Pathways of fundamentalization:
the peculiar case of Mormonism

Walter E.A. van Beek
Utrecht University

1. Introduction: characteristics of fundamentalism

Fundamentalist movements, despite their apparent variety (as exemplified in this volume), share some clear characteristics#1. First, their theology is text oriented without critical scholarship#2; Fundamentalists claim that Scripture is infallible; shun revisionism in interpretation#3; and use a selective literalism in order to preserve the notion of an inerrant scripture. They believe that the authority of the text transcends translation problems, just as it supersedes the processes of history and the constraints of culture. Sometimes, the sacred text ought not to be translated (as in the case of Islam), or the quality of translation is judged on the transparency of the resulting text. Often doctrine and trust in the interpreter’s faith are important arguments in the evaluation of translations#4. The interpretation of scripture is an arena for authority, as in principle scripture is accessible for everyone; theological anarchy is kept at bay by a clear structure of authority, in order to solve the question whose interpretation is to prevail.
Socially, fundamentalists tend to model their social and economic life on the pristine congregations of original believers, in order to restore the old order of community#5. Flights from the evils of the world” are common, in an hijra-exodus pattern that can been seen in Islam, among the New England Puritans, the Afrikaner “Great Trek”#6, as well as among the Mormons as we shall see. The building of a “just society” starts from ideology but creates political strongholds, with virtual theocracies.
Culturally, fundamentalists focus on evil, control over sexuality, and involvement of the family inside a practical theocracy which combines hierarchy and equality. Finally, fundamentalism is never finished, but has an inherent need for continuous cleansing and redefinition of identity. Such fundamentalist religions have mechanisms to revive themselves and should be seen as a continuous process of fundamentalization.
In this article, we shall look at one particular instance of Christianity, usually called Mormonism, in effect the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and some of its derivatives. What processes of fundamentalization are discernible inside this major#7 but relatively new Christian tradition#8?

