Mormons and the Trump Administration: Some Recent Essays

Since this blog is a scrapbook of sorts for my writings elsewhere, I figured I should register a couple recent essays that I wrote related to the LDS Church’s relationship to the Trump administration. 

The first essay, “The Mormon Tabernacle Choir Will Usher In the Trump Era,” puts the inauguration in context of Mormonism’s peripheral position in American culture. It was published at Religion Dispatches, which has featured plenty of excellent coverage on Mormonism in the past. An excerpt:

If the Mormon Tabernacle Choir’s participation in Ronald Reagan’s inauguration was the coronation of the Church’s assimilation with the religious right, its involvement with Donald Trump’s represents the extent to which it will defend that position. It embodies both Mormonism’s integration within America’s political power structure as well as its inability to conceive of a world outside of it.

The second, at Washington Post, is titled “Where is the Mormon Church on Trump? History Demands Their Leadership.” The op-ed focuses on the LDS Church’s history of being refugees and immigrants, and it urges Mormon leadership to take a stand against Trump’s executive order. A taste:

Anything short of a courageous and bold declaration in the face of religious tyranny would be a betrayal of Mormons’ pioneer and prophetic legacy. If the Mormon faith remains committed to speaking out on moral issues, a right on which they have long insisted, this is its pressing moment.

A few hours after the post appeared, the Mormon Newsroom release a brief (and underwhelming) statement. But to their credit, the Church-owned Deseret News printed a much more direct editorial the following Monday. 

Let’s hope there are more positive things to write about going forward. 

Review: William Mackinnon, AT SWORD’S POINT, PART II

For such a small chronological scope, William MacKinnon’s documentary history of the Utah War covers a lot of ground. Though the armed confrontation in 1857-1858 was theoretically isolated to the Rocky Mountains, its tentacles touched far and wide.  Soldiers were sent as far south as New Mexico to purchase supplies. Facing the threat of another Mormon relocation, the British government set to fortify their Pacific lands. Fearing an invasion, the Russian Tsar sought to sell the territory of Alaska. California appeared as both a boundary and a revolving door for either side of the conflict. And at the center of it all was American President James Buchanan, Mormon Prophet Brigham Young, and the very stakes of federal sovereignty in a country ready to go to war. This was no small, insignificant, nor parochial skirmish.

Scholars of Mormon history have been long anticipating the release of the second volume of MacKinnon’s At Swords Point: A Documentary History of the Utah War, 1857-1857, part of the heralded “Kingdom in the West” series. The first volume, which covered events in 1857, was published in 2008. And now the second volume, focused on 1858, finally appeared last year. It was worth the wait. Like its predecessor, the book is a collection of crucial primary sources sandwiched between substantive background and annotation. The result is a mix between sourcebook and monograph, as it is structured as much to tell a story as it is to introduce you to key documents. At Sword’s Point is a crucial contribution to the fields of Utah, Mormon, and military history.

Volume One left off just as Albert Sidney Johnston’s army arrived at the Rocky Mountains as winter set in. What followed were months of anxiety, preparations, and cold weather. Strategies, or at least semblances of strategies, were cultivated on either side of the mountainous terrain, even as leaders pursued new possibilities of a peaceful resolution. Thomas L. Kane, among others, played a key role in making sure cooler sides prevailed. So even though Young ordered the Saints to flee south and leave Salt Lake City abandoned–several powerful accounts of which are included in this volume–when the US army finally marched in the Mormon Mecca it was under the flag of truce. But that was far from a predetermined conclusion. As At Sword’s Point demonstrates, the confrontation could have gone many ways at many different times.

Though the general contours of this conflict may be well known, readers will find loads of new material. This is a historian’s history. MacKinnon digs deeper than nearly any other book I’ve encountered, monograph or documentary, and he knows more about the Utah War than most historians know about their personal pet topic. The book drips of the perspiration from decades of labor. But while the field of military history is known for dense and meticulous archival work, At Sword’s Point clears that barrier with room to spare. Though a documentary history, the story flows smoothly and it’s lessons are clear. It is a true skill to be able to tell a story with powerful meaning through documentary editing. This is one of the few volumes that accomplishes such a fete.

