's a big difference for me!

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, Tsuzuki said:

True story: The CHI was changed to state that formally joining another church was apostasy right after I suggested being multiple religions at once on this very message board 12 years ago. Before then, it didn't say anything. I made a pretty convincing argument with the old CHI, so they had to change it.

Here's the fallacy in thinking that your argument influenced the church's decision to make that change to the CHI.

IF your argument had any influence, it would have taken them a good decade to make the change. They just don't move that quickly. They were probably responding to someone elses argument from 2 decades earlier  

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Tsuzuki said:

True story: The CHI was changed to state that formally joining another church was apostasy right after I suggested being multiple religions at once on this very message board 12 years ago. Before then, it didn't say anything. I made a pretty convincing argument with the old CHI, so they had to change it.

Yeah well from the content of President Oaks recent talk, clearly he stole all that from me, which I have been preaching here for years.

And if you believe that, I have this Bridge here to sell you that has great income potential and you can get it really cheap. Just put up a toll booth or two and you're ready to go.

😜

Edited October 27, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Here's the fallacy in thinking that your argument influenced the church's decision to make that change to the CHI.

IF your argument had any influence, it would have taken them a good decade to make the change. They just don't move that quickly. They were probably responding to someone elses argument from 2 decades earlier  

Or God forbid, maybe it was actually inspired, because the Lord knew of the problem but they didn't.

Nah, not possible.

 

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Tsuzuki said:

True story: The CHI was changed to state that formally joining another church was apostasy right after I suggested being multiple religions at once on this very message board 12 years ago. Before then, it didn't say anything. I made a pretty convincing argument with the old CHI, so they had to change it.

I'm not saying you're wrong but that was a topic that was generally discussed here and there were several people advocating it. Times change and the Brethren are attentive to those changes, and if it was happening here it must have been happening everywhere else in the church too.

But clearly president Oaks was just ripping off my ideas. That's different.

[mfbukowski]

On 10/25/2018 at 5:30 PM, flameburns623 said:

The bishop of the ward you attend shouldn't receive financial contributions from you AFAIK.  Nonmembers are not encouraged to partake of Sacrament, bear testimony, offer public prayers, serve in  priesthood callings.  However  unless formally under discipline, they usually are not prevented from doing so either. 

Unbaptised attendees are Investigors. You are well-disposed to ultimately receive the Gospel,  if not in this life then in the intermediate state of the Afterlife we commonly call "Spirit Prison". 

While those who leave the Church, formally or informally,  would be deemed "apostates", if they do not become willful vitriolic adversaries of the Church, it is always possible that their departure was owing to some lack of understanding and that they will have some opportunity to progress in the life to come. 

Well said, and good to see you!

 

[mfbukowski]

On 10/25/2018 at 1:29 PM, Navidad said:

Ok, I shudder to ask this question, but I must . . . what about those who never were members of the Church - are they apostate, reprobate, or something else? 

Ok amigo, just for purposes of communication I want to point something out.

I find your posts very confusing because here you have a common question about the church that every first-time investigators know the answer to.

You protest about being an expert on Mormonism and you don't know the answer to this?

The answer is that they will learn more about the gospel on the other side and be totally convinced and have their work done on Earth while they are in Paradise.

I hate to suggest this but it seems to me that perhaps in your ward you are not receiving the best instruction.

You seem to have all the social programs well understood but the doctrine seems still to elude you.

And clearly you are a brilliant scholar so that is the conflict I see. I just don't get it.

I just want to understand you, but I just keep seeing this huge disconnect that is very confusing.

[mfbukowski]

On 10/25/2018 at 1:52 PM, RevTestament said:

We are not like Muslims - non-members are not "infidels." Probably the worst characterization is "gentiles." However, I think according to the Book of Mormon we are still gentiles - members are just grafted into Israel if they are not already descendants. For instance the BoM says that the fullness of the gospel will come from among "the gentiles." To me if people try to follow Christ's teachings, they are Christian. I've never heard other Church members call other Christians reprobates, etc. We don't even typically call them apostates even though technically we believe they are in some degree of apostasy - it is not intentional - they have been misled by the teachings of men (or if you are me, by the teachings of the great whore of Revelation - I know, ouch).

