From the moment in October 1517 when Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, his anti-Catholic protests began spreading at a rate that even took Luther by surprise. The Economist takes a look at why this happened and finds that just like with the Arab Spring and the Occupy Movement of today, technology was at the heart of it:

The media environment that Luther had shown himself so adept at managing had much in common with today’s online ecosystem of blogs, social networks and discussion threads. It was a decentralised system whose participants took care of distribution, deciding collectively which messages to amplify through sharing and recommendation. Modern media theorists refer to participants in such systems as a “networked public”, rather than an “audience”, since they do more than just consume information. Luther would pass the text of a new pamphlet to a friendly printer (no money changed hands) and then wait for it to ripple through the network of printing centres across Germany. …

As with “Likes” and retweets today, the number of [pamphlet] reprints serves as an indicator of a given item’s popularity. Luther’s pamphlets were the most sought after; a contemporary remarked that they “were not so much sold as seized”. His first pamphlet written in German, the “Sermon on Indulgences and Grace”, was reprinted 14 times in 1518 alone, in print runs of at least 1,000 copies each time. Of the 6,000 different pamphlets that were published in German-speaking lands between 1520 and 1526, some 1,700 were editions of a few dozen works by Luther. In all, some 6m-7m pamphlets were printed in the first decade of the Reformation, more than a quarter of them Luther’s. …

Amid the barrage of pamphlets, ballads and woodcuts, public opinion was clearly moving in Luther’s favour. “Idle chatter and inappropriate books” were corrupting the people, fretted one bishop. “Daily there is a veritable downpour of Lutheran tracts in German and Latin…nothing is sold here except the tracts of Luther,” lamented Aleander, Leo X’s envoy to Germany, in 1521. Most of the 60 or so clerics who rallied to the pope’s defence did so in academic and impenetrable Latin, the traditional language of theology, rather than in German. Where Luther’s works spread like wildfire, their pamphlets fizzled.

The amazing thing about this is that if Luther had come along just 100 years earlier, the Protestant Reformation may not have been possible at all. The printing press wasn’t invented by Johannes Gutenberg until 1440, meaning the pamphlets that sold by the thousands in Germany wouldn’t have been invented either. The spread of ideas would’ve happened at a much slower pace and probably wouldn’t have extended much further than Wittenberg itself before being crushed by the Catholic Church.

Previously:
History of the Internet (infographic)
Welcome to the future
Church dot com

Naturally, the media jumped on his comments, happily characterizing him as some backwoods Bible-thumper. A lot of Christian churches backpedaled, not willing to condemn the LDS Church. And Rick Perry himself, whom Jeffress had endorsed, quickly distanced himself from the pastor. When asked if Mormonism was a cult, Perry said without hesitation, “No.”

But the fact of the matter is, Dr. Jeffress is exactly right.

Merriam-Webster defines a “cult” as “a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious”, and Mormonism is definitely unorthodox compared to Christianity. While Mormonism shares many of the same elements as Christianity, including God, Jesus, and the Bible, the beliefs and teachings of the LDS Church are far outside of both Protestant and Catholic doctrine.

The most obvious difference between Mormonism and Christianity has to do with the Bible. For Christians, the Bible is the sole source of Scripture. Mormons, however, add other texts such the Book of Mormon, a collection of “scriptures” supposedly written by various ancient prophets and revealed to Joseph Smith in 1823. The Book of Mormon adds to and revises the Bible, which alone places Mormonism outside of traditional Christianity. The Pearl of Great Price is another Mormon text, which contains the Book of Moses (essentially a readaptation of the first six chapters of Genesis), the Book of Abraham (an Egyptian text proven to be fraudulent), some text from Smith’s translation of the Bible, excerpts from his autobiography, and the 13 Articles of Faith. And finally, there is the Doctrine and Covenants, a collection of 138 “revelations” that further define the exact belief system of the Mormon religion. While Mormons generally don’t publicly refer to these other texts, quoting only the Bible so as to avoid controversy, they are part of the LDS canon and integral to their faith. And much of these texts directly contradict what Christians believe about God, Creation, Jesus Christ, heaven, hell, and salvation.

