Stumbled across this fun 20 question religious quiz. Then the program rates how well you fit into different religions.
Here's my results:
1. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (100%)
2. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (97%)
3. Jehovah's Witness (95%)
4. Orthodox Quaker (80%)
5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (79%)
6. Eastern Orthodox (75%)
7. Roman Catholic (75%)
8. Orthodox Judaism (71%)
9. Baha'i Faith (63%)
10. Seventh Day Adventist (62%)
11. Islam (59%)
12. Sikhism (58%)
13. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (53%)
14. Hinduism (52%)
15. Liberal Quakers (51%)
16. Mahayana Buddhism (42%)
17. Theravada Buddhism (41%)
18. Jainism (41%)
19. Reform Judaism (40%)
20. Unitarian Universalism (39%)
21. Neo-Pagan (35%)
22. New Thought (30%)
23. Scientology (29%)
24. New Age (25%)
25. Secular Humanism (23%)
26. Nontheist (19%)
27. Taoism (16%)
Glad to know I am whatever I think I am!
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Monday, April 28, 2008
My Church in the News
Today many people from the congregation ("ward" as Mormons call it) I grew up attending were interviewed about the polygamous sect in North Texas. Unfortunately, many people today still believe many misconceptions about Mormons, including that we have many wives. FALSE! Trust me, one is enough!
I don't always understand why these misconceptions persist, since polygamy in my church ended over 100 years ago -- I think it's similar to assuming that everyone from England still dressed like they do in "Pride and Prejudice" and shipped convicts off to Australia. With the past president of our church, Gordon B. Hinckley, appearing regularly on Larry King Live, and two prominent Mormon politicians (Mitt Romney and Harry Reid), you'd think people would have ample opportunity to be educated out of their flat-earth beliefs.
Some of it stems from overtly harmful and false remarks made by evangelical preachers to lead their flocks astray, but I firmly believe that's the exception (small exception) not the rule. Mostly, I think people hear it through the grapevine, and don't care enough to invalidate the absurdity of it all.
Nevertheless, with the circus in North Texas regarding the polygamous sect, my church has once again started clarifying the misconceptions and for that I'm glad. Any opportunity to build good will and educate people is a blessing. It's a short video from a local Houston television station, but I think the point is good for everyone.
I was going to embed the video here, but channel 39 has poor code, and it wouldn't load. I tried for too long, getting Youtube to work easily, but never this video. So, you'll have to click the link and see it for yourself in it's native webpage.
I know many of my close friends at medical school have had lots of questions for me over the last month, so don't be shy to ask any in the comments section. I will respond, albeit possibly slow since I'm in the middle of finals.
I don't always understand why these misconceptions persist, since polygamy in my church ended over 100 years ago -- I think it's similar to assuming that everyone from England still dressed like they do in "Pride and Prejudice" and shipped convicts off to Australia. With the past president of our church, Gordon B. Hinckley, appearing regularly on Larry King Live, and two prominent Mormon politicians (Mitt Romney and Harry Reid), you'd think people would have ample opportunity to be educated out of their flat-earth beliefs. Some of it stems from overtly harmful and false remarks made by evangelical preachers to lead their flocks astray, but I firmly believe that's the exception (small exception) not the rule. Mostly, I think people hear it through the grapevine, and don't care enough to invalidate the absurdity of it all.
Nevertheless, with the circus in North Texas regarding the polygamous sect, my church has once again started clarifying the misconceptions and for that I'm glad. Any opportunity to build good will and educate people is a blessing. It's a short video from a local Houston television station, but I think the point is good for everyone.I was going to embed the video here, but channel 39 has poor code, and it wouldn't load. I tried for too long, getting Youtube to work easily, but never this video. So, you'll have to click the link and see it for yourself in it's native webpage.
I know many of my close friends at medical school have had lots of questions for me over the last month, so don't be shy to ask any in the comments section. I will respond, albeit possibly slow since I'm in the middle of finals.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Quote of the Day
"The face of sin today often wears the [Halloween] mask of tolerance. Do not be deceived; behind that facade is heartache, unhappiness, and pain."
