DCP Compares Modern "Dislike" of Mormons to Jews Under Nazism

[Lem]

my point was only that stating that only jack Mormons chasing an allegiance to non-religious institutions are bothered by racism seemed extreme. If we are talking about the people publicly performing these moral positions, then yes, I would agree that Pharisees throwing open their windows to pray should be taken with a grain of salt. Your recent channeling of Peterson is an excellent example; he has the humble brag honed to a white hot diamond point.

Maybe it is just wishful thinking, but I would hope that some Mormons, even those not chasing institutional alliance, would be abhorred by such casual racism.

If we are limiting ourselves to individual acts like the one you describe, it's probably a safe assumption that most white Mormons would find it abhorrent. My original point is about the instances of institutional racism in the Church, like the priesthood ban. Whether or not liberal Mormons who profess to be troubled by it are sincere (I'll just assume they are), the fact that they say they are troubled already suggests they are operating in a different thought-world. In light of my time in the Church, I just don't think most faithful members, in their tithe-paying and temple-going thought-world, could conceive of the Church as having been racist, even if they could accept that some individual was. They treat the Church and its leaders as morally infallible, but even if it wrong, you shouldn't acknowledge it or dwell on it—shouldn't find it "troubling"—because the Lord will never lead the Church astray, to this line of thinking.

Ah yes, that clarifies your point for me quite a bit, thank you. I do see that Orwellian style thinking in my limited interactions with Mormons I am related to (e.g. if someone thinks Mormon leaders are wrong then they must be wrong because Mormon leaders are never wrong, of course), so it stands to reason that being troubled by racism would be soothed by leaders who say things like 'it's not racist to note that black skins are cursed, because black skin is only a SIGN of the curse, etc.

You being male (I assume!), count yourself lucky that you didn't get the women's corollary to that illogical position:
"Don't worry your pretty little head about it."

[Kishkumen]

I am not sure that I have claimed that Mormons are mainstream (postponing what that means for another time); I certainly didn't mean to. I think the issue for me is the extent to which their minority status is a function of white racism. I see no evidence that it is, despite a baby's-handful of examples of the rhetoric of race used against Mormons that I can find in Reeve.

Hmmm. Yes, put that way, I can perhaps see why you justifiably object. You want to separate out where I tend to lump. I don't know that the marginalization of Mormons is simply a function of white racism. I doubt it is. If I viewed it being as clear cut as this, I would be inclined to agree with you unreservedly. Instead I look at these various things as strategies for establishing hierarchies of privilege within a society. The extent to which groups are in various ways placed at the center versus at the periphery will define their status and determine their power.

Dr. Peterson goes to the extreme I think in equating anti-Mormonism and anti-Semitism. I don't think this is justified. On the other hand, I see how he gets there, and that road is paved with these rhetorical and social strategies of marginalization which make use of anti-Semitic and racist tropes.

I'm not sure I can go on board with the "and yet" clause: Mormons weren't enslaved or murdered en masse, and yet they were rhetorically attacked? I think the "twin relics" discourse is an example of what I mean about how we can over-read this rhetoric and make connections that might not have been there. I think it is important to separate the intentions behind the rhetoric from later perceptions of it by its targets, as you reminded me. I quote the fuller text of the resolution found in the the 1856 Republican platform where this phrase occurs:

That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism--Polygamy, and Slavery.

It seems plain to me that this isn't about othering Mormons as a group for their deviancy from the Protestantism of the white ruling class but about asserting federal sovereignty by targeting those practices around which the counter-sovereignties of the Utah Territory and the South were defined. I note also that the resolution before this one announces the party's rejection of new slave states (thus expanding southern political power) but does not call for the abolition of existing legal slavery. Moreover, the resolution after the "twin relics of barbarism" deals with Kansas, interpreting the situation there as one where federal sovereignty had been violated by aggressive sympathizers of slave holders. The over all sense from this document, in sum, is not one of otherizing groups for the purpose of excluding them from American life but rather a feeling that the south's political strategy was leading to a breakdown of the entire federal system, with concomitant lawlessness and violence. What the platform calls for is an aggressive response to what it perceives as lawlessness created by people for whom slave-holding as a concept had risen to the level of an ideology of its own. Mormons were connected with that because they appeared to be doing the something similar—Brigham Young was preaching blood atonement in 1856—and polygamy had always been at the level of ideology for them.