That said, casual readers may have trouble making it all the way through. The book might serve better as a resource for further research than a narrative history. But that’s just fine, as it is work like this that lays the foundation for future projects more directed at a public audience. And in the scholarly world, At Sword’s Point will serve many purposes. Western historians will be interested in the process of colonizing western lands beyond Utah, including New Mexico and Colorado. Military historians will be intrigued with these on-the-ground accounts of everyday soldier life. Political historians will find value in the debates over sovereignty and diplomacy. And Mormon historians will of course be rewarded with new insights into one of the Church’s most significant episodes. (They will also enjoy cameo appearances from figures like John C. Bennett and William Smith.)

The one portion that I wish everyone could get their hands on is the book’s concluding essay. After spending forty years in the wilderness of Utah War material, MacKinnon’s summative thoughts are those of a seasoned expert. Though only about twenty pages, the essay which surveys all the nuances, issues, and historiography of the confrontation is worth the price of admission on its own. In it, MacKinnon is not in the business of casting good guys and bad guys–either titling the war “Buchanan’s Blunder” or casting Brigham Young as a ruthless villain–but he is clear in assigning plenty of blame. Young was absolutely at fault for creating a hostile environment for ten years that challenged federal authority, and the decision to remove him from territorial office was justified. But Buchanan went about the replacement all wrong and enflamed things when he could have cooled them down. Then Brigham, in turn, escalated the conflict into a rebellion–a term that MacKinnon uses carefully. Even philanthropic figures like Thomas L. Kane are seen as enablers whose assistance is genuinely questioned. If readers are hoping to find one victorious side in this conflict, they will be disappointed.

But that is what makes this a useful volume. The 1850s were a turbulent time in America, as questions over federal, state, and territorial sovereignty drove national conversation. It should not be surprising that these questions–rather than mere debates between Saints and Gentiles–were at the heart of the Utah War conflict. Previous historians localized the episode and made it a Mormon/non-Mormon affair; MacKinnon is wise to zoom out and take a wider picture. Only then can we fully understand the significance of a sectional battle on the eve of the Civil War.

Review: James Alexander Dun, DANGEROUS NEIGHBORS

On Monday, the Junto featured a Q&A I did with James Alexander Dun, who teaches history at Princeton University, about his new book: Dangerous Neighbors: Making the Haitian Revolution in Early America (UPenn Press, 2016). Make sure to go read his smart and provocative comments over there. But I thought it’d still be worthwhile to jot down some of my own thoughts on the book, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Dangerous Neighbors is a history that spans Atlantic, hemispheric, and local history. While much of the focus is on newspaper coverage in Philadelphia, that context is only important insomuch as it is reacting to a much broader world. Most especially, Dun persuasively argues that early Americans collapsed the distance around them even as they sought to maintain a cultural silo; that is, they were immensely interested in events taking place outside their boundaries, but only as a way to reflect local concerns. Events like the Haitian Revolution, then, “reverberated in America because of their capacity to provoke self-reflection,” he notes. “They stimulated connections and comparisons; they raised questions about America’s own revolutionary pasts and their current realities. In crafting narratives from and about Saint Domingue, Americans fashioned and re-fashioned their own stories” (4). As a book that adds provocative nuances to traditional narratives concerning the Age of Revolution, Dun digs deep into how early Americans understood the Revolutionary Age themselves.

These categories of revolutionary belonging are important, as they were central to how Dun’s characters conceived of the world around them. Those who were most committed to the more radical revolutionary notions, like abolition, connected these transatlantic happenings into interwoven republican narratives. America was the spark for a transnational fire. Their understanding of the slave revolt in Saint Domingue took on a special hue, as many viewed it as part of the broader transformation taking place in France, which in turn was following America’s example. “Americans saw a French Revolution in Saint Domingue,” Dun explains, “not a Dominguan (let alone Haitian) Revolution” (21). Even as emancipation was declared, and the insurrection became more politicized, radical abolitionists continued to see elements of the fight as representative of a broader universalist front. Most famously, David Walker posited all revolts in the America and Europe as part of a global push for equality. Revolutionary, indeed.

But the American reactions to Haiti wen through stages, evolving as they witnessed a slave revolt that raised questions concerning republicanism and anti-slavery, Toussaint Louverture’s rise and the perils of black leadership, and the final and utter violence of black independence. This was not a predetermined trajectory. Developments at home, especially the Federalist and Jeffersonian battles, framed these new perceptions. Once Louverture came to power, the war turned deadly; and as the large-scale slave insurrection became too much to defend, many Americans divorced the conflict from its French origins. Even for those who defended the principles of the French Revolution, Haiti was too much a burden to maintain. By Jefferson’s presidency, and especially after Haiti achieved independence, most were willing to cut off the black nation as a political pariah. It was neither French nor Republican. And by disregarding Haiti’s Revolution, they in turn were redefining their own: no more was abolitionism or universalism seen as the heart of the American Revolutionary cause.