2. Restoration of fundamentals: the LDS Church

The story of Mormonism has often been told#9, so only a synopsis will be given here. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (henceforth LDS church), as is its correct name#10, stems from American soil and is the most typically American of all Christian churches. The opening scene is in upstate New York, an area dubbed “the Burned-over District” because of the many evangelization movements that have passed over it. The time is the early 1800’s, when massive changes swept through the region. Conservative religious movements vied with itinerant preachers and budding quasi-religious Utopian movements, which tried to re-establish family values, defended small scale local communities and attacked women’s emancipation.
Into this light came Joseph Smith, the 24 year old New York farmer, who founded a religion based on his translation of a set of golden palates delivered by an angel. The Book of Mormon, a record of God’s dealings with the pre-Columbian ancestors of the American Indian, not only explained the Hebrew origins of the Indians, but established America as a chosen land destined to receive the fullness of the everlasting gospel. Written in King James English, Smith’s translation sounded biblical, but its location and conceptual framework were American. The Book of Mormon gave America a scared past and a millennial future. It became the keystone of a new American religion.”#11
At first, the fledgling church grew slowly. Officially founded in 1830 with five members, it counted 70 adherents a year later when it moved to Kirtland, Ohio. Later, growth went faster, with new recruits from former Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Shakers and Millerites. After Kirtland, a secondary center in Jackson County, Missouri, was designated as the new Zion, the ultimate place of the gathering of the Saints. Later, Far West, Missouri and Independence housed Mormon colonies.
The first decade of the LDS church was difficult; the Mormons operated from a communal basis, assuming a strong role in local economics and politics and problems which in due time did generate conflicts with other groups. One obvious reason for tension was the Mormon religious doctrine, the claim of Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God, the new Scripture and the exclusive claim to revealed truth (though not uncommon in that part of America). Mormons were accused of land speculation, of improper banking, of aspiring to political offices, and of anti-slavery views. Yet, during these Ohio and Missouri years, a strong religious foundation was laid. Joseph wrote down and compiled his revelations, established a “school of prophets”, organized the church with 12 apostles, built a temple, organized a communal society and published a hymn book. In those years, Joseph and his close followers developed new conceptions of the Godhead; a radically different view of mankind’s sacred history; an encompassing plan of salvation, as well as a new way of worship; a close knit organization and a missionary system. In short, he laid the foundation for the new Christian tradition of Mormonism. Two specific aspects made the Mormon project quite unique, in their own words “peculiar”, communality and polygamy.
Economically, the Mormons criticized capitalism and individualism, their dominant environment. Early Mormonism emphasized cooperation, egalitarianism and provision for the needy: “Its goals were common ownership of property and classlessness”#12. In Ohio and in Missouri, and later in several Utah communities (by Brigham Young), the “Law of Consecration” or the United Order” was implemented#13. The idea was to combine communalism and private enterprise. Individuals or families “consecrated” their property to the church, but retained use of it through the crucial principle of “stewardship”. The bishop of the ward – a pivotal figure in these communities – held the deeds of the consecrated possessions as “church common property”; his duty was to deal out these properties as he saw fit in the form of stewardships, in order to have everyone earn their own living. Family organization was strictly preserved. The “surplus” of each steward, i.e. pater familias, should be re-consecrated to help the needy, to gain additional stewardships and to “build up the Kingdom of God”: new chapels and ward houses or – very important – temples. This communal living was not a great success, though at least the Kirtland temple, the first of the church, was built by this kind of effort. In 1838 the Order was revoked by revelation (D&C 108)#14, and a “lesser law” was installed: tithing. Henceforth all Mormons ought to pay one tenth of their annual “increase” (D&C 119) and this rule still applies#15. Much later, when the church was firmly established in the Utah valley, Brigham Young, the second prophet, revived the communal ideals of Joseph and restarted the order in the early 1870’s. Though that experiment, too, proved of short duration and limited success, it exemplifies the spirit of communitarism pervading the early Mormon communities and settlements. Especially the Missouri settlements tried to implement the communitarian ideas of the United Order. These settlements were designated as gathering places for the Mormons when they were expelled from Ohio. However, public outcry against them prevented the Mormons to “build the kingdom of God” in Missouri. They were driven out into Illinois.
On a swampy bank in the bend of the Mississippi river, Joseph found his next and major refuge. Though Missouri remained the land of Zion in the minds of the Saints, the city of Nauvoo became the actual center and place of gathering. Joseph had wrestled a generous charter from the Illinois legislature, so Nauvoo could become a virtual city-state#16. It was in Nauvoo, meaning the “beautiful”, that the Mormons developed their version of the “City on the Hill”: a theocratic community where the Saints not only could dwell in peace, but also hold power. It was to be for a short period only - as most episodes in early Mormon history - but for the Mormons a crucial and glorious one. Nauvoo grew rapidly till 12.000 in 1844, making it the second largest city in Illinois, next to Chicago. The Mormons ruled their own city, administered their own justice, and sported their own militia: the Nauvoo Legion, with Joseph as military commander, in fact as Lieutenant General#17. Here they built their Kingdom of God, including the emotional center of Mormondom, the temple.
At Nauvoo the most characteristic element of Mormon theology came to the fore, polygamy#18. Ideas and rumors about this “Celestial Marriage” had been floating around for some time, but the final revelation (D&C 132) dated July 12, 1843#19. The revelation pointed to the polygynous practices of Old Testament patriarchs, defining them as the will of God and as a higher order of marriage. The new element was marriage for all eternity, as opposed to marriage “till death do us part”: marriages were to continue in heaven. Wives of a righteous man would find salvation and celestial glory with him through such marriages. In the celestial sphere, the man “would administer a patriarchal ‘universe’ surrounded by his wives, children, and family”#20. Though sexual stereotypes of the dependent female and the sexually inexhaustible male mingled here with theology, the first and foremost reason for “polygamy” (as it was called by the outsiders) or “plural marriage” (the internal definition) was religious. And it would remain religious. Persons “sealed” (a specific and crucial term in Mormon theological discourse) under this law would “come forth in the first resurrection and would inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, powers and dominion”#21.
Marrying “celestial wives” started secretly before 1843, but Joseph Smith and his followers had been denying the practice. This pattern of public denial while in practice following the so-called “Principle” was to persist for until the late 1880’s. The reason for this duplicity was persecution. Though the Mormons were at first persecuted for other reasons, their Golden Bible (Book of Mormon), their economic and political power and their insouciance of their neighbors, polygamy became the rallying point of opposition. Within the Mormon ranks it also met with great initial resistance. Brigham Young, later to be the leading exponent of polygyny in Utah, stated: “I was not desirous of shrinking from my duty… but it was the first time in my life that I desired the grave”#22. Emma Hales, Joseph’s wife, never acquiesced to the new law, and reportedly threw at least one of his celestial wives down the stairs of her home. Eventually, the practice of polygamy became the test of loyalty to Joseph, but before his death not more than 30 of the church’s top leaders had reportedly engaged in plural marriages#23.
External resistance grew stronger while internally the Mormons closed ranks. The communities around Nauvoo and the Illinois government were ill disposed towards “bigamy and idolatry”, and violent persecution was rife. An assassination attempt on the Missouri governor was attributed by some to the Mormons, and for any mishap the Mormons became the scapegoat of the far West. Turmoil came to a head when Joseph Smith had a printing press destroyed in his own Nauvoo on which Mormon dissidents published a newspaper critical of his domination. After legal maneuvering, Smith allowed himself to be caught to stand trial, again#24. In the spring of 1844, Joseph and his brother Hyrum put themselves under the protection of the security forces in the Carthage jail. However, a group of armed men forcibly gained entry, apparently after those security forces had abandoned them, and killed the Mormon prophet and his brother.
Several candidates for the prophet’s mantle vied for the highest office post in Mormonism, but eventually Brigham Young, the president of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, won out and became the second president. His was not a dispensation of visions and angels, not a constant renewal of laws. He was the organizer, the statesman, and colonizer. When tension mounted against Nauvoo, the Saints had to leave their cherished city, their pride and glory, the new temple, unfinished. Then “Brother Brigham” led the Saints in their exodus to the new promised land. “The final move to Utah, passed beyond the frontier into an institutional vacuum, where a totally new social order had to be established for survival, but where it could at the same time enjoy uninhibited growth”.#25
The story of this great trek, like every great exodus in history, has become the source of legends, myth, pride and a deeply engrained pioneer identity. It was a leap into the unknown, far beyond the limits of what was then considered civilization. It was a genuine exodus, and the Mormons appropriated Israel’s experience. An identification with Israel was present from the start, but the voyage to the new Promised Land, with its authentic Salt Lake, sharpened the awareness of Israel redivivus. Of course, the river leading from Utah Lake to the Salt Lake was called Jordan River, and of course the landscape became dotted with biblical names. In this Latter-Day Israel, the Patriarchal Order was revived; in 1852 Brigham Young proclaimed the “State of Deseret” to be a polygamous state. The guiding principle of this State was to be religion anyway: an orderly, cooperative and unified society over which the Mormons would have complete control. The City on the Hill thus became a theocratic state#26.
Now the Saints could build their “Kingdom of God”. In practice this meant hard work: building an irrigation system; mining; farming; and producing every commodity needed for the isolated communities. Converts, who flocked to Utah, complained that church sermons said little about the glories of heaven, and far more about “Irrigation ditches, always irrigation ditches”#27. Mormon enterprises were of a mixed economic type, combining principles of cooperative and private ownership. The irrigation system was necessarily the largest cooperative project; but also stories and manufacturing industries based themselves on cooperative work. The LDS church bore a large part of the responsibility for all cooperative efforts itself, thus laying the foundations of its later corporate empire#28. The communal spirit, however, the ideals of consecration and the United Order, refused to die. During the “Panic of 1873”, Brigham Young revived the cherished idea of his predecessor, and created over one hundred United Orders in various communities and enterprises: cattle and sheep herding; grist mills; sawmills and some trading companies#29. Orderville, the most successful, operated for 10 years, but ultimately followed the other experiments which had folded more quickly.

