The Conversion of Parley Pratt; or, the patterns of Mormon piety

By August 23, 2009

I.
First, definitions.

(And already, you know this will be long.)

In the context of the Reformation, “piety” is usually used to refer to the introspective, mystical, “heart religion” that emerged most profoundly among German Protestants in the seventeenth century, but also among the English Puritans. The Germans Jakob Boehme and Philip Spener, the Puritan Lewis Bayly, and the Anglican William Law are the important writers here. The two traditions, of course, were not independent; John Wesley owned books by all four of these folks. And he did not only read them; he _used_ them. These writers were not theologians, but pastors. Their works were devotional manuals. They contained not theory, but instruction on how to pray, to read scripture, to meditate; how, in short, to cultivate a personal relationship with God. About twenty years ago, Charles Hambrick-Stowe borrowed Bayly’s title and wrote a book called _The Practice of Piety_, detailing the elaborate patterns of devotion, of worship, of method by which Puritans sought to know their Father, and since, historians have used the term “piety” to describe these devotions. This is not pure theology, but a way of life; not doctrine, but the way to embrace of a loving God, and to feel that embrace returned.

And of course, conversion is the the birth of that relationship.

“Conversion” is a notoriously sticky word, even if we limit it to the religious, and within that, Christian, and within that, Reformed Protestant tradition. The Biblical Hebrew and Greek so translated generally mean something like “turn,” or “return.” In much of Christian theology, it has then not only to do with believing something, but also with, simply, being. Conversion is a change of mind, but also of spirit, a reorganization of the relational networks that we understand ourselves to be in, and even a reformation of our inclinations – those things that our instinct and desires foist upon us. It is a conscious, but also unconscious change. As St Augustine realized, to be converted was not merely to believe in God; rather, it was a series of steps that first began with exposure to knowledge of God, but was followed, by necessity, by knowledge of the self. The second was much more difficult than the first; we can accept God only in the abstract, but to know ourselves in the light of that knowledge is to know of our own fallen and incomplete state, to be aware how much we depend upon the Creator. Evangelicals call this often devastating movement conviction of sin. But, paradoxically, to be convicted is to be freed, to know of your weakness is to plead for God’s grace, and for Augustine, to find that he was no longer ruled by the concupiscence, or desire to sin, that had afflicted him before. Conversion brought him both awareness of sin’s foreignness, but also the spiritual strength to confront it. (Though to what degree remains a matter of debate.)

A sidenote: This is key. It is paramount to understand that ‘sin’ as St Paul and other great theologians speak of it, is not wrong action but rather that state of being which prods us to engage in wrong action. Conversion is a transformation of that state. Behaviors themselves, therefore, are secondary expressions, not primary causes. As St Paul asks, wondering why he wrongs others knowing that it’s not what God would have him do:

For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. (Romans 7:18-20)

Conversion, then, is a regeneration of this corrupted nature. It is perhaps not its eradication (for Paul, of course, still struggles; a thorn rests in his flesh) but the gift of a new nature that saves from this bondage, and is derived of Christ.

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. (Romans 8:9-10)

So: two questions, drawn from these above paragraphs. 1)what is conversion for the Mormons? and 2)how is it gained?

Eventually we’ll make it to Parley Pratt. Promise.

II.

The archetypical model of the convert is of course Paul, whom God threw stricken to the dirt of the Damascus road. This overpowering religious experience translated his motivations, sense of morality, and even identity in the twinkling of an eye. Many Christians still privilege, or at least value, this sort of charismatic experience. The revivals of the First Great Awakening in the eighteenth century, among many Calvinist evangelicals and holiness Christians in the nineteenth, and in the spiritual eruptions of Pentecostalism in the twentieth all celebrated conversion as, to use Jonathan Edwards’s language, an outpouring of the grace of the Holy Spirit; or, in the dialect of modern Pentecostalism, the latter rain. Notice the words here; conversion and awakening are not sought or earned or gained. Rather, they come. Here is the echo of Calvinist sovereignty theology and the rigor of Puritan piety. It was conversion as an event unwilled by humans, and instead inflicted, as was Paul’s, by God. Critically, this sort of conversion changes our natures. It makes us something we are incapable of becoming on our own. It is not about acting in a new way, or believing something new – those are incidental effects of a much deeper reorientation of the soul.