-- Pres. Thomas S. Monson, Examples of Righteousness, 5 April 2008*words in brackets [] were in the oration but not the transcript*
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Response to "A Fairy Tale for Unwitting Adults, Part 1"
Last Saturday, Xanghe posted "A Fairy Tale for Unwitting Adults, Part 1" which got me wasting study time and thinking about religion.
After much rumination and pondering, I responded in part on his blog, but my thoughts kept coming, and I have decided to publish the remainder here. Mind you these are remarks to parts of his post, not the whole post. Please follow the link above to read the whole thing.
POINT 2:
That being said, I disagree partly with two points you made and agree with one. First, I don't think we're quite the high school analogy you said, although I get your point. It seems more to me like a football analogy.
Mainstream/"Born Again" Christianity is like running some sort of wishbone in college 30 years ago. It's proven it gets results. All the old timers still run the single wing or power I (Catholicism). They're classic. Then comes along this new iteration of football -- the forward pass. Sure it's still football, and the other offenses have forward passes in their repertoire, but now someone comes along and says you can achieve your goal by passing MOST and running LEAST.
Woah...that's heresy. Get to the end zone in another way? No more slugging it out on the ground? And so the backlash ensues.
Who's right? Of course you can score touchdowns with both offenses, just like both denominations believe in Jesus. But fundamentally the proponents balk. It changes the game they're used to, they love, they "signed up for." Whether one is actually the “right” way to play football is not something someone can say in the midst of things. Only 100 years after the fact can you truly look back and say, yes, putting a scrimmage line in football was the “right” thing. With religion it's like that but complicated, because we all believe that there is a right way, but nobody now has the infinite foresight to say unequivocally what is correct. We have only faith.
This is complicated by the second thing that I disagree with: Christianity's inherent Nihilistic dichotomy. “The delineation between born again non-denominational Christians and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” has everything to do with “doctrines, or beliefs, or anything of substance.”
Christian doctrine says you go to Heaven or Hell. Sure man tries to put a fudge factor in there (purgatory?), but the basics boil down to black or white. Jew or Gentile. Saved or not? This dichotomy is deeply ingrained in Christian theology from Genesis onward. Cain or Abel?
Given this, it makes perfect sense why Born-Again Christians tell me “you don't worship MY Jesus Christ” and I can sit and nod when I hear a prophet of God tell me to be “a peculiar people,” or “be in the world, but not of the world.”
For the same reasons one of my friends told me the other day that “we're all prophets of God,” I can say with conviction “God has called a new prophet today, President Thomas S. Monson.” Because they believe the Bible is infallible, and the only Word, and I, at the crux of my faith, say almost exactly the opposite – I “believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; [I] also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God” (AoF 1:8, italics added) and therefore Joseph Smith was his prophet and revelator, and therefore only through faith on Jesus Christ and baptism into His church (i.e. THIS church) can we return and live with him forever.
Yes, you're right that we have a lot in common. Yes, you're right that we should build on these commonalities for the betterment of our society and humanity. Yes, I feel it's petty to use these differences to split apart political candidates – or to vote based on someone's religious label without looking at their actual track record, stance on real issues, and experience qualifying for the office. Yes, I believe that the best people on this earth are spread about through many religions and not hoarded in mine or another. Yes, I believe it's puerile to focus on denigrating other religions instead of focusing on building your own.
That is why President Gordon B. Hinckley called on others to bring their good with them and see if we can add to it. That is why we should be careful about how we view people of other faiths. That is why I agree with you that we should band together to achieve common social goals – but not at the expense of our faith. We cannot soften our stance on doctrine. There is something fundamentally very different between our faiths. For when push comes to shove, I believe I belong to the “only true and living church” (D&C 1:30). That, as President Spencer W. Kimball said, “is an absolute truth.”
After much rumination and pondering, I responded in part on his blog, but my thoughts kept coming, and I have decided to publish the remainder here. Mind you these are remarks to parts of his post, not the whole post. Please follow the link above to read the whole thing.
"As I look back and begin to catalog all of the perceptions I've heard from both sides of the spectrum, I feel like I'm in the middle of a high-school love triangle. To make an analogy, I guess the person that both sides are fighting over would be Jesus (I hope that's not irreverent). Both sides want so badly to be looked upon by Jesus as the best and most faithful but, as high school students often do, each side feels insecure in their diligence and position and therefore belittle the other to attempt to compensate. Inaccurate as it may be, that analogy seems to reiterate itself every time I hear the born again vs LDS debate. But that's just my perception."
