As you might be able to tell from my recent posts, I have recently been contemplating historical theory and the historian’s craft, especially as it relates to Mormon history. I am particularly interested in historiographic methods that have not, as of yet, been adopted in Mormon studies. (See here, for instance.) Today, after reading Jill Lepore’s evocative essay “Historians Who Love Too Much: Reflections on Microhistory and Biography,” I am contemplating the benefits of microhistory.[1] (more…)

Last year in a post here at JI, I explored the worship patterns of Latter-day Saints living in the American South at the turn of the twentieth century. I suggested that often times these ungathered Mormons, left to wade the waters of Mormonism on their own, without an ordained priesthood holder and consequently any real semblance of standard church organization and a regular meeting schedule, would often “supplement their Mormon worship by attending other denominations’ worship meetings in between visits from the itinerant elders.” Some Mormons thus attended Methodist camp meetings and Baptist church services on any given Sunday, though they retained their belief in the Mormon message and their membership as Latter-day Saints. (more…)

(This CFP was previously posted here in June. This is a reminder as the deadline quickly approaches)

Call for Papers

War and Peace in Our Time:

Mormon Perspectives (more…)

[What follows is the gist of the introduction from my paper "Celestial Family Organization: The Developing Nature of Mormon Conceptions of Heaven, circa 1840s," presented at the 2010 MHA Conference.]

This post begins with a seemingly unrelated starting point: the debate over the legacy of Kantian philosophy in 1790s Germany. Philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, in defense of his interpretation of Kantian idealism, argued for a distinction between “the inventor” of an ideological system, and “his commentators and disciples.” Fichte explained,

The inventor of a system is one thing, and his commentators and disciples are another…The reason is this: The followers do not yet have the idea of the whole; for if they had it, they would not require to study the new system; they are obliged first to piece together this idea out of the parts that the inventor provides for them; [but] all these parts are in fact not wholly determined, rounded and polished in their minds…

Fichte continued by explaining “the inventor proceeds from the idea of the whole, in which all the parts are united, and sets for these parts individually…The business of the followers,” on the other hand, “is to synthesize what they still by no means possess, but are only to obtain by the synthesis.”[1]

The specifics of Kantian philosophy that Fichte was debating hold little importance to us, but the tension he outlines between an “inventor” and “disciple” plays an important correlating role in the development of early Mormon thought, just as it does with any movement that boasts an innovative founder. (more…)

After hearing this morning that Harry Reid has now entered into this vitriolic debate about the right to build a mosque (or the responsibility not to do so) where shadows of the Twin Towers once fell, my curiosity about how Mormons, both scholars and non, feel about this controversy, has bubbled over onto the virtual pages of JI. (more…)

As a grad student, one’s life is composed almost entirely with books. While all books are at least in some part formative of how one thinks and understands one’s field, most are somewhat forgettable beyond the pages of notes taken for future reference. However, every once in a while there’s a book that not only stands out from the rest but leaves a deep impression on how one views the historical craft. For me, Annette Gordon-Reed’s Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family (W. W. Norton & Company, 2008) is one of those books. (more…)

I recently came across a comment—made in passing and surely intended as nothing more than a kind compliment—that a young graduate student, not a Latter Day Saint (in any of its denominational manifestations) whose research focuses in part on Mormonism, was “the next Jan Shipps.” Such high praise got me thinking exactly what such a statement might mean, and (while it was indeed a compliment to this graduate student) whether Mormon Studies needs or wants another Jan Shipps. Let me explain. (more…)

I recently moved, and in the process spent some time going through the several boxes of papers (consisting mostly of photocopies of archival documents, papers written for courses as both an undergrad and grad student, and old syllabi) I’ve accumulated over the last few years. (more…)

We must be in the “dog days of summer,” as the blog has been rather slow of late. But I thought I’d point our readers to a great series that I just became aware of, called “The Future of Mormonism,” over at Patheos. It has several posts discussing different aspects of Mormonism, written by prominent scholars and bloggers. They’re all worth checking out: (more…)