Non-Religious Population, Will it Increase or Decrease in the Future?

[smac97]

I've heard this a lot:

Quote

The Pew Research Center headline could only hint at the flood of news stories to come: “In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace.”

Aggregating surveys conducted between 2007 and 2019, Pew calculated that the proportion of Americans calling themselves Christians had declined by 12 points, down to merely 65 percent, while the religiously unaffiliated, “consisting of people who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or ‘nothing in particular,’” increased from 17 to 26 percent.

I've wondered as to the long-term prospects of religiosity in the U.S.

Quote

The Washington Post summarized the results: “The portion of Americans with no religious affiliation is rising significantly, in tandem with a sharp drop in the percentage that identifies as Christians” with both Protestant and Catholic ranks “losing population share.” “In 2009, regular attenders — those who attend religious services at least once a month — outnumbered those who attend services only occasionally or not at all by a 52%-to-47% margin.” Today, 54 percent say they attend religious services a few times a year or less, while only 45 percent go more often.

It seems that after 2,000 years, it’s all coming to an end.

Yes, that's the narrative that's being told.  And weirdly, there is often a strong whiff of glee and hope going along with it.  There are some elements of our society who are hoping that Christianity is weakening.

So is it happening?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  I encourage you to read the article.  Here is perhaps the most interesting bit:

Quote

Gallup reports that 58 percent of Americans said that religion was very important in their lives in 1992 versus 50 percent in 2018, while another 21 percent today said it was fairly important and only 27 percent said it had no importance. When asked whether religion could solve “all or most problems today” or whether it was “out of date,” 49 percent chose the former and 38 percent the latter. Only 29 percent said they had little or no confidence in religion. Belief in God or a universal spirit stands at 89 percent today, close to the 94 percent back in 1976. And two thirds of Americans still identify as Christian, including among Millennials.

Pew calculates worldwide that—mainly due to higher death rates and lower number of children—people with no religion will decline relative to those who are religious by the year 2060 and that Christianity will remain the world’s largest religion.

So sorry to rain on the media parade, but while there has been a recent decrease in formal religious affiliation and participation in the U.S., mostly among the youngest, it has pretty much been within a narrow band that’s fluctuated over the last half century but maintained a participation and membership total surpassing any other type of social organization.

I wonder what the long-term trends will be.

Thoughts?

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

Well, perhaps a related story of cultural change may shed some light on what we can expect.

The other day, I looked up my former-LDS-turned-LGBT-supporter-married-to-a-transgender-lady-named-George-who-uses-male-pronouns facebook buddy.  I invited him to watch one of the later episodes of My Little Pony where they introduced two lesbian characters.  

[I'll give everyone a moment to let all that sink in.  Such things seem to be outside of many folks' daily experiences, online or otherwise.  All caught up?  Ok.]

After the episode, I ceremoniously handed him the scepter of cultural majority.  I noted that the episode proved that Hasbro, being a profit driven corporation, had made a purely profit-driven decision to allow the characters, basically giving evidence to the notion that US cultural acceptance of SSM was widespread, and those fighting against it were basically dismissed as nothing worth considering.

We argued a bit about how he was no longer an oppressed minority, but instead his side was basically in charge now.  I reminded him of his multidecade long zealous opinions about the worth of diversity and acceptance and rights of the minority.  I cautioned him to remember all those opinions, as he went about wielding his majority scepter in ways that would be enshrined in laws and policies.  I asked him to think long and hard about diversity and acceptance when it came to preserving or eroding my religious liberties.  

Edited December 2, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[mfbukowski]

Never mind. 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

No question the trend is headed down, but could be turned around and may be- IF and only if scriptural interpretation can be seen as noble and inspired advice for humanity teaching us the lasting values that have created Western culture.

I'm not saying "Western culture is the best for the entire world"- I am saying that if western culture is to survive with the values that have made it great, scriptural interpretation will have to change in the minds of westerners.
Or the world could go more toward Buddhism as a "mindful" spiritual perspective IF anything close to religion remains.

The problem is the mixing of science with religion and understanding religion/scripture as providing us with "facts" as science does, instead of seeing religion as eons of human wisdom from a Human God - the great Human Ideal- as self-reflection on what works in our lives and enriches our lives and gives them meaning.

