Introduction to Religious “Practice” Month at the JI

By March 3, 2014

The study of American religion ain’t what it used to be. Not so many decades ago, most scholars had a rather, shall we say, circumscribed view of what it meant to do religious history. Most were preoccupied with the development of religious institutions (in other words, white Protestant churches), with the elite leaders who led those institutions, and sometimes with the formal theological agendas that those leaders articulated. All of those conventions, however, have been overturned more or less recently, and scholarship today is much more inclusive, more democratic, and more attuned to dimensions of the human experience. Much of the old model, as we now can clearly see, rested on Protestant notions about the nature of what constituted “religion” to begin with, and so the process of revision has entailed coming to grips with these subtending assumptions.

For many scholars, for example, “religion” was essentially about right belief, about the acquisition of faith, and about an interior connection to the divine–in retrospect, clearly understandings conditioned by Protestantism. Time, however, has brought a new consciousness of the embodied, external, purposive behavior of religious actors. In other words, the study not only of religious belief but of religious “practice” has become vitally important for scholars of American religion. It has become clear that what people do as part of their religious lives matters vitally as a component of their lived experience, and furthermore that the physical activity of historical actors can illuminate the religious culture that surrounds them. This has long been a staple of religious studies of other parts of the colonized world. Now the paradigm has now been turned back on American history.

There’s a long and rather complicated theoretical genealogy behind this shift. Regardless of what literary scholars will tell you, history is, in truth, deeply informed by critical theory, and American religious history has been influenced by methodologies and theories on many fronts. One influence enabling the new interest in practice has been the so-called cultural turn and theories of cultural anthropology that have flourished among historians since the eighties. Clifford Geertz and others demonstrated how a human practice or ritual could be read for insight to largely cultural structures, and his way of approaching religious behavior as culture, as a manifestation of a symbolic “cultural system,” has resonated with many American historians.

The turn to practice also rests, however, on the development and spread of new, portable theories of human social behavior. French social thinkers Michel de Certeau and Pierre Bordieu have offered compelling ways to understand the logic of practice in human life. Others have theorized about ritual–which might be thought of as a particular category or subset of practice. These include Victor Turner, Mary Douglas, Jonathan Z. Smith, and Catherine Bell. Still other thinkers have developed theoretical literatures around related phenomena, such as the concept of “performance.”

All this provides the backdrop for many of this month’s discussions at the Juvenile Instructor, which will revolve around the theme of religious “practice” in Mormon history. We’ve solicited contributions from those among our ranks with a particular interest in this approach, as well as other guests who’ve kindly agreed to participate with us. We look forward to hearing from a number of JI regulars, including J. Stapley and myself, who’ll head up this initiative, as well as Steve Fleming, Steve Taysom, Kris Wright, Matt Bowman, and guests Megan Sanborn Jones, Walter van Beek, Jennifer Brinkerhoff Platt, Dan Belnap, Susanna Morrill, and hopefully a few more.

That cast of characters indicates that the study of religious practice has already made some significant inroads into Mormon Studies. I think it’s fair to say, even, that we’re off to a good start when it comes to this methodology. Over the past decade, we’ve seen the early flourishing of scholarship on Mormon practices, especially in the early periods. More than anyone else, the redoubtable team of JIers J. Stapley and Kris Wright have modeled the virtues of this kind of analysis with their extensive work on practices of healing among early Latter-day Saints, particularly baptism for health and the healing rituals practiced by Mormon women.

Practices related to death and dying have also gotten attention. JI friend Susanna Morrill has written perceptively on birth and death rituals among early Mormon women; Samuel Brown has investigated the relationship between many of Mormonism’s distinctive practices and its confrontation with death in nineteenth-century America;┬ámy own work has attempted to probe the origins and significance of baptism for the dead. Meanwhile, we’ve also tasted of the fruits of analyzing religious practices beyond the world of more formal ritual; Jenny Reeder, for one, has delved into Mormon women’s production of “hair wreaths, quilts, buildings, posters, and hand-painted poetry books” as part of their endeavor to develop a “usable past.” Still others have explored the ways that Mormons have blessed, cursed, shouted, and communed.

