The latest it is viable for a new religion born in the US

[Napoleonrules]

Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses are the two religions "born" in the US and none have really been created and spread as widely since. Is it even possible in the post-1900 world for an American religious cult to go mainstream? Extra points if you can plausibly state how a non-Christian belief being formed here could go mainstream.

 

[Kaze]

Have you heard of Scientology or the UFO cults? Yes, they among some; but technically, it might be construed as a modern day religions that might have potential to go mainstream. Especially if alien contact was ever made - then the UFO cults would say "I told you so."

 

[Md139115]

It is still viable. To be frank, I expect one in the next five years.

 

[Napoleonrules]

Have you heard of Scientology or the UFO cults? Yes, they among some; but technically, it might be construed as a modern day religions that might have potential to go mainstream. Especially if alien contact was ever made - then the UFO cults would say "I told you so."

I don't think anyone considers Scientology or UFO cults as mainstream. If alien contact is ever established (but it won't for reasons I won't go into, but feel free to look at Kurzgesagt youtube channel for most likely why it won't happen), then it really won't be the way UFO cults say it has been. In fact actual contact would disprove UFO cults beliefs, because we'd see that what they said was happening, really wasn't (because aliens would themselves disprove the idiocy).

 

[Ariosto]

I suppose it ultimately depends on how you define "religion", as technically it could be argued that a couple crop up every day; however most of them only have a handful of adherents, or if lucky a couple hundred, and from the outside come across as little more then cults or passing fads. It is fairly uncommon for one of them to go mainstream, and the most recent example that comes to mind is Scientology. With that in mind, I can't see any reason why a new religion shouldn't be viable, but the circumstances have to be right and it has to appeal to a wide audience, it can't be relegated to a niche portion of the public.​

 

[Arkenfolm]

Probably anytime before the pre-internet age, looking at any number of Protestant-derived groups which have unconventional theology like the Sacred Name Movement.

 

[iscariot]

New religions are possible at all times. Under the right circumstances.

 

[CountPeter]

I don't think anyone considers Scientology or UFO cults as mainstream. If alien contact is ever established (but it won't for reasons I won't go into, but feel free to look at Kurzgesagt youtube channel for most likely why it won't happen), then it really won't be the way UFO cults say it has been. In fact actual contact would disprove UFO cults beliefs, because we'd see that what they said was happening, really wasn't (because aliens would themselves disprove the idiocy).

I think not including Scientology makes this a bit hard.

There is something of an economy to religions, it being a good midway point between internationally successful religions and local. To not have Scientology as an example may make this somewhat ASB.

Also to add somewhat to the list.
Satanism: may not have much in the way of followers, but is international and has had a fair influence globally on pop culture.
Hare Krishnas: technically just a continuation of a Hindu tradition dating back to the 17th century, but the ISKCON was established in america.

 

[Expat]

Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, yes? Whether other Christians do the same seems to be a matter of some contention- there's certainly no consensus on the matter. By some measures Mormonism is just a sect, and sects pop up all the time. Is the difference between a Mormon and a Catholic any greater than the difference between a Pentacostal (a 20th century movement) and a Catholic? As an outsider looking in, I really don't think so. 20th century Christian movements are, if anything, less like 3rd century Christian movements than 19th century Christian (or "Christian") movements are.

Pretending it's all the same religion keeps the body count down (these days) and that's a good thing. But I question whether or not we have a solid definition on this subject.

 

[Vikingstar]

Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, yes? Whether other Christians do the same seems to be a matter of some contention- there's certainly no consensus on the matter. By some measures Mormonism is just a sect, and sects pop up all the time. Is the difference between a Mormon and a Catholic any greater than the difference between a Pentacostal (a 20th century movement) and a Catholic? As an outsider looking in, I really don't think so. 20th century Christian movements are, if anything, less like 3rd century Christian movements than 19th century Christian (or "Christian") movements are.

Pretending it's all the same religion keeps the body count down (these days) and that's a good thing. But I question whether or not we have a solid definition on this subject.

To use your example of Mormons and Catholics, the theological difference is vast--Catholics (and all 'traditional' Christians), for instance, view God as self-existent, eternal, infinite, and omnipotent. Mormons believe that the personage we call "God the Father" was once a being of flesh and blood, and is not eternal, infinite, or omnipotent, and that humans can "progress to Godhood"--"as man is, God once was, as God is, man may become". Pentecostals are far closer to Catholics on many theological issues than Catholics and Mormons.

I had, as an aside, several meetings with Mormon missionaries this last summer, where we discussed these very issues, and looked over relevant Mormon and Biblical texts on the subject. It was a fascinating series of discussions.

 

[fscott]

I think not including Scientology makes this a bit hard.

There is something of an economy to religions, it being a good midway point between internationally successful religions and local. To not have Scientology as an example may make this somewhat ASB.

Also to add somewhat to the list.
Satanism: may not have much in the way of followers, but is international and has had a fair influence globally on pop culture.
Hare Krishnas: technically just a continuation of a Hindu tradition dating back to the 17th century, but the ISKCON was established in america.

Heaven's Gate? It was a cult but it had many religious ties.

 

[CountPeter]

Heaven's Gate? It was a cult but it had many religious ties.

Quite small as religions go though.

