These guys, but no Mormons?
The New Humanist magazine, where I moonlight from time to time as a contributor, just published some amusing God top trumps. All the Abrahamic faiths are represented, along with various species of humanists, Zoroastrian, and even the Scientologists, which some argue isn’t really a religion at all. But there are, quite amazingly, no Mormons. The New Humanist, for those not familiar, is a magazine of British atheists. It is meant to know about religions. Yet it does not deem Mormonism worth of inclusion in its base list of significant world religions? Let me make the case.
Granted, one has to be mildly credulous to take seriously its theological claims. But no more so than, for instance, stories of bearded men walking on water, or talking snakes. (See this fabulous clip from South Park for a surprisingly accurate rendition of the Mormon founding myth.) Mormons are also often taken less than seriously because of their history of polygamy, and the prominence of a couple of tiny fundamentalist Mormon polygamous sects. That said, Mormonism is now a thriving, growing international faith whose mix of business savvy and aggressive recruitment is piling on members. The number of polygamous fundamentalist Mormons is roughly 10,000, while the Latter Day Saints number more than 10m, most of them outside the US.
The religion’s history, moving west across the country to Utah to avoid persecution, is quintessentially American. While often extremely right wing, the church has birthed an enviable set of values and behaviours, based around a strong attachment to family, personal health – drink and coffee are banned – good manners and good humour. They are also rich: Mormons own a number of famous businesses, and populate the upper echelons of Wall St firms and law companies. Mitt Romney, a multi-multi millionaire, is by no means unusual. There is, in short, a fairly decent case (without being too flippant about it) for saying that American Mormonism shares much in common with American Judaism: small, wealthy, powerful, and with a history of persecution. The fact that the good people at New Humanist somehow didn’t see fit to include them says something about the religion’s prominence in the UK – where, despite a growing membership, and prominent churches (for instance, oppositve the entrance to South Ken tube), their image is conditioned more by Big Love, and bicycling weirdos in Reservoir Dogs togs. For religion watchers this needs to change. Mormonism is a big, fascinating story, and demands to be taken seriously. On current trend rate of growth, it will within my lifetime become the first new global religion since Islam. That, at least, deserves a top trump.
Share
Comments
Print
Add Comment
As a decout mormon, I am concerned for our still, how to say it, lack of acceptance? The first mormon missionaries started in the U.S., Canada, and England. The church has had time to grow there and become established. It’s baffling that people there would still view it as a “cult” or anything less than a legitimate religion. Our beliefs are no crazier than resurrecting beings, visions and prophets, miraculous healings and strict lifestyle regulations. Other religions share all aspects of ours, yet we are always the ones hated on. I agree with you, people ought to give Mormons a closer look. Its no mistake ours is the fastest growing religion around the world. The interesting thing is the growth of the church where missionaries are not present, but the internet is. Something resonates with people, and I doubt it’s anything less than conversion of other people to other faiths. I’m with you- give mormonism some recognition!
Atheism is a big powerfull philosiphy that often apeals to highly intellegent people. The result? Lower numbers of married atheist, less children by those that are reproducing at all amoung atheist intelectuals, and generally speaking a darwinistic lack of sustainability amoungst this population group. Since many Jews are athiests they often exhibit the same exact characteristics as athiests generaly. Mormonism is only one of thousands of various christian philosiphies in the world. The difference? Studies have shown the higher the level of education, income, and any other indication of higher than average intellegence, the Mormon is more devout not less, is more ardent typically statisticly. This goes against the demographic trend worldwide of other christian philosiphies and is very singular in this regard. Thus a philosphy that appeals to the intelectual and reproduces i.e. mormonism, versus a philosiphy that does not reproduce its own population, the philosphy that continuosly increases it’s population will eventualy displace the population that must decline in numbers. If Darwin is correct than darwinism and also atheism must dwindle and die out. To be replaced by what? If demographic trends continue as they are, and with a hundred and fifty and more years of continuos population growth to show it’s sustainability and viability, the conclusion is that Mormonism will suplant (eventualy) athiesm as the dominanant philosiphy amoung most of the intelectual class worldwide. Therefore I support the authers conclusion that Mormons and specificly The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints should be included by the Humanist magazine as a significant religion. Afterall shouldn’t you include the very people that must replace you? That is only if Darwin and population dynamics theory is correct, ofcourse. Then again when has evolution ever been proven wrong (even when applied to humans)?