And besides, it's not like Mormons were the only group that had marriage and sexual practices at odds with the prevailing cultural ethos. Lots of groups deviated from the Protestantism of the time in ways not unlike the Mormons, but none of them attempted to control nearly a 1/4 of what was eventually to become the continental United States. Polygamy was in part a symbol of the lawlessness (as it was perceived) of the territory controlled by the Church (that's why it's put right up there with Kansas in the 1856 platform). And then I see another problem with interpreting the attack on the Church as a corrective punishment for deviation from the WASPish culture: it seems that once the Church submitted and gave up its grandiose claim—that is, once the sovereignty question was settled—Mormons were in no way excluded from that power structure, and I gave examples of that in my previous post. So, to read the rhetoric of "twin relics" as a way to otherize Mormons as a group in need of punishment for deviating from Protestant norms seems to misread what was happening and to mischaracterize what most non-Mormons would have thought.

So much for the intention behind the rhetoric, which I just don't see as attempting to deny "whiteness" to Mormons. If anything, it is actually making them more "white" but lumping them in with slaveholders. The Mormon perception, on the other hand...

Here I see more of the same. You are separating out words like "relics" and "barbarism" from the power move of declaring "a duty to prohibit," as though value-laden and loaded language like this did not go hand in hand with the exercise of power. In a white-supremacist world, non-white peoples are seen as more primitive, their forms of civilization and their very natures less advanced. I would characterize as the most deeply racist perspective the one that seeks to stamp out any characteristics that do not comport with the vision of white that is progressive and far removed from association with "benighted" peoples. How do you justify seizing all of that territory? Call its possessors barbarous.

Slaveholders are seen by some northeastern whites to be ironically less white because of their propinquity to their black slaves, and their tendency to mix with their slaves. The safest thing to do, according to this mindset, to retain the right identity, privilege, and power is to banish or otherwise destroy those who threaten you and frustrate your unfettered exercise of power. I agree that ending polygamy and slavery makes Mormons and slaveholders more white in the eyes of those who wrote the platform, and you have perhaps inadvertently conceded the point.

I think there is something morally suspect or (at best) tone-deaf for any Mormon to see their group, such as it as, as a co-victim of WASP racism. I suspect you would agree at least in part. Yet it is not merely inaccurate about the past but is also opportunistic to instrumentalize a discourse that arose to conceptualize the genuine human catastrophe that was American slavery as a way of explaining Mormon peoplehood and even Mormon theology. From what I gather, Reeve's book does that, because for him, it was the response to this "racializing otherness" that led Mormons to "reclaim whiteness" by becoming more racist themselves. I think that is ludicrous, given that Mormon racism is written into their scriptures and in fact pre-exists any kind of Mormon people. And yes, while not theologically mainstream, Mormons were always part of white American society and accepted and promulgated the same racial hierarchy that other whites did (perhaps that's why it's in the scriptures in the first place). Mormons were already white in that sense, and already racist. From what I can gather in the preview pages and from reviews, Reeve is a great over-reader of evidence, but the greatest evidence ignored by his argument is plain to read in the Book of Mormon, where racism is at the narrative and theological heart—skin color as a curse or a blessing, a sign of god's favor or disfavor. The Book of Mormon existed before there were any "Mormons" at all, so it's hard to see how the as yet non-existent Mormons of the late 1820s were trying to reclaim a whiteness that hadn't yet been denied them.

Oh, yes. Most of this I agree with. I don't like the idea of stressing or instrumentalizing these old strategies of marginalization to lay claim spuriously to a sort of brotherhood in suffering with Blacks and Jews. It is kind of grotesque, really. If anything, awareness of this past and these strategies should make Mormons more circumspect and aware in a lively way to the irony of their own position. Mormonism is at its roots strongly white supremacist, and yet the joke on Mormons is, in my opinion, that white supremacist strategies have been used against them (albeit not in a way or to an extant that would justify the kind of maneuvers you find troubling). I view Mormonism at the beginning as being optimistically white supremacist in the sense that whiteness was viewed as the ideal but it was also a status others could aspire to and obtain. This is not something I find laudable; it's just another flavor of white supremacism. That said, it was also a position that made Mormons more vulnerable to harder white supremacists who refused the possibility of extending white status to others. Over time, Mormons increasingly shifted toward the latter variety of white supremacism. I don't think they ever fully arrived there, however, and that is one of the reasons why it is easier for them to be pro-immigration, for example.