POINT 2:
That being said, I disagree partly with two points you made and agree with one. First, I don't think we're quite the high school analogy you said, although I get your point. It seems more to me like a football analogy.
Mainstream/"Born Again" Christianity is like running some sort of wishbone in college 30 years ago. It's proven it gets results. All the old timers still run the single wing or power I (Catholicism). They're classic. Then comes along this new iteration of football -- the forward pass. Sure it's still football, and the other offenses have forward passes in their repertoire, but now someone comes along and says you can achieve your goal by passing MOST and running LEAST.
Woah...that's heresy. Get to the end zone in another way? No more slugging it out on the ground? And so the backlash ensues.
Who's right? Of course you can score touchdowns with both offenses, just like both denominations believe in Jesus. But fundamentally the proponents balk. It changes the game they're used to, they love, they "signed up for." Whether one is actually the “right” way to play football is not something someone can say in the midst of things. Only 100 years after the fact can you truly look back and say, yes, putting a scrimmage line in football was the “right” thing. With religion it's like that but complicated, because we all believe that there is a right way, but nobody now has the infinite foresight to say unequivocally what is correct. We have only faith.
"The delineation between born again non-denominational Christians and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has nothing to do with doctrine or beliefs or anything of substance - it's pure perception."
This is complicated by the second thing that I disagree with: Christianity's inherent Nihilistic dichotomy. “The delineation between born again non-denominational Christians and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” has everything to do with “doctrines, or beliefs, or anything of substance.”
Christian doctrine says you go to Heaven or Hell. Sure man tries to put a fudge factor in there (purgatory?), but the basics boil down to black or white. Jew or Gentile. Saved or not? This dichotomy is deeply ingrained in Christian theology from Genesis onward. Cain or Abel?
Given this, it makes perfect sense why Born-Again Christians tell me “you don't worship MY Jesus Christ” and I can sit and nod when I hear a prophet of God tell me to be “a peculiar people,” or “be in the world, but not of the world.”
For the same reasons one of my friends told me the other day that “we're all prophets of God,” I can say with conviction “God has called a new prophet today, President Thomas S. Monson.” Because they believe the Bible is infallible, and the only Word, and I, at the crux of my faith, say almost exactly the opposite – I “believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; [I] also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God” (AoF 1:8, italics added) and therefore Joseph Smith was his prophet and revelator, and therefore only through faith on Jesus Christ and baptism into His church (i.e. THIS church) can we return and live with him forever.
"In the end, it's got to be both sides who decide to put doctrinal differences aside to seek for a higher level of understanding. We live in a world full of mislead perceptions blown out of proportion that result in hate and crime and war and death. Values and morals are shifting as religious institutions - Christian or otherwise - lose their foothold in society. The last thing we need is bickering and stubbornness between the individuals who call themselves Christian and who should be uniting to do good for Jesus' sake."
Yes, you're right that we have a lot in common. Yes, you're right that we should build on these commonalities for the betterment of our society and humanity. Yes, I feel it's petty to use these differences to split apart political candidates – or to vote based on someone's religious label without looking at their actual track record, stance on real issues, and experience qualifying for the office. Yes, I believe that the best people on this earth are spread about through many religions and not hoarded in mine or another. Yes, I believe it's puerile to focus on denigrating other religions instead of focusing on building your own.
That is why President Gordon B. Hinckley called on others to bring their good with them and see if we can add to it. That is why we should be careful about how we view people of other faiths. That is why I agree with you that we should band together to achieve common social goals – but not at the expense of our faith. We cannot soften our stance on doctrine. There is something fundamentally very different between our faiths. For when push comes to shove, I believe I belong to the “only true and living church” (D&C 1:30). That, as President Spencer W. Kimball said, “is an absolute truth.”
Sunday, January 20, 2008
2008 Nevada Caucuses
Well, the Nevada Caucuses are in the bag, and there's much to be learned from here. I'm going to focus on the Republican caucuses, because I find them more interesting than the two-person race that is the Democratic nomination race.
Nevada was a big win for Romney, and a vindication for everything I've seen in the races so far, namely:
The best political website I've found for following the whole Huckabee -- I mean hullabaloo -- is CNN/Election/2008. It's layout is very clean, and easy to follow. It does an adequate job for giving you the raw data on a macro scale that you'd need to follow the races.
