Comments on: Revisiting: Mormonism in Transition: a history of the Latter-day Saints, 1890-1930

By: Juvenile Instructor » Q&A with Stephen C. Taysom, author of Shakers, Mormons and Religious Worlds: conflicting visions, contested boundaries (part II)

Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:51:14 +0000

[...] argument. One thing we’ve talked about a bit on this blog is the issue of periodization (here and here). It’s been common for most scholars, following Jan Shipps, to break Mormon history [...]

By: Juvenile Instructor » Book Review: The Madonna of 115th Street: Faith and Community in Italian Harlem, 1880-1950

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:05:58 +0000

[...] at various times and in various places, might be fruitful. Matt and I discussed this a bit in our “revisiting” review of Tom Alexander’s Mormonism in Transition, noting that a better understanding of the everyday religious lives of [...]

By: New Mormon Books » Blog Archive » A Look Back At: Mormonism in Transition

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:12:10 +0000

[...] Revisiting: Mormonism in Transition: a history of the Latter-day Saints, 1890-1930 By: matt b. Juvenile Instructor, June 18, 2009 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/revisiting-mormonism-in-transition-a-history-of-the-latter-day-sai... [...]

By: Dane

Dane — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:04:37 +0000

One quick question for Matt. Your phrase “the cultural notion of respectability” sounds technical, but I’m not familiar with it. What does “respectability” mean here?

By: Jared T

Jared T — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 05:32:15 +0000

Great post Matt and Chris. I agree with your assessments and I’m excited for further work on the periphery of Mormonism and studies closer to the grassroots that will nuance our understanding of Mormon history and its organization.

By: matt b

matt b — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 05:15:20 +0000

Thanks, all –

Amanda – I think Taysom offers some useful ways to think about this, as does David. The narrative of ‘transition’ seems primarily about institutional change and its ramifications. I suspect that if we overlay other narratives onto Mormon history – for instance, racial ones – a new story might complicate things.

By: SC Taysom

SC Taysom — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 04:11:21 +0000

Every effort to periodize will be imperfect, if for no other reason than that the creation of “history” from the raw materials of the past is, at its most basic level, an imposition of intellectual and narrative structure on an essentially structureless mass. I am resistant to the quasi-positivist approach that argues that, somewhere, the correct schema exists (no one here is arguing this, I don’t believe). Mixing and matching different organizational schemas is helpful though. I think it is useful, for example, to acknowledge that a thematic approach to taxonomy yields a cyclical, rather than a linear, pattern. Emphasis on the Word of Wisdom, the School of the Prophets, the Relief Society, the frequency of second anointings–all of these came and went and came again during the 19th century in ways that both cut across traditional chronological periodization and point up the fluidity within each traditionally-defined period.

By: Sterling Fluharty

Sterling Fluharty — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:15:42 +0000

Proposed periodization for Mormon History:

Joseph Smith (1820-1847)
Territorial (1847-1890)
Transition (1890-1945)
Global (1945-2009)

Traditional periodization for 19th- and 20th-century U.S. History:

Expansion and Reform (1801-1861)
Civil War and Reconstruction (1850-1877)
The Development of the Industrial United States (1870-1900)
The Emergence of Modern America (1890-1930)
The Great Depression and World War II (1929-1945)
Postwar United States (1945 to early 1970s)
Contemporary United States (1968 to the present)

It is worth noting that two-thirds of the chapters (1 through 14 out of 21) in the revised edition of The Story of the Latter-day Saints deal with only the first half of Mormon history up to that point in time (1820-1907 out of 1820-1992).

Maybe we need think more carefully about the periodization of Mormon history in the twentieth century. This might help explain why that century has suffered from relative neglect in Mormon historical scholarship.

By: Joe Geisner

Joe Geisner — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:36:30 +0000

Thanks Matt. I appreciate Christopher and your willingness to discuss this important book. I agree with your two points.

I find it interesting to see how a book came about. I think it allows us to think critically about the work. The genesis for the sixteen volume history began in 1965 at a meeting with a who’s who of Mormon historians at the time. By 1979 Alexander had turned in his manuscript along with four other authors. In 1977 Arrington held a Symposium at BYU and it is the only place I know that each of the authors gave reasons for writing their particular volumes. Alexander gives a good summary as to why he wrote what he did. I would suggest reading the entire symposium transcript to anyone interested in the vision of Arrington and the authors who wrote for the historical department.

By: Amanda H.

Amanda H. — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:20:30 +0000

Wow… sorry for the typos… I thought I had proofread until I posted it and noticed there were so many (Blushes in embarrassment) typos.

It should be “What are the possible alternatives to the type of periodization offered by Mormonism in Transition?”

And “Christopher suggests that one thing”