Benjamin E. Park

In March 2014, I had the great honor to participate in a conference focused on Benjamin Rush and sponsored by the McNeil Center on Early American Studies. The conference took place in Dickinson College, an institution originally founded by Rush himself that is located in an idyllic setting of western Pennsylvania. The timing was not the best: I was a week away from submitting my dissertation, so the entire trip I couldn’t help but worry about all the editing I was missing. But the conference itself was quite rewarding. It was one of my first chances to test out my dissertation’s ideas before a smart audience and get critical feedback. This seemed all the more important since the paper was drawn from my dissertation’s first chapter. These were the ideas that framed my entire project.

My paper rightly received a lot of pushback. It was still raw. But the suggestions and critiques helped guide me in new directions. Even if there wasn’t enough time to make substantive changes to the dissertation, I eventually rewrote the entire first chapter when transforming it into a book. I’m currently making final edits on that manuscript which is due in just a few weeks. (Debbie, if you’re reading this: I promise I only have two chapters left!) The book should appear next year, and the Rush conference was crucial in helping me re-vision it.

And I was both thrilled and honored when my paper was accepted to be included in the conference’s proceedings, just published in the phenomenal journal Early American Studies. The issue’s editors, Sari Altschuler and Christopher Bilodeau, were immensely patient and helpful as I went through several rounds of revisions. I’m thrilled with the final result, which can be found here. (If you don’t have institutional access, let me know.) Here is a summary:

Benjamin Rush argued for particular forms of union and nation at the very moment those political concepts were undergoing an evolution. The Age of Revolution introduced new ways to imagine federal bodies and governing constitutions, and Rush and his contemporaries were forced to adapt accordingly. This essay examines how Rush and one of his colleagues, Noah Webster, addressed the problem of nationality at the moment of America’s independence in order to investigate the tensions of cultural continuity during a moment of political disruption. In a nation full of so many diverse populations, how was it possible to conceive of a governing structure that matched the character of the governed?

Publications are excited on their own, but this one’s especially so because it’s the first published material based on my forthcoming book.

And here’s a promotional flyer:

Don Peay, founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, is a Provo businessman who has a message for Mormons who failed to support Trump’s 2016 campaign: it is time to repent. “The people who did not get behind Trump,” he explained to the Utah County Republican Women,“probably need to look at themselves in the mirror and say, ‘Maybe I need to show a little bit of humility and ask for forgiveness, because I was wrong.’” Some might have been put off by Trump’s demeanor, but that “was just the culture of Trump’s language and colorful past,” he assured. Trump is, Peay emphasized, the right man to lead a Christian America. One attendee noted that Peay “was inspiring” as he dictated the narrative of Trump’s accomplishments.

You might be tempted to think this was just a standard off-the-wall statement from a very energetic Trump supporter, and therefore without much relevance. But given that it’s spring break and I’m trying to procrastinate grading midterms, let me dig into why Peay’s comments are emblematic of a broader cultural moment.

First let’s talk about the Religious Right.

The fusion of Evangelical conservatism and the Republican Party is of recent vintage, a culmination of divergent streams that climaxed, as per traditional narratives, with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The heart of the movement was the fervent belief that political leaders should reflect the values and principles of America’s silent (and Christian) majority. The Reagan and, later, the Bush administrations supposedly represented these evangelical interests by not only pushing conservative policies but also, and this is important, placing Godly men in the White House. The mobilization was so effective that Americans today have trouble fathoming a separation between evangelicalism and the Republican Party.

Trump was always an awkward fit within this trajectory. His very obvious disinclination toward religion coupled with the strong support from traditional religious backers always seemed incongruous. (I can’t choose between his “Two Corinthians” phrasing at Liberty University or this cringe-worthy blessing as the more worthy embodiment of this dichotomy.) Further, his explicitly crude remarks and behavior over the years, with hours and hours of gleeful confessions on Howard Stern’s radio show, made him an unlikely savior for the Religious Right. And that was before the infamous Access Hollywood video leaked out, which contained Trump clearly bragging about sexually assaulting women. But rather than disentangling from the nominee, many doubled down. Roger Stone likened Trump to Sampson, a corrupted figure who is nonetheless an instrument of God. Some rushed to emphasize his (recently fabricated) pro-life stance and (hypothetical) conservative Supreme Court picks. The Religious Right had become pragmatic. As long as Trump delivered on traditionally Republican campaign promises, he could still count on their support.

The case within Mormonism is slightly different, but matches the overall trajectory. I’ve already written, probably too much, on the topic, so I won’t rehash it all here. But suffice it to say that Mormonism has long held an even more fervent belief in the idea of holy leaders, a principle that is quite explicit in the Book of Mormon. It is not enough to promise the right politics, but an elected official should also reflect right values. Any Mormon who argues that “the majority should shut up the minority”–as Peay did yesterday–is ignorant of Mormonism’s past, where the faith has long been attacked for failing to assimilate to mainstream culture. To put it bluntly, pro-Trump Mormonism is an abject disruption of the faith’s political tradition.

