Comments on: Come, Come, Ye Saints: the International Version

By: Saskia

Saskia — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:08:44 +0000

Natalie, I don’t think so. But I haven’t really presented my work on this yet–I’ll be on the lookout when it’s my turn to present in our weekly research seminar.

By: NatalieR

NatalieR — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:39:45 +0000

Saskia, This whole post jogged an awkward memory for me when a senior migration studies scholar visited my grad program to discuss his migration theory in a seminar. I asked him a question along the lines of “How does the term ‘pioneer’ and current day usages of the term in public history fit into current (meaning his) migration theory.” He basically scoffed at my question and dismissed the term altogether, which surprised me given that Mormons are not the only groups who regularly use that term to remember and discuss their histories. I wonder if you have found any objection to usage of the term being used in an academic context?

By: Saskia T

Saskia T — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 08:18:16 +0000

Christopher, I haven’t read Eric Eliason’s dissertation–I just added it to my pile of things to read now sooner than later. Thanks!

By: Christopher

Christopher — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:00:13 +0000

Jessica F.,

I don’t mean to “pile on,” but I’m genuinely curious how you see the Mormon pioneer migration to Utah as anything other than a “religious” story.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:58:47 +0000

Great post, Saskia. Have you read Eric Eliason's dissertation? It seems very relevant to what you're doing and I highly recommend it. I used it in thinking through some tangentially-related issues a few years back (see my post here). Two quick thoughts: 1. I wonder what role popular debates within the church today play in shaping the attitudes of those both critiquing and defending the continued veneration of the 19th century western pioneers in regular reenactments, sermons, etc. Is it possible to understand these debates outside of the context of quite pointed feelings on the (perceived?) packaging of "Utah/American/Western culture" as "the gospel" and being exported to Mormonism at large? 2. My wife, a Salvadoran-American, embraces the pioneer story and happily participated as a "ma" in our stake's reenactment three years ago. But she also embraces her grandparents' conversion to Mormonism in El Salvador int he 1960s as an equally valid pioneer story. That's entirely anecdotal, but my guess is that her attitude and approach to these issues are fairly common.

By: Saskia T

Saskia T — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:25:35 +0000

Wow, these are great comments. Let me start off by saying I recognize the limitations of this model and many (most) of the concerns stated here. One of the things that does interest me is the reception by non-white Americans and non-white non-Americans, so all these comments are great. (And, also, here I can tell I’m not Mormon and only partly American! It’s not all new to me, per se, but these suggestions really helps me get a grip on this material.) So thank you all.

Ardis–I’m thinking in the direction that the Mormon pioneer narrative fits into the American pioneer narrative (though definitely not seamlessly, and sometimes only at first glance), which allows for an Americanization perhaps more than a Mormonization. But I’m still thinking about that.

David–I am definitely drawing on Erll on all this. Her work got me started down this path. Thanks for your suggestions!

Amanda–yes, Gathering, definitely. Good point.

Steve–that’s a great story. And I can definitely see people resenting all the pioneer hoopla outside of Utah!

Mark B.–I don’t think anyone is trying to play Queen for a Day as much as wanting to recognize that the pioneer experience was not the be all and end all of hard experiences. Both of you have a point.

Thanks, everyone, you’ve given me so much food for thought.

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:03:39 +0000

Perhaps Jessica’s resentment of the stories of the 19th century Mormon pioneers has stopped her from recognizing the real suffering they endured. The food and water were bad, and there wasn’t enough. Disease from polluted water, like cholera, caused substantial suffering. Women died young, often in childbirth, and large numbers of their children died before reaching maturity.

And arriving in the valley of the Great Salt Lake didn’t mean the end–one ancestor, a relative newlywed when he left Nauvoo in 1846, lived for two years in Winter Quarters (with a several-month sojourn, separated from wife and son, in Fort Leavenworth where he found work), several years in the Salt Lake Valley, then to St. George, and on to Las Vegas to work in ghastly conditions in the lead mines (think the sulfur mines scene from Barabbas), then back to St. George, and then Pine Valley, and finally to Eastern Arizona. Oh, and his wife gave birth three months after arriving in Utah. Four months on the trail–whether walking or riding in a spring-less wagon–while pregnant sure sounds easy, doesn’t it? Not preschool. More like Romper Room, wouldn’t you say?

I don’t know that we should play “Queen for a Day” and try to weigh the relative hardships of different peoples, with a faux ermine robe and tin crown going to the teller of the saddest story, but suggesting that the Mormon pioneer experience was all a walk in the park, or a schoolyard, does not do justice to their experience.

By: Steve Fleming

Steve Fleming — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:25:11 +0000

My dad who grew up LDS in Georgia always resented the pioneer stories. I think it was a resentment toward Utah Mormons who he said would be condescending when they visited. (He’s now lived in Utah most of his life.)

This reminds me of a funny exchange I saw in a ward I was in in Sacramento. A Filipino man taught a lesson on the pioneers in elders quorum and asked one of the white guys what his pioneer ancestry meant to him. After this a guy of Mexican descent chimed in saying that pioneer-ancestry talk really bugged him and that his ancestors had made great sacrifices that ought to be recognized. Then the visiting high councilor who was Polynesian shot back saying that the pioneer heritage was all of our heritage as church members.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:26:23 +0000

David, excellent points. Ardis’ comment, though, also made me think of a podcast on Mormon Matters on Pacific Island Mormon Identities. One of the women that the host was interviewing suggested that the Priesthood Ban and polygamy weren’t huge issues for non-American Mormons because they were seen as distinctly American issues. Although the politics of settler colonialism may be responsible for some aspects of Mormon history appearing more “American” than others, it would seem that’s not the only rubric at play. I’m guessing that the church’s attempt to downplay polygamy might have something to do with the disavowal of polygamy as American in other parts of the world and that the perceived distinctiveness of American racial politics might play a part in the first.

The Americanizing of the idea of a pioneer might also have something to do with the decision to de-emphasize gathering. Before the 20th C, all Saints were expected to emigrate at some point and gathering was an important of Mormon identity for Tahitian Saints in the 1840s, for British Saints in the 1860s and 70s, and for Scandinavian Saints in the 1880s. After that policy was disclaimed, the idea of being a pioneer, of gathering to Zion, became part of a particular history rather than an essential part of Mormonness.

By: David G.

David G. — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:12:11 +0000

One reason why pioneers are seen as “more American” than Mormon history through 1847 is due to the ways that Americans have used the “frontier” for nationalistic purposes. Frederick Jackson Turner, in his famous 1893 talk on the significance of the frontier in American history, pulled together ideas that had been used by Americans for a long time. Dating back to the pre-revolutionary period, colonists had argued that they deserved special rights because they had toiled and subdued a “howling wilderness” full of “hostile” Indians. Americans argued that this experience of “pacifying” the wilderness made their new nation exceptional and pioneers were seen as the heroes who had created civilization that their descendants enjoyed. Into the twentieth century, the idea of the frontier continued to shape American self-conceptions and provided a rationale for internationalism throughout the century. Latter-day Saints have tied the migration to Utah to this broader American narrative as a way to claim inclusion in the national story, as Paul Reeve, as I understand it, will discuss in his forthcoming book.