These Christians craved such events, but believed they were not theirs to choose; their piety was rigorous, but also, to a certain extent, quietist. They believed in human depravity, and thus that salvation would come only and entirely through a gracious act of God, unearned. They prayed for revival, but ultimately placed their fate in the hands of the Spirit. They did know, however, the channels God had ordained for such experience; as Paul taught, “faith comes through hearing.” (Romans 10:17) God interacted with the world through the Word – the command of creation, the Incarnation of Christ, and the text of scripture. This was why the Bible was a book different from any other; it was why preaching replaced the Mass as the center of the liturgy.

And these convictions invented their piety. “Methodism,” like “Mormonism,” was originally a term of derision, for Wesley and his followers strove to rigorously, or even methodically, pattern their lives following the Word – the hours of their days were marked off by Scripture study, by prayer, and by worship. They desired nothing more than the possibility of a transcendent encounter with the Word, for it was to encounter the saving event embodied in Christ, and it was, if God so chose, to be reborn a Christian, a new person, elected to salvation, and birthed in the Holy Spirit. Conversion changed the Puritans’ natures as it did those of Augustine.

But in the ecstacies of the First Great Awakening lay the seeds of an alternative interpretation of conversion, that flavored not only by Methodist Arminianism (ultimately, the belief that the human will could play a role in its salvation), but by the developing contours of American psychology. The revivalist Charles Finney, who seized the pole position among American evangelicals in the 1830s, believed that human beings were fallen, but also that they were not incapable of accepting the mercy God held out to them. God held out personal regeneration to us; we had only to overcome our sinful natures enough take it. And we could know the truth upon hearing it; this was Common Sense theology. Depravity merely meant that we could not truly choose to do so unless our spirits were sufficiently pummeled. Thus, borrowing from the emotional techniques of the Methodists, Finney reconceived of the conversion event as an emotional choice that people had to be persuaded to make, under duress, if necessary. He thus stared at them with his creepy eyes, exhorted them to weep, called the converted to walk down the aisles and was willing to keep his listeners praying for spiritual manifestation in his tabernacles until late at night, all of which created a sufficiently emotional atmosphere that would invite the Holy Spirit to aid his listeners to the natural reticence of the sinner. This was piety as theatrical technique. (Kathryn Teresa Long’s The Revival of 1857-58 is an interesting study of the wrestling between advocates of these two notions of conversion.)

Finney, and many others influenced by Methodist theology, also amplified the effects of conversion, and ultimately developed a notion of “perfectionism” from a concept called “sanctification” that Wesley had toyed with. That is, as Finney and some of Wesley’s more radical followers eventually concluded, a convert could become so aligned with the Holy Spirit as to eradicate any trace of the sinner’s nature. This could be lost, but also gained. Some Calvinists bought into this were more hesitant, and preferred to speak of “covering” or “subduing” the sinful nature rather than destroying it. Such people were never the majority of American Protestants (and eventually became the parents of today’s Pentecostals) but we see in them perhaps the most dramatic confidence in what conversion could make of a sinner.

Many contemporary evangelicals still concieve of themselves as Finney-ites; Billy Graham and his children are the most famous. But a third conception of conversion Mormons might find relevant emerged in the mid-nineteenth century. The Congregationalist minister Horace Bushnell was among those who found Finney’s spin on the conversion-as-immediate-experience distasteful. Rather, Bushnell insisted that if Christians began bringing their children up correctly, they need never know that they were unsaved. Conversion, for Bushnell, was not an event but a process, a gradual weaning away from the selfishness of the natural man toward the faithfulness of the Christian. Thus, piety became domesticated, transformed from the rigorous religious practices of the Puritans toward the moral niceties of the Victorian class. Like Finney, he believed conversion was within human capabilities – that is, conversion is a process we can initiate. Unlike Finney, Bushnell actually minimizes the divine role at all. For Bushnell, Christians did not become such through the abrupt intervention of the Holy Spirit, but through, simply, acting as though they were Christians all along, bathing their lives in God’s grace, line upon line.