3. Mormonism: a very peculiar fundamentalism

Mormonism, like any movement which defies the current order, has a “lot of history”. But is fundamentalist? If so, what is the specific Mormon character of fundamentalism, bearing in mind the injunction of Shipps cited above that Mormonism is best approached as a new Christian tradition.
First scriptural inerrancy, literalism, the attitude towards the text. While in Protestant fundamentalism this implies the Bible, and nothing else, in Mormonism the status of the Bible is different. The Bible is important indeed; the text is taken literally (as far as possible) and is authoritative. Its interpretation certainly follows the lines of common sense approach, with little room for “higher criticism”. But there are major provisos at two levels. The first is the transmission of the text. The Mormons also believe that the Bible is incomplete and partially corrupted. Incomplete, because many elements (books, epistles, gospels) are missing; partially corrupted because of faulty translations by uninspired or unrighteous translators: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly”, one of the – authoritative – Articles of Faith states#30. This is partly a technical problem: in the past, people have left things out or made mistakes. But it has also moral dimensions: unrighteousness, “priestcraft” and other evils have corrupted the text. More “fundamental” still is the concept of revelation and the production of new scripture. Joseph Smith, as a prophet, produced new Scripture. Part of this consists of translations of (newly discovered) old texts, like the Book of Mormon (dealing with pre-Columbian American populations), and the Book of Abraham (a translation from Egyptian papyrus texts). The other part is revelation proper: “Verily, thus saith the Lord…” or “The heavens were opened and we saw…“, either as so-called “extraterrestrial revelation”#31 i.e. a voice or vision coming down from heaven, or as inspiration, like an inspired prayer or the Joseph Smith story. These new scriptures have the same authority as the Bible, maybe even more.
Here we seem to be far removed from fundamentalism. This is anathema for the usual fundamentalists, not only questioning the purity of the text, but even producing “scripture”! The Bible is not only imperfect but new “bibles” – will also continue to – appear! If this is fundamentalism it is indeed a rather peculiar one. Yet, without stretching the notion of fundamentalism to this “production of Scripture” in Mormonism, it is not as alien as it seems. After all, purity is what both Mormons and fundamentalists aim for: pure text. The classic strategy is to define the received text as pure, the Mormon strategy is to purify it oneself. Joseph Smith, during the last years of his short life, engaged in an overall correction of the Bible, called The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible#32. His aim was to remove all “imperfections” from the text, thus restoring it to pristine purity, and ensuring easy comprehension.
This all hinges upon the question of what a text is and whence its authority. According to Mormonism (and fundamentalists) the basis of Scripture is the Lord speaking to a prophet. Given the idea of a living prophet, this means in practice: scripture is a (the) prophet speaking. The new revelations stated this clearly: “And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” (D&C 68:4). Brigham Young went one step further and, in his characteristic way, declared that “all those books [scriptures] are nothing compared to the living oracles”#33.
Back to the fundamentals implies, for Mormons, back to the prophet! If that is accepted, the same principles of literalness, inerrancy, non-critical acceptation and obedience hold as in the usual form of fundamentalism. The words of the “living prophet” are treated in the same way as the time honored citations of the bible. But an open Scripture raises one crucial problem: one of containment. If each prophetic utterance could become Scripture, chaos would ensue. Thus, how to contain production of scripture? In Mormon practice this is done in three ways. First, Joseph’s revelations, though extensive, are limited in number. Some utterances are part of Scripture; some are just speech; some (quite a lot!) are hearsay. In order to be scripture, revelations have to be accepted. From early in Mormon history, the congregation made the final decision on the scriptural status of new revelations.
The second limitation is that new revelations have to conform with earlier ones. The notion of the “unity of truth” is important here. Revealed truth cannot contradict other – earlier – revealed truths. In fact, most Mormons hold, neither can scientific truths, in the long run. So, in practice, revelations tend to be in “biblical language”: often as explanations of earlier statements or as answers to specific questions, though the format does vary. A third limitation is that, after the death of Joseph Smith, the canon did not remain as open as it was during his ministry. Few “prophets” (“presidents” these days) added to the corpus. The last new revelation was in 1978#34. In fact, Joseph is called “The Prophet” and continues to hold a special place in this respect. Thus, in practice the canon is “half-open” and new doctrinal developments through contemporary revelation are not to be expected.
Of course, this raises the problem of authority, a crucial issue in Mormonism where the position of the prophet is absolutely essential. At the early beginnings of the church, Smith was repeatedly challenged as a prophet. After all, everyone has similar access to scripture and truth; so why not to revelation? Meeting those challenges head on, Joseph managed to reserve the revelations to his person and in so doing gradually established a principle of positional revelation: someone could only receive valid revelations for and on behalf of his calling and stewardship: the president for the church; the bishop of the ward; and a father for his family. So a considerable number of revelations address the issue of the authority for revelation, thus equating the revelation of authority with the authority of revelation#35. Struggles for authority were not absent, though. After the death of Smith, Young assumed leadership; but some fractions stayed behind under other authority, Mormon splinter groups we shall come back to later.
Translation is of prime importance in the concept of Mormon prophetism. The Bible is considered to be inadequately translated; but this notion is fading, as we shall see. The Book of Mormon, in contrast, is considered to be a perfect translation from the golden plates into (biblical) English. The same holds for the papyri that generated the Book of Abraham#36. Translation is at the heart of Scripture formation, as the word of God is considered clear and unequivocal, and translation is the means to communicate. As for Bible studies, the Mormons on the one hand have not embarked upon textual criticism, have taken their distance from all kinds of “higher criticism”, but are quite interested in the study of ancient scripture on the other hand. For instance, they have a considerable interest in the Dead Sea scrolls, as both the communities of the Essenes and their texts bear more than a superficial resemblance to the Book of Mormon communities. The principal point is the idea that a perfect, pure and “authorized” translation is possible, but then only by processes close to revelation.
