February 29, 2012
AAR Proposal System is Open!
As of today, the new AAR paper proposal submission system, with the handy-but-long acronym PAPERS, is open for business. That means you can start submitting your paper proposals! Hooray! Click here to get started. For the Religion in the American West Seminar call, take a look back at this blog post. For the full AAR Call for Papers, click here. Happy proposal writing!
February 27, 2012
Concerning Our Relevance
by Konden Smith
It’s been a couple months, but I’m still troubled over a topic that was passionately argued at the last AAR conference in San Francisco. In a Saturday morning forum entitled “Scholars and the Public Representations of Islam in the United States,” prominent Islamicist John L. Esposito of Georgetown University lamented that so few from the conference showed up to this forum, considering its larger national relevance. As current Vice President and President Elect (2013) of the AAR, he spoke of the irrelevance the AAR often has in influencing the public discussion regarding religion in American public life. He criticized the failure of academia to speak out on such important issues, leaving the debates to be fought by those with less understanding and discipline, however well meaning. In looking at political discourse, it was asked why the general population has been so seduced by fear and paranoia rather than thoughtful discussion, particularly regarding Islam. Clearly, this has everything to do with who is leading the discussions. In his ending statement, Esposito noted that scholars and great associations like the AAR are not doing enough to contribute, thus allowing their relevance to be questioned.
In “We’re Here, Get Used to It,” Brett Hendrickson provided a nice synopsis of the importance of “Religion in the American West” and its relevance as an academic study. But the larger question continues to trouble me: is the academic study of religion itself relevant? Has it contributed to the larger national discussion, or has it remained aloof? Why have the U.S. Government and the U.S. public not drawn on this important reservoir of knowledge when dealing with significant religious controversies, such as the proposed Park 51 Mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan?
In asking the question regarding the relevance of “Religion in the American West,” perhaps a discussion can begin regarding the role scholars can play in helping frame the public discussion on immigration in Arizona, women in the military, Mormonism in presidential politics, or gay marriage in California. These are all issues that shape the West, but they are also decisive national questions that will shape 2012 presidential politics and the future direction of the country.
Religion in the American West is a relevant realm of academic study, but I add Esposito’s critique that academia itself has failed to be relevant. My thoughts on these lines are mostly in response to Esposito’s challenge to the AAR and the study of religion more broadly, but I see no reason why we as scholars of religion in the American West can’t live up to that challenge in the demonstration of our larger relevance. I would be interested in hearing ideas of how this can be done, rather than listening to my own pessimism that worries that national conversations and critical thinking are two very different things.
It’s been a couple months, but I’m still troubled over a topic that was passionately argued at the last AAR conference in San Francisco. In a Saturday morning forum entitled “Scholars and the Public Representations of Islam in the United States,” prominent Islamicist John L. Esposito of Georgetown University lamented that so few from the conference showed up to this forum, considering its larger national relevance. As current Vice President and President Elect (2013) of the AAR, he spoke of the irrelevance the AAR often has in influencing the public discussion regarding religion in American public life. He criticized the failure of academia to speak out on such important issues, leaving the debates to be fought by those with less understanding and discipline, however well meaning. In looking at political discourse, it was asked why the general population has been so seduced by fear and paranoia rather than thoughtful discussion, particularly regarding Islam. Clearly, this has everything to do with who is leading the discussions. In his ending statement, Esposito noted that scholars and great associations like the AAR are not doing enough to contribute, thus allowing their relevance to be questioned.
In “We’re Here, Get Used to It,” Brett Hendrickson provided a nice synopsis of the importance of “Religion in the American West” and its relevance as an academic study. But the larger question continues to trouble me: is the academic study of religion itself relevant? Has it contributed to the larger national discussion, or has it remained aloof? Why have the U.S. Government and the U.S. public not drawn on this important reservoir of knowledge when dealing with significant religious controversies, such as the proposed Park 51 Mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan?
In asking the question regarding the relevance of “Religion in the American West,” perhaps a discussion can begin regarding the role scholars can play in helping frame the public discussion on immigration in Arizona, women in the military, Mormonism in presidential politics, or gay marriage in California. These are all issues that shape the West, but they are also decisive national questions that will shape 2012 presidential politics and the future direction of the country.
Religion in the American West is a relevant realm of academic study, but I add Esposito’s critique that academia itself has failed to be relevant. My thoughts on these lines are mostly in response to Esposito’s challenge to the AAR and the study of religion more broadly, but I see no reason why we as scholars of religion in the American West can’t live up to that challenge in the demonstration of our larger relevance. I would be interested in hearing ideas of how this can be done, rather than listening to my own pessimism that worries that national conversations and critical thinking are two very different things.
