arnoldo

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

Toto

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.

DancesWithCoffeeCups

Moving to BC&H

ApostateAbe

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.

Mageth

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.

ApostateAbe

Toto wrote that the "hypothesis" was "assumed."
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.

Mageth

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.

Toto

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.

ApostateAbe

Cool, I have no disagreement with that.

arnoldo

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.
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.