In one sense the age of "magic" is over, and science reigns.  The problem is that people do not see that fact as itself a paradigm that eventually will also pass.

When one sees the magic of how human mortals and Human Gods produce worlds in our minds and assemble them from matter unorganized, suddenly I think we will understand scripture in an entirely different way- as the rules that work for humans and have worked for eons upon eons.

The anthropic principle is what needs to be seen differently, I think.  This question is closely related to the old saw "Why is the something rather than nothing?"

The anthropic principle is the idea that the universe seems oddly tuned for our needs- the distance of the moon from the earth for example, has caused many benefits to humanity.   There are many other such assertions about the planet earth and how it is fit for humanity.
 

Quote

an·throp·ic prin·ci·ple
/anˌTHräpik ˈprinsəp(ə)l/
noun
the cosmological principle that theories of the universe are constrained by the necessity to allow human existence.

Yet of course there is another way of seeing this- that WE were perfectly created/assembled/evolved FOR this universe and planet as it is.  Of course it would appear that the universe is perfect for us IF we were simply perfect for the universe!

Which of these is "correct" is of course the problem, and we need to figure out that the answer cannot be solved by science since science analyzes only objective "facts" without regard for their meaning.
So in the quest for MEANING in our lives, science gives us no answers!!  

Only faith gives us answers- evidence and hope for things unseen.

So without religion, humanity can stumble forward without meaning in life, or find it yet again through faith.

Of course the viewpoint of the Church of Jesus Christ, in my opinion, can see the anthropic principle from both sides at once. 
We as humans SEE the universe through our creative perceptions given to us by God though a Human Intelligence LIKE that of God, yet His intelligence operates in an infinite power which we cannot fully comprehend.  So in our infant abilities to see the universe as it applies to us, we create the anthropic principle, in our ego-centered, childlike perception.  The universe was created for us.

From the other side we can see that God(s) organized universeS- plural- according to his/their INFINITE HUMAN intelligence,  for all his children to occupy according to their needs which may differ from ours.

So did God organize man in His image, as the religionists hold, or did man create God in man's image- as the atheists hold?  In a sense - both!  Both our view of God using his Infinite Human Intelligence to organize universes for his children AND the view that we use our paltry little human intelligence to organize our world as we know it- through our paltry science- are perfectly compatible because in the end we are still talking about human intelligence being creative on both sides of the coin.

So what is scripture then?

I believe that Scripture is God's Infinite Human intelligence flowing through paltry human intelligence in a way we as children can understand it.  It is fallible, it is inspired, it is the best we can do as humans to understand our Human God

I think once we as humans understand things that way, we can have a renaissance of religion- and frankly the view of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints COULD be the one to roll that message forth to fill the earth

But will it ever happen?

Edited December 3, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

I think they are called "the nones", according to my son. No religion, when asked. But plenty will say they are spiritual. I think religion is fantastic but many don't feel good about institutional religions. I don't blame them because many of these religions can have behaviours that aren't Christlike. I know the the Saviour would probably be against many religion's legalistic teachings. I believe He'd like the relationship built on the foundation of Spirit, not on an institution, IMHO.

There have been problems with men/women speaking for God that have caused injury to God's children. Sure, a church family is great, until it harms. Many "nones" see and possibly feel the harm. My returned missionary son has gone so far as to have removed his name from the church records and many of his friends are also on their way out. Even those that served missions and married in the temple.

A list of harms IMO

1. Polygamy, if lived wrong or is abusive.

2. Racial/sexual discrimination.

3. Un-equality 

4. False teachings. To name a few.

Some early Christians were murderous etc. Not such a great fact to learn. The internet can be a killer of religion sometimes. I guess when you get facts, you then rely on Spirit and a moral compass. Which is pretty alright, IMO. But I hope it won't hurt those good religious institutions. And it may even swing back and weed out the harmful institutions. Which I hope happens.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I live in a deeply secular nation. A recent poll found about three-quarters of the population think Christians are discriminated against here, and about two-thirds said that was OK. But migration is really changing things. To give some perspective, 24 per cent of the households in our city speak something other than the national language at home. The vast majority of these migrants are people of faith: Christians of all kinds, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain, Mandaean, etc. And our census data make it clear that the people of faith are definitely 'out-breeding' the 'nones' by a massive factor. It looks like the meek may indeed inherit the earth ...