Nearer to fundamentalist positions is the Mormon notion of “restoration”. The LDS church defines itself as the church of Jesus Christ restored on earth on a definitely New Testament basis. Administrative positions in the church are considered similar to those in the Primitive Church: bishops, evangelists (defined as patriarchs), teachers, deacons, elders etc. Most important of all, the authority (“keys”) of the priesthood of Jesus Christ is, the Mormons claim, in their hands. Restoration discourse also refers back to Old Testament times. Mormons also call themselves also Latter-Day Israel, a restored Israel. The people in the Book of Mormon were descendants of Israel (through the tribes of Ephraim and Manasse) and so are their offspring: the Amerindians. But also all believers are considered part of the tribes of Israel, usually Ephraim. The blessings Jacob bestowed on his (grand)sons#37 are considered the proper legacy of the church; each devout Mormon once in his or her life begets a patriarchal blessing#38, which indicates to which “tribe” one belongs, either by birth or by adoption, no distinction is made between those two. This repristinization was a dominant theme in the earlier phases of the church, especially during the westward trek. The new country was redefined in terms of the holy land, and with its salt lake it fitted well into the pattern. Missionizing meant searching for the “seed of Ephraim”, and the hymns sang about the glory and crowning of Ephraim#39.
Both types of pristine discourse, the New Testament Church and Old Testament tribal discourse, however, were for the most part just discourse. The only instance where the Mormons tried to emulate New Testament conditions, might have been the United Order, but that was seldom explained by referring to the book of Acts. The revelations of Joseph were the source and origin of it, not the Bible. The Primitive Church was emulated only in authority, as the “one and only true and living church upon the face of the earth”. Restoration of that church meant restoration of the priesthood. But for the rest, the authority of the past was needed to give the present a firm foundation in order to march into the future. The same holds even stronger, for the Old Testament discourse. Defining oneself as Israel implied a claim to a spiritual inheritance, and thus to collective authority, not a revival of tribal living.
But the discourse did one thing which is very characteristic of Mormonism: it tied the church to a land, to a territory, to a holy place. The Israel-discourse territorialized the church: Latter-Day Israel had to gather. When “Zion” was assigned to be located in Jackson County, Missouri, the Saints claimed a birthright to that place (even if they had to buy it first)#40. Later Nauvoo, still later the Salt Lake Valley, became the gathering places of the Mormons. Thus, Mormon missionaries abroad – in those days mainly in Europe – stressed emigration to Utah#41. The territorial discourse is typical American; though Mormons are very interested in Israel and its holy places#42, Zion (defined as a twin city of Jerusalem) is still in Jackson County#43, and of course the Mormon trail, from Cumorah in the East#44, over Nauvoo to the intermountain West, has acquired some historic holiness. The Book of Mormon is also full of references to the “land of inheritance”, of course inheritance for the present-day Indians, in Southern Mexico#45.
This territorialization fitted in well with the actual patterns of authority. Mormonism was a state. Though not intending to be sovereign – the holiness of the American subcontinent precluded that – a Mormon territory with a state run by Mormons was a logical consequence of this “peculiar” type of fundamentalism. When state and church were eventually separated (to a degree at least), the church retained the level of organization needed to run a civil administration. An ordered Kingdom of God is one of Mormondom’s hallmarks. Hierarchy is important, underscored by the identification of the authority of with the authority for revelation. As is usual in fundamentalist organizations, however, egalitarian tendencies manifest themselves as well. It is a lay church, without paid ministry, the various positions revolving over people who perform them part time. Leaders arise out of the rank and file, and the theological positions and acumen of leaders and followers do not differ much#46. As Leone aptly put it, Mormons have a “do-it-yourself theology”#47. Still, obedience sets limits to egalitarian notions. Formally, leaders have to be sustained by the vote of the saints, by “common consent”. This could be interpreted as a check on authority, but in practice it is not. Voting against proposed leaders is rare, and usually will not induce changes. But notions of fundamental equality underneath the organizational structure, Turner’s communitas, are easy to discern. The combination of job rotation with positional charisma tries to combine both: people are in authority as long as they are in office, and then they have all the authority that belongs to the position. After a few years, they are released and someone else takes the mantle. Also, in Mormonism’s most sacred place, the temple, equality is stressed throughout.
Finally, among our aspects of fundamentalism, control over sexuality, and a focus on the family. The Mormons of old, with their polygamy, were “peculiar” indeed – in fact “peculiar” was their favorite self definition. Present day Mormons are less peculiar, and second to none in stressing family values and family orientation. The sexual mores are the traditional Christian ones, with sexual intercourse limited to legal marriage. Infringement of these norms is not only frowned upon, but may lead to excommunication. The church treats “sexual transgression” very seriously. This may seem to contradict the early polygamy days, but there, too, the marriage “covenant” was dominant: a man could not have intercourse outside the covenant (though he could covenant with more wives, evidently)#48. Observers in the 1860’s in Utah extensively commented on the “puritan way” in which the Mormons contracted their plural marriages. Mark Twain - no admirer at all of the Mormons - , with his usual hyperbole called those who married those “ugly Mormon women” a saint, the more he married, the saintlier he surely must be.
Our provisional conclusion is that “classic” Mormonism, if it be classified as funamentalist, is a very “peculiar” case indeed. Yet, it does have the possibilities for fundamentalism to develop. And the processes of fundamentalization, as we shall see, will center on that most peculiar of all Christian institutions, polygamy. The 20th century LDS church tried to put a maximal cognitive distance between itself and polygamy. Though the majority of the 20th century presidents were reared in polygamous families, those who continued to practice it after the final end of the “Principle” in 1910, were excommunicated. In the present-day LDS church no room for polygamy is left: the monogamous family is the only road towards salvation. How polygamy came to be the principal arena within the church, and the motor of fundamentalization, is the second part of the story of the Saints.

