D
Deleted member 848
Guest
I say religion in the same sense I would use it to say that Catholicism is a major religion. Catholics are Christians.
In that case, then what do you call Christianity?
I say religion in the same sense I would use it to say that Catholicism is a major religion. Catholics are Christians.
In that case, then what do you call Christianity?
I get the point you are making. Question for you. Does a denomination at some point enter the discussion as a major religion due to its size and influence?
Isn't Mormonism based on the Book of Mormon rather than being biblically based? So even though it may follow many of the same precepts as Christianity, wouldn't it have to be based on the Bible to be considered a Christian denomination?
Isn't Mormonism based on the Book of Mormon rather than being biblically based? So even though it may follow many of the same precepts as Christianity, wouldn't it have to be based on the Bible to be considered a Christian denomination?
Isn't Mormonism based on the Book of Mormon rather than being biblically based? So even though it may follow many of the same precepts as Christianity, wouldn't it have to be based on the Bible to be considered a Christian denomination?
See, now in this case, then it would make sense to refer Mormonism as it's own religion, among its practicers. But it seems a bit willy-Nilly to be on the fence over this sort of thing.
Nope. It's based on both, Moe. Err... I mean doe.
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
Islam also believes the Bible to be the word of God with similar qualifiers....
that doesn't make it a Christian faith
it also believes the Torah is the word of God, but that doesn't make it a Jewish faith - -
and most Jews believe the Old Testament portion of the Bible...
I think most monotheistic religions accept that the Bible to some extent is the word of God...
Someone can self-identify however they choose, that doesn't mean that others will see them the same way as they see themselves.
As I mentioned before Kicky using those that identify as Mormon is perhaps the best way.
But my point still stands. We are witnessing the birth of a major world wide religion.
Islam also believes the Bible to be the word of God with similar qualifiers....
that doesn't make it a Christian faith
it also believes the Torah is the word of God, but that doesn't make it a Jewish faith - -
and most Jews believe the Old Testament portion of the Bible...
I think most monotheistic religions accept that the Bible to some extent is the word of God...
Someone can self-identify however they choose, that doesn't mean that others will see them the same way as they see themselves.
The difference is, Jesus Christ is the central figure of LDS doctrine.
edit: I know a lot of peeps like to argue that Joseph Smith is, and although he is important, historically speaking, to the LDS faith, he isn't worshipped. Nobody prays to or in the name of Joseph Smith.
If my contention is that active membership may have peaked and be on the decline then, no, your point does not still stand.
I think we also have to define what constitutes a "major world wide religion." Do you have to hit 1% of the world pop to qualify? Because even the pie in the sky numbers are not even close to that level.
Isn't Mormonism based on the Book of Mormon rather than being biblically based? So even though it may follow many of the same precepts as Christianity, wouldn't it have to be based on the Bible to be considered a Christian denomination?
Sociologists have estimated that the self identifying membership is about 5 million.
https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/us-mormonchurch-idUSTRE80T1CM20120131
Check Slide four of this powerpoint for how big this exaggeration is: https://www.docstoc.com/docs/157705726/Mormon-Doctrine---ITC-Renewable
I think the rate is closer to 30% and shrinking of whatever the church is reporting.
If you count only active members, there is a strong argument that church membership peaked some time ago, is aging demographically, and is an institution on the decline numerically.
Agree. When a ward becomes too large, the church does a split and forms another ward. Likewise, there is also consolidation, particularly in cities that were once booming with children but then age. That very thing happened where I grew up. The LDS church merged stakes because of declining attendance: not enough families with children moving in to replace all those who had grown up and moved on. Sure, there can be some lag.. The ward I attend isn't nearly as large as it used to be (thank the mortgage crisis for that one). On the other hand, most of the large families that moved are still active, but just in lower COL areas (i.e. smaller homes or apartments). The number of wards and stakes is probably a good indication of the growth (or non-growth) of the LDS Church.I don't buy that at all. Regardless of how good/bad the membership data is, the number of church congregations should be a reliable measure of #active members because all wards across the church have pretty much the same number of people, and the number of active people per ward has remained pretty constant my entire lifetime because it comes from the church organization itself. Numbers and types of callings, etc. (Branches are more variable, of course.) Same thing with stakes--the number of active members per stake has remained essentially a constant my entire lifetime. I don't have the #congregations and #stakes vs. year data at my fingertips, but I'm sure I can get it (it's announced each year at the spring general conference). And if I were a betting man I'd put a LOT of money on a wager that those two numbers have consistently increased every year. Maybe I'll put that info together in a day or two.
I think the mormon population is often quoted way too high(including nonactive). I'm pretty sure they count a lot of people like myself that were baptised as children but I have never considered myself Mormon.I don't buy that at all. Regardless of how good/bad the membership data is, the number of church congregations should be a reliable measure of #active members because all wards across the church have pretty much the same number of people, and the number of active people per ward has remained pretty constant my entire lifetime because it comes from the church organization itself. Numbers and types of callings, etc. (Branches are more variable, of course.) Same thing with stakes--the number of active members per stake has remained essentially a constant my entire lifetime. I don't have the #congregations and #stakes vs. year data at my fingertips, but I'm sure I can get it (it's announced each year at the spring general conference). And if I were a betting man I'd put a LOT of money on a wager that those two numbers have consistently increased every year. Maybe I'll put that info together in a day or two.