February 20, 2012
Trying to Make Sense of Mormonism in the Media
by James B. Bennett
I have read with alternating fits of bemusement and dismay the sudden surge of articles about Mormonism over the past few weeks. Perhaps the revelation that Romney, like many Mormons, actually tithes (as opposed to most Christian's tendency to considering tithing only aspirational, at best) has increased people's interest in where that money is going. The media proliferation has become too great to keep a handle on, let alone summarize, so let me highlight one concentrated set that appeared over the course of several days in The New York Times.
The onslaught occurred during the last week of January, kicking off with two articles in the one issue! The first was a puzzling review of Matthew Bowman's The Mormon People, which criticized Bowman for accomplishing what he set out to do. The reviewer lamented the absence of titillating side shows and lurid details, wanting more of HBO's "Big Love" (never mind that "Big Love" wasn't about these Mormons!) and wanting to know if Mormonism is a cult (don't get me started on such uncritical use of the word "cult"—this guy needs to take an intro religion class!).
That same day, the feature story in the food section examined the expanding tastes of Mormon cuisine. Turns out that Mormons actually like to cook and eat foods other than cream of whatever casserole and Jell-O salad. (For those casting about for research/dissertation topics, how about the evolution of denominational cuisine in America?)
The January 25th double-header was followed the next day with an Op-Ed by David Reynolds, which was a call for religious tolerance that depicted Mormonism as just another branch of Protestantism emerging in the nineteenth century religious marketplace, albeit a highly successful one.
Finally, a mere four days later, the Times published an online round table in which our own Laurie Maffly-Kipp was one of the five contributors. While Laurie and the other American Religious Historian, Jana Riess, provided some context and critical perspective on American views of Mormonism, the remaining contributors proffered typical ad hominem attacks about a backward looking, conservative, misogynist church, suggesting a vote for Romney was a vote for the LDS Church to advance those views.
But what of Religion in the American West? On the surface, very little. As John-Charles Duffy points out in his recent post, Mormonism has long posed a challenge for scholars of religion in the American West as we seek to differentiate, as John-Charles explains, between religion in the American west and religion that happens to take place in the west.
Fortuitously, the same day that The New York Times published Laurie's roundtable piece she also contributed to this blog a very helpful reminder that Mormonism has never been a religion of the West (or even America) in the exclusive way we generally depict it. This corrective exemplifies the way that attention to religion in the West can contribute to our conversation about religion more broadly, even if one of its consequences is to diffuse claims about western distinctiveness.
And this completes the circle: Laurie's framing of the tension between Mormonism as Western or not (and even American and not) seems a helpful way to understand the slew of articles in The New York Times. Geography becomes a metaphor for the various and often conflicting views of Mormonism appearing almost daily in the media. At one extreme are those, such as the review of Bowman's book, as well as several of the round-table pieces, which want to emphasize Mormonism as peculiar, sensational and/or dangerous--something that is (or ought to be) confined Utah. At the other pole is something like Reynolds' Op-Ed, identifying Mormons as just another branch of Protestantism. Mormons are typical, even exemplary, in the Americanness of their beliefs and practices. Perhaps the most nuanced of the lot was the article on Mormon cuisine, which at least seemed to allow for change! And like good food, the truth lies somewhere between the two poles, with a touch of both the familiar and the exotic. But, as Laurie's post also suggests, the more significant questions is not where it is located (geographically or metaphorically), but rather what is at stake in the various possibilities? The challenges of understanding Mormonism are not a new problem in the media. But the ways those challenges are framed relative to the West as both geographic and ideological space might help us begin untangling the knot.
I have read with alternating fits of bemusement and dismay the sudden surge of articles about Mormonism over the past few weeks. Perhaps the revelation that Romney, like many Mormons, actually tithes (as opposed to most Christian's tendency to considering tithing only aspirational, at best) has increased people's interest in where that money is going. The media proliferation has become too great to keep a handle on, let alone summarize, so let me highlight one concentrated set that appeared over the course of several days in The New York Times.
The onslaught occurred during the last week of January, kicking off with two articles in the one issue! The first was a puzzling review of Matthew Bowman's The Mormon People, which criticized Bowman for accomplishing what he set out to do. The reviewer lamented the absence of titillating side shows and lurid details, wanting more of HBO's "Big Love" (never mind that "Big Love" wasn't about these Mormons!) and wanting to know if Mormonism is a cult (don't get me started on such uncritical use of the word "cult"—this guy needs to take an intro religion class!).
That same day, the feature story in the food section examined the expanding tastes of Mormon cuisine. Turns out that Mormons actually like to cook and eat foods other than cream of whatever casserole and Jell-O salad. (For those casting about for research/dissertation topics, how about the evolution of denominational cuisine in America?)
The January 25th double-header was followed the next day with an Op-Ed by David Reynolds, which was a call for religious tolerance that depicted Mormonism as just another branch of Protestantism emerging in the nineteenth century religious marketplace, albeit a highly successful one.