Dun argues that by shifting their understanding of Haiti’s revolution, they made a concomitant revision to their own “Revolutionary settlement” (69). Rather than being a radical push for universalism and equality, America’s founding was now seen as based more in political independence. More, their revolution was less representative of a broader global move and more an exceptionalist break-off divorced from the other nations. Americans, Dun believes, consciously chose to put an end to their Revolutionary era by capping off its radical potential. Even in the City of Brotherly Love, the hub of anti-slavery agitation, activists eventually “articulated a conception of Philadelphia that made the city an exceptional oasis rather than an auger of coming change” (142). In an age where nationalism seems once again to be blunting progressive change, this story is as relevant as ever.

Dangerous Neighbors fits a much larger literature, both concerning books on Haiti’s role in the early republic as well as the Age of Revolutions more generally. But I was especially struck by its similarities to Caitlin Fitz’s Our Sister Republics (reviewed here), another book that just came out last year. Both books embody the en-vogue hemispheric approach that re-centers historians’ focuses on the geographic neighbors to America’s south. Both books shed new light on the early republic’s debates concerning race and slavery. And both books demonstrate that the “Age of Revolution” in America was an artificial category that met its end due to conservative backlash and anti-republican retrenchment. Dun and Fitz argue for a Revolutionary moment that was surprisingly open to radical forms of universalism that was eventual squelched by those who tried to bring the age to a commanding halt.

This is one of those books where it is difficult to find a critique, so I’m just going to mention my single biggest frustration: it’s a bit too dense and thorough to assign in my undergraduate class. I periodically teach a course on the Age of Revolutions, so I’m constantly on the lookout for possible new books to assign. Dangerous Neighbors‘s topic and insight would fit perfectly, but I fear my students are not the book’s ideal audience. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as the problem is rooted in Dun’s strengths: the work is exhaustively researched, meticulously argued, and powerfully written. But it will make its biggest impact with fellow scholars. To make one more comparison to Fitz’s work: Our Sister Republics was meant for the general reader and undergraduate student, while Dangerous Neighbors is destined for the graduate seminar room.

And it is there where I believe this book will help shape the field. Dangerous Neighbors adds much to an already rich historiographical arena, and demonstrates what a close analysis of texts and incisive dissection of contexts can yield. I imagine Dun’s work will spark discussion for many years to come.

How Studying Evangelicalism Prepared Me for Trump’s Alternative Facts

Trump’s first few days in office have been, well, newsworthy. And by that I mean he’s spent much of his time fighting with the news. The morning after his inauguration, he declared war on those who dared claim his crowd was smaller than that of Obama’s. After visual evidence clearly demonstrated the curtailed audience for his speech—a fact that, frankly, should not be surprising given the demographic and political makeup of the DC area—Trump sent his press secretary to scold the media and, while flanked with blown-up images of the crowd, declare that it was “the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period.” They then followed that up by insisting that the only reason Hillary Clinton won the general vote was because of wide-spread voting fraud, an accusation based on zero evidence and fraudulent reports. Neither of these claims are within the realm of possibility, but are easily disproved with even superficial research. So why would Trump’s team start their administration with such blatant lies?

I think one answer can be found in a seemingly quixotic place: the rise of evangelical fundamentalism in the twentieth century. Bear with me.

A few years ago Harvard University Press published The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age, a fascinating book co-authored by religious historian Randall Stephens and physics scholar Karl Giberson. They argued that over the last hundred years, a particular segment within the Evangelical community, especially those with a fundamentalist bent, worked to establish competing realms of intellectual authority. When faced with new challenges from “secular” truths regarding history, biology, psychology, and other fields, charismatic leaders developed alternate realms that reaffirmed more conservative “truths.” Those who pushed things like evolution could therefore be tactically disarmed because their arguments were based on a different set of values: their ideas were not “anointed” by God, and thus dismissed.

The result of this were the rise of anti-intellectual, populist, and charismatic leaders who, though lacking in credentials and credibility, could draw an immense following. Ken Ham, an Australian young-earth creationist, built a popular creationism museum and, more recently, reconstructed Noah’s ark. David Barton, a self-trained historian who peddles easily debunked ideas about America’s “Christian founding,” became a close advisor to a number of conservative politicians. These and other individuals capitalized on this artificial bubble that shields them from actual research, peer-review, and criticism. They have made a successful career selling “alternative facts.”