4. Polygamy as a fundamentalist arena.

From 1852, when polygamy was declared by Young to be the law in Deseret, the Utah theocracy was a polygamous enclave in the larger United States#49. That, and its different economic and political premises, made it increasingly alien to the federation. The cherished isolation was not to last. Not only did the westward movement of the US catch up with them, the Utah Mormons tried to enter the Union also. This cost them a severe reduction of their territorial claims and appointment of “gentile” (non-Mormon) officials. Coming at a time when the question of slavery dominated the political agenda, the Mormon “kingdom in the West” became an embarrassment for president Buchanan. For a variety of unclear reasons#50 he sent an expeditionary force against the theocracy. Young managed to avoid shedding blood, by a scorched earth tactic, moving tens of thousands of Mormons from their farmsteads. The US army marched unopposed into the Salt Lake valley, stayed on and became part of the Utah scene. The whole issue was soon forgotten in the civil war that followed, and in 1861 the soldiers left: federation officials were installed, and Brigham Young remained the real power in Utah.
Though the military intervention proved futile, the brushes with the United States were to continue. The Mormons were in a quandary: they desperately wanted statehood inside the United States, not only because of political necessity (Young always realized that there was no future for a separate sovereign state of Deseret) but also by doctrine. The Mormons considered the US to be a sacred country and the Constitution an inspired document. For the US, the basic problem was the theocracy, and the casus belli they were offered was that uniquely Mormon institution of polygamy. So, in the years after the Civil War, a legal battle ensued over polygamy. The Mormons based themselves on the freedom of religion, claiming that for them polygamy was a religious prescription. The Federation countered that religious freedom could not legitimize infraction of other civil laws, such as the anti-bigamy act. The battle took place in the court rooms, and gradually increased in scope and intensity.
The new media, the newspapers, took up the challenge and a stream of anti-Mormon propaganda ensued#51, focusing on the “twin relics of barbarism: slavery and polygamy”. The two became almost identical for the budding feminist movement, when the women of the East started to deplore the miserable life of their wretched sisters in the Mormon West: being a plural wife must be just like slavery. The reverse was true, however. Utah women were quite independent, all the more so where their (collective) husband was on church callings – or hiding – and they had to run the family business on their own, with their co-wives. Also, they were among the first to obtain the right to vote (1870). Nevertheless, the federal government gradually escalated the legal measures against polygamy in a series of “acts”: the Morrill act (1962), the Poland Act (1878) and the Edmunds Act (1882); the latter stripped polygamist of most of their civic rights. As a consequence, during the ’70s and ’80 Utah became the scene of “polygamy hunters”, jailing practicing polygamists, or “cohabs” as they called them. A system of “gentile” judges, juries and clerks was set up, and sentences were increased to three and a half years in prison#52.
As during the late sixties most leaders had ”entered the Principle”, a large portion of the Church leadership went “underground” in a migrant life that took them every few days from Mormon house to farm barn, a weary cycle of travel, hardships and narrow escapes. Others sought refuge in Mexico, Canada and Hawaii, where the existing laws were not enforced as strictly. President John Taylor, Brigham Young’s successor (a companion of Joseph Smith at the time of his death), died in 1887, on the underground trail. His case is important as he as the staunchest defender of plural marriage against mounting opposition. When, after his death, more moderate judges gave more lenient sentences to polygamists who turned themselves in (6 months prison), Congress stepped up the persecution and passed in 1887 the Edmunds-Tucker act. This one added a collective threat to individual harassment: the church as such would become illegal if it continued to preach and practice the “Principle”#53. Of course, the Mormons contested the constitutional correctness of this act, but it was upheld by the US Supreme Court: the seizure of Church property was to be legal.
That made for a hot summer in 1890, when the church leaders had to decide on the future course. The religious fire, not very surprisingly, was fueled by chiliastic expectations#54; at least some members seemed to have expected the return of Christ at that time#55. Under extreme pressure, president Wilford Woodruff, realizing that he was “under the necessity of acting for the temporal salvation of the church”, on 25 September 1890 drew up a declaration that the church would comply with US laws and abstain from plural marriages henceforth. This document is called the “Manifesto” and as such has become part of the Doctrine & Covenants. At the general conference of the church, 6 October, the Manifesto was “unanimously sustained” as “authoritative and binding”.
This not only ended polygamy, officially, but also the theocratic nature of the Utah territory, and in 1894 Utah was granted statehood. In fact, the battle for the US was not against polygamy as such, as one federal representative candidly explained: “We care nothing for your polygamy. It’s a good war-cry and serves our purposes by enlisting sympathy for our cause; but it is a mere bagatelle compared with other issues ….. your unity, your political and commercial solidarity, and the obedience you tender to your spiritual leaders in temporal affairs.”#56 But even if polygamy was the “war-cry” and a convenient angle for the opposition, for the LDS church it was the issue, and would remain so for a long time.
The Manifesto, evidently, did not end polygamy at one stroke. Several reasons account for that. First, the Manifesto did not use the same scriptural language as other revelations: it was articulated as a resolution to submit to the laws of the land and an advice to all members “to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land”, it stated no penalties, it did not define plural marriage as “wrong”#57. Also the other leaders at that time were not asked to sign, so many considered it a political document rather than a revelation.
Later additions stated that past marriages continued to be valid. So plural families after the Manifesto moved together instead of splitting up. The arm of the law grew weaker, and the drive against the polygamists stopped. The Mormon kingdom was brought down to earth, and that was it. Some of the ire was rekindled in later years when it became clear that the church leaders continued to “seal” plural marriages in Canada and Mexico, in secret, while publicly denying it (an old ploy the LDS leadership had used in the Nauvoo days). In 1904 this came to a head when Reed Smoot, an apostle, ran for a senate seat. Though Smoot had but one wife, his President Joseph F. Smith was found to be a practicing polygamist. After another Manifesto Smoot was accepted, the first in a long line of Mormon senators and Congressman. The latter manifesto stated “If any officer or member of the church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any of such marriage he will be deemed in transgression against the church, and will be liable to be … excommunicated therefrom”#58. This still left the door open in Mexico and Canada, and no manifesto was couched in terms of a revelation. Only in 1907 did the church formally affirm the separation of church and state in a definitive rejection of polygyny throughout the church.