Finally, a mere four days later, the Times published an online round table in which our own Laurie Maffly-Kipp was one of the five contributors. While Laurie and the other American Religious Historian, Jana Riess, provided some context and critical perspective on American views of Mormonism, the remaining contributors proffered typical ad hominem attacks about a backward looking, conservative, misogynist church, suggesting a vote for Romney was a vote for the LDS Church to advance those views.
But what of Religion in the American West? On the surface, very little. As John-Charles Duffy points out in his recent post, Mormonism has long posed a challenge for scholars of religion in the American West as we seek to differentiate, as John-Charles explains, between religion in the American west and religion that happens to take place in the west.
Fortuitously, the same day that The New York Times published Laurie's roundtable piece she also contributed to this blog a very helpful reminder that Mormonism has never been a religion of the West (or even America) in the exclusive way we generally depict it. This corrective exemplifies the way that attention to religion in the West can contribute to our conversation about religion more broadly, even if one of its consequences is to diffuse claims about western distinctiveness.
And this completes the circle: Laurie's framing of the tension between Mormonism as Western or not (and even American and not) seems a helpful way to understand the slew of articles in The New York Times. Geography becomes a metaphor for the various and often conflicting views of Mormonism appearing almost daily in the media. At one extreme are those, such as the review of Bowman's book, as well as several of the round-table pieces, which want to emphasize Mormonism as peculiar, sensational and/or dangerous--something that is (or ought to be) confined Utah. At the other pole is something like Reynolds' Op-Ed, identifying Mormons as just another branch of Protestantism. Mormons are typical, even exemplary, in the Americanness of their beliefs and practices. Perhaps the most nuanced of the lot was the article on Mormon cuisine, which at least seemed to allow for change! And like good food, the truth lies somewhere between the two poles, with a touch of both the familiar and the exotic. But, as Laurie's post also suggests, the more significant questions is not where it is located (geographically or metaphorically), but rather what is at stake in the various possibilities? The challenges of understanding Mormonism are not a new problem in the media. But the ways those challenges are framed relative to the West as both geographic and ideological space might help us begin untangling the knot.
February 15, 2012
REMINDER: Many Things Are Due Today (or Soon)!
Hi everyone -- your friendly blog editors here, just reminding you that proposals are due to the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians today. To see the calls and get more details, go to our AHA blog post here and our OAH blog post here. Also, proposals are due for the American Society of Church History on March 15, a month from today. To see the call for papers, go to our blog post here or just click on over to the call on the ASCH website. Happy Wednesday!
February 13, 2012
Is Mormon-Evangelical Dialogue "Western"?
by John-Charles Duffy
Question: What’s the difference between (a) a study of religion in the American west and (b) a study of American religion that happens to take place in the west
Case study: A few months ago I defended my dissertation, which examined interfaith dialogue between Mormons and evangelical Protestants in the United States—a recent (late 1990s) and unexpected development. To explain why the dialogue emerged when it did and what it “meant,” I contextualized it in relation to historical and cultural developments on a national scale: evangelical anxieties about Mormonism’s expansion outside the Intermountain West; Mormon efforts to reshape public perceptions of their movement; the rise of the new religious right and “culture war” politics; and the emergence of a nationally distributed literature in which evangelical thinkers grappled with questions around religious pluralism, interfaith dialogue, civility, and tolerance. The big “payoff” point for the study was that Mormon-evangelical dialogue offered a window into how American religious conservatives at the beginning of the 21st century were coming to terms with pluralism.
While the contexts I sketched for the dialogue were national in scale, the dialogue itself was centered in western states. Not surprisingly, Utah was a key location: one of the most active evangelical dialogists was a young Baptist pastor working in that state; most of the Mormon participants were professors at Brigham Young University; and Utah was a natural site for conferences and other events intended to promote friendlier relations between the two faith communities. Evangelical institutions in Colorado and California played key roles as well. A faculty member at Denver Seminary (Littleton, CO) coauthored the first published Mormon-evangelical dialogue with a colleague at Brigham Young University (Provo, UT); a number of closed-door meetings between Mormon and evangelical dialogists were hosted at Fuller Seminary (Pasadena, CA); and Biola University (La Mirada, CA) exchanged student delegations with BYU.
While Mormon-evangelical dialogue was centered in the west, it certainly wasn’t confined to that region. Mormon and evangelical scholars scheduled gatherings to coincide with the annual meetings of the AAR/SBL. One published Mormon-evangelical dialogue began as a public forum held at Roanoke College (Salem, VA). Dialogists were featured at high-profile Mormon studies conferences hosted by the Yale Divinity School and the Library of Congress. Dialogists made “field trips” to Mormon sacred sites in New York and Illinois.
