Was Mormonism basically the thing the American West had to define itself against?

[Marcus]

Huh?

Ditto. The original point was something like Mormonism was the “other” that served to define American normalcy but now it’s Mormonism changed itself to fit American normalcy.

And this time it's on to "remaining culturally 'other' ", while also now going full circle back to becoming "a symbolic object in other people's stories."

It's not a matter of going deeper, as the OP has stated, it's the fact that the main idea has morphed through so many different and disparate interpretations. Before, can you try restating your thesis?

[Limnor]

Ditto. The original point was something like Mormonism was the “other” that served to define American normalcy but now it’s Mormonism changed itself to fit American normalcy.

Go a little deeper, Limnor. Those are not competing claims. They’re two sides of the same historical process. A group can first be constructed as an “other” against which normalcy is defined, and then later alter itself in response to the pressures created by that boundary.

Ok so how do you think Mormonism fits? Your initial claim seemed a little strong.

[The Before]

And this time it's on to "remaining culturally 'other' ", while also now going full circle back to becoming "a symbolic object in other people's stories."

It's not a matter of going deeper, as the OP has stated, it's the fact that the main idea has morphed through so many different and disparate interpretations. Before, can you try restating your thesis?

It hasn’t morphed. The thesis is still that Mormonism functioned, in certain nineteenth-century American contexts, as a conspicuous example of religious and social “otherness,” and that its later assimilation involved renegotiating some of the very traits that had marked it as such.

“Symbolic object,” “culturally other,” and “assimilation” are not three different theses. They describe different parts of the same process: how a group is represented, how difference is marked, and how that difference is later managed or reduced.

If you think that underlying claim is wrong, that’s the interesting disagreement. But treating every refinement of the argument as though it were a new argument is just bad faith.

[Marcus]

And this time it's on to "remaining culturally 'other' ", while also now going full circle back to becoming "a symbolic object in other people's stories."

It's not a matter of going deeper, as the OP has stated, it's the fact that the main idea has morphed through so many different and disparate interpretations. Before, can you try restating your thesis?

It hasn’t morphed. The thesis is still that Mormonism functioned, in certain nineteenth-century American contexts, as a conspicuous example of religious and social “otherness,” and that its later assimilation involved renegotiating some of the very traits that had marked it as such.

“Symbolic object,” “culturally other,” and “assimilation” are not three different theses. They describe different parts of the same process: how a group is represented, how difference is marked, and how that difference is later managed or reduced.

If you think that underlying claim is wrong, that’s the interesting disagreement. But treating every refinement of the argument as though it were a new argument is just bad faith.

No, it's not bad faith. (I would argue that accusing someone of bad faith when they disagree that you are refining an argument is the 'bad faith', but this could go on forever so...) Disagreeing that you are refining your argument is simply an opinion that your subsequent posts are changing the argument.

But, I'm willing to take your thesis at face value, as stated in this latest post:

...The thesis is still that Mormonism functioned, in certain nineteenth-century American contexts, as a conspicuous example of religious and social “otherness,” and that its later assimilation involved renegotiating some of the very traits that had marked it as such...

My response remains the same, i disagree with how you are characterizing the situation, but maybe it will be clearer if you could clarify a few things about your starting assumptions:

1. why do you think it functioned "as a conspicuous example of religious and social 'otherness' " ? Mormons, Quakers, Shakers and various other protestant and methodist type groups were not only pretty similar from the outside, they were all over the place in the 1890s, so what was conspicuous? Criminal behavior stands out, again, as a small and isolated example.

2. My understanding was that its isolation in the West meant it could grow for quite some time without any fear of assimilation, so what do you mean by "later assimilation"? How and when and by what/whom was the Mormon religion assimilated?

So you'll know where i'm coming from, I disagree that the Mormon religion functioned in this way relative to the American West, either lived or when written about.

[The Before]

OK Marcus. I took your snark on another thread to mean that you were bringing it here.

I think we’re disagreeing less about vocabulary now and more about the historical scale of Mormon distinctiveness.

On the first point, I don’t think nineteenth-century Mormonism was perceived as just another Protestant sect. Once plural marriage was publicly announced in 1852, Mormonism became a national political and cultural “question.” There were sustained campaigns by Mormon critics in novels, newspapers, speeches, political literature, and federal law. Congress passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, the Edmunds Act, and the Edmunds-Tucker Act; the Supreme Court took up the limits of religious practice in Reynolds; and Utah’s admission as a state was explicitly conditioned on the prohibition of polygamy.

And it wasn’t only “criminal behavior.” Mormon criticism repeatedly linked plural marriage to broader claims about the Mormon household, republican government, citizenship, church authority, immigration, and what critics called “polygamic theocracy.” Historians have shown that Mormon-critical writing used Mormonism to talk about the American home, consent, gender, race, and the boundary between legitimate religion and conduct the state could suppress.