Edited December 3, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Ahab]

 the religiously unaffiliated, “consisting of people who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or ‘nothing in particular,’”...

In the old days older societies referred to these folks as "unbelievers", but they still believed in something, and I believe the better we can explain what we refer to as "deities" the more they will see that they believe in the same kinds of things that believers believe in.

It's basically all about believing in the best that we can be and accomplish, and all of us have an idea of what is "best" even if we disagree with each other about what the "best" really is or can be. 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Well, perhaps a related story of cultural change may shed some light on what we can expect.

The other day, I looked up my former-LDS-turned-LGBT-supporter-married-to-a-transgender-lady-named-George-who-uses-male-pronouns facebook buddy.  I invited him to watch one of the later episodes of My Little Pony where they introduced two lesbian characters.  

[I'll give everyone a moment to let all that sink in.  Such things seem to be outside of many folks' daily experiences, online or otherwise.  All caught up?  Ok.]

After the episode, I ceremoniously handed him the scepter of cultural majority.  I noted that the episode proved that Hasbro, being a profit driven corporation, had made a purely profit-driven decision to allow the characters, basically giving evidence to the notion that US cultural acceptance of SSM was widespread, and those fighting against it were basically dismissed as nothing worth considering.

We argued a bit about how he was no longer an oppressed minority, but instead his side was basically in charge now.  I reminded him of his multidecade long zealous opinions about the worth of diversity and acceptance and rights of the minority.  I cautioned him to remember all those opinions, as he went about wielding his majority scepter in ways that would be enshrined in laws and policies.  I asked him to think long and hard about diversity and acceptance when it came to preserving or eroding my religious liberties.  

Did he storm off or get annoyed at you for baiting him and being condescendingly pretentious and patronizing? I would have.

Edited December 3, 2019 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

As to trends I expect religious affiliation to continue to fall but to fall less precipitously in faiths that still try to offer religious answers and explanations and point people to God. Those that align themselves primarily to political causes and devolving to preaching moralistic pablum and gimmicks to feed their people will fall faster. Unless their gimmick is really good I guess. I cannot figure out how the prosperity gospel satisfies anyone but it seems to scratch itching ears for many.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

............................ And our census data make it clear that the people of faith are definitely 'out-breeding' the 'nones' by a massive factor. It looks like the meek may indeed inherit the earth ...

This is true, and it means that the irreligious folk die out of their own accord.  Secular people don't reproduce.  So, even if secularism is the wave of the future, it is also a dead end.  It is the religious people who form families and have children.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is the religious people who form families and have children.

And, where I live, the more devout in their faith people are, the bigger the families.

People with a historical perspective will know that we've gone through secularising phases before. They never last. They can't.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

 the religiously unaffiliated, “consisting of people who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or ‘nothing in particular,’”...

In the old days older societies referred to these folks as "unbelievers", but they still believed in something, and I believe the better we can explain what we refer to as "deities" the more they will see that they believe in the same kinds of things that believers believe in.

It's basically all about believing in the best that we can be and accomplish, and all of us have an idea of what is "best" even if we disagree with each other about what the "best" really is or can be. 

I like this Ahab!

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Did he storm off or get annoyed at you for baiting him and being condescendingly pretentious and patronizing? I would have.

None of the above - he took me as genuine, which is what I was being.   

Wow - thirteen straight syllables of insults - that's a new record for me!

[MustardSeed]

6 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

None of the above - he took me as genuine, which is what I was being.   

Wow - thirteen straight syllables of insults - that's a new record for me!

You have a very Christlike friend there. 

[california boy]

21 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Well, perhaps a related story of cultural change may shed some light on what we can expect.

The other day, I looked up my former-LDS-turned-LGBT-supporter-married-to-a-transgender-lady-named-George-who-uses-male-pronouns facebook buddy.  I invited him to watch one of the later episodes of My Little Pony where they introduced two lesbian characters.  