III.
Now, which of these models seems most particularly Mormon? This is a more complicated question than it might seem. Mormons tend not to speak of “conversion” as a sort of divine intervention that changes our natures. Conversion, for Mormons, is not the immediate transformation of the fallen soul, but the choice we are all capable of making, given the evidence of the spiritual experience. The Bible Dictionary defines it as the “conscious acceptance of the will of God,” citing Acts 3:19.* Our wills work in tandem with the Holy Spirit; faith is the result of seeking spiritual experience, which experience in turn produces increased confidence in the Spirit, which in turn produces increased spiritual experience. The Preach my Gospel missionary manual speaks of “the witness of the Spirit,” quoting Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve: “”When individuals feel the Spirit working with them, or when they see the evidence of the Lord’s love and mercy in their lives, they are edified and strengthened spiritually, and their faith in him increases.” (93) In this, Mormons would side with Finney against Edwards, though they might find his methods distasteful, preferring the decorum and optimism about human capability that Bushnell offers. And as in Bushnell, there’s little sense of the radical regeneration of a depraved human soul in Mormon language about conversion.

And this is where Parley Pratt might help. Here is what Mormons would generally call his conversion experience.

I opened [the Book of Mormon] with eagerness, and read its title page. I then read the testimony of the several witnesses in relation to the manner of its being found and translated. After this, I commenced its comments by course. I read all day; eating was a burden, I had no desire for food; sleep was a burden when the night came, for I preferred reading to sleep.

As I read, the spirit of the Lord was upon me, and I knew and comprehended the book was true, as plainly and manifestly as a man comprehends and knows he exists. My joy was now full, as it were, and I rejoiced sufficiently to more than pay me for all the sorrows, sacrifices, and toils of my life.

Parley’s is a paradigmatic Mormon conversion experience. It is how things are supposed to work, based, of course, on the claim of the text itself (Moroni 10, of course) and the way Mormons have applied it since; Pratt’s is the model missionaries are taught to pursue with potential converts. As Preach My Gospel instructs, “Reading, pondering, and praying about the Book of Mormon are critical for an enduring conversion,” and “The honest seeker of truth will soon come to feel that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.” (38) But, in light of the way too many words I just wrote, I want to make some observations about what precisely Mormon conversion is.

First, Pratt’s conversion would have sounded entirely typical to an evangelical of the early nineteenth century. It was an encounter with the word as the Word; scripture as the medium of God’s grace. Many evangelicals treated – and still treat – the Bible as a tool of devotion in the same ways Mormons treat the Book of Mormon; studying it, praying about it, speaking of it as a miracle and evidence of God’s benevolence. And finding it a revelation of God.

What might startle Pratt’s evangelical contemporaries was that his experience was less an encounter with the Christ of the Atonement than it is the acquisition of knowledge about the truth of the book itself. He does not report that his experience assured him of his salvation, but rather that it convinced him of a particular metaphysical truth. His conversion was, then, _not_ of a type that evangelicals like Edwards or Finney presented; for them, Parley’s truck would have lurched to a stop halfway. This was not a regeneration, but rather, a coming to knowledge. Parley had learned of the true nature of God’s cosmos, but his own soul had not been reborn. This forces us to reconceive, perhaps, what conversion exactly is to Mormons, and how we talk to evangelical Protestants about it.

All Christians believe that conversion is a process, really; the difference is what parts of that process one compresses and what parts one speeds up. For evangelicals, the moment between the conviction of sin and the reception of grace can be but a breath; the lifelong struggle is the progression toward sanctification. For Mormons, as Pratt demonstrates, conviction has always already occurred; all human beings have what Mormons call the light of Christ, or what Methodists call prevenient grace, setting in them a hunger for the truth. The moment of contact, therefore, is not the plunge into despair followed by the glory of relief that the evangelical conversion is, but rather, a sense of homecoming, and a call to the new life that this knowledge brings. This, more than anything, illustrates the full extent to which Mormons repudiated from the very beginning the depravity of humankind.

Finally (at last), I want to point out one more interesting fact about Mormon piety. In 1737 Jonathan Edwards wrote A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God, a work which, along with his later The Life of David Brainard, laid the patterns of evangelical piety – how conversion looked when it happened to people. Pratt’s narrative, along, of course, with Joseph Smith’s own narrative of his search for knowledge of the divine, gave Mormons their own models. And unlike Edwards’s work, which closely tracked the Reformed theology as it manifested itself in the lives of the believers of Northampton, Massachusetts, Smith and Pratt provided in their lives not doctrine, but stories which their followers imitated. Mormon piety, I would argue, is about modeling, and imitation, replication of the behavior experiences of preceding generations in hopes of gaining similar results. It’s why works like Lucy Mack Smith’s history of her son, the Autobiography, and the countless life chronicles that spew forth from the pen of Sheri Dew sell at Deseret Book; it’s why we already had three or four Mormon produced biographies of Joseph Smith before Fawn Brodie first walked into Church Archives; heck, it’s why Joseph’s own autobiography is canonized. The Mormons are not seeking cheap inspiration here; they’re reading how Parley and Joseph and Gordon B. Hinckley and Neal Maxwell were converted to understand how they themselves can be also.

