Just Post

The problem is that these polls are self-reporting, so there's no way to count nominal Christians separately despite them likely making up the majority of the country and having a lifestyle closer to that of an irreligious person.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/

If you have any problem with their methods you can take it up with them.

No true Scotsman. You can call yourself anything... Except some things... Mostly because of people who call themselves something.

And sometimes a bad Twilight fanfic gets turned into a book and a couple movies. Doesn't happen for them all.

There is no way I will engage with you on Mormon subjects. I was raised in that hateful cult and will have nothing to do with its current members. Frankly, most of them are profoundly ignorant of their own history beyond the official white-washed (like literally) versions.

You are free to use a search engine or go to the official church pages to find their press releases over the last few years.

The core doctrine is white supremacy, and there have been significant changes to the way that is portrayed over the years.

If you want a more substantial answer to your question about how the doctrines have changed, read "This is my doctrine" by Charlie Harrell. If you want a more detailed example of what doctrine is and how it changes, read "second class saints" by Matthew Harris. If you want even more examples, just read the BOM and see how doctrines in it are at odds with the D&C. Seriously - take the BOM at face value and compare it. It's wildly incompatible. Ignore the context of what you've been taught about the BOM. Read it like someone in 1828 would.

Even something like the doctrine of the atonement has fundamentally changed because Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both advocated for blood atonement (yes, Joseph did teach and advocate it). And the Adam God doctrine was literally taught in the temple. These two things alone show that even something as seemingly static as the atonement of Christ is anything but static within the history of the church.

Doctrine changes all the time and no one in any position of authority wants to take a firm stand on what it is because it's impossible to define. The reason why I use the atonement is to prevent (well intentioned, I'm sure) tbm's from using the motte and bailey fallacy: something that someone says isn't actually doctrine, according to you, (like Africans being descendents of Cain, for example) so you retreat to something more fundamental like the atonement. This is also similar to moving the goal posts.

At any rate, good luck with working your salvation out with fear and trembling. I gave most of my life to the church. I'm better now that I'm out. I'm much better now that I'm out. That's not going to be true for LITERALLY everyone, but you should at least be willing to give it serious thought.

Hey there. I don't know this history by heart, so I'll assume this Wikipedia article is fairly accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_segregation_and_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

Black segregation in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a part of the religion for over a century. The LDS church discouraged social interaction or marriage with Black people and encouraged racial segregation. The practice began with church founder Joseph Smith who stated, "I would confine them [Black people] by strict law to their own species".[1]: 1843  Until 1963, many church leaders supported legalized racial segregation.[2]

I'm hearing your argument as this: "The LDS church is essentially fine because the core doctrines are good. The bad things are merely policy, and it's okay for mere policy to change over time. That doesn't disprove the core doctrines."

I disagree. If the church's founder and high leaders advocate for legal racial segregation, using the church's authority as backing, then it does not matter whether we are talking about doctrine vs. policy or divinity vs. human fallibility. Whatever it is, it's a negative effect caused by the church as a whole.

And from a skeptic's perspective, this makes it impossible to have any faith in the LDS church. If the founder can be wrong about something so harmful, and if core doctrines can later be rejected as mere "policy", then really I should always be engaging my critical thinking. And if the human leaders can be wrong, then I have no way to be sure that they're right about any of the doctrine.

It sounds like the church still has a pretty strong stance against same-sex marriage and homosexuality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_and_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Homosexuality

Whereas I believe gay marriage has majority support among typical Americans.

What are we supposed to make of this?

God comes down from Heaven and inspires prophets to build and run His church, but when His prophets are wrong about policy, wrong in a way that hurts marginalized people like Black people and gay people, God just lets that happen? In His name?

Religion should be an excuse to be good, not an excuse to be wrong.

If you draw a line around the LDS church and ask what goes in and out of that boundary, I see a highly-political entity that collects a lot of money and exerts control over people in ways that a good church would not do. I don't see innocent doctrine.

or they think they're talking with a mormon and don't want to get in an argument.

It is, but the texts are given from aliens in space, and in scientology bad thoughts and actions create engrams of the spirit, one man brought the teachings to earth, sunday services, collars, cross iconography... mostly intentional copy/paste from Christianity stuff, which was a lot of copy/paste stuff from Judaism (mixed with Norse paganism to spice it up!). Ooooh and the best part!? The drive to lure people in to the seats to spread the word, and punish all the naysayers at any cost!