I think you are uncommon  I would find it quite strange if you have an official calling. I think that takes membership. I would hazard that you were not called as a substitute teacher, but that you just are available if the official teacher is absent, kind of thing. Investigators can do essentially all those things you mention without being members and without holding a calling. So you are the uncommon investigator - humble and silent servant named Phil...

I have NEVER heard of an investigator teaching Gospel Doctrine- have you?

Especially one who is shaky on Doctrine? How could that be?

Quite honestly it seems his ward is rather unconventional. Could that happen in Utah?

[Navidad]

I posted this originally. Since then I have done a lot of thinking. That's trouble, isn't it? Maybe someone moving from Methodist to Mormon or Mormon to Congregationalist isn't a conversion at all, but simply a movement within God's collective church as described in D&C 1:30? He made it clear He wasn't talking to the individual church (LDS or Baptist), but to the church collectively (The Christian Church). Does someone else have a better idea of what the word collectively means?

[Navidad]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have NEVER heard of an investigator teaching Gospel Doctrine- have you?

Especially one who is shaky on Doctrine? How could that be?

Quite honestly it seems his ward is rather unconventional. Could that happen in Utah?

If it couldn't happen in Utah, is that good or bad or? It was a lesson from the book of I Chronicles. The application was to covenants. It was a history lesson with obedience overtones. I worked hard to honor their allowing me to teach  i would never do or say anything to dishonor either the bishop or the Lord. I may be shaky, as you say on LDS doctrine, but if you remember it, it was a lesson that could have been taught in any church. I sing solos too and carefully read over the words to make sure there is nothing contrary in them. Oh and I would guess in my life I have preached in at least 200 churches of which I was not a member. Speaking in Sacrament service was no different. You have read my talk; was there anything shaky in it? That is not a rhetorical question, I really would like to know.

[HappyJackWagon]

42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok amigo, just for purposes of communication I want to point something out.

I find your posts very confusing because here you have a common question about the church that every first-time investigators know the answer to.

You protest about being an expert on Mormonism and you don't know the answer to this?

The answer is that they will learn more about the gospel on the other side and be totally convinced and have their work done on Earth while they are in Paradise.

I hate to suggest this but it seems to me that perhaps in your ward you are not receiving the best instruction.

You seem to have all the social programs well understood but the doctrine seems still to elude you.

And clearly you are a brilliant scholar so that is the conflict I see. I just don't get it.

I just want to understand you, but I just keep seeing this huge disconnect that is very confusing.

 

This seems unnecessarily harsh.

It's interesting that for something you consider to be such a basic, simple question, with an obvious answer, there have been multiple members on this board respond differently. Depending upon which Mormon you ask, the answer to whether or not a non-member is an apostate, reprobate, whatever...could easily be different, as we've witnessed on this thread.

I think differences in understanding often arise out of different lived experiences which cause a different interpretation of teachings. In any case, I don't recall seeing Navidad claim he was a scholar on LDS doctrine. If I'm not mistaken, he's a historian. As we can see from church history, there is often a disconnect between what is currently taught, and what has been lived.

IOW- It seems like a fair question even though you take exception with it.

[RevTestament]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have NEVER heard of an investigator teaching Gospel Doctrine- have you?

Especially one who is shaky on Doctrine? How could that be?

Quite honestly it seems his ward is rather unconventional. Could that happen in Utah?

I think Phil is much respected and loved in his community. He is helping Church members however he can, and however they will accept. So I imagine one day the Gospel Doctrine teacher said they could not teach, and at the last minute kind of thing, not finding any volunteers, Phil was asked - maybe to teach a lesson on the OT? I'm sure Phil knows his Bible very well - he is an evangelical minister. And by now he is trusted to be respectful of LDS viewpoints. Maybe he was even asked to give an evangelical perspective. However, I don't believe in Utah Phil would have gotten asked to teach Gospel Doctrine class even as a substitute. There are just too many seminary teachers, professors, and other knowledgeable members who would be more than happy to fill in. 

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I posted this originally. Since then I have done a lot of thinking. That's trouble, isn't it? Maybe someone moving from Methodist to Mormon or Mormon to Congregationalist isn't a conversion at all, but simply a movement within God's collective church as described in D&C 1:30? He made it clear He wasn't talking to the individual church (LDS or Baptist), but to the church collectively (The Christian Church). Does someone else have a better idea of what the word collectively means?