I think it is also part of the ongoing and still unsuccessful attempt to construct a Mormon ethnicity by nostalgic ex-, post-, and liberal Mormons, but that is probably for another discussion.

Yes. Whatever attempt there was, it was doomed to fail and it has. Still, a non-ethnic Mormon identity is not negligible. I claim it.

I have had similar experiences, growing up partly in Utah but partly outside, as well as in my professional life in academia (but not outside of academia). I don't deny that there is a real prejudice against Mormons, especially by people that are by ordinary standards in this and any other country elite (professionals, academics, etc.). I just don't think that prejudice descends from white racism or is a species of it, and at the end of it all, it probably doesn't matter what it's genealogy is. I am sure you are aware that evangelical and orthodox Jews and seriously devout Muslims face similar prejudices in academia. I think there is a pattern here. In any case, what you say hardly surprises me.

I guess I am still trying to figure it out. I thought it was just about being "anti-religion," but then so many of the people who have joined in the marginalization of Mormons are, in fact, religious in that they belong and participate in older mainstream groups. Perhaps it is groups they see as fundamentalist or cultish they look down on? I don't know that I would say that prejudice against Jews and Muslims in academia is *not* racist. There is definitely a strong bias in favor of secularism. I agree that it is complicated, and I am sure I have oversimplified things.

I know that's a traditional view that looks just too obvious on the surface, but it depends on who one thinks the inheritors of the "P" in WASP really are. I prefer to focus on who has inherited the WASPy institutions. In the 19th century, If we look at all the traditional WASP cultural institutions—higher education, mass media, the mainline Protestant churches—you find the same groups today are as hostile to Mormons as they ever were, even if the theological claims maintained in those institutions are different. For example, it is not uncommon to see a baptist church in New England with a pride flag, and you would certainly hear plenty of "anti-Mormonism" from parishioners at places like that—usually white and upper middle class people—back in 2012 because for these progressives, Mormons are homohobic, sexist, racist, etc. etc. It is therefore completely acceptable to bash Mormons, because they deviate from the acceptable "Protestantism" espoused by the institution (and I'm hardly the first person since Woodrow Wilson to see progressive politics as a form of civic Protestantism). Baptists in the south, split along those congregational lines for exactly the reason you mentioned, will bash Mormons for a different reason but one that is more obviously theological (the Mormon heresy from the trinity, and much else, for example). However, the Baptist in the south doesn't have a kid who is interning at the World Bank in DC or at NBC in New York, whereas the middle-aged upper-middle-class white lady in Glastonbury, Connecticut who underpays the Guatemalans mowing the lawn beneath her "Black Lives Matter" lawn sign, does have a kid or two in institutions like that or is connected to them herself or through her spouse (and by the way, my impression is that even a lot of the evangelical institutions and big churches are becoming more "woke" and are not as Trumpy as you suggest, but I await correction by the expertise of MS Jack on this). The dominant cultural agenda is still set by the same WASP-y institutions, but the agenda they envision for everyone is just different from what it used to be. And Mormons are outside of that agenda (partly for their views on marriage, again). Same old WASPs, just different surface Protestantism.

I tend to be somewhat suspicious of how deep the commitment to anti-racism among WASPy folk actually is. Of course, if they are not, then we can ask who actually is, among groups of any large size.

In short, I find myself agreeing with your general point, but I think the role traditionally played by Protestantism is now played by another kind of civic religion, which is quite is developing in its theology, but in its forms it enacts many of the rituals and goals of the old American Puritanism—as ever, tormented by a sense of in-born sin that can't be remitted but must endlessly be publicly acknowledged, insistent on the necessity of public shame as a symbol of expiation, devoted to the pursuit of political power and a monoculture from which only heretics deviate—and they should be subject to correction for doing so. It is only too natural to be suspicious of Mormons for their deviation from the social norms set by the old WASP-y institutions (no matter how diverse they try to be at the moment) and there are no social taboos, as a result, against treating Mormons in a prejudiced way. Mormons face none of the expiative situations of other minority groups; for in attempting to alleviate those situations, the secular Puritans in the WASP institutions attain a sense of having won redemptive grace. As a matter of fact, attacking groups like Mormons is a very useful way to show that you are (or should be) one of the elect.

I suppose what I was assuming but failed to articulate is that the civic religion *is* very WASPy in exactly the way you suggest. I tend to skip over important aspects of my argument because I have internalized them to the point that I forget to articulate them. As so often, I am refreshed by reading your criticisms, refinements, and learned commentary on my thoughts. Thank you for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully.