So what does this have to do with Trump? I can see at least two points of connection. First, I think these models of delegitimized and delegitimizing discourse laid a foundation for Trump’s support. According to Pew, 81% of white evangelicals voted for Trump, someone who’s noted for not being very, um, religious. They were willing to buy into his narrative of a “rigged” system and “crooked” media because they’ve heard similar things in their religious setting for years. They shared a distrust for the same liberal, educated elites who challenged their intellectual value system. Their hatred for the “mainstream media” is not too distant from their rejection of “secularists.” They were willing to live within a bubble of contained, self-referential rationality.

And second, Evangelical discourse provided a blueprint for Trump’s public persona. Rather than entering into competing ideas within a marketplace of thought, fundamentalists learned to cast a particular meaning to each side of the debate: the “anointed,” chosen by God, on the one hand, and the “depraved,” those who rejected God’s truth, on the other. That makes it so an idea’s veracity or factual vindication are irrelevant. Trump’s administration, from the very beginning, is setting the foundation for the “chosen” to be those willing to accept his bold assertions, and the “corrupt” to be those who challenge him tooth and nail. By making his supporters accept things that are otherwise indefensible, his team is neutering the very possibility of debate.

Progressives are simultaneously flummoxed that Trump’s administration is willing to destroy their credibility by presenting obvious falsehoods while also wondering why many still support him. Why would so many people sign up for “alternative facts”? But historians of American religion should be able to explain the intellectual genealogy for such a dynamic, as well as explain why this politics of knowledge still plays a role today. America has long had alternative ways of knowing, and Trump is merely able to exploit them.

It turns out Trump may be more Evangelical than we thought.

Review: Mary Campbell, CHARLES ELLIS JOHNSON AND THE EROTIC MORMON IMAGE

The Mormon History Association community is small enough that you typically know what books are forthcoming and when. It is very rare, then, that a book captures us by surprise. However, when Mary Campbell’s Charles Ellis Johnson and the Erotic Mormon Image (Chicago UP, 2016) showed up on Amazon last year, some were puzzled. The author wasn’t familiar to most in most MHA circles, and the topic seemed a bit, well provocative. However, after reading the volume, I’m happy to share that the book was a pleasant surprise. Indeed, it may be my favorite Mormon history title from 2016. (And that’s saying something!)

Charles Ellis Johnson is a fascinating figure in his own right. The son of a polygamous union (his mother was the third wife of a famous pioneer patriarch) who married a daughter of Brigham Young (Ruth was a daughter of Emmeline Free), Ellis was a member of Mormon nobility. But he also lived at a moment of cultural transition within the Mormon region: born in 1857, he made the pioneer voyage with his mother at the age of three, but would live long enough to see Utah (and the Church) become fully American. He was of pioneer stock while also looking forward to modernity. And while his marriage to Ruth Young did not last, the cultural paradox in which he lived did. He eventually became known as one of Utah’s most prominent photographers, as his portraits of LDS leaders, Salt Lake City streets, and cultural activities became the window through which Americans viewed their most peculiar residents. During this period of Americanization, Johnson’s many photographs (see one listing here) served as a connective link in this important cultural project.

first-presidency-1893

One of Johnson’s many famous photographs, where he depicts the First Presidency in 1893 as imminently modern, civilized men.

Campbell argues that Johnson worked to make Mormonism modern. He set up his own private tourist shop on a prominent corner just across from Temple Square and welcomed the city’s increasing number of guests. (See photo below.) One of his most famous productions, a tourist handbook, “can be viewed as an extended campaign to sell the Latter-day Saints and their city as civilized, cultured, and cosmopolitan” (23). He helped break Mormonism from its polygamous image by demonstrating that Salt Lake City was just like everywhere else. (His photographs of the Saltair Resort were some of his most famous.) His portraits of LDS leaders, especially during Wilford Woodruff’s presidency, “forged their own new LDS image-body during the years following the First Manifesto” (40). Johnson even captured some of the most famous images of Utah’s female suffragists, connecting them to the broader cultural and political movements they yearned to be part of. In an era when Mormonism needed a new public relations front, Johnson was ready with his camera.