Consider the Great Council in Heaven, as told in the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham and which summarizes the Mormon beliefs. From LDS.org:

Before this earth was organized so that we could live on it, we lived very happily as spirit children of our heavenly parents. Our spirits looked like the physical bodies that we have now, and each spirit had a distinct personality with strengths and weaknesses. While in this spirit world, we grew until we could no longer progress without a physical body. We wanted to prove our worthiness and become more like our Heavenly Father. We were anxious to receive a physical body and undergo a time of testing.

Heavenly Father called a great council of all His spirit children. All the noble and great ones who would live on the earth were there—future prophets, apostles, presidents, mothers and fathers, and all those who would come to earth in the last days to teach the gospel to the people of the world.

Heavenly Father explained that an earth would be prepared for us and that we would each receive a physical body. While on earth, we would have our agency, the freedom to choose between right and wrong. Of course, Heavenly Father knew we would be happier if we chose the right, but agency meant that we would also have the ability to choose the wrong. To help us make right choices, we would be taught gospel principles so that we would know how we should live.

Heavenly Father told us that after we were born on earth, we would not remember our life in heaven. We would need to use faith, to trust in God without being able to see Him. Heavenly Father knew from His own experiences that choosing the right is sometimes very hard but that this would make us stronger. He also knew that some of His children would choose evil and would be unable to return to Him, however much He loved them.

Heavenly Father knew we would all make mistakes, and He explained that we would need a savior, a person who would be willing to atone for our sins so that we could receive forgiveness when we repent. One of the Spirits among us was like God. He offered to serve Heavenly Father and be a savior for all the spirit children. This was Jesus. Because of His great love for us, His brothers and sisters, He offered to give His life to atone for our sins. He would also teach us what we must do to return to Heavenly Father. Unselfishly He said, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.”

Lucifer, another of God’s spirit sons, proposed, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem [save] all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.”

Lucifer’s willful, glory-seeking plan would have forced all the children of God to return to heaven. He wanted to take away our greatest gift, the right to choose for ourselves. Lucifer would not have allowed anyone to make a wrong decision, and we would have been like puppets with him controlling us.

Some of God’s children liked Lucifer’s idea, and one-third of them decided to follow him. Heavenly Father loved Lucifer and these spirit children, but because they refused to follow His plan, they were no longer worthy to remain with Him. Therefore they were cast out of heaven and could not be born on the earth and receive physical bodies.

Many of those who followed Heavenly Father’s plan were ordained to do important things on earth. Each of us has received special talents and abilities that can be increased when we use them to help each other. Heavenly Father has provided everything we need to return to Him.

In the Mormon religion, as in Christianity, the Godhead is comprised of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yet, Mormons believe that both God (“Heavenly Father”) and Jesus (the “Son” or sometimes referred to as the “Only Begotten”) have a physical body similar to ours with flesh and bones. And that God isn’t the only god, that He was once a mortal man on a another planet “who progressed by living in obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel he had on his world, then he died. He became a resurrected man and evolved to become a god.” Further, it is widely taught and believed among Mormons that along with Heavenly Father there is a Heavenly Mother who is married to God. In the Mormon Godhead, the three beings are completely separate in identity but act together toward a single purpose. In the Christian Godhead (or Trinity), the three are both distinct and completely the same being (God) concurrently.

Christians believe that Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary. Mormons also recognize Mary but believe that Jesus was conceived by the physical union of the Heavenly Father and Mary and is thus part spirit and part man (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Vo1 15, Page 770 1853; Teaching of Ezra Taft Benson, 7). Jesus, then, having a physical body just as the Heavenly Father does, is both the firstborn “spirit child” of God and the eldest brother of all mortals, including Lucifer (Satan). Jesus, Mormons believe, offered to act as our Savior, making an atonement for our sins so that we could ascend to the Father’s kingdom and eventually achieve godhood for ourselves just as the Heavenly Father did.

