Revisiting the “Re-visioning of Mormon History”

By November 5, 2007

In 1986, the Pacific Historical Review published an article by Grant Underwood entitled, “Re-visioning Mormon History.” [1] Challenging the traditional portrait of 19th-century Mormonism as a countercultural, radical response to democratic politics, capitalist economics, and Victorian marriage ideals, Underwood argues that “upon closer examination, the nineteenth-century attitudes and behavior of most Latter-day Saints may prove to be less countercultural and the influence of communitarianism, plural marriage, and theocratic politics more superficial than transformationists generally assume” (412). 

Underwood also takes to task historians of 20th-century Mormonism who have exaggerated the Americanization of the Church.  He points to the size of Mormon families, the Word of Wisdom, the Church’s welfare system, and contemporary politics to show that “Latter-day Saints continue to be a ‘peculiar people’” (412-413).  He warns against “attribut[ing] everything that the Saints said or did to the fact that they were Mormons,” and argues that if “doctrines and beliefs are traced to their ultimate refuge in the mind of the common individual, there may be found, even within the institutional boundaries of the LDS church, a kaleidoscopic pattern of Mormonisms” (420-422). 

In his view, the “transition of Mormonism” that scholars have suggested occurred in the period of 1890-1920, is not quite as black-and-white as made out to be.  While admitting that a transformation certainly occurred, Underwood suggests that it was neither as drastic nor as instantaneous as previously suggested.  

Overall, the essay is well-argued, carefully-documented, and somewhat convincing.  However, few historians, if any, have followed Underwood’s suggestion that “monolithic Mormonism on either side of 1900 needs to give way to a more fine-grained analysis.” (414-415).  The reasons why deserve further discussion.  Thomas Alexander’s excellent (and highly influential) work, Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 1890-1930 appeared just after Underwood’s article had been sent to the printer.  Alexander’s work, noted by Underwood as “the most detailed and sophisticated treatment of this period to date” (406, n. 6), was probably convincing enough to most readers so as to negate Underwood’s article altogether.  But should it?  I’m not entirely convinced one way or the other.  The historical interpretations Underwood critiqued continue to dominate the literature of Mormon studies, but is this because that interpretation is most convincing? Is it because many Mormon historians (myself included) find expression of personal ideals in 19th-century Mormon radicalism?  Or is it because polygamy, communalism, and theocracy are more mysterious and consequently more interesting than the moderate Mormonism Underwood suggests?

_________________________

[1] Grant Underwood, “Re-visioning Mormon History,” Pacific Historical Review 55 (August 1986), 403-26.


Comments

  1. Chris: IIRC, his main target in the article is the admittedly sloppy shorthand that we employ when we discuss the discontinuities between 1889 and 1891. He’s right that the transformation was not all that drastic, and that change had been occurring as early as the 1860s. I think that the studies that have appeared since the article—primarily Alexander and Yorganson—do a good job of showing that transformation was a process that took several decades.

    Much of his argument seems to be a call for better social history, which I applaud. But I think that he undervalues the importance of the image of the Mormons as communitarian, polygamous, and theocratic in defining Mormon-Gentile relations during the nineteenth (and twentieth) century. This I find ironic since Dr. Underwood is primarily a historian of Mormon ideas.

    Comment by David Grua — November 6, 2007 @ 12:33 pm

  2. […] efforts by Grant Underwood to “revision” the Mormon past, and in the process transcend the artificial 1890 barrier, historians continue to concentrate most […]

    Pingback by Juvenile Instructor » Mormonism’s Unbroken Past: Transcending the 1890 Rupture — January 31, 2009 @ 11:30 pm

  3. […] I summarized Underwood’s arguments and some of its implications in a blog post in 2007 (see here). Much like Underwood’s article, though, my post fell on deaf (or uninterested) ears and […]

    Pingback by Juvenile Instructor » Revisiting: Mormonism in Transition: a history of the Latter-day Saints, 1890-1930 — June 18, 2009 @ 1:36 pm

  4. […]   One thing we’ve talked about a bit on this blog is the issue of periodization (here and here).  It’s been common for most scholars, following Jan Shipps, to break Mormon history at the […]

    Pingback by Juvenile Instructor » Q&A with Stephen C. Taysom, author of Shakers, Mormons and Religious Worlds: conflicting visions, contested boundaries (part II) — January 28, 2011 @ 9:47 am


Series

Recent Comments

Quincy D. Newell on Review: The Council of: “I found this column by Lindy West in the NY Times (sorry, I don't know how to embed links--the url is https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/12/opinion/real-men-might-get-made-fun-of.html?_r=0) really helpful for…”


Ardis on Review: The Council of: “cjp: It's here -- in reading it, please understand that it was written for a very different audience from JI.”


cjp on Review: The Council of: “Hi Ardis, could you post a link to your review? I would love to read it! Thanks.”


Matt on Review: The Council of: “Quincy and Ardis, thank you for the follow up comments. I had thought of posting a similar clarification to your initial review, Ardis, but the…”


Ardis on Review: The Council of: “Thanks for the clarifications/corrections, Matt. I wish they had been brought up in the earlier discussion on my own review of your book, where I…”


Quincy D. Newell on Review: The Council of: “Matt, I also appreciate your thoughtful response here. As you point out, this is not (or not just) an issue of editors' blindness to…”

Topics


juvenileinstructor.org