Still, the dialogue took place largely in the west. Occasionally, I was even surprised by how western it was—or at least by which western locales came into the story. I wasn’t surprised, given the geography of early 20th-century fundamentalism and pietism, that the most prominent evangelical presses publishing works of Mormon-evangelical dialogue were located in the Midwest: Illinois, Michigan. I hadn’t expected, however, to find significant works of anti-Mormon polemics (the kinds of literature for which the Mormon-evangelical dialogue was supposed to provide a salutary alternative) coming from an evangelical publishing house located in Eugene, Oregon. Nor would I have predicted that one of the most famous evangelical anti-Mormon writers would set up shop in Issaquah, Washington.
In the end, though, I’m unsure how much significance to assign to the fact that Mormon-evangelical dialogue has been a predominantly western phenomenon. I’m convinced that the dialogue represents something noteworthy about “American religion” at the beginning of the 21st century. But does it illuminate anything meaningful about “religion in the American west”?
• Certainly I can frame the dialogue as a consequence of Mormonism’s expansion beyond the Intermountain West. That is, I can frame the dialogue as a response to evangelical anxieties triggered by Mormonism’s increased visibility and to a more widely diffused uncertainty among Americans over where to place Mormonism on the national religious landscape. (Is Mormonism Christian? Is it a cult?)
• Certainly the Californian evangelists and institutions that have participated in the Mormon-evangelical dialogue can be placed in a history of evangelical outmigration from the South into the western part of the Sun Belt.
• Less certainly, I am inclined to think that the story of Mormon-evangelical dialogue shows the continuing importance of eastern institutions as arbiters of cultural significance: this western-centered initiative was able to claim some measure of national prominence when it gained access to eastern venues such as Yale Divinity School or the Library of Congress.
• It is tempting to assign regionally framed significance to the fact that the coordinators of Mitt Romney’s 2007-2008 presidential campaign flew the two most prolific Mormon-evangelical dialogists from the Intermountain West to New England to advise them on how to cope with evangelical opposition centered in the South and the Midwest.
Perhaps, though, I’m overemphasizing the regional in all this. When I see that Mormon-evangelical dialogue is centered at institutions in Utah, Colorado, and California, I think—Of course, how natural, the key players are in geographical proximity. But how important is geographical proximity in an era of telecommunications and air transportation? Recall the Mormon-evangelical dialogues at Roanoke College or the AAR/SBL. Could Mormon-evangelical dialogue have flourished just as well if the individuals passionate about pursuing it had been located not at places like Denver Seminary and Fuller but at institutions farther east—maybe Wheaton (Illinois) or Gordon-Conwell (Massachusetts)? Then again, would those individuals have become so passionate about dialoguing with Mormons if they hadn’t lived in or near major Mormon population centers—that is, if they hadn’t lived in California or the Intermountain West? How important is the west in the story of this dialogue? Is the largely western setting meaningful or incidental?
Question: What’s the difference between (a) a study of religion in the American west and (b) a study of American religion that happens to take place in the west
Case study: A few months ago I defended my dissertation, which examined interfaith dialogue between Mormons and evangelical Protestants in the United States—a recent (late 1990s) and unexpected development. To explain why the dialogue emerged when it did and what it “meant,” I contextualized it in relation to historical and cultural developments on a national scale: evangelical anxieties about Mormonism’s expansion outside the Intermountain West; Mormon efforts to reshape public perceptions of their movement; the rise of the new religious right and “culture war” politics; and the emergence of a nationally distributed literature in which evangelical thinkers grappled with questions around religious pluralism, interfaith dialogue, civility, and tolerance. The big “payoff” point for the study was that Mormon-evangelical dialogue offered a window into how American religious conservatives at the beginning of the 21st century were coming to terms with pluralism.
While the contexts I sketched for the dialogue were national in scale, the dialogue itself was centered in western states. Not surprisingly, Utah was a key location: one of the most active evangelical dialogists was a young Baptist pastor working in that state; most of the Mormon participants were professors at Brigham Young University; and Utah was a natural site for conferences and other events intended to promote friendlier relations between the two faith communities. Evangelical institutions in Colorado and California played key roles as well. A faculty member at Denver Seminary (Littleton, CO) coauthored the first published Mormon-evangelical dialogue with a colleague at Brigham Young University (Provo, UT); a number of closed-door meetings between Mormon and evangelical dialogists were hosted at Fuller Seminary (Pasadena, CA); and Biola University (La Mirada, CA) exchanged student delegations with BYU.
While Mormon-evangelical dialogue was centered in the west, it certainly wasn’t confined to that region. Mormon and evangelical scholars scheduled gatherings to coincide with the annual meetings of the AAR/SBL. One published Mormon-evangelical dialogue began as a public forum held at Roanoke College (Salem, VA). Dialogists were featured at high-profile Mormon studies conferences hosted by the Yale Divinity School and the Library of Congress. Dialogists made “field trips” to Mormon sacred sites in New York and Illinois.