——
*This does not strike me as the most definitive citation; the verse reads ” Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” But then, that’s how everybody uses Scripture.

Article filed under Book and Journal Reviews Categories of Periodization: Origins Cultural History Intellectual History Ritual Theology


Comments

  1. Matt, nice work. On a very minor note, I think you might underestimate the role that Edwards’ book played in shaping the events of the Great Awakening. There was a good bit of story in that book, and, to the extent that there was a Great Awakening, ministers consciously imitated those stories in suggesting to their congregants just how a revival looked.

    Comment by SC Taysom — August 23, 2009 @ 5:07 pm

  2. Matt, I can’t enumerate the ways in which I appreciate this post. So, naturally, I’ll try anyway.
    1) You are skillfully engaging in the contextualization you so passionately advocated at Sunstone.
    2) This helped me piece together a number of thoughts I have had recently about piety.
    3) I completely agree that Mormon piety consists of attempts at modeling a particular spiritual experience and acquisition of knowledge. I know your post was already long (and perhaps this is implicit in what you’re doing), but I wish you would discuss whether this is model of piety is problematic for Mormons. If book sales are a primary indicator, then the answer would probably be no. But I find this model of piety endlessly frustrating. And piety has only become meaningful as I have understood scripture study as an encounter with the Word (including the BOM, which involves asserting its truth as the word and Word). I suppose you might still categorize this experience as being convinced of a particular metaphysical truth. But it is not an instantaneous moment of being convinced of the Pratt etc. variety. I feel that I have to be convinced again and again each time I come to the books. And I am not necessarily looking for that Moment of conversion. Or is conversion for Mormons perhaps both/and, a Moment and a series of moments that serve to confirm that original experience?

    Comment by Elizabeth — August 24, 2009 @ 5:52 am

  3. This is a great post, Matt. Your witty observation that “for [evangelicals like Edwards or Finney], … Parley’s truck would have lurched to a stop halfway” is apt and insightful, I think.

    It is worth noting that for many first-generation Latter-day Saints (in the 19th century, as well as today perhaps), a regeneration of some sort had taken place prior to their acceptance of Mormonism. A number of Methodist converts to Mormonism framed their conversion to Mormonism this way—their “conversion” to Mormonism did not negate their spiritual reawakening experienced while Methodists. And yesterday at church here in Virginia, a recent convert bore her testimony and spoke of becoming a Christian years ago and then coming to accept the fulness of the gospel as found in Mormonism.

    I’m not familiar enough with Pratt’s autobiography off the top of my head to know whether he included any details about a prior conversion experience to Christ. Any insight there?

    Comment by Christopher — August 24, 2009 @ 7:06 am

  4. That model, I should add, doesn’t help much making sense of the conversions experienced by 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation (and so on) Mormons.

    Comment by Christopher — August 24, 2009 @ 7:09 am

  5. Great fun. Though people argue that Brainerd and JE’s interpretation-cum-proscription for FGA were themselves devotional biographies par excellence. (I’m thinking of Conforti here particularly but not exclusively.) How is this Mormon model different from the way SGA evangelicals constantly sought to emulate Brainerd as interpreted by JE?

    You’ve pointed out an interesting framing for this question, but I don’t think you’ve quite solved the puzzle.

    I think of sanctification as later than conversion, mostly based on sectarian Methodist sources, the higher of a two-tiered model. Is there evidence that it is otherwise?

    At the back of my mind, it seems to me that the Mormon assault on Common Sense plays a role here, something about the great meaning of Enlightenment and stealing back authority from Reformed Protestantisms. Also something about God interacting with a community/earth rather than a specific individual. Moroni/BoM is a proof that God has not forgotten _humanity_, rather than the evangelical assurance that God has not forgotten _this specific human_.

    Fascinating topic. back to work.

