Comments on: Mormonism in a US religious history grad seminar

By: Chris Henrichsen

Chris Henrichsen — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:15:33 +0000

“on how LDS missions weren’t about converting people, they were a right of passage for young men” (in #35)

Is that to mean that this is not common knowledge. I am so often confused. Anyways, this might point to Shipps understanding the culture better than those who are too close to it.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:50:06 +0000

That’s funny, Mr. Bagley. I’ve heard more than just a few hushed whispers that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

By: SC Taysom

SC Taysom — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:16:04 +0000

I think you would lose that bet. Many of us have read Bigler’s book; it’s exclusion isn’t out of ignorance. Shipps’ observation about the ritual role of missions in the life of LDS is based on a well-accepted sociological theory of investment. But, in the face of an anonymous, whispered, “she doesn’t know what she’s talking about” I think that entire branch of sociology may have been blown out of the water. How can any theory stand up in the face of such trenchant criticism?

By: Will Bagley

Will Bagley — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 21:45:58 +0000

My pick would be a book I’d bet few on this list has ever read: David L. Bigler, Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847-1896.

But please, Jan Shipps? As a friend of mine, now a senior archivist at the LDS history library, commented during one of the Great Expert’s pontifications at MHA back in 1992–on how LDS missions weren’t about converting people, they were a right of passage for young men–”She doesn’t know what she’s talking about.”

I’m always surprised at how little most Mormons know about the American West–I mean outside of Utah Valley. If you’re going to recommend a book, it’s nice to get the title right:

Colin Gordon Calloway. One Vast Winter Count: The Native American West before Lewis and Clark. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2003.

Will Bagley

By: John Turner

John Turner — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 04:13:00 +0000

This is what I assigned my M.A. “Religion in 19th-Century U.S.” course on Mormonism this past fall. I chose the two mountain meadows books, not because they are the best entry point to Mormonism for the uninitiated, but because they are good reads and I wanted students to learn how to critically examine evidence presented by secondary sources. Partly because the MMM subject matter necessarily skews one’s initial impression of Mormonism, I assigned the primary sources. After that, I was looking for provocative and influential and brief interpretations of Mormonism. I gave myself the luxury of taking multiple weeks on the topic.

Joseph Smith, ed., Dean Jessee, “First Vision”

Laurie Maffly-Kipp, BOM, “Introduction” and “Note on the Text”

Book of Mormon Excerpts (title page, 1 Nephi, chs. 1, 18; 2 Nephi, ch. 29; 3 Nephi, chs. 1, 11-15; 4 Nephi, ch. 1; Moroni, chs. 9-10 )

Joseph Smith, ed. Stan Larson, “King Follett Discourse”

Nathan Hatch, Democratization of American Christianity, chapter two and pp. 113-122

R. Laurence Moore, Religious Outsiders, chapter one (“How to Become a People: The Mormon Scenario”)

John L. Brooke, “Preface” (xiii-xvii) and “Secret Combinations and Slippery Treasures in the Land of Zarahemla”

Walker, et al., Massacre at Mountain Meadows

Bagley, Blood of the Prophets

By: David G.

David G. — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:30:52 +0000

Chris H., I think Arrington’s Great Basin Kingdom has yet to be replicated. But, it was published in 1958, and a lot of new scholarship on Utah has appeared in the last fifty years. And western history has changed significantly in recent decades, historiographically speaking. His bio of BY will likely be superceded in the next five years (apparently four different historians are working on individual biographies).

By: Bret

Bret — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:54:16 +0000

Story of the Latter-day Saints. It’s a little dated now, but I still think it does very well.

By: Chris Henrichsen

Chris Henrichsen — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:53:08 +0000

Question: How does Arrington’s stuff hold up in this context?

By: Chris Henrichsen

Chris Henrichsen — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:49:42 +0000

I cannot speak from the perspective of a historian, but I think that David is right in #15 about why they would use Rough Stone Rolling. I would add that it might also be because of the historical interest in Joseph Smith that might go beyond an interest in Mormonism.

It is a good read, though I cannot compare it to other books mentioned above.

By: Steve Evans

Steve Evans — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:27:09 +0000

Where the Two Steves are gathered, there am I also, glaring at you from a distance, snark at the ready.