Still, the dialogue took place largely in the west. Occasionally, I was even surprised by how western it was—or at least by which western locales came into the story. I wasn’t surprised, given the geography of early 20th-century fundamentalism and pietism, that the most prominent evangelical presses publishing works of Mormon-evangelical dialogue were located in the Midwest: Illinois, Michigan. I hadn’t expected, however, to find significant works of anti-Mormon polemics (the kinds of literature for which the Mormon-evangelical dialogue was supposed to provide a salutary alternative) coming from an evangelical publishing house located in Eugene, Oregon. Nor would I have predicted that one of the most famous evangelical anti-Mormon writers would set up shop in Issaquah, Washington.
In the end, though, I’m unsure how much significance to assign to the fact that Mormon-evangelical dialogue has been a predominantly western phenomenon. I’m convinced that the dialogue represents something noteworthy about “American religion” at the beginning of the 21st century. But does it illuminate anything meaningful about “religion in the American west”?
• Certainly I can frame the dialogue as a consequence of Mormonism’s expansion beyond the Intermountain West. That is, I can frame the dialogue as a response to evangelical anxieties triggered by Mormonism’s increased visibility and to a more widely diffused uncertainty among Americans over where to place Mormonism on the national religious landscape. (Is Mormonism Christian? Is it a cult?)
• Certainly the Californian evangelists and institutions that have participated in the Mormon-evangelical dialogue can be placed in a history of evangelical outmigration from the South into the western part of the Sun Belt.
• Less certainly, I am inclined to think that the story of Mormon-evangelical dialogue shows the continuing importance of eastern institutions as arbiters of cultural significance: this western-centered initiative was able to claim some measure of national prominence when it gained access to eastern venues such as Yale Divinity School or the Library of Congress.
• It is tempting to assign regionally framed significance to the fact that the coordinators of Mitt Romney’s 2007-2008 presidential campaign flew the two most prolific Mormon-evangelical dialogists from the Intermountain West to New England to advise them on how to cope with evangelical opposition centered in the South and the Midwest.
Perhaps, though, I’m overemphasizing the regional in all this. When I see that Mormon-evangelical dialogue is centered at institutions in Utah, Colorado, and California, I think—Of course, how natural, the key players are in geographical proximity. But how important is geographical proximity in an era of telecommunications and air transportation? Recall the Mormon-evangelical dialogues at Roanoke College or the AAR/SBL. Could Mormon-evangelical dialogue have flourished just as well if the individuals passionate about pursuing it had been located not at places like Denver Seminary and Fuller but at institutions farther east—maybe Wheaton (Illinois) or Gordon-Conwell (Massachusetts)? Then again, would those individuals have become so passionate about dialoguing with Mormons if they hadn’t lived in or near major Mormon population centers—that is, if they hadn’t lived in California or the Intermountain West? How important is the west in the story of this dialogue? Is the largely western setting meaningful or incidental?
February 8, 2012
REMINDER: AAR Proposals Due in a Month!
Hi everyone -- your friendly blog editors here, reminding you that proposals for the American Academy of Religion Annual Meeting are due a month from today. For the Religion in the American West Seminar call for papers go to our blog post here. For further details, and to see the calls for other program units, head over to the AAR's full CFP on their website. Happy Wednesday!
From the Mormon History Association
Hi folks -- we received the following announcement from the Mormon History Association. There are lots of awards available, so scroll through and see if you're eligible for any of them! Nominate your friends and colleagues! Have at it!
The Mormon History Association will give its yearly awards for the best books, articles, dissertation, thesis, and student papers published or writte on Mormon history during 2011 at its annual 2012 conference, which will be held in June in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
The submission deadline is February 15, 2012. Books should be submitted in hard copy in the number specifically requested by chairs. If there is a hardship because the list price of a book is $75 or more, we ask the publisher for one hard copy and an electronic version of the book. Electronic submissions must be sent in WordPerfect, Word, or as a .pdf document. Any member of the Mormon History Association may submit or nominate a publication for consideration. Send specific questions to the subcommittee chairs.
Leonard J. Arrington Award
This award is made annually to a scholar whose contributions are truly outstanding. Awarded since 1999 for distinguished and meritorious service to Mormon history.
(Submit nominations with narrative)
Armand Mauss
maussal@cox.net
_____________________
MHA Best Book Award $2,000
Awarded for the best book published on Mormon history.
(Submit 5 hard copies of each publication)
Michael Hunter
2249 HBLL
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah 84602
mikehunter@byu.edu
801-422-4090
_____________________
Smith-Pettit Best First Book Award $1,200
Awarded for the best first book published on Mormon history.
