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

[naraht]

Some comments after the request on the Mormonism thread. I'm Jewish, not a member of the LDS Church.
1) Excluding Scientology seems to be deliberately odd to me. The *lowest* number of believers mentioned on Wikipedia is 25,000 which is about the number of members the LDS church had at the time of Joseph Smith's death, and by that time knowledge of the LDS church (if only for its "oddities") was as wide as the knowledge of Scientology today. The highest number (200,000) corresponds to the number of LDS near the time of Utah Statehood.
2) As a Jew, I tend to use a *very* wide definition of what a Christian is. If the most important person to ever walk the earth Yeshua Ben Joseph, a person who lived approximately 2000 years ago, got nailed to a cross, died, and then got better, then you are Christian. That includes everyone from the LDS to the "Jews for Jesus" to "Iglesia ni Cristo" to Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. (Note, that does not include Islam. )
3) Both the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventist Churches date from the latter half of the 19th Century, which are closer than the LDS.

 

[CountPeter]

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?

Not a Mormon, but my partner is an ex Mormon, most of her family are still Mormon and my family has had regular contact with church going into the 1800s as far as I know (we have an extensive family history record, debatebly going into the BCs on my mothers side).

My stance, and one I've ran through with them is that it has too many of the same qualifying factors as Manichaeism (regarding a new prophet with a new text etc rather than doctrine) to the point where Mormonism should be considered a separate religion, but a brother in the great abrahamic tradition.

 

[Shurik]

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?

One right here, and there are several others on the board.
So, let's see what we've got...

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.

We (Mormons) most definitely consider ourselves to be Christian. Even the name: "Mormon" is only a nickname. The formal name of the church is, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".

As to other Christians being ambivalent about whether we are or not; it's honestly confusing to a lot of Mormons where there is any question at all. We share the vast majority of core doctrine, as derived from the Bible; rejecting only the post-Apostolic Era decrees, such as that of Nicene, Trent, etc.
Likewise, the King James Bible is considered a vital book of scripture, regularly referenced.

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.

The "doctrine" that God was once mortal is a very arcane and rather obscure subject (not unlike many of the deeper doctrines of the Catholic, Coptic, Orthodox or other older established religions).
In principal, it stems from a statement made by a church leader some time ago.
This is a good Church published article on the subject.

It is something which people will occasionally raise, but is rarely discussed, and (as indicated in the article) is considered to be a highly obscure point.

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.

More than happy to weigh in where I can.

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.

Let's take this point-by-point.
-Spiritualist undertones. If this is so groundbreaking, or such a radical departure from "Christianity", where did the Bible come from? I understand prayer to be a pretty universal Judeo-Christian thing. So what's the difference?
-Members being mildly to seriously xenophobic: You have my sympathies, being a non-member living in SLC. I've only lived in Utah briefly, and never in SLC. I wouldn't even want to, if given the opportunity. Yes, some members can be accurately accused of racism, etc. However, I can assure you that this is very much NOT the norm, nor is it acceptable per church doctrine. As with ALL Church, there is a difference between members, and doctrine. The VAST majority of Mormons would resolutely and roundly condemn any sort of racism, xenophobia, etc.
-Belief that success and material riches come to the virtuous: That's quite a twisting of a pretty standard Christian doctrine...
-Poor are that way because of sin, etc: I've never heard that preached, advocated, endorsed, or in any other way codified as doctrine. Please point me to a reference if I'm wrong.
-Embracing polygamy: Yes, the Church did practice it in the past. No, the church does not practice or support it now. It has even been quite clear on the distinction between the break-away fundamentalist sect. There were a few who continued to secretly perform such marriages following an official cessation of the practice; resulting in multiple statements ending the practice. The most well-known today being the Official Declaration on the subject.
-Kolob: Another of those arcane and obscure ideas based on a single comment made a long time ago, and certainly not core to any Mormon beliefs.
-As to what goes on in LDS Temples; yes. I've been through, or personally seen everything that happens in a Temple. It's not viewed as "secret" so much as "sacred". As such, yes. Anyone can find out what happens in there via google in less time than it takes to type it out. But I'm not going to talk about it. That being said, I WILL say that everything there is HIGHLY symbolic. As such, when taken out of context, it definitely would seem weird. But then, so to the rites of other Christians eating what they believe to be the literal flesh of someone, while bowing in front of an ancient torture device, with a bleeding body attached.
It's all about the symbolism.