I think section 1:30 is speaking more of individuals and collectively, Church wards.  However, there is a section which I personally believe applies to his heavenly kingdom. 

D&C 10:

61 And I will bring to light their marvelous works, which they did in my name;

62 Yea, and I will also bring to light my gospel which was ministered unto them, and, behold, they shall not deny that which you have received, but they shall build it up, and shall bring to light the true points of my doctrine, yea, and the only doctrine which is in me.

63 And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them.

64 Therefore, I will unfold unto them this great mystery;

65 For, behold, I will gather them as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if they will not harden their hearts;

66 Yea, if they will come, they may, and partake of the waters of life freely.

67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

However, don't think that all that come and repent shall receive the greatest reward. That according to Him is reserved for those foreordained to such by the Father. Matt 20:23. Nevertheless, I believe those of other Christian sects who do come and repent, but are misled by men  ie by the teachings of their respective Churches, can be saved, and may even escape hell to await resurrection in paradise like the criminal on the cross with Him did. As D&C 1 points out The Church of Jesus Christ is the only full and living Church he has in the latter days, which He has ordained to teach the fullness of His gospel. So although other sects may teach enough true gospel  to gain salvation, they have lost the mysteries, and wrest the scriptures which teach His truth - some of which I have pointed out on this forum. The evangelical/Protestant response is typically to simply deny Christ meant what He said. It just doesn't fit their paradigm. And the only way for them to accept it is be willing to give up the ideas which stem from the creeds. So certainly if someone decides to leave a different sect and join The Church of Jesus Christ, it is a conversion. For there is no other way to receive the fullness of His gospel, and to make the latter day covenants He offers them, or to help their dead ancestors.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Or God forbid, maybe it was actually inspired, because the Lord knew of the problem but they didn't.

Nah, not possible.

 

Possible.  Sure.  Not probable.

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok amigo, just for purposes of communication I want to point something out.

I find your posts very confusing because here you have a common question about the church that every first-time investigators know the answer to.

You protest about being an expert on Mormonism and you don't know the answer to this?

The answer is that they will learn more about the gospel on the other side and be totally convinced and have their work done on Earth while they are in Paradise.

I hate to suggest this but it seems to me that perhaps in your ward you are not receiving the best instruction.

You seem to have all the social programs well understood but the doctrine seems still to elude you.

And clearly you are a brilliant scholar so that is the conflict I see. I just don't get it.

I just want to understand you, but I just keep seeing this huge disconnect that is very confusing.

 

 

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok amigo, just for purposes of communication I want to point something out.

I find your posts very confusing because here you have a common question about the church that every first-time investigators know the answer to.

You protest about being an expert on Mormonism and you don't know the answer to this?

The answer is that they will learn more about the gospel on the other side and be totally convinced and have their work done on Earth while they are in Paradise.

I hate to suggest this but it seems to me that perhaps in your ward you are not receiving the best instruction.

You seem to have all the social programs well understood but the doctrine seems still to elude you.

And clearly you are a brilliant scholar so that is the conflict I see. I just don't get it.

I just want to understand you, but I just keep seeing this huge disconnect that is very confusing.

 

Hi, well I can settle one thing for you. I am not an expert on Mormonism; neither am I brilliant. I love Mormon history and I love the folks in our ward. Now that we have that settled - my question was about in this life right now. I was not asking about my eternal destiny or what happens in the next life. I was asking which is the correct term to us for a non-LDS Christian in this life today, especially if you are in a grumpy mood. I get confused because of the different terms used for the non-LDS Christian by different folks. Some are kind; some are harsh. I guess I was asking for what is the no kidding real nomenclature that you all use to describe the spiritual condition of a non-LDS Christian in this life. I don't deny that I can be confusing. Perhaps I ask unusual questions and don't word them well. Most of my questions come from my desire to really understand the similarities and differences between us. I know there are both. If I am talking to a non-LDS Christian who recently had a negative encounter with a LDS-Christian and they tell me they were called an apostate, I want to know what to tell them. My instinct is to tell them that the Mormon they talked to doesn't represent Mormonism, just like I tell you folks that a rude fundamentalist you talk with doesn't represent the majority of Protestants. You all tend to reject it when I say that, as does the non-LDS Christian. It comes from bias and prejudice. I hope that makes sense. Perhaps it would help you to know that sometimes I talk to non-LDS Christians who ask me questions. I don't know the answer, so I bring the question to you all here.

