Comments on: Mormonism in The Western Historical Quarterly, Spring 2009

By: David G.

David G. — Fri, 01 May 2009 16:46:56 +0000

Yeah, good question. Kester could find no evidence that any Mormons saw Native Hawaiians as Lamanites/Lehites at this early date, arguing that that was a 20th century construction. I’ll have to go back back to look at LMK’s argument in her article on Mormon/Protestant missionaries in Hawaii, because I remember her arguing that Mormons had early success because they gave Hawaiians a positive identity.

What Kester does find is that Mormon leaders thought that the Natives were declining because they were adopting foreign vices (from both whites and Chinese immigrants), and that encouraging immigration to the Mormon Corridor would “save” the Natives from an otherwise inevitable disappearance. So there is an interesting Mormon twist there, but not necessarily what we’d expect.

By: Jared T

Jared T — Fri, 01 May 2009 16:04:54 +0000

David, I’m interested in this idea of the decline of the Natives/Hawaiians. Maybe I’m missing something, but as mentioned in my last post, it seemed that the Israelite connection is what gave Thatcher hope for the elevation of Indians in Mexico. Did Uthans think of Hawaiians more as Chinese/Mongoloid than Indian/Israelite and not subject to the redeeming nature of Israelite blood?

By: David G.

David G. — Fri, 01 May 2009 05:12:05 +0000

I read it as meaning someone in the middle of their career, who writes primarily on Mormonism.

By: David G.

David G. — Fri, 01 May 2009 05:11:01 +0000

Agreed Chris, Kester’s research is solid. Unfortunately, as he acknowledges, there are no surviving records from the Native Hawaiians living in Utah themselves, making it impossible to understand how they understood racism and exclusion in Zion, forcing us to rely on white sources to reconstruct their history.

By: Jared T

Jared T — Fri, 01 May 2009 05:10:21 +0000

Thanks for the summaries. Looks like good stuff. Just what exactly is a “mid-career scholar of Mormonism”? Or does it mean just what it says?

By: Christopher

Christopher — Fri, 01 May 2009 04:58:37 +0000

I had only peaked at the table of contents for this issue, so I was aware of Kester’s piece and have it on my list of future reading. But I was unaware that Scharff incorporated Mormonism into her presidential address. Looks like it’s a must-read as well. Thanks for the helpful summary, David.

Kester’s article interests and excites me for many reasons—not only, as you point out, his efforts to transcend the usual white Mormons vs. white non-Mormons binary, but also his examination of an often overlooked group (Hawaiians) and his utilization of whiteness theory. I’m also pleased to hear he’s conducting this research at a church-owned school.