Anyway, always happy to offer an insight, so feel free to ask.

As to the OP of a new, post 1900 religion going mainstream... Given the world-wide decline in religious practice as a whole... I'd say it's pretty unlikely.
I suppose the only exception might be some fundamentalist sect of an existing religion. Not sure what though. Maybe some sort of American-borne, Catholic based reaction to ISIS and fundamentalist Islam?

 

[Md139115]

As to the OP of a new, post 1900 religion going mainstream... Given the world-wide decline in religious practice as a whole... I'd say it's pretty unlikely.
I suppose the only exception might be some fundamentalist sect of an existing religion. Not sure what though. Maybe some sort of American-borne, Catholic based reaction to ISIS and fundamentalist Islam?

We sort of do already. The Sedevacantists, St. Pius X Society, and other “Traditional Catholic” are growing quickly in America, and quite a few of the members (I didn’t say all or even most) are just that “zealous.”

 

[Mark E.]

With regard to UFO culture, what is regarded as "contact?" First of all, if any lights or reflections attributed to flying saucers are actually alien spacecraft, you are re-writing physics. It will not happen. But what about a radio signal, the type we have been listening for over time? The likelihood of an alien signal is remotely small, but not zero. Of course, its content would be debated. Is it a reflection of a manmade signal? There would be debate as to whether it proves anything or whether it came from a natural source.

 

[SsgtC]

With regard to UFO culture, what is regarded as "contact?" First of all, if any lights or reflections attributed to flying saucers are actually alien spacecraft, you are re-writing physics. It will not happen. But what about a radio signal, the type we have been listening for over time? The likelihood of an alien signal is remotely small, but not zero. Of course, its content would be debated. Is it a reflection of a manmade signal? There would be debate as to whether it proves anything or whether it came from a natural source.

I have always regarded contact as referring to indisputable proof of existence. Either via clear and uninterrupted radio contact or via actual physical contact

 

[The Byronic Hero]

One right here, and there are several others on the board.
So, let's see what we've got...



We (Mormons) most definitely consider ourselves to be Christian. Even the name: "Mormon" is only a nickname. The formal name of the church is, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".

As to other Christians being ambivalent about whether we are or not; it's honestly confusing to a lot of Mormons where there is any question at all. We share the vast majority of core doctrine, as derived from the Bible; rejecting only the post-Apostolic Era decrees, such as that of Nicene, Trent, etc.
Likewise, the King James Bible is considered a vital book of scripture, regularly referenced.


The "doctrine" that God was once mortal is a very arcane and rather obscure subject (not unlike many of the deeper doctrines of the Catholic, Coptic, Orthodox or other older established religions).
In principal, it stems from a statement made by a church leader some time ago.
This is a good Church published article on the subject.

It is something which people will occasionally raise, but is rarely discussed, and (as indicated in the article) is considered to be a highly obscure point.


More than happy to weigh in where I can.


Let's take this point-by-point.
-Spiritualist undertones. If this is so groundbreaking, or such a radical departure from "Christianity", where did the Bible come from? I understand prayer to be a pretty universal Judeo-Christian thing. So what's the difference?
-Members being mildly to seriously xenophobic: You have my sympathies, being a non-member living in SLC. I've only lived in Utah briefly, and never in SLC. I wouldn't even want to, if given the opportunity. Yes, some members can be accurately accused of racism, etc. However, I can assure you that this is very much NOT the norm, nor is it acceptable per church doctrine. As with ALL Church, there is a difference between members, and doctrine. The VAST majority of Mormons would resolutely and roundly condemn any sort of racism, xenophobia, etc.
-Belief that success and material riches come to the virtuous: That's quite a twisting of a pretty standard Christian doctrine...
-Poor are that way because of sin, etc: I've never heard that preached, advocated, endorsed, or in any other way codified as doctrine. Please point me to a reference if I'm wrong.
-Embracing polygamy: Yes, the Church did practice it in the past. No, the church does not practice or support it now. It has even been quite clear on the distinction between the break-away fundamentalist sect. There were a few who continued to secretly perform such marriages following an official cessation of the practice; resulting in multiple statements ending the practice. The most well-known today being the Official Declaration on the subject.
-Kolob: Another of those arcane and obscure ideas based on a single comment made a long time ago, and certainly not core to any Mormon beliefs.
-As to what goes on in LDS Temples; yes. I've been through, or personally seen everything that happens in a Temple. It's not viewed as "secret" so much as "sacred". As such, yes. Anyone can find out what happens in there via google in less time than it takes to type it out. But I'm not going to talk about it. That being said, I WILL say that everything there is HIGHLY symbolic. As such, when taken out of context, it definitely would seem weird. But then, so to the rites of other Christians eating what they believe to be the literal flesh of someone, while bowing in front of an ancient torture device, with a bleeding body attached.
It's all about the symbolism.


