WI: Shakers weren’t celebate

Zwinglian

Banned
The Shakers were an 1800th century Christian utopian socialist religious movement that got a huge amount of converts and was quite successful but they would die out because they were entirely celebate and refused to have kids. What if for some reason they weren’t celebate and had children? Would shakerism survive and thrive to this day?
 
shakerism still survives according to wikipedia there are 2 remaining shakers. but that said if they were not celebate it would have certainly helped them to thrive
 
They can always get new believers without having sex. Monasticism is an important part of most religions, they simply need to be seem more as monks and less as a sect by the local population.
 

Zwinglian

Banned
They can always get new believers without having sex. Monasticism is an important part of most religions, they simply need to be seem more as monks and less as a sect by the local population.
They tried that and it didnt work thats why there are only 2 left. No religion will succeed if their members cant create new members.
 
I mean more to the point, A) not all religions have cloistered monks or even long-term monks, and B) the ones that do are not _all_ monks. Perhaps a lay acolyte sect that distinguishes between the "celibate" and the non-celibate householders? That is far more common.
 
They’d gradually become more mainstream. They tried to stay on the cutting edge when it came to agricultural technology, so as long as they maintained their numbers, they’d keep up with the times pretty well. I don’t see any reason they wouldn’t just be regarded as another small Anglo-American Christian group.
 
Last edited:
I mean more to the point, A) not all religions have cloistered monks or even long-term monks, and B) the ones that do are not _all_ monks. Perhaps a lay acolyte sect that distinguishes between the "celibate" and the non-celibate householders? That is far more common.
You mean like the Cathar Perfect vs Common Cathar
 
You mean like the Cathar Perfect vs Common Cathar

The Society of Friends Meeting I'm familiar with differentiates between "Members" and "Attenders". With the latter often being much more involves than the term implies.

They tried that and it didnt work thats why there are only 2 left. No religion will succeed if their members cant create new members.

An accquaintance visited the Shaker 'community some fifteen years ago. While there were four or five elderly men present as official Shakers, he met a dozen other people who were not on the roll, but who lived among or near the community and lived as Shakers. Some intended to become official members eventually, others were probably not, and likely to leave after a time.
 
It is "common sense" to say "Of course the Shakers couldn't survive--they were all celibate!" But this ignores that the Catholic priesthood has survived centuries of celibacy, because it is drawn from the larger Catholic population. All you need for a more robust Shaker presence is for them to attract a large number of "sympathizers" or "fellow travelers" in each generation. Most of them won't convert to actual membership (which would require celibacy) but enough of them would that there would be more than a handful of Shakers left today.
 
It is "common sense" to say "Of course the Shakers couldn't survive--they were all celibate!" But this ignores that the Catholic priesthood has survived centuries of celibacy, because it is drawn from the larger Catholic population. All you need for a more robust Shaker presence is for them to attract a large number of "sympathizers" or "fellow travelers" in each generation. Most of them won't convert to actual membership (which would require celibacy) but enough of them would that there would be more than a handful of Shakers left today.

Odd thought: maybe they could come to be seen as as equivalent to a Protestant monkish order. This would give them a huge pool of potential recruits to draw from, while still allowing them to maintain their distinctive group identity and community.

Also, depite being celibate, I believe Shakers could marry and couples would adopt children as well (at least according to a story we have to read in 7th grade which I really disliked at the time and may be remembering wrong). Perhaps rural Shaker communities become places were urban immigrant orphans are sent?
 
Odd thought: maybe they could come to be seen as as equivalent to a Protestant monkish order. This would give them a huge pool of potential recruits to draw from, while still allowing them to maintain their distinctive group identity and community.

Also, depite being celibate, I believe Shakers could marry and couples would adopt children as well (at least according to a story we have to read in 7th grade which I really disliked at the time and may be remembering wrong). Perhaps rural Shaker communities become places were urban immigrant orphans are sent?

The book you likely reference it "A Day No Pigs Would Die". While it purports to describe Shaker life it in fact does not and is basically considered slanderous by actual Shakers (so your 7th grade dislike shows character).

To your deeper point Shaker communities did adopt children. Note that the member of the communities did not marry and men and women lived separately. Adopting orphans was actually the main way the community propagated from circa 1780 until the early 20th century. Basically, an orphan would go live with the Shakers and in return learn a trade (making furniture, being a blacksmith etc.). At the age of 21 he or she would have the option to join the community or go out into the world. About 75% left but 25% joined. In the early 20th century most states began forbidding religious sects from adopting children. This ended the main way Shakers could propagate. Therefore, it was not so much celibacy that doomed the Shakers but changes in broader legal regulations.
 
The book you likely reference it "A Day No Pigs Would Die". While it purports to describe Shaker life it in fact does not and is basically considered slanderous by actual Shakers (so your 7th grade dislike shows character).

YES!!! That was the book!!! I'd love to say that I disliked it due to my innate knowledge of Shaker life and the book's misrepresentation of the community, but the fact is, I don't really know WHAT about it rubbed me the wrong way. All I know is that I really, really disliked it for some reason - possibly I'd remember if I reread it; but I have no desire to do so! :)
 
YES!!! That was the book!!! I'd love to say that I disliked it due to my innate knowledge of Shaker life and the book's misrepresentation of the community, but the fact is, I don't really know WHAT about it rubbed me the wrong way. All I know is that I really, really disliked it for some reason - possibly I'd remember if I reread it; but I have no desire to do so! :)

Its easy to forget as a adult, but at that age our BS detectors were much more sensitive. We did not always understand what the indicator lights meant, but we knew something was amiss.
 
Its easy to forget as a adult, but at that age our BS detectors were much more sensitive. We did not always understand what the indicator lights meant, but we knew something was amiss.

I still remember vividly feeling utter disgust at that age at the writing abilities of Kevin James Anderson... compounded by the fact that I was self-aware enough to realize “I’m 13 and I realize this is shit. It must really be bad if I can tell that.”

That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but that is a fond memory.
 
If numbers hold and families are large, they become prevalent in the Upper South and Cottonhead areas with a perhaps Mormon-like tendency for community organization. Maybe by 2000 they're the 5th or 6th largest denomination in the US and rapidly approaching top 3 with an emphasis on self-reliance that moderates the Prepper movement or incorporates it into a Cold War community recruiting draw.
 
Could those laws be found to be a first amendment violation?
After all, it could be argued the government is dooming some religious sects to extinction.

I doubt that it would be seen as violation of the constitution in Supreme Court. It not be targeted against practising of religion. Such law just would limit adoptions not practising of religion.
 

Zwinglian

Banned
It is "common sense" to say "Of course the Shakers couldn't survive--they were all celibate!" But this ignores that the Catholic priesthood has survived centuries of celibacy, because it is drawn from the larger Catholic population. All you need for a more robust Shaker presence is for them to attract a large number of "sympathizers" or "fellow travelers" in each generation. Most of them won't convert to actual membership (which would require celibacy) but enough of them would that there would be more than a handful of Shakers left today.
You dont need to be celebate to be a catholic, you do need to be celebate to be a shaker. Catholic priests are 9 times out of 10 the sons of Catholics, Shakers are never going to be the children of Shakers
 
Top