[I'll give everyone a moment to let all that sink in.  Such things seem to be outside of many folks' daily experiences, online or otherwise.  All caught up?  Ok.]

After the episode, I ceremoniously handed him the scepter of cultural majority.  I noted that the episode proved that Hasbro, being a profit driven corporation, had made a purely profit-driven decision to allow the characters, basically giving evidence to the notion that US cultural acceptance of SSM was widespread, and those fighting against it were basically dismissed as nothing worth considering.

We argued a bit about how he was no longer an oppressed minority, but instead his side was basically in charge now.  I reminded him of his multidecade long zealous opinions about the worth of diversity and acceptance and rights of the minority.  I cautioned him to remember all those opinions, as he went about wielding his majority scepter in ways that would be enshrined in laws and policies.  I asked him to think long and hard about diversity and acceptance when it came to preserving or eroding my religious liberties.  

I can’t believe you two are still friends. You seem to have such distain for him.  And you obviously are so much better and righteous  than he is.  Just being in your presents must be difficult for your ‘friend”.

He is a bigger man than me.  

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

You seem to have such distain for him.  And you obviously are so much better and righteous  than he is.  

I honestly don't understand why (two now) folks are saying this, or the likes to those posts.   He and I have been facebook buddies for going on a decade now.  We both enjoy arguing religion and politics and stuff.  We both try hard to keep things civil and genuine, while not pulling any punches.  I learned a good habit from him - for every contentious political post, he posts a picture of a cute baby animal. 

When some idiot burned a gay pride flag on the hood of his truck, a reporter did a small piece on the event - he was a total class act in the interview.  I showed my children the interview, presenting it as an admirable example of maturity after someone does something bad to you.

I found out about the church's policy change on baptizing kids in SSM households from him, when I saw his posted resignation letter.  I told him he was still ok in my book.   

Online buddies with relationships based on arguing and debating I guess aren't all that common.  Maybe help me out here - assuming you folks have friends from the opposite sides of major fences, how do you go about speaking your mind without coming across as "having disdain", thinking you're "much better and righteous", or "being condescendingly pretentious and patronizing"?

Or are there just raw spots y'all don't cover with buddies, because it's too sensitive and it just wouldn't go well?

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I honestly don't understand why (two now) folks are saying this, or the likes to those posts.   He and I have been facebook buddies for going on a decade now.  We both enjoy arguing religion and politics and stuff.  We both try hard to keep things civil and genuine, while not pulling any punches.  I learned a good habit from him - for every contentious political post, he posts a picture of a cute baby animal. 

When some idiot burned a gay pride flag on the hood of his truck, a reporter did a small piece on the event - he was a total class act in the interview.  I showed my children the interview, presenting it as an admirable example of maturity after someone does something bad to you.

I found out about the church's policy change on baptizing kids in SSM households from him, when I saw his posted resignation letter.  I told him he was still ok in my book.   

Online buddies with relationships based on arguing and debating I guess aren't all that common.  Maybe help me out here - assuming you folks have friends from the opposite sides of major fences, how do you go about speaking your mind without coming across as "having disdain", thinking you're "much better and righteous", or "being condescendingly pretentious and patronizing"?

Or are there just raw spots y'all don't cover with buddies, because it's too sensitive and it just wouldn't go well?

 

You invited him over to watch a literal children’s show with the express purpose of teasing him a moral lesson that had to come across as:

“Look, you know we did not want to give you certain rights. You now have those rights and most support those rights and now you have power. You know how important rights are. Be careful not to use that new power to trample our rights now.”

That is insufferably smug. It also has to appear ironic considering how most people who fought that campaign see the issue. You sought to deny them what they saw as basic rights but now you want to lecture them on making sure not to trample yours? Really? With what moral authority? With what sense of fairness?

I agree with what the church did and the fight they fought on marriage. We lost and moved on. Good enough. Wanting to lecture the winners on how they should do unto us as we (at least from their point of view) did not do unto them seems whiny at best. To do it with an air of teaching is insufferably condescending. Don’t get me wrong. They should not take away religious rights but this kind of smug moralizing seems to be exactly what would inspire someone to want to rip away rights.