5. Towards a corporate empire: the main road of Mormon fundamentalization

During a struggle that lasted half a century, the LDS church first developed the notion of polygamy from an inner-circle spiritual prerogative into a living arrangement and finally into the central tenet of Mormonism. “A peculiar people” the Mormons liked and still like to call themselves, with polygamy as the hallmark of that peculiarity up till 1890. Probably, the battle-cry of the federals moved the church to more emotional investment in the Principle than it might otherwise have done. Like any value at the center of a battle, this one also gathered an enormous emotional weight and theological backing. Now, if a central tenet is attacked, what ways are open to react? Several types of reaction are known. The first is the classic reaction of hardening one’s positions: the values at stake have to be lived in another context and setting. The second one is explaining away the conflict, adjusting to the new situation; this implies rewriting one’s own history. The third is simply to forget about the conflict and move to business as usual. All three can be found in the Mormon case. The last one, implying the least amount of emotional investment, is the reaction of the federal government. The USA had made its point, Utah became a state like the others; the vestiges of polygamy would die out; business as usual ….
That option is not open to those who have invested heavily in the lost position: they had to choose between rewriting the past or to harden their standpoint and seek an escape. Both, as we shall see, generate fundamentalism. So, for the church, a major cognitive rearrangement had to be made. As LeGrand Richards, an apostle at the end of the 20th century, stated: “Our main goal was to beat the polygamy issue”, and with success, he thought. Anyway, the church engaged on a trail of battling against polygamy. The very practice it had defended with all its might, was now sufficient reason for excommunication. So, throughout the years after 1907, the church stressed monogamous marriage, the nuclear family, and family values coming very close to the majority of Christian denomination, with the difference that the religious overtones of marriage became ever stronger. The recent official declaration on the family is a continuation of that development.
The transformation from a theocracy into a denomination was neither voluntary nor easy, but once adopted the church followed that course with conviction and determination#59. Several notions helped in this transformation. One was – and is – “constancy in change”, the idea that all changes have not fundamentally altered the church. Though this is true in several ways, the transformation was massive indeed. Often dubbed “Americanization” the church transformed from an enemy of the government of United States (but a fervent supporter of the Constitution) into the ultimate patriot. Mormons entered the political scene, most as staunch republicans, and Utah is now considered the most republican of all American states.
Theologically this generated a process of fundamentalization. During the first phase of its development not only open scriptures, but also a more liberal and open interpretation was present in the church. In the middle of the 20th century, however, a marked process of fundamentalization set in. Literal interpretation, the rejection of “higher” criticism, obedience to the “Brethren” (church leaders) and a growing unease with evolutionary theories mark that period#60. One reason is the roel of lay ministry, without theological training, as formulators of doctrine and interpretation. This may of course lead to a more social-type gospel interpretation as well, but the Mormon example shows that lay leaders with fundamentalist leanings more easily find acceptance and thus authority, and build up a power base within a hierarchy. In a strong lay organization it is easier to defend a fundamental position and to discredit liberal opponents, than the reverse. Thus, in the last half of the 20th century, some fundamentalist apostles have dominated church publications#61. This particular process of fundamentalization was increased by institutional changes, the second reason. The leadership brought all church activities under their direct control. Some crack-downs on individual academics and critics, other intervention in survivalist groups at the far right of the political spectrum, and a streamlining of education materials were the tools to get the membership back in line. One important aspect was the rapid growth of the church after the 1960’s. From a Utah-based church the LDS church grew to an all-American denomination with considerable presence in Latin America and Europe; at the turn of the century the LDS church had already become a global phenomenon with 11 million members, more than ten times the number in 1945.
Control was and still is deemed essential and with it the idea of stability-in-change of the church. The “struggle with assimilation”#62 resulted in the church becoming definitely American within the mainstream of American values. But it had one more crucial consequence. The combination of a strong organization, routinization of charisma and the homogenization of fundamentalist leanings transformed the church into a corporation. Many writers have commented upon the “Mormon corporate empire” for various reasons. First, its management techniques have a corporate flavor; not surprisingly seeing that many General Authorities (as the leadership elite is known inside the church) are called to their leadership positions after a successful career in industry. The second reason is wealth. From its large holdings in Utah, the church through both its incomes from tithes and its former investments, amassed a large capital. The total value is not disclosed any longer, but is estimated in the billions. A huge building program and a vast missionary program are financed by it, but deficit spending is frowned upon in the church administration. Thus was the Mormon theocracy with its open scriptures transformed into a fundamentalist corporation.
The critical voice in Mormonism, and the liberal leanings in theology (the word is actually little used, it is “doctrine”) come from history. The professionals are historians, and more recently social scientists. Quite naturally, some mistrust exists between the fundamental institutional core and the intellectual fringe. If conflict happens – as has been the case – the institutional church usually wins hands down. With its scriptures well in place, the interpretation and its doctrinal structure clearly demarcated, based upon a – be it selective – literalism, the hierarchy is well established. Though the LDS church values education highly, the “critical disciplines” of history and other social sciences are not trusted. Neither are some of the “harder” sciences. Evolution is still a sensitive issue. Officially the church has maintained a neutral stance towards it, the only official position is that it has no position. At the turn of the century apostles could and did still speak out in favor of it in a courageous attempt to integrate all truth, revealed and researched#63. But these times have changed; the more fundamentalist officials have put a larger distance between them and ideas about the origin of man. Still, there is no official position; but no longer apostles speak about “the aeons of time the creation took”. The main church education manuals routinely portrait the Biblical chronology (say, Usher’s) as a history of the world. The sacred history blends, thus, with history, one of the fundamentalist characteristics.
The Mormon fundamental corporation was to be highly successful. It is, like most fundamentalist organizations, modern and well adapted and offers a counter-culture to the current values of the world. Sexual liberation in the “world” contracts with rigorous sexual norms inside the church, sometimes verging – at least for a European, and a Dutchman at that - on prudery. Abortion, divorce and broken homes are set against an ideal picture of eternal families; substance abuse against the abstinence from tobacco, coffee and tea; criminality against solemn covenants with the Lord. Institutional bonding is strong: members pay one tenth of their income, give time and effort in church “callings” in their spare time filling the many slots in the local and regional organization. The 55.000 missionaries (usually youngsters who serve for two years) are paid for by their families. Temples are visited on weekdays and Sundays are filled with worship in chapels and meeting houses. Claims on time and resources usually are met willingly, and underscore for the members the intrinsic value of the church, thus substantiating its claim to unique truth and authority. This demanding religion generates deep commitment and a high degree of identification. O’Dea in his trail blazing study#64 used the notion of “ethnic group”. From their doctrine and their history, the Mormons have developed the notion of a “people”, a “peculiar” people if possible. “Peculiar” first by polygamy; nowadays by dietary rules and commitment to church life. Though the tribal discourse on the “Latter-Day Israel” has abated in recent decennia, the ethnic idiom is apt. Also, for the non-American LDS, the label has been used#65.
The process of corporate fundamentalization has, as Mauss pointed out, one irony and one problem. The irony is that Mormonism draws closer to those forms of Protestant fundamentalism that have been “the most vocal and vituperative of the anti-Mormons”#66. The problem is that the definition of “being a Mormon” tends to become dichotomous: one is either in or out. Mauss rightly draws our attention to the fact that any authoritative and fundamentalist message is open to disillusionment. Any anomaly in preaching, practice or behavior can rupture the edifice of doctrine and belief. This is a general fundamentalist dilemma: if a literal interpretation is untenable, there is a crisis of faith. The authority of the organization reinforces the authority of the interpretation, and both grow dependent on each other. As a consequence, Mormonism lacks an denominational fringe where people can still define themselves as Mormons, even though they may well disbelieve one or more doctrinal tenets#67.