    Comment by smb — August 24, 2009 @ 8:29 am

  6. I had a vague memory of a prior discussion, which proved to be correct.

    Including a reference to September Dawn by mb himself. Did you ever track that down?

    http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/09/01/conversion-and-testimony/#more-2998

    Comment by smb — August 24, 2009 @ 8:35 am

  7. Wow, Matt! A great post! Many of my Community of Christ theologian friends are very critical of Mormon theology because of the ‘conversion as the acquisition of knowledge’ aspect of it. They say that “Jesus just becomes a movable chess piece on the board” rather than the central part of the story. (That’s almost an exact quote.) However, I think that in generations past, many Community of Christ members would have experienced a similar kind of “Mormon” conversion experience centered on the Book of Mormon where its truth “converted” them “to the church.”

    Also, there is really something revolutionary that happens in the eighteenth century with a revaluation of “emotions.” Emotional piety is cultivated and seen as giving true knowledge–whether it is in romantic love or in weeping from the conviction of sin. Added to this is the notion that emotions are spontaneous (a bit of a paradox, because, in reality, appropriate emotions and how to express them, are learned in communities). Spontaneous piety, at least in the rhetoric of the age, trumps ritualized forms of piety for eighteenth century evangelical folks–since ritualized piety is sooo Catholic.

    This post sounds like the beginning of an article!

    Comment by David Howlett — August 24, 2009 @ 8:53 am

  8. Great post Matt!

    Comment by Joy — August 24, 2009 @ 12:22 pm

  9. smb, Taysom – I did not mean to imply that the Faithful Narrative did not provide behavioral templates; I’ve read my Lambert and Butler (though I think both are somewhat overdrawn, Butler probably intentionally; it does not seem to me that there was nothing we can usefully call ‘the Great Awakening’), but rather, that Edwards worked very hard to fit the revivals as he understood them into the Reformed doctrine he had already spent decades pondering; Mormon narratives, on the other hand, contain, more simply, what seem to me theological assumptions rather than self-conscious argumentation.

    And, heavens, I hope none of my blog posts – blog posts! – are ever accused of fully solving the puzzle; instead, they’re the beginning of thoughts. And no – I completely forgot about writing that post, though I still remember the scene – it’s Jon Voight talking about his conversion, which appears to be a primarily an expression of the desire for the glorious future in heaven Joseph Smith promises him, and hardly a religious encounter at all.

    David touches on something quite important, I think, in pointing out the ways emotion becomes knowledge – that’s a critical observation particularly for contemporary LDS testimonies.

    Christopher – Parley tells us that a Baptist church, upon interrogating him about his beliefs, comes to the conclusion that he had been converted, but he doesn’t tell us whether he agrees or not. Indeed, there’s a hint of skepticism about their procedures; like many early nineteenth century Christians, he complains a lot about the formalities and deadness of contemporary churches. Interestingly, he goes on and on and on about how much he loves reading the Bible, though.

    Elizabeth – thank you; high praise. I think your last is more descriptive of what Mormons undergo – there is no single definitive moment, really, but a series of mutually reinforcing actions between the would-be believer and the Holy Spirit. One thing I am careful about is however much I might be drawn to Reformation theology, I do not wish to downplay or sneer at how rude or unlettered frequent Mormon vagueness seems beside. That way lies Paul Toscano chiding Russell Nelson for not being, in effect, a Lutheran.

    Comment by matt b. — August 24, 2009 @ 12:23 pm

  10. I argue in my CH article that early Mormons were so immersed in evangelical culture that most had conversions and that evangelical conversions were often a prerequisite for Mormon conversion.

    Also the general authorities have lately really de-emphasized conversion experiences to the point that Paul and Alma are held up as non-archetypes (not to be expected). Instead they usually point to David O. McKay who prayed as a boy and had no experience but “gained a testimony” through serving in the church. The reinforcing process that Matt describes. Nevertheless Pratt still works as the archetype for converts, people who join the church (or at least, what Mormons would like to think). Pratt’s conversion is quite unusual though there is a woman in my ward here who was handed a Book of Mormon by her grandfather when she was helping him clean her garage when she was twelve and upon reading it decided to base her life on it. So there are a few Pratts out there.