This morning I was at a wonderful rodeo (lazada to be exact) near here. It was wonderful. There were Pentecostals, Catholics, Mennonites, LDS Christians, and Lebaron Mormons (sorry they insist they are). They all rope, laugh, and help each other. It is a wonderful kind of fellowship that transcends their faith differences. Our bishop was there as well. I stood and talked with him and asked him some questions. He is a wonderful Godly man. No one could know him and deny the Christian potential of Mormons. I only say potential because I would say that about any Christian group. It is the times like this morning that I have hope for unity, even if it is only around trying to win a team roping contest. It impressed me that the numbers are assigned at random. Every rider has to team with every other rider before the event is over and winners are announced. I saw Catholics teaming with Pentecostals, who then teamed with a Mormon, who then teamed with a Mennonite who then teamed with a LeBaron. They smiled, wished each other luck and all had a great time! That is how my mind words even when I am at a rodeo (err......lazada)!

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I think Phil is much respected and loved in his community. He is helping Church members however he can, and however they will accept. So I imagine one day the Gospel Doctrine teacher said they could not teach, and at the last minute kind of thing, not finding any volunteers, Phil was asked - maybe to teach a lesson on the OT? I'm sure Phil knows his Bible very well - he is an evangelical minister. And by now he is trusted to be respectful of LDS viewpoints. Maybe he was even asked to give an evangelical perspective. However, I don't believe in Utah Phil would have gotten asked to teach Gospel Doctrine class even as a substitute. There are just too many seminary teachers, professors, and other knowledgeable members who would be more than happy to fill in. 

I think section 1:30 is speaking more of individuals and collectively, Church wards.  However, there is a section which I personally believe applies to his heavenly kingdom. 

D&C 10:

61 And I will bring to light their marvelous works, which they did in my name;

62 Yea, and I will also bring to light my gospel which was ministered unto them, and, behold, they shall not deny that which you have received, but they shall build it up, and shall bring to light the true points of my doctrine, yea, and the only doctrine which is in me.

63 And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them.

64 Therefore, I will unfold unto them this great mystery;

65 For, behold, I will gather them as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if they will not harden their hearts;

66 Yea, if they will come, they may, and partake of the waters of life freely.

67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

However, don't think that all that come and repent shall receive the greatest reward. That according to Him is reserved for those foreordained to such by the Father. Matt 20:23. Nevertheless, I believe those of other Christian sects who do come and repent, but are misled by men  ie by the teachings of their respective Churches, can be saved, and may even escape hell to await resurrection in paradise like the criminal on the cross with Him did. As D&C 1 points out The Church of Jesus Christ is the only full and living Church he has in the latter days, which He has ordained to teach the fullness of His gospel. So although other sects may teach enough true gospel  to gain salvation, they have lost the mysteries, and wrest the scriptures which teach His truth - some of which I have pointed out on this forum. The evangelical/Protestant response is typically to simply deny Christ meant what He said. It just doesn't fit their paradigm. And the only way for them to accept it is be willing to give up the ideas which stem from the creeds. So certainly if someone decides to leave a different sect and join The Church of Jesus Christ, it is a conversion. For there is no other way to receive the fullness of His gospel, and to make the latter day covenants He offers them, or to help their dead ancestors.

Helpful post in a number of ways. Your scenario was very close . . . the gospel doctrine teacher was going to be gone for two Sundays. He asked the bishop first if he could ask me to teach for one of the Sundays, since the lesson was from the Old Testament. The bishop said yes. He (the teacher) then asked me, telling me he had authority from the bishop to do so. That was the way it went down. The lesson was on Jeroboam and Rehoboam. I would never teach any of the LDS scriptures even if I were asked. I sure would teach about Crooked River or the Fishing River, or Zion's Camp, even without being asked to do so!