[Symmachus]

You want to separate out where I tend to lump.

This I wholeheartedly admit, at least as a final step in any analysis. I am definitely a splitter! I think that, if you want to understand the nature of thing B, one first examines its similarities to a given A, but then the differences between A and B are paramount. It is the differences in light of similarities that tell you the nature of a thing. In my view anyway. For example:

Dr. Peterson goes to the extreme I think in equating anti-Mormonism and anti-Semitism. I don't think this is justified. On the other hand, I see how he gets there, and that road is paved with these rhetorical and social strategies of marginalization which make use of anti-Semitic and racist tropes.

I see that too, it's just that that second step that proves to be a stumbling block: there are similarities, but the differences are the key definers (to "define" is to set the limit between A and not-A, after all ). That's a typical intellectual fault of the apologists, ever on the hunt for similarities and completely oblivious to the differences, though it's an understandable fault because linking up phenomena that are like each other is the first and most natural way that we construct the world.

Here I see more of the same. You are separating out words like "relics" and "barbarism" from the power move of declaring "a duty to prohibit," as though value-laded and loaded language like this did not go hand in hand with the exercise of power. In a white-supremacist world, non-white peoples are seen as more primitive, their forms of civilization and their very natures less advanced. I would characterize as the most deeply racist perspective the one that seeks to stamp out any characteristics that do not comport with the vision of white that is progressive and far removed from association with "benighted" peoples. How do you justify seizing all of that territory? Call its possessors barbarous.

I can only beg your patience here, but I am not sure I fully I understand what you mean in two respects. First, I thought rather that I was trying to explore what the actual power move behind the language was—reasserting sovereignty—by tethering the rhetoric to the material issue. I certainly can see how, divorced from context, one could interpret "twin relics of barbarism" as these mean Republicans calling Mormons barbarians as a prelude to exploitation. That is just not what was happening, though. Second, I am confused by the reference to "seizing all that territory" and "exploitation." The 1856 platform wasn't about seizing territory, which in any case had already belonged to the US government for nearly a decade. The problem was that the Mormons were setting up an extra-legal government within the territory, as you know. This was essentially a question of public law, albeit one of extraordinary gravity, not only in terms of its relation to the slavery issue but in terms of relations with native peoples, access to mineral deposits and other economic resources, land access to California (already a US state then), international relations (especially with Mexico), etc. Federal officials had been appointed to the Utah territory in 1851 but were completely ignored and were essentially chased out by the Church and Brigham Young in a public and threatening way; the federal government had absolutely no control over its own territory, which, as "bleeding Kansas" showed, was not exactly conducive to the peace and good order of the country. One could go on and on, but it just seems to me that the central issue and the goal of the power move here was not about exploiting Mormons or taking their lands (which they technically had no right to in the first place). So, while I agree that the scheme you set up often holds good—group A otherizes group B as a justification for stealing their stuff—I just think one shouldn't be lead by the rhetoric to conclude that that what was happening here, not only in this case but in practically all the relations between the Mormons and US government in the 19th century. If the platform had referred to the "twain bulwarks of rheumatism" rather than the "twin relics of barbarism" or even if it used no particular phrase at all and had just said "polygamy and slavery," the changed rhetoric wouldn't have affected the understanding of the problem or the outcome in the least. Rhetoric is secondary. No one in the federal government was going to allow things to continue that way if they could do anything about it: if you were someone who already believed in the supremacy of the national government, would it have made a difference what adjective you attached to polygamy and slavery?

I feel like giving such a central place to rhetoric is a very commentariat-way of reading people (e.g. highly educated political commentators and especially the policy wonks who think all you need to do is change the rhetoric in order to change minds vs. the politicians who win votes by discovering that it is much easier to change policies than to change minds). I would say that as general principle it's better not to put the rhetorical cart before the material horse. At the same time, I'm aware that, as someone who sees that rhetoric reflects preexisting attitudes and impulses but finds very little material evidence that it shapes those impulses or creates new ones in any predictable or reliable way, I'm in a minority.

Slaveholders are seen by some northeastern whites to be ironically less white because of their propinquity to their black slaves, and their tendency to mix with their slaves. The safest thing to do, according to this mindset, to retain the right identity, privilege, and power is to banish or otherwise destroy those who threaten you and frustrate your unfettered exercise of power. I agree that ending polygamy and slavery makes Mormons and slaveholders more white in the eyes of those who wrote the platform, and you have perhaps inadvertently conceded the point.