(Submit 5 hard copies of each publication)
Michael Hunter
2249 HBLL
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah 84602
mikehunter@byu.edu
801-422-4090
_____________________
Ella Larsen Turner-Ella Ruth Turner Bergera Award for Best Biography $1,000
Awarded for the best published biography in the field of Mormon history.
(Submit 5 hard copies of each publication)
Michael Hunter
2249 HBLL
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah 84602
mikehunter@byu.edu
801-422-4090
_____________________
Steven F. Christensen Award for Best Documentary History/Bibliography $1,000
Awarded for the best published documentary or bibliography on Mormon history.
(Submit 5 hard copies of each publication)
Michael Hunter
2249 HBLL
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah 84602
mikehunter@byu.edu
801-422-4090
_____________________
Geraldine McBride Woodward International Book Award $1,000
Awarded for the best international Mormon history book.
(Submit 2 hard copies of each publication plus an electronic copy for the subcommittee member in Europe)
Clint Christensen
Church History Library
15 East North Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150
Christensencd@ldschurch.org
801-240-0161
____________________
Winchester Family and Community History Award $500
Awarded to the best commercially or privately published and thoroughly researched family or community history relating to the Mormon experience prior to 1980.
(Submit 3 hard copies of each publication)
Ardis Parshall
284 C Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
AEParshall@aol.com
_____________________
T. Edgar Lyon Best Article Award $500
Awarded for the best published article on Mormon history. (Note: An author may submit one of his or her articles or essays from a journal of an anthology. A journal may submit up to four articles by different authors published during the year after verifying that they are not duplicating an author's submission.)
(Submit 1 electronic copy of each article)
Thomas Alexander
Thomas_alexander@byu.edu
801-375-8797
_____________________
J. Talmage Jones Awards of Excellence (two articles) $350 each
Awarded for the two outstanding articles published on Mormon history. (Note: An author may submit one of his or her articles or essays from a journal of an anthology. A journal may submit up to four articles by different authors published during the year after verifying that they are not duplicating an author's submission.)
(Submit 1 electronic copy of each article)
Thomas Alexander
Thomas_alexander@byu.edu
801-375-8797
___________________
Andrew Jenson Best International Article Award $350
Awarded to the best international Mormon history article (in print or online journals). (Note: An author may submit one of his or her articles or essays from a journal of an anthology. A journal may submit up to four articles by different authors published during the year after verifying that they are not duplicating an author's submission.)
(Submit 1 electronic copy of each article)
Clint Christensen
Christensencd@ldschurch.org
801-240-0161
_____________________
Silver Award for Best Article on Mormon Women's History $350
Awarded for an outstanding article on the experiences of Mormon women in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
(Submit 1 electronic copy of each article)
Sheree Maxwell Bench
shereebench@msn.com
801-472-1348
_____________________
Gerald E. Jones Best Dissertation Award $800
(Submit 1 electronic copy of each dissertation)
Janet Ellingson
janet.ellingson@utah.edu
_____________________
Lester E. Bush Best Thesis Award $500
(Submit 1 electronic copy of each thesis)
Janet Ellingson
janet.ellingson@utah.edu
_____________________
Juanita Brooks Award for Best Graduate Paper $400
Awarded to a university or college graduate student for the best paper on Mormon history. (Note: Student are eligible to submit one paper. Submissions should include a cover sheet with name, address, school, department, undergraduate/graduate major, and biographical information.)
(Submit 1 electronic copy of each submission)
John Sillito
jsillito@weber.edu
801-626-8568
_____________________
Juanita Brooks Award for the Best Undergraduate Paper $300
Awarded to a university or college undergraduate student for the best paper on Mormon history.
(Submit 1 electronic copy of each submission)
John Sillito
jsillito@weber.edu
801-626-8568
The Mormon History Association will give its yearly awards for the best books, articles, dissertation, thesis, and student papers published or writte on Mormon history during 2011 at its annual 2012 conference, which will be held in June in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
The submission deadline is February 15, 2012. Books should be submitted in hard copy in the number specifically requested by chairs. If there is a hardship because the list price of a book is $75 or more, we ask the publisher for one hard copy and an electronic version of the book. Electronic submissions must be sent in WordPerfect, Word, or as a .pdf document. Any member of the Mormon History Association may submit or nominate a publication for consideration. Send specific questions to the subcommittee chairs.
Leonard J. Arrington Award
This award is made annually to a scholar whose contributions are truly outstanding. Awarded since 1999 for distinguished and meritorious service to Mormon history.
(Submit nominations with narrative)
Armand Mauss
maussal@cox.net
_____________________
MHA Best Book Award $2,000
Awarded for the best book published on Mormon history.
(Submit 5 hard copies of each publication)
Michael Hunter
2249 HBLL
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah 84602
mikehunter@byu.edu
801-422-4090
_____________________
Smith-Pettit Best First Book Award $1,200
Awarded for the best first book published on Mormon history.