This is different from the Christian view of Jesus, who being both fully God and fully human, existed before mankind was created and who was given up by God as a sacrifice for our sins so that through His sacrifice we could be rescued from eternal separation from Him. The distinction here is slight but extremely important. In the Mormon faith, Jesus is one of us, a spirit child literally born from God and our spiritual brother. Through His atonement, we can be reunited with God and be equals with Him. In the Christian faith, Jesus is fully God who has always coexisted with God the Father. Through His atonement, we can be reunited with God in heaven, but we will never obtain godhood for ourselves. Rather, we will serve and worship God for eternity.

The differences between the Mormon view of salvation and eternity and the Christian view is often hard to explain because the LDS Church uses so many of the same terms. In the Mormon version, a person is saved when he professes his belief in God, Jesus, Joseph Smith as a prophet, and Brigham Young as Smith’s successor (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 6:229, 7:289). Following baptism by immersion, which typically happens around the age of 8, a person is confirmed as a member of the Church and then receives the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. It’s important to point out that while Mormons share Christianity’s view that salvation comes only through the grace of God through Jesus’ death and resurrection, Mormons don’t believe in Original Sin or human depravity as Christians do. Further, Mormons place a greater emphasis on earthly works, as those works will help determine what level of heaven you and your family will ascend to after your death.

Upon one’s death, Mormon’s believe, they will end up in one of three different spiritual kingdoms: the Celestial kingdom, Terrestrial kingdom, or Telestial kingdom.

The celestial kingdom is the highest of the three kingdoms of glory. Those in this kingdom will dwell forever in the presence of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. This should be your goal: to inherit celestial glory and to help others receive that great blessing as well. Such a goal is not achieved in one attempt; it is the result of a lifetime of righteousness and constancy of purpose.

The celestial kingdom is the place prepared for those who have “received the testimony of Jesus” and been “made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood” (D&C 76:51, 69). To inherit this gift, we must receive the ordinances of salvation, keep the commandments, and repent of our sins.

Those who fall short of the Celestial kingdom may end up in either the Terrestrial kingdom (for people who are honorable members of the LDS Church but who weren’t quite good enough) or the Telestial kingdom (for people who were not saved through the LDS Church but who were freed after their death from their spirit prison via baptism by proxy, which I’ve written about before). Those who aren’t worthy of any of these three kingdoms will end up in Perdition, which is similar to hell.

Christians don’t recognize these different spiritual kingdoms, only heaven and hell. For Christians, it’s through Jesus, and Him alone, that we are saved from the punishment of our sins (John 14:6). Romans 10:9-10 says, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.” Baptism isn’t necessary for salvation but rather a public demonstration of what has already happened internally (Romans 6:5-8, Colossians 2:11-13). And works have nothing to do with determining one’s salvation but rather is evidence of it (Romans 3:27-28).

It’s often difficult to discern the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. Both use the Bible and both use very similar terms and concepts. But they are not the same. Mormonism teaches things that are in no way consistent with the Bible and traditional Christianity. Whether that technically makes it a cult or not is open to interpretation, I suppose. In my opinion, it absolutely does.

Previously:
It’s not just religion that America is ignorant about
Baptism of the dead?
Survey: Other religions can lead to eternal life
Faith and the Presidency

Should we be at all surprised by these results? Not really. Many atheists tend to be more highly educated in general and trend toward the intellectual. Think college professors, scientists, and historians. Meanwhile, Mormons have a fanatical adherence to their religion, which uses (and distorts) the Bible extensively. So it’s not surprising that either of these groups would be well-versed in various religious teachings. The same can be said for Jews, who like Muslims tend to be more devout in their faith but also have a long history of religious oppression.

I don’t know if we should read too much into this study though. Yes, we Christians know a lot less about our own faith than we should. However, it’s not just religion that Americans are ignorant about. How many Americans (regardless of religious affiliation) could name the first ten U.S. presidents? The first five? How about the Bill of Rights or the state capital of South Dakota? What is the Pythagorean Theorem or Newton’s first law of motion?

There’s a reason why contestants on Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? do so poorly. It’s because they seldom are.