Taken together, these inquiries give us some sense of the potential of “practice” to expand our understandings. And this is only a sampling. Join us later this week as we work to compile a fuller bibliography of work on Mormon practices in the past decade and construct a fuller picture of where things stand.

This month, we welcome your insights and questions on the meaning and role of religious practices within Mormonism. How should we conceptualize and interpret them? Is there anything distinctive about how Mormons have practiced their religion? What might it teach us about broader patterns of religious behavior? To what extent and in what ways does studying the history of LDS liturgy, ritual, or other practices expand our understanding of the Mormon past? Disclose the experience of historical subjects? What does it mean that religious practices emerge and evolve over time? We hope you’ll join us throughout March in grappling with these questions and in meditating on the acts of faith that Mormons have performed throughout their history, and why they merit our attention and study.

Article filed under Miscellaneous


  1. Thanks, Ryan. This looks to be another exciting month at the JI.

    Comment by David G. — March 3, 2014 @ 10:37 am

  2. Very much looking forward to this, Ryan.

    Comment by Ben P — March 3, 2014 @ 11:29 am

  3. Wonderful! Looking forward to it! These themed months have been a great innovation, and have resulted in some amazing content and discussions.

    I know it would be a significant amount of work, but perhaps someone at JI could index the collections. It could be beneficial for a number of reasons, including allowing a quick review of the state of scholarship on the topics you’ve covered.

    Comment by Amy T — March 3, 2014 @ 11:37 am

  4. At the risk of self-promotion, I wanted to mention the collection I edited with Leigh Schmidt and Mark Valeri, “Practicing Protestants: Histories of Christian Life in America, 1630-1965.” The introduction provides a framework for looking at issues of religious practice in history. I also authored a chapter that compares Protestant and LDS missionary practices in the 19th century Pacific.

    Comment by Laurie MK — March 3, 2014 @ 12:08 pm

  5. Thanks, Laurie. I actually meant to cite that volume as a capstone of sorts for this shift in the field. It’s the best treatment out there. Glad you brought it up!

    Comment by Ryan T. — March 3, 2014 @ 12:34 pm

  6. I look forward to this series. I’ll be esp. thrilled if there are any posts that engage practical theology or more philosophical/theoretical conceptions of practices, which are of course parallel movements to the focus on practices in religious studies and history….

    Comment by Robert C. — March 5, 2014 @ 10:09 am

  7. I’m just getting caught up on reading the blog. Very much looking forward to this series. Thanks to all involved!

    Comment by Christopher — March 5, 2014 @ 3:38 pm

  8. […] Neylan McBaine is calling for women?s experiences working with ward and stake leadership for a future book project. If you have any experiences, positive or negative, please be sure to let Neylan know. Her project is sure to be useful in the academic sphere for those interested in Mormon religious practice. […]

    Pingback by Juvenile Instructor » Mormon Studies Weekly Roundup 3/1-3/8 — March 9, 2014 @ 8:10 am

  9. […] his introductory post to Religious “Practice” month here at JI, Ryan touched on the many ways ritual and practice informs Mormon lives, from the formal […]

    Pingback by Juvenile Instructor » Gardening at Temple Square — March 18, 2014 @ 11:37 am


Recent Comments

J. Stapley on The historiography of adoptive: “Thanks, guys.”

Gary Bergera on The historiography of adoptive: “Really interesting information, J. Thanks.”

John Hajicek on The historiography of adoptive: “THIS is how all Mormon history should be written. Outside of Utah, historians write the history of the story, instead of writing a…”

Jeff T on Digital News: The Woman's: “Thanks Liz and JJohnson! I know that there are efforts to capture data from individual articles, although that might be a while down the pipeline.…”

JJohnson on Digital News: The Woman's: “Such a great source. And the scans are beautiful. Any attempt being made to identify all the authors? I'm particularly interested in A.P. today. …”

Liz Hammind on Digital News: The Woman's: “I read the first 4 years of the paper and it was fascinating - pioneer women had a much different view of religion than modern…”