Well there I must disagree! No, I'm not conceding the point but attempting to show that the logic of Reeve's argument appears to be contradictory in this case.

I suppose what I was assuming but failed to articulate is that the civic religion *is* very WASPy in exactly the way you suggest. I tend to skip over important aspects of my argument because I have internalized them to the point that I forget to articulate them.

I thought you meant the traditional Protestant denominations, which just seemed odd to me and resulted in my long response, but this makes more sense. I should have simply asked what you meant and saved myself and you (as well as any unfortunate to read this) some words.

[Kishkumen]

Greetings, dear consul!

Yes, “seize the land” was just plain wrong. I should have said “seize control of,” but honestly that was a neuro-misfire on my part. Pretty embarrassing.

We clearly have much different views about rhetoric. I get the feeling from these posts that you seem to lean toward seeing it as arbitrary and negligible whereas I find it contingent and yet important for assessing meaning, motivation, and even causality in history.

We have had different versions of the argument before, but the beauty of it is that it never grows old when you write so persuasively, elegantly, and learnedly.

Thank you.

[Philo Sofee]

I actually think Dr. Peterson would do much better if he compared the Mormons to the Jews as allies in Israel through having revelations from Deity together in order to enhance and project forward the restoration of all Israel. With the publication of the Zohar now in this new millenium, and several other Jewish authors bringing out a wealth of materials which help us all grasp the new light Judah has given, I am rather surprised on one take that Peterson and Mormons are not tripping all over themselves to align them with that property, that of progressing the work forward as allies, rather than a persecuted minority.

If Mormonism had only a mere half of a clue, this coming up General Conference of the church, they would begin talking about the Zohar and what a magnificent thing of how God is continually enlightening all the world through Israel, this time from our Brothers in Judah. If Mormonism was only half enlightened instead of half baked, they would provide discussion and share ideas from the Zohar and describe how Israel on the other side of the world is continuing to increase and grow in goodness, greatness, and preparation, and giving wealth of knowledge to the world. Instead, we won't hear one blinkering thing about the singular most magnificent publishing event in this new Millenium, let alone publishing of a most singularly significant and powerful, wonderful scripture. Mormonism, unfortunately still remains oblivious to a whole pattern, vainly imagining they are the entire reason for reality, ignoring Judah, yet some more.

I suspect part of the problem from within Mormonism is the naïve acceptance and belief that only Mormons in Israel are allowed to have actual revelations and new scriptures while all the rest of Israel is supposed to toe the line, accept only what Mormons in Israel says, and believe God is only working through that branch of priesthood. Mormons have so mesmerized themselves with the false narrative of apostasy of all others except themselves that they have blinded themselves to the fact that Judah (ETERNALLY the Covenant people) is having enormous and enormously significant revelations and scriptures right now, this very day, and they are publishing them for the world. If Mormons could cleanse the lens of their perception it could be a fantastic partnership for them along those lines, rather than a past issue of persecution which comes across as whining.

The problem appears to me to be one of pure bull headedness with all parties in Israel, Jews and Mormons. Everyone thinks they alone are the key to it all, and only their view counts, while all others ought to bend the knee to them, forgetting that it is their maker and Creator they all ought to collectively be bending knee to and working together to bring about HIS and HER purposes.

In the meantime, Deity keeps on chuggin, and bouncing, apparently, back and froth from one side to the other, first Joseph, now Judah, then Joseph, etc. The Spirit bloweth where it will, not where Mormonism dictates it. It will be interesting if either side finally catches on as to just what the hell is going on. It's a rather interesting phenomena to witness really, the amazing breadth, depth, and heights of the new scriptures appearing, yet the utterly inane, shortsighted outlook of a total picture which both sides continue to incorrectly operate under and with.

[Kishkumen]

I hear you, Philo. It would be lovely if the LDS Church were open to that kind of wide conception of truth.

[Philo Sofee]

I hear you, Philo. It would be lovely if the LDS Church were open to that kind of wide conception of truth.

It would make agreeable scholarship of comparison and fortifying of ideas across cultural lines and various scriptures instead of warring apologetics of attempting to prove one is right, the other is wrong. The church could continue going through the scholarly route with an inclusivity instead of the brutal name calling of apologetics and proving one is superior to his other. Gathering together instead of cutting apart I would imagine or at least think is exactly what Mormonism is desperately seeking an answer to. Well, accepting the rest of Israel's revelations would be a splendid start on my take of it.