On assimilation, I don’t mean that Utah’s geographical isolation somehow prevented Mormonism from developing independently and then suddenly America swallowed it whole. I mean the long accommodation beginning especially around 1890: the Manifesto, the abandonment of institutional plural marriage, Utah statehood, increasing participation in national party politics and institutions, and the gradual repositioning of Mormonism as compatible with American civic life. Even that transition was incomplete enough that the Senate spent years investigating whether Apostle Reed Smoot could properly sit as a U.S. senator.

So my claim is not that every rancher in Wyoming was defining himself against Mormons. It is that Mormonism became one unusually visible boundary case in national arguments about marriage, religion, citizenship and republican government, and then underwent a substantial process of accommodation to those norms.

It hasn’t morphed. The thesis is still that Mormonism functioned, in certain nineteenth-century American contexts, as a conspicuous example of religious and social “otherness,” and that its later assimilation involved renegotiating some of the very traits that had marked it as such.

“Symbolic object,” “culturally other,” and “assimilation” are not three different theses. They describe different parts of the same process: how a group is represented, how difference is marked, and how that difference is later managed or reduced.

If you think that underlying claim is wrong, that’s the interesting disagreement. But treating every refinement of the argument as though it were a new argument is just bad faith.

No, it's not bad faith. (I would argue that accusing someone of bad faith when they disagree that you are refining an argument is the 'bad faith', but this could go on forever so...) Disagreeing that you are refining your argument is simply an opinion that your subsequent posts are changing the argument.

But, I'm willing to take your thesis at face value, as stated in this latest post:

...The thesis is still that Mormonism functioned, in certain nineteenth-century American contexts, as a conspicuous example of religious and social “otherness,” and that its later assimilation involved renegotiating some of the very traits that had marked it as such...

My response remains the same, i disagree with how you are characterizing the situation, but maybe it will be clearer if you could clarify a few things about your starting assumptions:

1. why do you think it functioned "as a conspicuous example of religious and social 'otherness' " ? Mormons, Quakers, Shakers and various other protestant and methodist type groups were not only pretty similar from the outside, they were all over the place in the 1890s, so what was conspicuous? Criminal behavior stands out, again, as a small and isolated example.

2. My understanding was that its isolation in the West meant it could grow for quite some time without any fear of assimilation, so what do you mean by "later assimilation"? How and when and by what/whom was the Mormon religion assimilated?

So you'll know where i'm coming from, I disagree that the Mormon religion functioned in this way relative to the American West, either lived or when written about.

[Limnor]

So my claim is not that every rancher in Wyoming was defining himself against Mormons. It is that Mormonism became one unusually visible boundary case in national arguments about marriage, religion, citizenship and republican government, and then underwent a substantial process of accommodation to those norms.

Ok, but so what? How did Mormonism create or define “American normalcy”? “Polygamy bad” doesn’t mean Mormonism produced one man/one wife “normalcy” any more than German immigrants created norms.

[Marcus]

OK Marcus. I took your snark on another thread to mean that you were bringing it here.

And what does your snark on other threads mean?

[The Before]

Ok, but so what? How did Mormonism create or define “American normalcy”? “Polygamy bad” doesn’t mean Mormonism produced one man/one wife “normalcy” any more than German immigrants created norms.

The “so what” is that this tells us something about how normalcy works. Norms often become most visible when someone violates them. Mormonism did not invent monogamy, religious individualism, or American civic norms, but the conflict over Mormonism helped force Americans to say more clearly where they thought the boundaries were. This is important to scholars of the American west.

[Limnor]

Ok, but so what? How did Mormonism create or define “American normalcy”? “Polygamy bad” doesn’t mean Mormonism produced one man/one wife “normalcy” any more than German immigrants created norms.

The “so what” is that this tells us something about how normalcy works. Norms often become most visible when someone violates them. Mormonism did not invent monogamy, religious individualism, or American civic norms, but the conflict over Mormonism helped force Americans to say more clearly where they thought the boundaries were. This is important to scholars of the American west.

I see. So after all that, the scholarly insight is essentially “people notice rules more when somebody breaks them.”?
That’s not a particularly stunning insight.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

The “so what” is that this tells us something about how normalcy works. Norms often become most visible when someone violates them. Mormonism did not invent monogamy, religious individualism, or American civic norms, but the conflict over Mormonism helped force Americans to say more clearly where they thought the boundaries were. This is important to scholars of the American west.

I see. So after all that, the scholarly insight is essentially “people notice rules more when somebody breaks them.”?

That’s not a particularly stunning insight.

I want my money back…