So what does Don Peay’s remarks tell us about the modern Religious Right? First, note the remnants of Religious Right discourse: those who failed to support the chosen leader were not just wrong, but in need of repentance. This is still a holy body and a religious community. But, and this is the crucial shift, we are not to extend that standard to Trump himself: he is the product of a crude society whose greatest virtue is survival. Trump is a compromise with the world, an unrighteous man who is able to accomplish righteous victories. America is still supposed to be a faithful body, but we are not required to have a faithful head. A Christian nation with a heathen emperor. Perhaps the righteousness of the electorate is what will keep the unrighteous elected in check. The Body of Trump is not so much an evolution of the Religious Right as it is an awkward amalgamation of it.

What remains to be seen is if this Trumpian political theology is a minor blip in the trajectory of Religious Right politics or the start of a new long-form transformation. But however long it lasts, the bifurcated expectations of national righteousness, as embodied in Don Peay’s remarks to a Provo group of Mormon women, is a telling moment for our time.

[Image courtesy here]

One of the most fascinating figures during Mormonism’s Nauvoo sojourn is William Law. Joseph Smith made him a counselor in the First Presidency during that period, making him one of the most powerful men in the city. He was also one of the most noteworthy individuals who objected to Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy. His increasing opposition resulted in him being released from his ecclesiastical position and excommunicated from the Church. In response, he was involved in publishing the Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper that aimed to expose all of Smith’s secret activities. The Mormon Prophet’s order to censor the paper and destroy the press led directly to his imprisonment in Carthage Jail, where he’d eventually be killed.

In 1994, Mormon historian Lyndon Cook published William Law (Grandin Press), a volume that included, among other things, Law’s “Record of Doings at Nauvoo in 1844,” a diary that covered these eventful months. From its very first word, the document contains everything a historian would want. “Fearful and terrible, yea most distressing have been the scenes through which we have past, during the last few months,” Law wrote on New Year’s Day. His candor was incredible and the passion was palpable. “Through our religious zeal we harkened to the teachings of man,” he bemoaned, “more than to the written word of God.” Law was incensed that Smith had seemingly misled him, and began wondering whether he could preserve any fragments from the rubble that was once his Mormon faith. “What my feelings have been I cannot relate, various and painful at times almost beyond endurance.” What was meant to be “sacred” could now only be described as “poison’d arrows in my bleeding heart.” Entries from later months offer a first-hand view of Nauvoo’s rollercoaster ride, giving tantalizing details about schemes, confrontations, and even death threats. It almost seems too good to be true.

And in fact there are some reasons to believe that may very well be the case. No Mormon scholar currently has seen the actual manuscript. Word is Cook got access to a transcript via the family–some say the 1844 journal was one of several volumes–and never saw the holograph. And though some booksellers have claimed to have had, at one point or another, a line on the collection, it has yet to surface.

Could this significant document be forged? It’s possible. It wouldn’t be the first time it has happened in Mormon history. But there are at least some hints of its veracity. Internal cues seem consistent with the period of its alleged creation. And more importantly, documents from Leonard Arrington’s papers collection at USU provides evidence that such a journal might exist. In December 1978, while he was Director of the History Division, Arrington wrote a letter to Leilani Law, a descendant of William, alerting her that Cook, “a teacher of Church history at Brigham young University,” was working on her ancestor. While doing research in Wisconsin he learned that the family historian contained “William Law memorabilia, including a diary.” However, it was made known that they wanted to keep the papers “confidential.” Arrington and Cook also heard, however, that Leilani had also seen the diary and, given that she was a convert to the LDS faith, she might be more willing to work with the Church. “Our interest is based upon a sincere desire to understand William Law, his feelings about Mormonism, and any statements he made about Joseph Smith,” Arrington assured her. (Leonard Arrington to Leilani Law, December 4, 1978, LJA Collection, USU Archives.)

Apparently she was indeed interested and gave Arrington a call several weeks later. This is an excerpt of his report of the conversation:

I received a telephone call this morning from a Lonnie Law, to whom we had written a letter some weeks ago asking for information about the diaries and letters of William Law that she had seen. They were in the possession of her husband’s grandfather, who, I think, was a son of William Law. She said that when my letter came she had thought to reply to me privately but her child knew of the letter and said, when they were eating dinner, “Mamma, are you going to tell Daddy about the letter about Grandpa?” So she told her husband about my letter and he told her not to do anything about it. She felt, however, that she needed to respond to the letter, and he is now gone on a trip, and she was making the call from a friend’s, who is a Latter-day Saint that lives near her in California. The friend urged her to make the call to me (“Lonnie, do you know who that is that signed that letter? That’s the Church Historian!”) so she felt obligated to make this call today…

Lonnie said that her grandfather had five or six letters of William Law written at the time, that she could have read these letters but did not do so – she was more interested in reading the diary, but her husband had read the letters. Her husband’s name is Don. She says her husband told his father not to give or sell the diary and letters to anyone and so he hadn’t done so. Lonnie said that the grandpa and grand[ma] were coming to visit them in California within the next three weeks and she wanted to know if I would give her any instruction. She would be glad to do anything I instructed her to do. I told her that I would not counsel her to violate the spirit of her husband’s feelings by doing anything underhanded, like making a copy of the diary and letters if they wouldn’t permit her to do so. I told her to take advantage of any opportunity that they might offer – if they would permit her to copy it or to read it again and note down the dates and entries or anything else, for her to certainly take advantage of that. She told me that in any case if she learned anything more than what she told me in this conversation this morning she would telephone me and inform me…