The reality is that Americans are pretty ignorant in a lot of areas, not just in areas of our faith. That’s not to say the Pew study is flawed; I don’t think it is at all. But I think it’s just a symptom of a much larger problem.

Previously:
Survey: Other religions can lead to eternal life
On debating an atheist
How much emphasis should be placed on Christianity when teaching history?

The data essentially reinforce what you would expect to find in the first census since the end of the Civil War: The North had a higher population overall, more foreign-born residents, much fewer African-Americans, and was much wealthier than the South. The percentage of men in the West (California, Nevada, Idaho, etc.) far exceeded the percentage of women. And the federal government, whose expenditures were almost completely limited to the military, saw the national debt explode in order to pay for the Civil War.

Below: The Constitutional Population (“Excluding Indians not taxed”).

Below: The “Colored” Population. Almost exclusively located in the Deep South along the Mississippi River and Southern plantations.

Below: The Foreign Population. Notice that the foreign immigrants flocked mainly to the upper Midwest but also to Central Texas. The influx of German and Czech immigrants to Texas is responsible for the incredible barbecue we still salivate over today. In California, of course, most of the immigrants were Chinese.

Below: Church Accommodation. Almost 50% of the total population was either Methodist or Baptist (red striped area and green area, respectively), with smaller numbers in Presbyterian or Roman Catholic churches (blue and maroon areas). In New England, Congregational churches were more dominant (light blue striped area), while the Southwest was divided between Catholics (maroon) and Mormons (black).

Below: The National Debt. Almost non-existent before the U.S.-Mexican War (1846-1848) but then exploding during the Civil War, reaching a height of about $2.7 billion in 1866. It’s interesting to note that only a few years later the Panic of 1873 would plunge the nation into a major economic depression.

Check out all the maps in full size and stunning detail on the Radical Cartography site.

Previously:
Tonight we’re gonna panic like it’s 1873
A presidential view on debt

“In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture. The Vatican also dealt the final blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a “higher power” for the complexities of life.

Organisers of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species said that at first it had even been proposed to ban Intelligent Design from the event, as “poor theology and poor science”. Intelligent Design would be discussed at the fringes of the conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University, but merely as a “cultural phenomenon”, rather than a scientific or theological issue, organisers said. …

Conceding that the Church had been hostile to Darwin because his theory appeared to conflict with the account of creation in Genesis, Archbishop Ravasi argued yesterday that biological evolution and the Christian view of Creation were complementary.

This view by the Catholic Church isn’t really anything new. The Church has had an open mind with regards to evolution going back at least to the 1950s, and Pope John Paul II said in 1996 it was “more than a hypothesis.” And while Pope Benedict XVI hasn’t specifically endorsed evolution as the ultimate truth, he hasn’t endorsed Intelligent Design either.

I’m not Catholic, so maybe I’m not really qualified to be blogging about this. But I’m not sure how you can say on the one hand that the world was “created by God” while on the other hand, Intelligent Design (i.e. Creation) is “poor theology and poor science.”

Does the Catholic Church believe that God created the universe and mankind or doesn’t it? From Archbishop Ravasi’s statements, it appears it doesn’t.

So how is that complementary to the Bible? It isn’t. As I wrote a couple of months ago:

Christianity can be summed up in four basic truths: (1) God created the universe and everything in it, and humans were created distinctly in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27). (2) Mankind disobeyed God, causing us to be separated from Him. Romans 6:23 says that the punishment for that disobedience is death, meaning Hell. (3) God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to earth to pay that penalty for us by dying on the cross. Three days after His death, Jesus was resurrected and now sits at God’s right hand in Heaven. (4) By repenting of our sin and acknowledging that Jesus is Lord of our lives, we can be forgiven of our sins and reborn spiritually in order that we can live eternally in Heaven.

If you remove any of those truths from the equation, then it’s no longer consistent with the Bible. Therefore, you can’t as a Christian believe that humans evolved from another organism or species.