One of Johnson’s photographs from his tourist handbook. Note that Johnson’s “Kodak” shop is featured in the bottom-right corner.

But bearded prophets and theater audiences were not the only things Ellis photographed. He also supplied mail-order erotic images of women. Between around 1903 and 1907 (the historical record is fuzzy), Johnson made a profit off gentile curiosity concerning Mormon sexuality. He took many portraits of scantily-clad women—Campbell surmises that the subjects were likely visiting performers—and mailed them to subscribers out of state. He even made money off the polygamous caricature that he elsewhere sought to deconstruct, as he sold hundreds of postcards that featured Brigham Young’s many wives out of a store that was next-door to the Beehive and Lion Houses. But in general, other than a handful of images that played off of the eastern harem image prevalent in the American press, Campbell’s erotic images were still part of the Americanization process in that they centered on the lust of monogamous relationships.  “Johnson’s erotica bears a strange resemblance to his images of Mormonism’s holy men and sacred sites,” Campbell explains, because “his shots of scantily dressed women ultimately worked to knit the newly monogamous Saints back into the nation” (56). Eroticization was part of Americanization. Revealing the double-nature of her title, Campbell shows how Johnson simultaneously deconstructed the “erotic” nature of Mormonism by making it look American while also making money off the lingering “erotic” image of Mormonism’s seemingly sensual past.

There are two historiographical interventions that are noteworthy, one to a common and famous trajectory and the other to one still unexplored. First, Campbell’s tale adds more flesh—in some cases, literally—to the tale of American assimilation. Thomas Alexander’s classic Mormonism in Transition turned thirty-years-old last year, so it was time for some new perspectives. It is only appropriate, then, that both Campbell’s and Tom Simpson’s book, both of which appeared in 2016, add new nuances and challenges to that story. In both cases, Mormonism’s transition is more nuanced, dialogic, and complex, as Mormons are seen simultaneously looking backward and forward. This was not a teleological march toward modernity.

The second intervention steers us more into the social history of the era. Beyond all the fascinating arguments, ideas, and details provided in Campbell’s narrative, I am especially excited to get a better idea of Salt Lake City’s progressive culture. As I hinted at in my review of the Amasa Lyman diaries, we have this staid perception of Utah’s capital as under the thumb of the Mormon hierarchy, the pious perch of Puritan performance. But just down the street from LDS headquarters there was a vibrant community that sought to fit in within the modern world while still under the shadow of the SLC Temple. Next door to Church leaders who called for an emphasis on sexual modesty, there was a photoshop that created risqué postcards. Eventually, someone will have to pull all these divergent threads together and create a seamless tapestry of Utah’s surprisingly progressive social life.

The book is not without its problems—or rather, its frustrations, at least from the perspective of a historian. The theme of artistic tension sometimes subverts necessary contextualization and chronological development. Charles Ellis Johnson is the crucial figure of this story, but his life is mostly shrouded behind the analysis of his paintings: details concerning his youth, growth, faith crises, and especially his later life and death are mostly cast as asides. Chapters are based around themes, and so the narrative time jumps between years and even decades, sometimes becoming redundant and at other times becoming contradictory. There is a tale somewhere in there of a man who was the quasi-official photographer for the LDS Church in the 1890s, lost his faith (or money), and then turned to racy photos of women in the early 1900s before falling into irrelevancy. But that sort of trajectory is not fully realized. Further, later chapters seem a bit disjointed compared to the rest; for instance, the chapter on women suffragists fails to really connect Johnson besides the fact that he took many of their famous photos. Did he really support their cause? Readers are left to wonder. And the final chapter, an aesthetically beautifully and intellectually rich exploratory essay that interweaves Johnson’s self-portrait, Joseph Smith’s “glass-looking” reputation, and Joseph F. Smith’s attempt to force Mormonism into modernity, appears more as a stand-apart article than a book’s conclusion.

But don’t let these critiques fool you: I loved this book. Once I started it I couldn’t put it down. Not only is the research exhaustive and the writing clear and persuasive, but as a novice to photographic history I was entranced with this introduction to the world of visual culture. Mary Campbell’s book is not only a must-read treatment in the sphere of Mormon history, but it is a wonderful contribution to the literature on religion, photography, and gender. It is a model monograph, and Campbell is a triumphant scholar. Further, Chicago University Press should be commended for producing such a beautiful volumes that features 85(!) high-quality visuals. I hope the book gets the broad audience it deserves. I know of no other work in Mormon history like it.