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

[The Before]

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.

If that’s what you got out of it, that’s fine. Anyone can reduce a complex subject into absurdity, watch:

Quantum mechanics: invisible stuff acting in unexpected ways.

I’m looking for real discussion here.

The interesting question is which rules get defended, how they get defended, and what other ideas get bundled into that defense. In the Mormon case, plural marriage became entangled with arguments about citizenship, republican government, women’s status, religious liberty, federal power, and what counted as acceptably American.

So the point isn’t merely that rule-breaking makes rules visible. It’s that boundary disputes can reveal the architecture connecting several norms at once.

[Limnor]

If that’s what you got out of it, that’s fine.

I’m just hard-pressed to find myself saying “I’m not Mormon, therefore I’m American.”

Maybe if you provided evidence in which a unique bit of American-ness was formed due to Mormon influence, or some issue that was not already a norm that Mormonism distinctly shaped?

Otherwise, it still seems to me that Mormonism was just judged against norms that already existed.

[The Before]

If that’s what you got out of it, that’s fine.

I’m just hard-pressed to find myself saying “I’m not Mormon, therefore I’m American.”

Maybe if you provided evidence in which a unique bit of American-ness was formed due to Mormon influence, or some issue that was not already a norm that Mormonism distinctly shaped?

Otherwise, it still seems to me that Mormonism was just judged against norms that already existed.

Well, I think you’re now asking me to prove a stronger claim than I’m making. I’m not arguing that Americans literally thought, “I am not Mormon, therefore I am American,” or that Mormonism uniquely invented some norm ex nihilo.

My point is about boundary formation, not invention. A norm can already exist and still become more sharply articulated, legally enforced, and culturally loaded when a conspicuous group violates it.

In the Mormon case, plural marriage, concentrated ecclesiastical authority, and the territorial church-state problem became occasions for Americans to argue about what counted as legitimate marriage, legitimate religion, legitimate political authority, and ultimately legitimate Americanness.

So yes, Mormonism was judged against existing norms. But the act of judging it was not culturally neutral. It helped specify where those norms ended, which differences could be tolerated, and which had to be surrendered before Mormonism could be treated as fully compatible with American civic life.

If your standard is that Mormonism must have created a uniquely American norm that otherwise would never have existed, then no, that isn’t my thesis.

[Limnor]

I’m just hard-pressed to find myself saying “I’m not Mormon, therefore I’m American.”

Maybe if you provided evidence in which a unique bit of American-ness was formed due to Mormon influence, or some issue that was not already a norm that Mormonism distinctly shaped?

Otherwise, it still seems to me that Mormonism was just judged against norms that already existed.

Well, I think you’re now asking me to prove a stronger claim than I’m making. I’m not arguing that Americans literally thought, “I am not Mormon, therefore I am American,” or that Mormonism uniquely invented some norm ex nihilo.

My point is about boundary formation, not invention. A norm can already exist and still become more sharply articulated, legally enforced, and culturally loaded when a conspicuous group violates it.

In the Mormon case, plural marriage, concentrated ecclesiastical authority, and the territorial church-state problem became occasions for Americans to argue about what counted as legitimate marriage, legitimate religion, legitimate political authority, and ultimately legitimate Americanness.

So yes, Mormonism was judged against existing norms. But the act of judging it was not culturally neutral. It helped specify where those norms ended, which differences could be tolerated, and which had to be surrendered before Mormonism could be treated as fully compatible with American civic life.

If your standard is that Mormonism must have created a uniquely American norm that otherwise would never have existed, then no, that isn’t my thesis.

This is why I think your thesis boils down to “people notice rules more when somebody breaks them” without all the extra words.

[The Before]

This is why I think your thesis boils down to “people notice rules more when somebody breaks them” without all the extra words.

That’s like saying that all of 20th century American literature boils down to: A person has feelings in a rapidly changing country and handles them badly.

It’s absurd.

[Limnor]

This is why I think your thesis boils down to “people notice rules more when somebody breaks them” without all the extra words.

That’s like saying that all of 20th century American literature boils down to: A person has feelings in a rapidly changing country and handles them badly.

It’s absurd.

I’m not reducing “all of Mormonism in American history” to one sentence. I’m reducing what you are describing.

Is there something more to your thesis, like some way Mormonism actually shaped American normalcy rather than just making existing boundaries more visible? that's what I’ve been asking for.