FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-22-2010, 03:30 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default Parallel Between Growth of Early Christianity and Mormonism

What are the parallels, if any, between the growth of early christianity and mormonism? The following gives some basic information on the subject.

Quote:
Stark has proposed in The Rise of Christianity that Christianity grew through gradual individual conversions via social networks of family, friends and colleagues. His main contribution, by comparing documented evidence of Christianity's spread in the Roman Empire with the history of the LDS church in the 19th and 20th centuries, was to illustrate that a sustained and continuous growth could lead to huge growth within 200 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Stark
arnoldo is offline  
Old 02-22-2010, 04:18 PM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Stark assumed that Christianity spread like modern "new religions" such as Mormonism or the Unification Church. What little data there is seems to be consistent with this hypothesis. But we don't really know.
Toto is offline  
Old 02-22-2010, 04:22 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 8,077
Default

Moving to BC&H
DancesWithCoffeeCups is offline  
Old 02-22-2010, 04:28 PM   #4
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Stark assumed that Christianity spread like modern "new religions" such as Mormonism or the Unification Church. What little data there is seems to be consistent with this hypothesis. But we don't really know.
Your first statement is inconsistent with the second. If the data seems to be consistent with the hypothesis, then it is a conclusion that follows from the data, not an assumption, even with the small quantity of data. You can go ahead and call his conclusion uncertain based on the small quantity of data, but I get a little peevish about calling it an assumption when it isn't.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 02-22-2010, 04:37 PM   #5
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
Default

Toto seems to have more propertly referred to Stack's "assumption" as an hypothesis, which appears to me to be consistent with your "uncertain conclusion based on a small quantity of data."

In any case, there appears to me to be a significant risk of false comparison when two distinct events that occurred in two distinct periods of history (and in different societal conditions) are so compared.
Mageth is offline  
Old 02-22-2010, 05:02 PM   #6
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mageth View Post
Toto seems to have more propertly referred to Stack's "assumption" as an hypothesis, which appears to me to be consistent with your "uncertain conclusion based on a small quantity of data."
Toto wrote that the "hypothesis" was "assumed."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mageth View Post
In any case, there appears to me to be a significant risk of false comparison when two distinct events that occurred in two distinct periods of history (and in different societal conditions) are so compared.
Yes, that is a good point. Before useful conclusions can be drawn from this analysis, I think it would better to have data from more than two religions to build a more general model of the patterns common to many religions.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 02-22-2010, 05:05 PM   #7
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Toto wrote that the "hypothesis" was "assumed."
Well, he wrote "Stark assumed that Christianity spread like modern "new religions" and then referred to this as an "hypothesis." So it appears to me that the hypothesis encompasses the assumption rather than the assumption modifying the hypothesis.

Just the way I read it, though. Your mileage may vary.
Mageth is offline  
Old 02-22-2010, 06:03 PM   #8
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

OK, let me back up.

Stark is a sociologist of religion, and as a social scientist, he assumes that new religious movements follow a pattern, which he can study using the tools of his trade. That's the assumption.

Stark then made a best estimate of the growth of Christianity in the Roman Empire in the first three centuries, and found that it correlated to the rates of growth of the new religions that he had studied or knew about, namely Mormonism and the Unification Church, and found, voila! they grew at the same rate.

So the data is consistent with a hypothesis that early Christianity grew like Mormonism.

He then hypothesized that there were more features that were comparable, that the new religion spread among urban, somewhat educated people, who were removed from their family roots. This fits the pattern that he found in the Unification Church, but I don't know if that fits Mormmonism, which I think of as a feature of the American West. He also found that Christianity was pro-natalist, somewhat like the Mormons, so it grew threw normal populaton growth and also by taking in foundlings.

Realize that sociologists deal in broad patterns, sometimes very broad. There may be very few points in common between early Christianity and Mormonism, but they both fit in the category "new religion."

The point of Stark's work is that the growth of early Christianity was normal for a new religion, so there is no need to postulate something miraculous, such as a Resurrection or a highly charismatic Son of God. Nevertheless, Christians tend to like his work, because he says nice things about Christianity and its social support system, and treats it as a rational choice.

Stark claimed to have been agnostic when he wrote the Rise of Christianity, but he converted to Christianity when he was hired by Baylor University.
Toto is offline  
Old 02-22-2010, 07:05 PM   #9
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
OK, let me back up.

Stark is a sociologist of religion, and as a social scientist, he assumes that new religious movements follow a pattern, which he can study using the tools of his trade. That's the assumption.

Stark then made a best estimate of the growth of Christianity in the Roman Empire in the first three centuries, and found that it correlated to the rates of growth of the new religions that he had studied or knew about, namely Mormonism and the Unification Church, and found, voila! they grew at the same rate.

So the data is consistent with a hypothesis that early Christianity grew like Mormonism.

He then hypothesized that there were more features that were comparable, that the new religion spread among urban, somewhat educated people, who were removed from their family roots. This fits the pattern that he found in the Unification Church, but I don't know if that fits Mormmonism, which I think of as a feature of the American West. He also found that Christianity was pro-natalist, somewhat like the Mormons, so it grew threw normal populaton growth and also by taking in foundlings.

Realize that sociologists deal in broad patterns, sometimes very broad. There may be very few points in common between early Christianity and Mormonism, but they both fit in the category "new religion."

The point of Stark's work is that the growth of early Christianity was normal for a new religion, so there is no need to postulate something miraculous, such as a Resurrection or a highly charismatic Son of God. Nevertheless, Christians tend to like his work, because he says nice things about Christianity and its social support system, and treats it as a rational choice.

Stark claimed to have been agnostic when he wrote the Rise of Christianity, but he converted to Christianity when he was hired by Baylor University.
Cool, I have no disagreement with that.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 02-22-2010, 08:29 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post

The point of Stark's work is that the growth of early Christianity was normal for a new religion, so there is no need to postulate something miraculous, such as a Resurrection or a highly charismatic Son of God.
There is also need to postulate that mythical people started these movements. In both cases they were historical people who started these movements resulting in followers who continued to spread the message.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Nevertheless, Christians tend to like his work, because he says nice things about Christianity and its social support system, and treats it as a rational choice. .
Not to mention his acceptance that christianity, in fact, began in the first century. In contrast, most mythicists dogmatically claim that christianty *must* have begun in the second century or later.
arnoldo is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:14 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.