However, CNN and every other site I've found does a bad job at describing things at the state level. I had to go to the Republican Party of Nevada's website and read their bylaws to figure out that each county can determine how they split their delegates. Now I hear that Florida is winner-take-all. Iowa divided their state delegates by percentage of state popular vote. Michigan gave delegate to the winner of each county (hence Romney won 39% of the vote, but took home 80% of the delegates).
So, when we look at Nevada by county, what do we find?
Overall, we can see that Romney did not win every county. Nye county was narrowly won by Ron Paul (34% to 33%).
In fact, when we look at Ron Paul's results by county, we can see clear support in the southern counties of Nevada.
Nye county is the largest county in Nevada and one of the largest in the USA. The Federal government owns about 92% of that land. Which two Republican candidates profess most strongly to reducing the size of the federal government? Paul and Romney.
Also, the county has a population of about 42,000 according to US government estimates (the 2000 census said ~32k). I think the county seems sparsely populated by individualistic people, tailor-made for Paul.
The largest town is Pahrump, about an hour outside of Las Vegas. It's one of the fastest growing towns in America, and predominantly because of people who want to work in booming Vegas, but don't want to live there. Again, I see individualistic in nature.
If we look at Romney's results we see he won every other county. By county, he clearly had the most support in the counties along the Utah border (Elko, White Pine, Lincoln, Clark).
Clark county, where Las Vegas is located, has a large percentage of Mormons. In fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to which Romney belongs, has one of its temples in Las Vegas. Romney won Clark county with 58% of the vote. According to CNN, he won 94% of the Mormon vote statewide. So it makes sense that his strongest counties of support would be close to Utah, with probably high Mormon populations.
However, Romney did quite well in the counties on the other side of the state as well (Washoe, Lyon, and Douglas). These counties lie around Carson City and Reno. They also lie along the California border. This tells me two things. First, Romney gained a lot of support in the population centers of Nevada because of his strong economic track record. People in Las Vegas were worried about the economy, and when voters worry about the economy, they have voted for Romney in every primary/caucus so far.
Second, contrary to popular belief, Utah is not the state with the most Mormons in it -- California is. If Californian Mormons are politically active, he might have a strong, pre-formed base of support when the race turns to the West Coast. Just as Huckabee has to be seen as a favorite in the bible belt states because of his evangelical Christian background, Romney should be seen as much stronger in California than currently presumed. The results from the western counties of Nevada give us some inkling of that.
Huckabee got as close as 27% in one county, Mineral, but it is a very sparsely populated county and an aberration from his results as a whole. Huckabee might do well in the evangelical-laden Southern California, but he's iffy on California as a whole because I think he doesn't resonate with western voters, as shown by Nevada.
Giuliani is playing do or die in Florida.
McCain, surprisingly, didn't get any more than 22% in a county, but he did come in second in 9 counties (the most of any candidate). This confirms the one thing the other states have shown and pundits HAVE talked about -- he is a force in the race this year.
Thompson got as high as 18% in rural Pershing. I think he is a fourth place candidate at best, because of poor campaign management, but it should wake people up that he is not out, and might do well in Tennessee and Kentucky -- near his home.
Next up, Super Tuesday.
Nevada was a big win for Romney, and a vindication for everything I've seen in the races so far, namely:
- The press loves McCain, and his victory in South Carolina gained much more press time than Romney's victory in Nevada.
- Therefore, McCain supposedly moves into Florida with "strong wind at his back" (not my words, but the pundits on CNN) while Romney?
- When voters cast votes based on issues and not likeability, Romney clearly leads the field
- Ron Paul is a strong candidate, who will continue to gain momentum, and whose delegates may play a role in deciding the nominee.
The best political website I've found for following the whole Huckabee -- I mean hullabaloo -- is CNN/Election/2008. It's layout is very clean, and easy to follow. It does an adequate job for giving you the raw data on a macro scale that you'd need to follow the races.
However, CNN and every other site I've found does a bad job at describing things at the state level. I had to go to the Republican Party of Nevada's website and read their bylaws to figure out that each county can determine how they split their delegates. Now I hear that Florida is winner-take-all. Iowa divided their state delegates by percentage of state popular vote. Michigan gave delegate to the winner of each county (hence Romney won 39% of the vote, but took home 80% of the delegates).