6. Second order “fundamentalists”: polygamy forever.

Up till now, we have been treating Mormonism as if it were one undivided whole. The dominance of the Church Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints makes that easy, but it is only part of the picture. Mormonism has had its share of schisms, much more than the average LDS member would suppose#68, ranging from minute – and sometimes extinct – splinter groups to sizeable groups, and at least one viable church, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS)#69. In principle, schisms in Mormonism occur for two reasons: the problem of authority, and the problem of adaptation or assimilation. Authority questions are at the origin of the RLDS church. Joseph had been “generous” in his indication of possible successors; but after his unexpected death, a struggle over leadership ensued. Though Brigham Young more or less won that struggle and led the majority of the “tribe” to the far West, a number of Saints did not follow him. After some time they organized a new church under the leadership of one of Joseph Smith’s sons, Joseph Smith III, later to be followed by his lineal descendants. Numbered some 250.000, the RLDS is still centered in the Mid-West, owns a portion of Nauvoo, the Kirtland temple and the site where the “central temple of Zion” had been projected, in Missouri. They did not cast their lot with the main body, and their pathway through theology would be quite different, as we shall see later.
The second main split occurred in Utah, evidently on the issue of polygyny#70. When in 1886 John Taylor was in hiding from federal agents, he was guarded by several men. One of them, Lorin Woolley, recounted later that one morning Taylor told his guards he had been visited that during the night by Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ “who had instructed him to hold fast to the principle and practice of plural marriage, despite the growing pressure”. Taylor then “set apart” several men, including Woolley, and authorized them to solemnize plural marriages and other rituals, and also to authorize others to do the same#71. After the Manifestos, when the church has repudiated its stance on polygamy, some diehards – including the son of John Taylor – held fast to the principle. In 1912, Lorin Woolley came out with his account of the 1886 visitation, and a number of people believed in his authority to do so. In 1929, when he was the only survivor of the group Taylor ordained in 1886, Woolley became the formal leader of what came to be called the “fundamentalists”#72. He conferred apostleship on a “Council of Friends”, most already excommunicated from the LDS church because of their practice of polygamy.
Thus was founded the so-called “fundamentalist movement”; their largest offspring is the “Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints”, also know as the Johnson-Jefferson group#73. The movement has been split extensively#74. Though their names#75 are reminiscent of African Independent Churches in Mormon idiom, in principle they should not be treated as independent churches because almost all recognize the LDS church as the legitimate and true church of God. However, they aim to correct and revitalize the LDS church, and they often refer to themselves also as the “Johnson-group”, the “Aldred-group”, to stress their continued adherence to the LDS church. This feeling, by the way, is not reciprocated: they are excommunicated. Including a wide array of tiny groups, the total number of present-day fundamentalists is estimated between 20.000 and 25.000#76. The number is growing, because of the high birth rate and some conversions:
“Harry, now in his 60’s, had been away from home on a business trip for several days. After a long drive he arrived at the family compound and was greeted by an excited group of about 20 of his 65 children and two of his five wives. He and his children and wives greeted one another warmly, especially since it was the weekend of the monthly family reunion and meetings. Everyone was expected home that weekend, including Harry’s 37 sons and 28 granddaughters and their families and more than 300 grandchildren and great-grandchildren.”#77
Three tenets underlie Mormon fundamentalism#78: the idea that the LDS church went astray, “out of order”, by abandoning the “Principle”. This hinges upon the second notion that plural marriage is a divine revelation that still holds as a commandment today. Finally, the acceptance of an authority not recognized by the LDS church. As usual in fundamentalism, authority is at the root of the movement. Though fundamentalists recognize a priesthood other than the LDS church, for them LDS presidents still are prophets; even if led astray on the issue of polygamy, they are still “mouthpieces of the Lord”. That rather awkward theological position, and the continuous discourse on the authority of the priesthood, resulted in a continuous tendency to fragment, occasionally with violent interaction between different “polygamists”#79.
Life as a polygamist has not been easy in the first half of the 20th century. The LDS church, determined to rid itself of its polygamist image, excommunicated all members of the Fundamentalist Church in 1935, and promoted harsher civic anti-cohabitation laws in Utah, leading to arrest and convictions of practicing polygamists. In 1944 and 1953 raids were performed by the civic authorities on the fundamentalist Short Creek community, arresting over 50 men (and jailing 20) in the first, and the entire community of 400 (men, women and children) in the second raid. Women with their children were transported to foster homes, under the accusation of child neglect and abuse. Later they were allowed to return, but after severe deprivation and suffering. The irony that the LDS church approved raids on polygamists they had in the past suffered from, was not lost on most spectators. After the 1950’s persecutions abated, and a media silence on polygamy prevailed in the LDS church. However, adherence to fundamentalist doctrine and participation in their services are often considered sufficient causes for excommunication by the LDS church. Actual polygamy routinely leads to excommunication, if found out#80
Recently, the legal basis for attacks on polygamy is eroding. In Canada a court concluded that fundamentalist “cohabitation” was a religious matter (which it definitely is) and that a law banning it would violate religious freedom, as guaranteed in the constitution. Also in the USA similar sounds are being heard, and the issue is no longer explosive. It is still sensitive, of course, and many fundamentalists would rather conceal their allegiance to the Principle than flaunt their many wives. But times are changing. A 1991 obituary in a Salt Lake City newspaper runs as follows: “He was a father of a numerous posterity, consisting of 7 wives and 56 children. He has 340 grandchildren and 70 great-grandchildren.”#81 The burdens of prison sentences are considered assets: proofs of faith and commitment, and gradually the fundamentalists are coming out of the closet. Some of them have started speculating on overturning of the Edmunds-Tucker Act, but that is still a long way off#82.
Though the focus of attention is, as always, polygamy, the fundamentalist movement is much more than a rescue of polygamy. The LDS church changed in many more instances than just the marriage law. The Fundamentalists see the pre-Manifesto way of life as the pristine Mormonism, and try to emulate that life style, negating the Manifesto, which was for them indeed a “disconfirming event that profoundly altered the character of Mormonism”#83. Polygamy was just one aspect, though up front. Other issues are communal living and the integration of religious and secular authority. Most Fundamentalists live in communal settlements on and over the border with Arizona in Southern Utah, or in other desert locations.
Because of their rejection by mainstream Mormon society as well as by their own choice, polygamists look for each other’s social, economic and moral support. Also, community living is seen as a value in itself, as in early Mormonism. Finally, the priesthood authority in fundamentalist communities demands loyalty, strict adherence to norms and allegiance to the leaders, all of which are easier in communal settings. So the fundamentalists offer a cohesive and orderly community life, with clear-cut values and behavioral rules. Leadership is patriarchal, in the tradition of the prophet-leader (though he is not always called that), assisted by a council of elders who manage the ecclesiastical as well as temporal life of the members. Some groups also operate in an urban setting (i.e. Salt Lake City) and are less outspokenly patriarchal, but often have strong links with a rural community. In a few of these, the old United Order villages of the 1870 project are being revived and function with the help of urban co-fundamentalists.
The Fundamentalist groups differ in the degree of what they call “conservatism”. In some rural communities, especially the United Fundamentalist church, women and girls wear 19th century clothing: high-necked long sleeved dresses well below the knee, the same as the Mormon pioneers wore. Hairstyles (braids and buns) also point back to former times. The relations between the genders, too, are modeled on the old order of Utah, and in church services the admonitions of Brigham Young are often cited with approval. Urban groups are not so easy to distinguish. In fact, up till recently they dressed themselves and behaved in order to blend in with their environment. If their style is still conservative, with an insistence on “modesty”, that does not raise an eyebrow in Utah.
Children are the main orientation of the communities. Fundamentalist groups share a clear pro-natal attitude, again as in the pioneer days. The average number of children in polygynous households is about 5 – 6 per wife, as in 19th century Utah. Men and women are proud of the number of offspring, as the glory of their “covenants”. Though children may leave the communities or abandon the fundamentalist life, the majority stays in. Leaders and followers recognize that the best adaptation for fundamentalist living comes from being born into it. Yet, they do make some converts, usually among disgruntled mainstream Mormons. Being as small as they are, fundamentalist communities are characterized by a close endogamy, sisters marrying the same husband, and in one case two sisters, each with her own daughter (from different fathers), married the same husband, all four of them.
These large families are often under a considerable financial strain. In urban settings the presence of co-wives – in fundamentalist idiom “sister-wives” – makes gainful employment outside the home possible for mothers with small children, thus solving the perennial women’s problem of child-care and working at the same time. In rural areas women work at whatever job is available, but some financial stringency is normal. Women’s work is not frowned upon, as it was the custom also in the olden days: the pioneer women from polygamous households were well-known for running the family business between them. Problems between co-wives do occur, and some opt out of the communities or families. Divorce, as in the main LDS church, is painful and cuts across “covenant” doctrine; but it does happen#84. Throughout, the Fundamentalist way of living the “Law of Celestial Marriage” closely resembles the “Puritan way” in which the pioneer Mormons are reputed to have implemented their polygamy. It is not easy, it is a challenge not quickly entered into, but it is the will of the Lord. If not, it could best be “carried out on a shovel”#85.
Throughout, the lives of fundamentalists are colored by their ambivalent and complex relationship with the LDS church. As said, for most fundamentalists the LDS church is still the true church, whether they were excommunicated by it, or had never even been members of it. They see themselves as a corrective movement, not a new tradition. Urban groups or the so-called independent fundamentalists may try to participate as much as possible in the regular Mormon wards. Teenagers in the urban area sometimes receive priesthood ordinations, a few even go on a mission for the LDS church#86. Cases are known where a fundamentalist teenager had saved money for his mission, but was refused by the LDS leaders because his fundamentalist leanings.
The fundamentalists make converts as well, often not so much by virtue of polygamy – which is alien for most converts – but by the strict clarity of doctrine, and some specific doctrines preached by Brigham Young that are not considered scriptural by the LDS church. But polygamy as such can have its appeal, maybe more for women than for men. Influx of these converts on the whole implies less focus on polygamy, and more on community and doctrine. So, in the end, even if the fundamentalist movement is in the eyes of the outsider, especially the LDS church, inexorably tied up with polygamy, it is primarily a return to the old order, to the 19th century, to communities, to doctrinal clarity and to daring prophets.