    Comment by Steve Fleming — August 24, 2009 @ 2:31 pm

  11. […] Links I’ve Liked Lately Matt at JI discussing what conversion means, in both LDS and Protestant theology. Sheryl at Segullah on wanting to be married. Edje at JI on creatures named after […]

    Pingback by Some Links I’ve Liked Lately « Seeking for Righteousness — August 24, 2009 @ 2:44 pm

  12. Pratt’s autobiography indeed supports the point Christopher made about a preliminary “Christian” conversion preceding a additional/subsequent conversion to Mormonism. Pratt’s conversion to the restorationist teachings of Alexander Campbell was deep and profound. Like many early converts, Pratt was firmly embedded in his tradition and firmly tied to Jesus before entering the Mormon tradition. This “Mormon” conversion experience (a coming to metaphysical knowledge) presupposed an awareness of and devotion to Christ. Modern Mormons, looking back on models like Pratt and Joseph Smith and at pains to differentiate themselves from mainstream Christianity, overlook the centrality of the experience of grace and redemption for the “conversion” experience. It might be helpful to remember that Joseph’s Smith’s initial, formative, “conversion” experiences were much more about the state of his soul than than the depth of his knowledge. Emphasis on knowledge and conversion to the cause of Mormonism came later.

    Comment by Ryan Tobler — August 24, 2009 @ 7:26 pm

  13. Fabulous. I really appreciate your careful delineation of these definitions and differences.

    Comment by Ben Pratt — August 24, 2009 @ 7:36 pm

  14. Oops I missed Chris’s comment. Yea, what Chris said.

    Comment by Steve Fleming — August 25, 2009 @ 11:05 am

  15. Steve, I cite your CH article in my thesis on that very point.

    I think a history of Mormon conversion might be quite fruitful in what it reveals. While this post and the subsequent discussion has discussed early Mormonism and modern Mormonism, the intervening 100+ years deserve attention, too. How the conversions of second generation Mormons differed from first, for example. Or what different aspects of Mormonism receive the most attention in gaining a testimony of the Mormon gospel (i.e. the Book of Mormon, prophets, restored priesthood, or the Mormon concept of Zion).

    Comment by Christopher — August 25, 2009 @ 12:21 pm

  16. Great post and comments, thanks Matt.

    Comment by Jared T — August 25, 2009 @ 11:37 pm

  17. […] 4. I spoke about these verses at greater length in the opening section of this post. […]

    Pingback by Juvenile Instructor » Roman Polanski: “there is none righteous, no, not one.” — October 8, 2009 @ 8:26 pm

  18. I finally caught up.

    First, excellent thoughts, Matt. I really enjoyed this.
    Second, I am with Christopher in wondering about the regeneration of certain converts before they became Mormon; the “pregeneration,” if you will.

    Again, excellent post, and series overall.

    Comment by BHodges — October 15, 2009 @ 6:08 pm

  19. Oops, one more to go.

    Comment by BHodges — October 15, 2009 @ 6:08 pm

  20. I should add, Christopher also notes the need for paradigmatic examples for members BiC. We have those too. Look at Heber J. Grant, for instance, or even David O. McKay.

    Comment by BHodges — October 15, 2009 @ 6:09 pm

  21. I should have read all the comments first, hehe.

    Comment by BHodges — October 15, 2009 @ 6:15 pm

  22. […] Current School: The College of William & Mary (PhD, History) Favorite JI post: Matt’s musings on Parley Pratt’s conversion and the patterns of Mormon piety Research Interests: Evangelicalism in the early Republic; Methodist schismatics; lived religion; […]

    Pingback by Juvenile Instructor » The Juvenile Instructor Turns 2 — October 26, 2009 @ 9:15 pm


Series

Recent Comments

Steve Fleming on JI Summer Book Club: “Yes, it's an interesting move. As Ben notes in the next post, getting the real time reactions allows for greater emotion.”


Ben P on JI Summer Book Club: “Gary: thanks for the reminder of the Kimball baby. That's what I get for writing late at night. Thanks, Joey.”


J Stuart on JI Summer Book Club: “Thanks, Ben. Really helpful. This reminds me of something you wrote in last year's book club: women historians like Ulrich, Newell, and Avery capture the…”


Gary Bergera on JI Summer Book Club: “Really helpful summary, Ben. Laurel does a great job with a very difficult subject. You write that the Claytons produced the first child born to a…”


Ben P on JI Summer Book Club: “Thanks, David. And yes, there are trade-offs when privileging contemporary documents--there are less female voices from which to reconstruct female lives. This is mostly a…”


David G. on JI Summer Book Club: “Thanks, Ben. I agree--Ulrich captures the conflicted emotions that accompanied the emergence of plurality in Nauvoo better than perhaps anyone. She does have to…”

Topics


juvenileinstructor.org