(Submit 5 hard copies of each publication)
Michael Hunter
2249 HBLL
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah 84602
mikehunter@byu.edu
801-422-4090
_____________________
Ella Larsen Turner-Ella Ruth Turner Bergera Award for Best Biography $1,000
Awarded for the best published biography in the field of Mormon history.
(Submit 5 hard copies of each publication)
Michael Hunter
2249 HBLL
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah 84602
mikehunter@byu.edu
801-422-4090
_____________________
Steven F. Christensen Award for Best Documentary History/Bibliography $1,000
Awarded for the best published documentary or bibliography on Mormon history.
(Submit 5 hard copies of each publication)
Michael Hunter
2249 HBLL
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah 84602
mikehunter@byu.edu
801-422-4090
_____________________
Geraldine McBride Woodward International Book Award $1,000
Awarded for the best international Mormon history book.
(Submit 2 hard copies of each publication plus an electronic copy for the subcommittee member in Europe)
Clint Christensen
Church History Library
15 East North Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150
Christensencd@ldschurch.org
801-240-0161
____________________
Winchester Family and Community History Award $500
Awarded to the best commercially or privately published and thoroughly researched family or community history relating to the Mormon experience prior to 1980.
(Submit 3 hard copies of each publication)
Ardis Parshall
284 C Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
AEParshall@aol.com
_____________________
T. Edgar Lyon Best Article Award $500
Awarded for the best published article on Mormon history. (Note: An author may submit one of his or her articles or essays from a journal of an anthology. A journal may submit up to four articles by different authors published during the year after verifying that they are not duplicating an author's submission.)
(Submit 1 electronic copy of each article)
Thomas Alexander
Thomas_alexander@byu.edu
801-375-8797
_____________________
J. Talmage Jones Awards of Excellence (two articles) $350 each
Awarded for the two outstanding articles published on Mormon history. (Note: An author may submit one of his or her articles or essays from a journal of an anthology. A journal may submit up to four articles by different authors published during the year after verifying that they are not duplicating an author's submission.)
(Submit 1 electronic copy of each article)
Thomas Alexander
Thomas_alexander@byu.edu
801-375-8797
___________________
Andrew Jenson Best International Article Award $350
Awarded to the best international Mormon history article (in print or online journals). (Note: An author may submit one of his or her articles or essays from a journal of an anthology. A journal may submit up to four articles by different authors published during the year after verifying that they are not duplicating an author's submission.)
(Submit 1 electronic copy of each article)
Clint Christensen
Christensencd@ldschurch.org
801-240-0161
_____________________
Silver Award for Best Article on Mormon Women's History $350
Awarded for an outstanding article on the experiences of Mormon women in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
(Submit 1 electronic copy of each article)
Sheree Maxwell Bench
shereebench@msn.com
801-472-1348
_____________________
Gerald E. Jones Best Dissertation Award $800
(Submit 1 electronic copy of each dissertation)
Janet Ellingson
janet.ellingson@utah.edu
_____________________
Lester E. Bush Best Thesis Award $500
(Submit 1 electronic copy of each thesis)
Janet Ellingson
janet.ellingson@utah.edu
_____________________
Juanita Brooks Award for Best Graduate Paper $400
Awarded to a university or college graduate student for the best paper on Mormon history. (Note: Student are eligible to submit one paper. Submissions should include a cover sheet with name, address, school, department, undergraduate/graduate major, and biographical information.)
(Submit 1 electronic copy of each submission)
John Sillito
jsillito@weber.edu
801-626-8568
_____________________
Juanita Brooks Award for the Best Undergraduate Paper $300
Awarded to a university or college undergraduate student for the best paper on Mormon history.
(Submit 1 electronic copy of each submission)
John Sillito
jsillito@weber.edu
801-626-8568
February 6, 2012
Book of the Month:
Matthew Avery Sutton, Aimee Semple McPherson and the Resurrection of Christian America
Review by Brandi Denison
As I was reading Sutton’s rich history of the first media mogul of American Christianity (published by Harvard University Press in 2009), my campus was prepping for the Florida Republican Presidential primary debates. Wolf Blitzer and Erin Burnett were camped out on the campus green and the student union was closed off to students to allow the candidates prep for their TV time.
I’m not one to read the present back into the past, but through his biography of McPherson, Sutton narrates the emergence of the entangled relationship of evangelical personalities, politicians, and mass media. Aimee Semple McPherson (1890-1944) was a prominent Pentecostal evangelist whose life was marked by extraordinary success, celebrity status, and scandal. Sutton effectively argues that McPherson helped to shape evangelicalism, one of “the twentieth century’s most explosive religious movements” (4). Her contribution was made by embracing developments in mass media, first through radio broadcasts and then through employing the expertise of Hollywood set designers to create visually stunning sermons. She used her popularity and flair for the dramatic to support political causes that lined up with her desire to make a Christian nation.