 

[SsgtC]

To use your example of Mormons and Catholics, the theological difference is vast--Catholics (and all 'traditional' Christians), for instance, view God as self-existent, eternal, infinite, and omnipotent. Mormons believe that the personage we call "God the Father" was once a being of flesh and blood, and is not eternal, infinite, or omnipotent, and that humans can "progress to Godhood"--"as man is, God once was, as God is, man may become". Pentecostals are far closer to Catholics on many theological issues than Catholics and Mormons.

I had, as an aside, several meetings with Mormon missionaries this last summer, where we discussed these very issues, and looked over relevant Mormon and Biblical texts on the subject. It was a fascinating series of discussions.

Wow. I was not aware that Mormons believed that. Compared to that, Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses have more in common. And that's saying something as JW's are a pretty extreme version of Restorationism and Christian Primativism

 

[Vikingstar]

We may want to get the observations of practicing Mormons, just to be as accurate as possible. As for Jehovah's Witnesses, I'm tempted to describe their beliefs as "reductionist"; if you follow them from their founding, their view of God becomes smaller and smaller, and the Theocratic Organization gets larger and larger. I am, of course, offering an opinion, to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

Catholics and Pentecostals use essentially the same Bible (except that the Catholic Bible includes the Apochrypha though they don't regard it as necessarily canonical) They haven't produced any additional books of holy scripture since whereas the Mormons also rely on the Book of Mormon/revelation of Joseph Smith.

 

[SsgtC]

Catholics and Pentecostals use essentially the same Bible (except that the Catholic Bible includes the Apochrypha though they don't regard it as necessarily canonical) They haven't produced any additional books of holy scripture since whereas the Mormons also rely on the Book of Mormon/revelation of Joseph Smith.

I wouldn't exactly say that. All faiths have produced their own canonical writings. However, only the Mormon faith (that I know of) has elevated their writing to the same level of the Bible. All other Christan faiths maintain a very clear hierarchy in their writings with the Bible at the top

 

[ShortsBelfast]

All faiths have produced their own canonical writings.

Other than the Copts and the Gnostics, I don't think any of the Christian sects have produced writings later than the two testaments and four gospels Bible that would actually be regarded as canonical/works of holy scripture. Acquinas, Benedict or Augustine, Melanchthon, Luther, Zwingli, Huss, Hooker or Tillich are all seen as theologicians and moral philosophers rather than as divinely inspired writers. Possibly the Nicene Creed and (for Roman Catholics) the Angelus might be believed by some to fall into the category of divine inspiration as well, but essentially most Christians orbit around the same Bible, albeit with differences of interpretation.
Mormons, Copts and Gnostics work(ed) from different sets of scriptures to mainstream Christianity and so, I think, with propriety could be described as separate faiths. Likewise the Taipeng and Moonies, where in each case the founder expounded a fresh religious revelation.

 

[SsgtC]

Other than the Copts and the Gnostics, I don't think any of the Christian sects have produced writings later than the two testaments and four gospels Bible that would actually be regarded as canonical/works of holy scripture. Acquinas, Benedict or Augustine, Melanchthon, Luther, Zwingli, Huss, Hooker or Tillich are all seen as theologicians and moral philosophers rather than as divinely inspired writers. Possibly the Nicene Creed and (for Roman Catholics) the Angelus might be believed by some to fall into the category of divine inspiration as well, but essentially most Christians orbit around the same Bible, albeit with differences of interpretation.
Mormons, Copts and Gnostics work(ed) from different sets of scriptures to mainstream Christianity and so, I think, with propriety could be described as separate faiths. Likewise the Taipeng and Moonies, where in each case the founder expounded a fresh religious revelation.

True. "Canonical" was probably the wrong word to use. It would probably be more appropriate to say that all Christian religions have produced some level of writing that they consider to be divinely inspired while still not reaching the level of Scripture.

 

[The Byronic Hero]

To use your example of Mormons and Catholics, the theological difference is vast--Catholics (and all 'traditional' Christians), for instance, view God as self-existent, eternal, infinite, and omnipotent. Mormons believe that the personage we call "God the Father" was once a being of flesh and blood, and is not eternal, infinite, or omnipotent, and that humans can "progress to Godhood"--"as man is, God once was, as God is, man may become". Pentecostals are far closer to Catholics on many theological issues than Catholics and Mormons.

I had, as an aside, several meetings with Mormon missionaries this last summer, where we discussed these very issues, and looked over relevant Mormon and Biblical texts on the subject. It was a fascinating series of discussions.

I am former LDS and I can state for a fact it has the veneer of Christianity but is so radically different it is mind blowing. Spiritualist undertones, members being mildly to seriously xenophobic bordering on cult-like (living in SLC is strange at times as a non-Mormon), beliefs that success and material riches come to the virtuous and the poor are that way either out of sin or lack of hearing and accepting God's word, the embracing of polygamy (which some in the mainstream Church still subtly support), etc. It seriously is another religion. Look up Kolob to see how wacky it gets or watch this video of what goes on inside an LDS Temple. Trust me, it's accurate.

 

[Md139115]

We may want to get the observations of practicing Mormons, just to be as accurate as possible.

Agreed, because I don’t want to start thinking that the Mormons are beyond the pale of Christendom based on here-say. I think we need to consult them ourselves. I seem to recall there being a Mormon thread in active use on this site. Perhaps we ought to bring our thoughts there?