Anyway, always happy to offer an insight, so feel free to ask.

As to the OP of a new, post 1900 religion going mainstream... Given the world-wide decline in religious practice as a whole... I'd say it's pretty unlikely.
I suppose the only exception might be some fundamentalist sect of an existing religion. Not sure what though. Maybe some sort of American-borne, Catholic based reaction to ISIS and fundamentalist Islam?

This reply is not meant to be rude, but a great deal of the LDS Church derives it's beliefs from Freemasonry from the hidden garments to the hand gestures to the secret rites. The claims of symbolism in certain beliefs such as the events of the Book of Mormon (which many now call symbolic though seen as real history up until recently and even still by some) is due to attempts to prove them true failing repeatedly because of a lack of archaeological evidence. Other points such as Kolob, God being flesh, men attaining godhood, etc are deliberately kept from public knowledge as they blatantly violate Christian dogma and some beliefs have even been ignored and/or hidden from their own members because of how incredulous they are (the sun was perceived as a purified world and dark skin as a mark of sin). There are beliefs that allow communication with the dead and that North America is the original Eden.

Outside of Utah, many LDS members are wonderful people. But in large swaths of Idaho and rural areas of Utah, even some parts of SLC, I have seen a racism that seriously angers me as my wife is Filipina (not surprising as the LDS Church only lifted the ban on non-white priesthood holders in the seventies). There is preferential treatment given to Church members in many businesses and social ostracism once it is made known you aren't converting. I have experienced it and see it so claiming it does not happen is ridiculous. It is one of the major reasons I left the Church.

Worst of all is the indoctrination I have seen from childhood to now. Primary school songs that encourage serving missions and subservience to the Church and it's leaders, firesides that repeat the mantra of how important young men and women are in spreading the word of the Church that it's power might grow, pressure by peers to conform, etc.

The xenophobia I understand having read Church history for years from their many expulsions and push west: assaults, rapes, murder. It helped to galvanize Mormons and to strengthen their bond to one another while building a fear of outsiders.

Is the LDS Church Christian. They believe in Christ so yes they fit that definition but a great deal of their ideology comes from outside the Bible: the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine in Convenants. It is not merely seeing Christian belief from another perspective. It is a recreation of Christian thought. Joseph Smith famously stated all other churches were false and were wrong in their interpretations of Christ and God's message.

I'm not knocking Mormons nor do I hate them. I have many friends in the Church and we joke about differing perspectives but I still stand by the belief that Joseph Smith used the veneer of Christianity in order to subtly spread views that would otherwise have been seen as heretical (and was by many early leaders in the Church).

 

[Johnrankins]

I am not going to argue on which church is "really" Christian (or any other religion for that matter ) or not. I do see it as odd though that Scientology isn't considered as any less mainstream than Mormonism and I am neither being agnostic. They are both considered "weird" offshoots by many if not most larger religious groups out there such as Baptists, Lutherans and Catholics. They are neither as large and as important as say Catholics or Lutherans but they aren't Jim Jones's People's Temple or the David Koresh's Branch Dravidian either.

 

[Neshomancer]

oseph Smith famously stated all other churches were false and were wrong in their interpretations of Christ and God's message.

The xenophobia I understand having read Church history for years from their many expulsions and push west: assaults, rapes, murder. It helped to galvanize Mormons and to strengthen their bond to one another while building a fear of outsiders.

Like there aren't tons of Mainstream Christian and other religions that don't claim the same thing or "Indoctronate" their youth.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

Look what we think about the Mormon/LDS church isn't relevant to the question of whether they are a new religion or a new Christian sect . I am plumping for a new religion on the basis of a fresh prophetic vision and additional holy book that (other? )Christians don't recognise. That Christ is revered doesn't itself make you a Christian - In Islam Christ is a major prophet and the same is true of Bahaism. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all revere Moses as a great prophet but are separate if kindred faiths

 

[RPW@Cy]

We (Mormons) most definitely consider ourselves to be Christian. Even the name: "Mormon" is only a nickname. The formal name of the church is, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".