However, that is not to say that evolution cannot co-exist with Creation. Evolution, if you define it as plants and animals adapting over time to their environment, is not inconsistent with the Bible (at least as I see it). So I can allow for the existence of evolution up to a point. But again, if you take out that first biblical truth, then all other aspects of Christianity don’t make any sense.

It may be that I’m misunderstanding the Vatican’s position here. It could very well be that their view of evolution is similar to mine, which allows for a limited form of evolution so long as it doesn’t interfere with the concept of divine creation by God.

But if there’s any question as to the Church’s beliefs, now would be a good time to clear it up.

Previously:
The faith of George W. Bush
Should evolution be debated in public schools?

The question comes down to this: (1) to what extent should a candidate’s personal beliefs and convictions be considered by voters when they are deciding whom to vote for, and (2) to what extent will that candidate’s personal beliefs and convictions shape how that candidate will govern should they win?

Republicans won control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections in part as a reaction to Bill Clinton’s liberal policies–policies driven by a liberal ideology–but the “Republican Revolution” backfired two years later when voters chose to overlook “traditional family values” in favor of economic policy when they reelected Clinton to the White House.

I disagree with this approach. I believe that a candidate’s personal beliefs and convictions (not just his religious faith, but also his set of core values) should be considered, especially when voting for a presidential candidate, precisely because I believe that those core set of beliefs directly determine how he will govern. It’s not enough to ask where the candidate stands on the war in Iraq or the subprime mortgage meltdown or illegal immigration. While those are certainly important issues, how the candidate thinks and what he believes will ultimately shape how he deals with those issues: what kind of legislation he will propose, which bills he’ll sign or veto, what kind of Cabinet he’ll put together, which judges and Supreme Court justices he will nominate.

Mitt Romney stated in a speech on December 6th that he wouldn’t let his Mormon faith get in the way of his presidency, saying he would “put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.” He compared the scrutiny of his faith to the scrutiny of John F. Kennedy’s in 1960, obviously sending the message that we should disregard his religious affiliation and only focus on where he stands on the issues.

I can’t do that.

There is a difference between Kennedy and Romney. Kennedy was a Catholic, Romney is a Mormon. That’s a big difference. Mormonism is not Christianity. While Mormons may acknowledge that Jesus is the son of God (a spirit child of God, along with Satan), they don’t believe that Jesus was God or that God is the only god. Mormons believe that God became a god over time and the we, too, can all become a god ourselves and have our own spirit children. They believe that after our death, we will all end up in one of three different kingdoms: the celestial kingdom, the terrestrial kingdom, or the telestial kingdom. (See here and here for a good summary of their beliefs.)

The Mormon faith is in direct conflict with what I believe and what the Bible says about who God is and who Jesus is.

Therefore I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a Mormon for President of the United States, despite where he may stand on the various political and economic issues. Would I vote for him for governor or senator or congressman? I don’t know. Being governor is a lot different than being president, so I honestly don’t know how I would vote in that situation. But in terms of the presidency, I just don’t think I could do it.

So what about Mike Huckabee? Certainly in terms of faith, his Baptist faith is in line with what I believe. Some conservatives have begun to criticize Huckabee for having a less-than-conservative record while governor of Arkansas, chiding him for raising taxes and being too lax on illegal immigration. Of course voters will have to decide how important those issues are to them and how his past governing would reflect his future governing.

But voters will also have to decide whether to vote according to their own set of core beliefs or vote for whom they believe can beat the opposition. I would prefer to vote for a candidate who was more closely aligned with my faith and my convictions, not strictly voting for a candidate because I think he’s “electable,” even if it meant that Hillary Clinton eventually won the election. That’s how important my faith is to me.

So, then, would I vote for a candidate strictly because of his religious affiliation? After all, Bill Clinton is also a Baptist like Mike Huckabee. No, not necessarily. As I said, you have to consider multiple things when considering whom to vote for. So I would say that a person’s faith isn’t necessarily a qualifier but may very well be a disqualifier, as I believe to be the case with Romney.

I know there are a lot of politically conservative Christians that would disagree with me on this point. That’s fine. But I just don’t believe in compromising my faith for the sake of winning an election. I just hope there are others out there who feel the same way.