So, when we look at Nevada by county, what do we find?
Overall, we can see that Romney did not win every county. Nye county was narrowly won by Ron Paul (34% to 33%).
In fact, when we look at Ron Paul's results by county, we can see clear support in the southern counties of Nevada.
Nye county is the largest county in Nevada and one of the largest in the USA. The Federal government owns about 92% of that land. Which two Republican candidates profess most strongly to reducing the size of the federal government? Paul and Romney.
Also, the county has a population of about 42,000 according to US government estimates (the 2000 census said ~32k). I think the county seems sparsely populated by individualistic people, tailor-made for Paul.
The largest town is Pahrump, about an hour outside of Las Vegas. It's one of the fastest growing towns in America, and predominantly because of people who want to work in booming Vegas, but don't want to live there. Again, I see individualistic in nature.
If we look at Romney's results we see he won every other county. By county, he clearly had the most support in the counties along the Utah border (Elko, White Pine, Lincoln, Clark).
Clark county, where Las Vegas is located, has a large percentage of Mormons. In fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to which Romney belongs, has one of its temples in Las Vegas. Romney won Clark county with 58% of the vote. According to CNN, he won 94% of the Mormon vote statewide. So it makes sense that his strongest counties of support would be close to Utah, with probably high Mormon populations.
However, Romney did quite well in the counties on the other side of the state as well (Washoe, Lyon, and Douglas). These counties lie around Carson City and Reno. They also lie along the California border. This tells me two things. First, Romney gained a lot of support in the population centers of Nevada because of his strong economic track record. People in Las Vegas were worried about the economy, and when voters worry about the economy, they have voted for Romney in every primary/caucus so far.
Second, contrary to popular belief, Utah is not the state with the most Mormons in it -- California is. If Californian Mormons are politically active, he might have a strong, pre-formed base of support when the race turns to the West Coast. Just as Huckabee has to be seen as a favorite in the bible belt states because of his evangelical Christian background, Romney should be seen as much stronger in California than currently presumed. The results from the western counties of Nevada give us some inkling of that.
Huckabee got as close as 27% in one county, Mineral, but it is a very sparsely populated county and an aberration from his results as a whole. Huckabee might do well in the evangelical-laden Southern California, but he's iffy on California as a whole because I think he doesn't resonate with western voters, as shown by Nevada.
Giuliani is playing do or die in Florida.
McCain, surprisingly, didn't get any more than 22% in a county, but he did come in second in 9 counties (the most of any candidate). This confirms the one thing the other states have shown and pundits HAVE talked about -- he is a force in the race this year.
Thompson got as high as 18% in rural Pershing. I think he is a fourth place candidate at best, because of poor campaign management, but it should wake people up that he is not out, and might do well in Tennessee and Kentucky -- near his home.
Next up, Super Tuesday.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
What would you do?
For some strange reason, this song was stuck in my head all day yesterday. Yes, it's old. No, I haven't heard it on the radio in years.
I have no clue why it was stuck in my head. I found it on Youtube to quench my insanity, and one line really stood out.
"If God had a face, what would it look like? And would you wanna see, if seeing meant that you would have to believe in things like Heaven, and Jesus and the Saints, and all the prophets?" (1:55)
I don't wax religious on this blog much, but allow me some licence here.
How many of us have really thought about this question? To truly SEE God. It's scary. It's something I venture MOST people would opt NOT to do, even though it would solve a lot of questions. Why? You would have a perfect knowledge that He exists ... and that means following what he says, whether you want to or not. No more sinning a little here, or there, and in your heart of hearts, your darkened closets, rationalizing it away.
I'm a Mormon, and that makes the Mormon assertion that Joseph Smith actually saw God all that more awe-inspiring. If what Mormons say is true, Joseph took a step far weightier than it looks on the outside. And that means his message has far more "oomph" than someone who just "had a feeling."
On the other hand, if he's lying, he's a charlatan at best, deceiving countless people.
I believe in the former, and after pondering this question, am even more awestruck that he had the courage to see God. Truthfully, I'm not sure if I would. I hope I would. But that's a weighty proposition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