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, Navidad said:

 

Hi, well I can settle one thing for you. I am not an expert on Mormonism; neither am I brilliant. I love Mormon history and I love the folks in our ward. Now that we have that settled - my question was about in this life right now. I was not asking about my eternal destiny or what happens in the next life. I was asking which is the correct term to us for a non-LDS Christian in this life today, especially if you are in a grumpy mood. I get confused because of the different terms used for the non-LDS Christian by different folks. Some are kind; some are harsh. I guess I was asking for what is the no kidding real nomenclature that you all use to describe the spiritual condition of a non-LDS Christian in this life. I don't deny that I can be confusing. Perhaps I ask unusual questions and don't word them well. Most of my questions come from my desire to really understand the similarities and differences between us. I know there are both. If I am talking to a non-LDS Christian who recently had a negative encounter with a LDS-Christian and they tell me they were called an apostate, I want to know what to tell them. My instinct is to tell them that the Mormon they talked to doesn't represent Mormonism, just like I tell you folks that a rude fundamentalist you talk with doesn't represent the majority of Protestants. You all tend to reject it when I say that, as does the non-LDS Christian. It comes from bias and prejudice. I hope that makes sense. Perhaps it would help you to know that sometimes I talk to non-LDS Christians who ask me questions. I don't know the answer, so I bring the question to you all here.

This morning I was at a wonderful rodeo (lazada to be exact) near here. It was wonderful. There were Pentecostals, Catholics, Mennonites, LDS Christians, and Lebaron Mormons (sorry they insist they are). They all rope, laugh, and help each other. It is a wonderful kind of fellowship that transcends their faith differences. Our bishop was there as well. I stood and talked with him and asked him some questions. He is a wonderful Godly man. No one could know him and deny the Christian potential of Mormons. I only say potential because I would say that about any Christian group. It is the times like this morning that I have hope for unity, even if it is only around trying to win a team roping contest. It impressed me that the numbers are assigned at random. Every rider has to team with every other rider before the event is over and winners are announced. I saw Catholics teaming with Pentecostals, who then teamed with a Mormon, who then teamed with a Mennonite who then teamed with a LeBaron. They smiled, wished each other luck and all had a great time! That is how my mind words even when I am at a rodeo (err......lazada)!

How did you know what their religions were at a rodeo?

No atheists or agnostics?

Your life sounds to be quite different than mine. But of course I live in Los Angeles.

I just have no conception of what it would be like to go to a rodeo and know every person's religion, or actually anyone's religion.

typically whenever we have discussed your knowledge of Mormonism you come up with your expertise in history. That's fine except I see no link between history and religion at all.

I cannot imagine how you have not learned from listening to conference talks and various sermons for so many years without learning every detail Mormon Doctrine.

The atonement as a historical event cannot be proven.

I suppose theoretically the crucifixion could be proven of course though it has not. But that does not mean the atonement as a historic event could be proven.

Freedom from the effects of sin is not exactly something one can observe objectively.

So I think our universes are quite different. 

Edited October 27, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How did you know what their religions were at a rodeo?

No atheists or agnostics?

Your life sounds to be quite different than mine. But of course I live in Los Angeles.

I just have no conception of what it would be like to go to a rodeo and know every person's religion, or actually anyone's religion.

typically whenever we have discussed your knowledge of Mormonism you come up with your expertise in history. That's fine except I see no link between history and religion at all.

I cannot imagine how you have not learned from listening to conference talks and various sermons for so many years without learning every detail Mormon Doctrine.

The atonement as a historical event cannot be proven.

I suppose theoretically the crucifixion could be proven of course though it has not. But that does not mean the atonement as a historic event could be proven.

Freedom from the effects of sin is not exactly something one can observe objectively.

So I think our universes are quite different. 

I live in a town of 1182 people. The next closest town is 1250 or so. There are not many churches. We know everything about each other! Everyone knows everyone's religion, marital status, where they work, if they drink too much, if they play around, if they are in debt, if if if if if. Pretty much one of the key definers here is what religion someone is. If you are Mormon, that is how you are called - same for Mennonites, and LeBarons. Pentecostals you know from collecting donations for their church. Catholics are easy to identify. I am Felipe the Mennonite who goes to the Mormon church. That confuses everyone. You are right, this is a different universe. There probably were not five guys out of the thirty or so riders who I did not know by name. We don't have self-professed atheists or agnostics. Religion is local here. Everyone is religious, even if that just means tipping your hat when you drive or ride by a church. I don't think I have ever met a local who claims to be an atheist. Many LDS folks are inactive or semi-active. That is a whole other story. You need to come and visit us some day. I can't name a Utah town of 1000 people, but I bet it is the same there!