As to other Christians being ambivalent about whether we are or not; it's honestly confusing to a lot of Mormons where there is any question at all. We share the vast majority of core doctrine, as derived from the Bible; rejecting only the post-Apostolic Era decrees, such as that of Nicene, Trent, etc.
Likewise, the King James Bible is considered a vital book of scripture, regularly referenced.

This is your problem - most mainstream Christian churches regard adhering to the Nicene creed in particular as the absolute minimum standard required to qualify as Christian. There's an interesting article on the Vatican's website which, although confined to the narrow question of the validity of Mormon baptism, nevertheless sums up the situation as a whole.

Difference of views: Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism

Summing up, we can say: The Baptism of the Catholic Church and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ essentially, both for what concerns faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose name Baptism is conferred, and for what concerns the relationship to Christ who instituted it. As a result of all this, it is understood that the Catholic Church has to consider invalid, that is to say, cannot consider true Baptism, the rite given that name by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Although the Vatican is at pains not to say so, when you consider this conclusion alongside that of the groups the church does consider can provide valid baptism - heretics, schismatics, pretty much anybody who accepts fundamental Trinitarian doctrine - I think the conclusion is fairly obvious, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned Mormons are not Christians (and I suspect most Protestant and Orthodox denominations would agree with the fundamental logic).

Incidentally, and on the subject of OP's post, I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the Nation of Islam yet. It was founded in the 1930's, has by some accounts at least as many followers as Scientology, and (in a similarity to the Mormons) whereas it claims to be Muslim this is a belief that is disputed by mainstream Islamic groups.

And then of course there are the less than serious religious groups, such as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Jediism...

 

[Neshomancer]

We do believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. We believe the Jesus died for our sins and rose on the third day and is the Savior. Yes there are doctrinal differences about the nature of God, the fact that we don't believe in original sin etc. People are free to think we aren't Christians over things like the Nicene Creed, but at the most basic level. we are Christian. People and enominations are free to feel other wise, I don't hold it against them.

 

[Manman]

Well while the discussion is interesting it doesn't help in answering our question.

One of the better times to start would be during the Great Depression. If it goes slightly worse I can see someone starting a religion after feeling that the church and the government failed them.

 

[sloreck]

There is no reason you can't have a new religion. They have cropped up, some to stay and some to go, some to expand and some to remain obscure, on and off for quite some time. I do agree that some rather sharp shock to society in the USA, or coming from elsewhere, would probably be needed to make an opening for a new religion or religions. For example if there is some sort of ecological disaster such as very rapid climate change with severe weather and sea level rise, the areas with the conservative Christians severely hit, therefore "undermining" evangelicals, this could cause a new religion.

 

[mrmandias]

Mormons do believe in original sin. We believe that Christ's atonement paid for it for all. Do a search of the Book of Mormon for "original sin" or "original guilt"

 

[Mitchell Hundred]

Among some circles Scientology seems as accepted (or unaccepted) as either Mormonism or Jehova's Witness.

L.Ron Hubbard (not to offend anyone) strikes me as a very 20th century Joseph Smith.

 

[Wimble Toot]

I don't think anyone considers Scientology or UFO cults as mainstream. If alien contact is ever established (...), then it really won't be the way UFO cults say it has been. In fact actual contact would disprove UFO cults

Worshiping aliens that don't exist is much the same as worshiping gods that don't exist. See Raelism

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Raëlism

An actual tangible god turning up is about as likely as alien contact.

 

[Wimble Toot]

The most recent religion to appear in the US coalesced in the 1990s

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Transhumanism

 

[SsgtC]

An actual tangible god turning up is about as likely as alien contact.

Depending on which mathematical formula you use, that may not be as outlandish a possibility as you may think. According to some formulas, there could be literally tens to hundreds of thousands of inhabitable planets in our Galaxy alone. Assuming that's the case, it's not out of the realm of possibility that one or two have developed FTL travel and could make contact.

 

[Dingus Khan]

If we're gonna get a new major religion anytime soon, it will be born out of Internet culture.