[Symmachus]

We clearly have much different views about rhetoric. I get the feeling from these posts that you seem to lean toward seeing it as arbitrary and negligible whereas I find it contingent and yet important for assessing meaning, motivation, and even causality in history.

Symmachus multo humillior Kishkumeni eminentissimo salutem plurimam dicit.

I wonder how different our views really are; I wouldn't want to derail this thread, but I would reply only that it is only the last item in your list that I have hesitation about: causality. The core methodological problem I have with the argument advanced by Reeve and others like it is the over-reliance on rhetoric as an agent of historical change—in my observation, an all too common vice in the humanities and increasingly in the social sciences. Rhetoric is a secondary reflection of something else, not a primary mover. Another way of putting this is that, rhetoric is persuasive on an audience when that audience is open to being persuaded in the first place; so, as an object of historical analysis, rhetoric is useful only insofar as it can be used to determine something about the audience (which I think we both agree on). The hallmark of any successful rhetoric is not some internal feature (which, though increasingly common, is really a pre-Aristotelian, almost magical way of thinking about rhetoric); it is the articulation and clarification of an inchoate and often subconscious aggregate of ideas, associations, and motivations that already exist but have not found a common form. It is the job of the rhetorician to discover that form (which was Aristotle's great insight). As a causal phenomenon, I would say that it is the underlying aggregate that are the causal forces behind social change; the rhetoric is the instrument of their articulation. Dealing priority to the rhetoric implicitly the elevates the rhetor as a causal force, and it seems to me not substantially different as a causal explanation for the "great man" theory.

I don't think it is negligible or arbitrary at all, though, and I think it is useful for exactly the reasons you list: assessing meaning and motivation, which are not causal in themselves. I see the rhetoric as one clue to the causal forces but certainly not as a causal force itself. If X is not ready to receive a message, it doesn't matter what Y's message is or what ideas it contains or what its genealogy is. We can say something about Y's motives, maybe. But how we can determine if X's actions are related to the message in a causal way? I think it is just as you say—it is contingent—but the question is: contingent on what? Even to answer questions of meaning and motivation behind rhetoric, that rhetoric has to be tethered to some material situation. That should be the control on any causal interpretation of rhetoric. In this case and others involving Mormons in the 19th century, the sovereignty crisis proceeded the rhetoric of barbarism. Revulsion at the perceived barbarism of polygamy wasn't the cause; in other words, I don't think the general thinking was, "You know, I'm would be totally fine with the state of Deseret in our territory, except that I think polygamy is immoral. For that reason, I am opposed to Deseret." I think it was the other way around, and that is the point of my cart-and-horse reference.

I can certainly appreciate that Mormons have not have seen it that way. But I don't find the arguments of Reeve persuasive nor the evidence sufficient to show that Mormons experienced this as a racial or cultural othering.

[Kishkumen]

It would make agreeable scholarship of comparison and fortifying of ideas across cultural lines and various scriptures instead of warring apologetics of attempting to prove one is right, the other is wrong. The church could continue going through the scholarly route with an inclusivity instead of the brutal name calling of apologetics and proving one is superior to his other. Gathering together instead of cutting apart I would imagine or at least think is exactly what Mormonism is desperately seeking an answer to. Well, accepting the rest of Israel's revelations would be a splendid start on my take of it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Philo. It is more than regrettable that clubs find it necessary to emphasize their own unique coolness and disparage other clubs as somehow deficient. I view Christianity and Mormonism to be Gentile Judaisms, at least when I think about the relationship. I would never say this to a Jewish friend who does not want to acknowledge such a connection. As such, these movements would do well to maintain a respectful and intellectually serious engagement with their spiritual cousins. All people of the Book, so to speak, are spiritual cousins, and could learn much from the greatest minds and mystics of each of the movements. The great minds of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity have much to offer to all, and Mormons would do well to study their works closely and reverently.

