Roundtable: Stuart on *The Power of Godliness*

By March 20, 2018

Jonathan Stapley?s The Power of Godliness is a landmark for Mormon Studies. There are precious few academic, peer-reviewed publications that succinctly and accessibly explain the development of Mormonism?s definitions of priesthood and liturgical practices. While there are certain rough edges that could be smoothed out, it?s altogether remarkable that Stapley produced this book. It?s even more astounding that he wrote the book while working in the private sector, without summers for research or other designated ?work? times that many academic need to produce scholarship.

I?d like to focus on two aspects of Stapley?s work that I think are worth emulating in future work in Mormon Studies. First, I consider how Stapley?s work ?does? theology in an academically viable way. Second, I reflect on Stapley?s use of religious studies methodologies throughout his manuscript.

I recently spoke to a senior scholar whose book on Mormon history is coming out in the next 15 months. She received a reader?s report that chastised her for ?doing theology? in her work, rather than looking at Mormons? actions only within a political or gendered context. She fumed about the impossibility of doing religious history without doing some type of theology. ?What else are you supposed to call the logic that religious people created and relied upon in their devotional lives?? I shared her frustration. Theology is not the stuff of Thomas Aquinas alone?or Eliza Snow, Orson Pratt, etc.?but is rather the internal logic of religious lives. Sure, that type of theology has its value and place, but to pretend that religious peoples don?t act according to what makes sense to them is patently absurd. Give me the stories of Mary Brown and Thomas Job and I?ll show you how religion operated on a local level much more effectively than only considering the perspectives of Brigham Young. We need more stories from more people from more places across the globe and from outside of the Nauvoo period. We will always have Joseph Smith?s history with us. Let?s turn our attention to other peoples, experiences, and theologies.

Stapley does a commendable job of thinking about the religious logics, or ?lived theologies? as Charles Marsh might call them, that ordered the lives of Mormons from Joseph Smith to the newest convert. ?Doing theology? is the best way to recover the in-group thinking that created (and creates) Mormonism from April 6, 1830 until now. Historians will benefit from Stapley?s patient unpacking of the theology behind the Temple and Priesthood Restriction, the routinizing of priesthood ordination, the public disavowal of women?s blessings and healings, and many other topics. What else is there to call their thought but theology? Religious historians should not be ashamed to consider the religious logic of the people they study. Didn?t Orsi, McDannell, Marsh, and a dozen others settle this score in the 1990s? I applaud Stapley for unashamedly thinking about the way that average Mormons considered their religious lives and their relationship to ritual. I?d like to see more of this approach, to say nothing of ?lived religion,? in Mormon Studies writ large. The best intellectual historians engage a wide range of thinkers and thinking, not only those thunk by intellectuals.

Of course, this last point leads me to my second area of analysis. Stapley uses religious studies theory to help explain Mormon history. This may seem wholly unremarkable to many of JI?s readers, who are academics outside of Mormon history. But, as someone who takes religious studies and Mormon seriously, it made me happy to see the influence of Taves, Orsi, McDannell, and others sprinkled throughout the book (even if not cited).[x] Stapley?s work highlights the value of methodological frameworks when organizing a study as broad as Power of Godliness?s?or as narrow as an explanatory paragraph. As Mormonism becomes an increasingly academically viable topic it?s important that scholars don?t forget to speak the language of the academy as they?re addressing the concerns of Mormon historiography. Stapley has shown that someone without academic training in history or religious studies can do it. Academics engaged in the study of Mormonism must be sure to do it, too. [y]

 

 

[x] I would have liked to have seen some work with Catherine Bell and other ritual theorists. I’d like to see someone study a particular Mormon ritual and do research on what it means/meant to Mormons now (#freethesisideas).

[y]I know that there are scholars of Mormonism that use theory, especially religious studies theory. I love the work of Jan Shipps, Spencer Fluhman, Kathleen Flake, Max Mueller, Kris Wright and others. I am simply calling for more of the kind of work that they produce!

Article filed under Book and Journal Reviews Intellectual History Methodology, Academic Issues Race Responses Ritual


Comments

  1. Thanks, Joey. I’m thinking about ritual in Mormonism–I remember when selecting my diss topic, being wary of ritual because so much of it is implicitly or explicitly tied to the temple and thus less accessible to us non-Mormons. That may not be as true as I think (or more accurately thought) it was, but I’d love to hear anyone’s thoughts on it.

    Comment by Saskia — March 20, 2018 @ 9:14 am

  2. That’s quite an interesting point, Saskia. I suppose I was thinking of studying what rituals mean to LDS, not just what they are or trying to discuss the ritual itself. I was very pleasantly surprised to see the JSPP discuss temple ritual, with rightful circumspection, in their volumes. I think that something along the lines of what McDannell did with garments in *Material Christianity*, but with placing it within a Bell/JZ Smith framework.

    Of course, I’m saying this is a white male academic that participates in the ritual. Mormons and many Mormon academics are still deeply suspicious of discussing specifics around ritual. I may be too rosy about this, but I think that Stapley’s work will open some doors to further study.

    Comment by J Stuart — March 20, 2018 @ 9:19 am

  3. Yes, your second paragraph points to what I mean–it’s easier to be circumspect when you’re an insider (you’re also allowed more leeway). Or you can just be fearless like McDannell, which is not a bad thing to be! I do think there is more openness about this now than there was just a few years ago, enough that I might consider something along those lines for a second book project if I was staying in academia.

    Comment by Saskia — March 20, 2018 @ 9:34 am

  4. “Didn?t Orsi, McDannell, Marsh, and a dozen others settle this score in the 1990s? ”

    YES! Yes they did. (and, not coincidentally, by studying why gender matters in religious life and by taking women’s religious experiences and thought seriously).

    And I agree, it’s nice to see theological theory (is that a phrase?) being so capably applied, whether inside or outside the academy.

    Comment by Tona H — March 20, 2018 @ 10:26 am

  5. […] in a digital format is in the overlapping repetition, forgive us for that. (Check out Tona and Joey‘s prior posts.) Though I had an opportunity a few weeks ago to respond to Jonathan […]

    Pingback by Juvenile Instructor » Roundtable: Johnson – Accessibility and Nuance in Stapley’s *The Power of Godliness* — March 21, 2018 @ 7:56 am


Series

Recent Comments

D Golding on The Time Neil Armstrong: “Working on the book :) There's so much more to say, and some questions to resolve. I'm planning a research trip (or two) to Quito…”


J Stuart on The Time Neil Armstrong: “Dave. PLEASE write more about this and publish it as an article!”


Jeff T on The Time Neil Armstrong: “This is a fantastic story. Nice writing!”


Jeff T on Summer Book Club: On: “Thanks, Matt!”


J Stuart on Summer Book Club: On: “Love these thoughts, Matt. I wonder, though, if the Americanization thesis needs further critical examination. Might be something for a periodical like the Mormon Studies…”


wvs on New Authors at the: “Welcome! New blood at the JI!”

Topics


juvenileinstructor.org