She said the family – her husband’s father – also refused to say anything to anybody about the documents they had. They didn’t want to be involved in any controversy with the Church. They wanted to keep hands off. They were good people and didn’t want the family name to be involved in any way – didn’t want the Law things published. They felt (feel) it was William’s difficulty with the Church and leave it at that. Don’t involve them. (Arrington Diaries, February 5, 1979, USU Archives)

The journal entry features everything: the hope of a previously undisclosed yet crucial document, the fear of an upset spouse not willing to become attached to the Church, and a brave recent convert to the LDS faith conspiring to disregard her husband’s orders. Once again, the story nearly seems too good to be true.

Arrington’s diaries never again mention Lonnie Law or her ancestor’s documents. The diary falls out of the discussion completely. The LDS Church Archives never received the donation. Yet Cook eventually gets some form of access, draws from it in a 1982 article, and fifteen years later publishes a transcript of it as part of his William Law volume, without much explanation. There were indeed a number of clandestine transcriptions of significant documents floating around during the decade–most notably William Clayton’s–but it was at times impossible to determine what was real and what was fake. (And remember, a certain Hoffman figure was at work between those two dates.) If this is a gripping narrative, there are still plenty of holes to the story.

So is the published document trustworthy? Even if it is indeed based on an actual holograph, it is impossible to compare it to the original. Apparently even Cook couldn’t even compare the transcript to the original. The published version has strikethroughs throughout the text–were those by Law, or a later redactor? Law’s descendants certainly seemed anxious to protect their ancestor’s reputation. And Arrington’s conversation with Lonnie Law make it clear she was interested in presenting a particular image of her great-grandfather, one in which he was a true believer genuinely flummoxed by polygamy. Could she, or someone else in the family, have molded the text to reflect their views? Were any portions cut out? It seems odd that a man would pen such a personal, reflective, and meticulous diary for only six months of his life, having not written anything before or since. It’s puzzling.

But the document is too juicy to ignore. The experts at the Joseph Smith Papers Project, who know the intimacies of this period better than nearly anyone, decided to make “limited use” of Law’s diary in their annotations. They justify this based on “internal evidence,” a conversation with Cook, as well as Arrington’s records mentioned above (JSP: Journals, Volume 3, page 491). And despite my serious reservations, I’m tempted to make more than “limited use” in my Nauvoo project because his voice would be so central to the story. I mean, there’s a reason the diary seems too good to be true. But this is merely one example of the fraught nature of the historian’s craft, where documents can be simultaneously exciting and perplexing. Turns out we have more in common with detectives than commonly thought.

Also, if you by chance have access to the William Law collection, hit me up!

(My thanks to Robin Jensen and Tom Kimball for helping me understand the document and its story. Any inaccuracies are likely my fault. If you know more, please share details in the comments.)

I’m excited to fly out to Charleston, one of my favorite American cities, this Thursday for the Consortium on the Revolutionary Era conference. This is my first time to this particular conference, but I’ve heard great things, and the program is packed with smart people and interesting papers. If you’re gonna be out there, shoot me a message. I’ll be delivering a paper Friday morning at 8:30, titled, “Religious Regeneration: Political Theologies of Belonging in the Americas and Europe during the Age of Revolutions.” It is related, in part, to my nationalisms book, but uses my previous research as a springboard for new historiographical reflection. Much of it is new, so I’m excited to get feedback and critiques. Below is my abstract:

The Age of Revolutions posed as many problems as it did solutions. The unsettling of traditional political allegiances, the reaffirmation of other forms of political sovereignty, and the realignment of political understandings brought immense change to diverse elements of cultural practices, especially in the wake of the American Revolution. Scholars have successfully demonstrated the impact of these changes on the religious climate of nations like the United States, France, Haiti, and Britain, as each context witnessed both violent rupture and conservative backlash. Anglicanism, Catholicism, and America’s democratized denominations reacted to new realities. Faced with a new world, religionists were forced to adapt their messages in accordance to new expectations.

Yet what is often overlooked is the role that religion played in these political transitions, rather than merely reacting to them. How did religious thought influence concepts of national bodies, federal power, and civic allegiance? This paper examines broader themes that transcend national boundaries and can be found throughout various revolutionary moments. From America’s providentialist rhetoric concerning military force to France’s radical appropriation of Catholic educative networks, and from Britain’s restrained Anglican forms of ecclesiastical control to Haiti’s conservative restriction of religious expression, competing political theologies provided tools with which to construct new forms of national belonging.

This study will touch on a handful of commonalities and divergences between 1776 and 1804, grounding each example within its particular cultural context while simultaneously noting the broader threads of transnational transformation that was taking place. I’m especially intent to demonstrate Haiti’s religious imaginations importance to these larger debates. At the heart of these discussions was a tension over how religious could both unite and divide political communities in an age of democratic rupture.