[Kishkumen]

I wonder how different our views really are; I wouldn't want to derail this thread, but I would reply only that it is only the last item in your list that I have hesitation about: causality. The core methodological problem I have with the argument advanced by Reeve and others like it is the over-reliance on rhetoric as an agent of historical change—in my observation, an all too common vice in the humanities and increasingly in the social sciences. Rhetoric is a secondary reflection of something else, not a primary mover. Another way of putting this is that, rhetoric is persuasive on an audience when that audience is open to being persuaded in the first place; so, as an object of historical analysis, rhetoric is useful only insofar as it can be used to determine something about the audience (which I think we both agree on). The hallmark of any successful rhetoric is not some internal feature (which, though increasingly common, is really a pre-Aristotelian, almost magical way of thinking about rhetoric); it is the articulation and clarification of an inchoate and often subconscious aggregate of ideas, associations, and motivations that already exist but have not found a common form. It is the job of the rhetorician to discover that form (which was Aristotle's great insight). As a causal phenomenon, I would say that it is the underlying aggregate that are the causal forces behind social change; the rhetoric is the instrument of their articulation. Dealing priority to the rhetoric implicitly the elevates the rhetor as a causal force, and it seems to me not substantially different as a causal explanation for the "great man" theory.

I don't think it is negligible or arbitrary at all, though, and I think it is useful for exactly the reasons you list: assessing meaning and motivation, which are not causal in themselves. I see the rhetoric as one clue to the causal forces but certainly not as a causal force itself. If X is not ready to receive a message, it doesn't matter what Y's message is or what ideas it contains or what its genealogy is. We can say something about Y's motives, maybe. But how we can determine if X's actions are related to the message in a causal way? I think it is just as you say—it is contingent—but the question is: contingent on what? Even to answer questions of meaning and motivation behind rhetoric, that rhetoric has to be tethered to some material situation. That should be the control on any causal interpretation of rhetoric. In this case and others involving Mormons in the 19th century, the sovereignty crisis proceeded the rhetoric of barbarism. Revulsion at the perceived barbarism of polygamy wasn't the cause; in other words, I don't think the general thinking was, "You know, I'm would be totally fine with the state of Deseret in our territory, except that I think polygamy is immoral. For that reason, I am opposed to Deseret." I think it was the other way around, and that is the point of my cart-and-horse reference.

I can certainly appreciate that Mormons have not have seen it that way. But I don't find the arguments of Reeve persuasive nor the evidence sufficient to show that Mormons experienced this as a racial or cultural othering.

Excellent thoughts all, and, as you articulate them, I find myself coming very close to agreeing with you in every particular. I find it very difficult to separate those threads of sovereignty and barbarism in the Mormon case. Mormonism was at the outset a challenge in principle to the sovereignty of the state and federal government (see Jesse Smith letter).* It was an experiment of building a kind of self-contained political island within the larger political entities in which it sought to establish itself. At the same time, it was always, to one degree or another, culturally at odds with mainstream society, sometimes to the point of bordering on criminal activity. I would call the confrontation of Mormonism and state authority a miniature clash of civilizations in which the rhetoric and actions of both sides drew them inevitably into conflict.

I particularly like this part of your post:

As a causal phenomenon, I would say that it is the underlying aggregate that are the causal forces behind social change; the rhetoric is the instrument of their articulation. Dealing priority to the rhetoric implicitly the elevates the rhetor as a causal force, and it seems to me not substantially different as a causal explanation for the "great man" theory.

This is where I think we could get into some really fine hairsplitting. Of course rhetoric does not work if it is completely unconnected with the "subconscious aggregate of ideas, associations, and motivations that already exist," but acting on the ability to articulate those things in such a way that one brings about events that might not have otherwise occurred is what I mean by causality. The rhetoric can be that key ingredient in the soup that makes it qualitatively different from what it would have otherwise been.

I admit, as one who spends a lot of time thinking about Roman emperors, that I often court the danger of thinking along the lines of "great man" history, but I like to think that these personalities are as much the product of their environment as they influence that environment. We could get into a chicken-and-egg discussion on these issues and enjoy ourselves very much in the process. I am happy to try to balance these viewpoints when I think of historical causality. Past that I think it becomes philosophical to the point of inhibiting me from saying much of anything more than that philosophical discussion allows. For me that becomes a kind of aporia. A fun discussion, but not one that I think I can move beyond.

*"And this Angel of the Lord . . . has put me in possession of great wealth, gold and silver and precious stones so that I shall have the dominion in all the land of Palmyra." (Jesse Smith, Stockholm, New York, to Hiram Smith, Palmyra, New York, June 17, 1829; transcribed in Joseph Smith Letterbook 2, 59, Joseph Smith Papers, LDS Church Archives)