Of interest to the readers of this blog, though, is the way in which Sutton locates the rise of the evangelical mass media in the West. After spending her early years holding revivals across the country, McPherson and her mother decided to build a temple in Los Angeles, because her church should be “where tourists coming constantly from all parts of the earth, could receive the message, then return like homing pigeons, bearing the message in their hearts” (27).
Thus, the West provided McPherson a place from which she could transcend regionalism. Sutton's narrative locates the rise of McPherson’s popularity in LA, but as McPherson's influence extends, the significance of the West recedes. McPherson used the tools and expertise of Hollywood in order to transcend place and to imagine a nation unified under Christianity. Thus, the West became the ideal place from which McPherson could launch a national (and later on, global) message.
Sutton’s text gives us a tangible reminder that some “Western” stories are not regional, but instead are national and transnational. Scholarship on Pentecostalism has not fallen into the same regional trap as has Mormonism. Perhaps this is because of conflicting perceptions as to way each group moved West. Mormons, so the story goes, removed themselves from the world (although as Maffly-Kipp notes, this is historically inaccurate), whereas Pentecostals went west in order to enter the world more fully. Sutton allows us to imagine a West that is not the outskirts of civilization, but rather the producer of it.
I highly recommend this book for researchers and students alike. It could be easily incorporated into an undergraduate classroom, as Sutton’s writing style is clear and engaging. I suspect students will love the text, as it sometimes reads as a celebrity-tell-all piece.
I’ll leave you with this video of McPherson speaking on prohibition. The video captures her the way in which she navigated a Hollywood lifestyle (check out her fur) and her religious aspirations.
Editors’ note: Have you read this book? What do you think about it? Join the conversation and leave your thoughts in the comments! If you have a suggestion for a future book of the month, or if you would like to review a book for the book of the month series, please contact us. Stay tuned for next month’s book of the month, from Anne Blankenship!
Review by Brandi Denison
As I was reading Sutton’s rich history of the first media mogul of American Christianity (published by Harvard University Press in 2009), my campus was prepping for the Florida Republican Presidential primary debates. Wolf Blitzer and Erin Burnett were camped out on the campus green and the student union was closed off to students to allow the candidates prep for their TV time.
I’m not one to read the present back into the past, but through his biography of McPherson, Sutton narrates the emergence of the entangled relationship of evangelical personalities, politicians, and mass media. Aimee Semple McPherson (1890-1944) was a prominent Pentecostal evangelist whose life was marked by extraordinary success, celebrity status, and scandal. Sutton effectively argues that McPherson helped to shape evangelicalism, one of “the twentieth century’s most explosive religious movements” (4). Her contribution was made by embracing developments in mass media, first through radio broadcasts and then through employing the expertise of Hollywood set designers to create visually stunning sermons. She used her popularity and flair for the dramatic to support political causes that lined up with her desire to make a Christian nation.
Of interest to the readers of this blog, though, is the way in which Sutton locates the rise of the evangelical mass media in the West. After spending her early years holding revivals across the country, McPherson and her mother decided to build a temple in Los Angeles, because her church should be “where tourists coming constantly from all parts of the earth, could receive the message, then return like homing pigeons, bearing the message in their hearts” (27).
Thus, the West provided McPherson a place from which she could transcend regionalism. Sutton's narrative locates the rise of McPherson’s popularity in LA, but as McPherson's influence extends, the significance of the West recedes. McPherson used the tools and expertise of Hollywood in order to transcend place and to imagine a nation unified under Christianity. Thus, the West became the ideal place from which McPherson could launch a national (and later on, global) message.
Sutton’s text gives us a tangible reminder that some “Western” stories are not regional, but instead are national and transnational. Scholarship on Pentecostalism has not fallen into the same regional trap as has Mormonism. Perhaps this is because of conflicting perceptions as to way each group moved West. Mormons, so the story goes, removed themselves from the world (although as Maffly-Kipp notes, this is historically inaccurate), whereas Pentecostals went west in order to enter the world more fully. Sutton allows us to imagine a West that is not the outskirts of civilization, but rather the producer of it.
I highly recommend this book for researchers and students alike. It could be easily incorporated into an undergraduate classroom, as Sutton’s writing style is clear and engaging. I suspect students will love the text, as it sometimes reads as a celebrity-tell-all piece.
I’ll leave you with this video of McPherson speaking on prohibition. The video captures her the way in which she navigated a Hollywood lifestyle (check out her fur) and her religious aspirations.
Editors’ note: Have you read this book? What do you think about it? Join the conversation and leave your thoughts in the comments! If you have a suggestion for a future book of the month, or if you would like to review a book for the book of the month series, please contact us. Stay tuned for next month’s book of the month, from Anne Blankenship!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)