From their view it is akin to a manager at work who treated an employee unfairly. Then the employee is promoted over the boss and the manager lectures his new boss on how to be a good manager....to him specifically. Transparently self-serving and blatantly manipulative. The natural human reaction is revenge from the circumstances alone. The pretentious moralizing would just make me want to twist the knife even more.

Edited December 3, 2019 by The Nehor

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You invited him over to watch a literal children’s show with the express purpose of teasing him a moral lesson that had to come across as:

“Look, you know we did not want to give you certain rights. You now have those rights and most support those rights and now you have power. You know how important rights are. Be careful not to use that new power to trample our rights now.”

That is insufferably smug. It also has to appear ironic considering how most people who fought that campaign see the issue. You sought to deny them what they saw as basic rights but now you want to lecture them on making sure not to trample yours? Really? With what moral authority? With what sense of fairness?

I agree with what the church did and the fight they fought on marriage. We lost and moved on. Good enough. Wanting to lecture the winners on how they should do unto us as we (at least from their point of view) did not do unto them seems Whitney at best. To do it with an air of teaching is insufferably condescending. Don’t get me wrong. They should not take away religious rights but this kind of smug moralizing seems to be exactly what would inspire someone to want to rip away rights.

From their view it is akin to a manager at work who treated an employee unfairly. Then the employee is promoted over the boss and the manager lectures his new boss on how to be a good manager....to him specifically. Transparently self-serving and blatantly manipulative. The natural human reaction is revenge from the circumstances alone. The pretentious moralizing would just make me want to twist the knife even more.

You have nearly spoken the words I could not get out to LoudmouthMormon, thanks!! I bet if LoudmouthMormon had a heart to heart and asked his friend if he has offended in any way, the truth will come out. 

 

Edited December 3, 2019 by Tacenda

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is insufferably smug. It also has to appear ironic considering how most people who fought that campaign see the issue. You sought to deny them what they saw as basic rights but now you want to lecture them on making sure not to trample yours? Really? With what moral authority? With what sense of fairness?

I think a lot would depend on the relationship and how often they teased each other or shared a style of humor. 

It would have been a likely inappropriate conversation if out of the blue, but if a continuing one it would depend on the long term context. 

[Raingirl]

Just now, Tacenda said:

You have nearly spoken the words I could not get out to Loud Mouth, thanks!! I bet if Loud Mouth had a heart to heart and asked his friend if he has offended in any way, the truth will come out. 

 

So, you know Loudmouth’s friend better than Loudmouth does? Or is this just your usual I’m-right-everybody-else-is-wrong shtick?

You never disappoint. Any opportunity to criticize or paint a member of the church as a liar, and you’re right there. 

But you and Nehor (and the others) go right ahead high-fiving each other, and wallowing in your imaginary moral superiority. I guess that’s what people do when they don’t have anything better to do with their lives. 

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You invited him over to watch a literal children’s show with the express purpose of teasing him a moral lesson that had to come across as:

“Look, you know we did not want to give you certain rights. You now have those rights and most support those rights and now you have power. You know how important rights are. Be careful not to use that new power to trample our rights now.”

That is insufferably smug. It also has to appear ironic considering how most people who fought that campaign see the issue. You sought to deny them what they saw as basic rights but now you want to lecture them on making sure not to trample yours? Really? With what moral authority? With what sense of fairness?

I agree with what the church did and the fight they fought on marriage. We lost and moved on. Good enough. Wanting to lecture the winners on how they should do unto us as we (at least from their point of view) did not do unto them seems Whitney at best. To do it with an air of teaching is insufferably condescending. Don’t get me wrong. They should not take away religious rights but this kind of smug moralizing seems to be exactly what would inspire someone to want to rip away rights.

From their view it is akin to a manager at work who treated an employee unfairly. Then the employee is promoted over the boss and the manager lectures his new boss on how to be a good manager....to him specifically. Transparently self-serving and blatantly manipulative. The natural human reaction is revenge from the circumstances alone. The pretentious moralizing would just make me want to twist the knife even more.

Why in your mind does telling someone what you really think become Whitney (sp?, I think you meant whiney) at best?  Why don't you see it as him telling his friend, and any others who may listen to him, what he really thinks about how he should act?

The fight isn't over, even though there now seems to have been a shift in what the cultural majority is now, and I think everyone should continue to speak their mind, in total honesty, rather than pandering to what anyone else wants or thinks.

If you don't want someone to do something, such as making something unrighteous legal, you should say so, rather than thinking something like: "Okay, they represent the cultural majority now, so whatever they want is what I will live with and be happy about it, however that is."

[The Nehor]

46 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Why in your mind does telling someone what you really think become Whitney (sp?, I think you meant whiney) at best?  Why don't you see it as him telling his friend, and any others who may listen to him, what he really thinks about how he should act?

The fight isn't over, even though there now seems to have been a shift in what the cultural majority is now, and I think everyone should continue to speak their mind, in total honesty, rather than pandering to what anyone else wants or thinks.

If you don't want someone to do something, such as making something unrighteous legal, you should say so, rather than thinking something like: "Okay, they represent the cultural majority now, so whatever they want is what I will live with and be happy about it, however that is."

I am over here. Why are you beating up that strawman over there?

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

So, you know Loudmouth’s friend better than Loudmouth does? Or is this just your usual I’m-right-everybody-else-is-wrong shtick?

You never disappoint. Any opportunity to criticize or paint a member of the church as a liar, and you’re right there. 

But you and Nehor (and the others) go right ahead high-fiving each other, and wallowing in your imaginary moral superiority. I guess that’s what people do when they don’t have anything better to do with their lives. 

I know insufferable pretentiousness better than LoudMouth does.

I am not sure how thinking something is insulting is imagined moral superiority. It is basic human interaction. Also I am deeply hurt that you had to rub it in that I have nothing better to do with my life. It is not my fault work is slow today.  

[LoudmouthMormon]

Sorry I hijacked your thread Smac!   Thanks to everyone who responded when I asked.  It's occasionally good to open yourself up to criticism, and I'll think about what y'all have said.

If there's a parting way to re-align my story with the intent of the thread, it would be this:

On 12/2/2019 at 11:06 AM, smac97 said:

I wonder what the long-term trends will be.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You sought to deny them what they saw as basic rights but now you want to lecture them on making sure not to trample yours? Really? With what moral authority? With what sense of fairness?

If Christianity continues or accelerates it's downward slide in demographic adherence, we'll eventually find ourselves in the minority.  Cultural power and influence will shift.  Minority will become majority, majority will become minority.   I'm thinking if this happens, the Christians will hear quite a bit from folks that sound like Nehor/California Boy/Mustard Seed/Tacenda.  No matter what our motives or language, there'll be some enmity and bitterness and calling foul.  

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The natural human reaction is revenge from the circumstances alone. The pretentious moralizing would just make me want to twist the knife even more.

Probably lots and lots of that. Including blaming us for deserving it by the things we say.  They won't be twisting the knife because they're bad or unfair, they're twisting the knife because we made them want to, because we were pretentiously moralizing [or any of the insults I've gathered in this thread].

 

I find it a fascinating study across years.  Yesterday's hollerers for tolerance and equality, are today's people wanting to twist the knife of majority oppression, grinding down the defeated foe, getting revenge for all injustices real or imagined.

And yeah, I've spent most of my adult life in the majority, having the power of law behind me, justifying and explaining what the yelling complainers are yelling and complaining about.  Worried that a flip in power might result in Nehor's feelings expressed in public policy and law.

I'm no historian, but didn't the Catholics surround themselves with strong walls and sturdy gates, and have military forces and stuff during the Dark ages?  I bet a study of Christianity when it's a minority surrounded, would be a good exercise in exploring Smac's question.  I bet we'd find plenty of examples of Nehor's opinion expressed throughout the history books.

Like here:  Fox's Book of Martyrs

Edited December 3, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

So, you know Loudmouth’s friend better than Loudmouth does? Or is this just your usual I’m-right-everybody-else-is-wrong shtick?

You never disappoint. Any opportunity to criticize or paint a member of the church as a liar, and you’re right there. 

But you and Nehor (and the others) go right ahead high-fiving each other, and wallowing in your imaginary moral superiority. I guess that’s what people do when they don’t have anything better to do with their lives. 

I'm glad you aren't disappointed with me.