In some instances, communal living, that old haunting ideal of the equality has generated a fundamentalist-type movement without polygamy. The “Old Order Levites”, or the “Aaronic Order”#87 has sprung from the same source: a desire to be communal, and a longing for to the old Utopian days. The “Levites” are not a Mormon splinter group properly speaking; but they have been heavily influenced by Mormonism. They reside in the “Mormon corridor” and consist mostly of ex-Mormons. Their theology is full of Mormon discourse, though recently some evangelical influence has been noted (and sought for). They have found their own “One Mighty and Strong”, according to the promise of Doctrine & Covenants 85:7#88.
This expression runs through a lot of fundamentalist discourse: “the one to set order in the house of God”. The LDS church referred to a future bishop in Zion, Jack, on County at the coming of the Lord. Others believed in a second coming of Joseph Smith, or Indians from the South Mexican jungle. For the Levites it is Elias, the Old Testament prophet, as an angel.
The early Levites desired to set the Mormon church in order, following Maurice Glendenning as their prophet. Glendenning had received revelations and visitations from the angel Elias, and wrote his texts in a shorthand he only understood, called the Adamic language. He was born in Randolph, Kansas, Febrauri 5 1891. At an early age he began to hear “music and singing”, later poems. In 1928 he moved to Salt Lake City, joined the LDS church, and in 1930 received a revelation from “Elias who should come in the last days”. Thus instructed, he started to preach on the restoration of the laws of consecration and stewardship. Gradually he drew followers to his preaching, many of which had become dissatisfied during the Depression. Also when he temporarily moved to Los Angeles, his followers kept contact. In 1942 the Order of Levi was organised, and he returned to Utah. Till his death in 1969, he was considered the mouthpiece of the angel Elias, First High Priest of the Order.
After his death no new prophets came forward, and the movement is led by “inspiration. Most of the early members were Mormons, quite a few from cooperatives that resulted from the United Order villages. At present the Levites run some villages on the Utah-Nevada border, trying to create a “Utopia in the desert”#89. And at least with some success they try to recapture something that modern LDS society has lost.

7. Conclusion: Mormon pathways of fundamentalization

The early Mormon theological position seemed the antithesis of fundamentalism: open scriptures which were continually added, an open “freewheeling” doctrine, the main authority vested not in text but in a man and a large selectivity in reading the received texts. The image of Joseph Smith, sitting at his table with his scribe, the King James version of the Bible open, and “correcting” the text verse by verse, is as far removed from any picture of fundamentalism as can be. However, in a deeper sense, the roots for fundamentalization were present. In Mormon thought the institution of the “prophet” as the mouthpiece of the Lord” lies at the basis of scripture, and open scripture is simply the re-establishment of an old situation. Inerrancy is important, but not as the inerrancy of “scribes” but of prophets. Literalism is there, but not as literalism of text – originally – but as literalism in reading and hearing prophetic interpretation of the received text. The emphasis on the written word is there, albeit – originally – as a secondary rendition of the spoken word.
So 19th century Mormonism should not be immediately classified as a fundamentalist church, because that would be stretching the definition too far. At least it is a very peculiar one, consistent with the favorite self-definition of the Mormons. But it does have some crucial elements of fundamentalism already present. Authority, for instance, is crucial in the Mormon situation, an aspect that tallies well with other instances of fundamentalism. Translation is important as an inspired action, producing an authoritative text. Discourse on the past is there, while adapting to the present and moving ahead in a new situation. In this respect they are among the legitimate progeny of the New England Puritans#90.
The constitutional crisis in Mormonism - the conflict over theocracy fought on the issue of polygamy – triggered off a process of fundamentalization along two pathways. The first is the main LDS way. With the communal experiments a thing of the past, the separation of church and state was forced upon the Mormons and they circumvented that one in their move towards a new type of institution, the fundamentalist corporative empire. Ongoing revelation - that horror of fundamentalism - was tamed through the equation of church position with the right to receive inspiration and revelation: the authority for revelation domesticated the authority of revelation.
The second signpost on this road is the closing of doctrine before the closing of the canon. At the turn of the century, the speculative thrust of the 19th century was contained by building a coherent system of doctrine#91. Theophanies gave way to the “Plan of Salvation”, a system of coherent and rational doctrinal presuppositions. Henceforth, the doctrine was to be the judge of scripture, not the scripture the source of doctrine. Anyway, additions to scripture in the 20th century have been few and far between, and happened in those areas where scriptural grounding of doctrine was weak#92. In fact, such a semi-open canon, combined with an authoritative voice, is an excellent instrument to adapt to new circumstances, while maintaining a tradition-oriented discourse. Literalness in interpretation grew, but in support of the dominant doctrine, possible though “proof texting”, i.e. selecting a set of favored passages.
The third mark is an increasing self-sufficiency in providing background knowledge on biblical situations, in the impact of scientific findings and artistic renditions. In the first phase the Mormon leaders were eager to integrate “all light and truth”, reasoning from an inclusive definition of truth. All sources of truth were the same, so eventually all had to be integrated. Though this is still an important position, facts and “truths” from outside have become suspect. Revealed truth has become a fortress under siege.
The key issue of the road to fundamentalization is of course sex. Mormon marriage was domesticated: the experimental forms were forbidden and gradually faded away#93. But the Puritan ideals of marriage and the traditional gender roles remained and spilled over into the monogamous family ideal. The same zest the church had shown for polygamy was now focused on monogamy. Lost, at least partly, is discourse on the past#94. The institutional growth of the church and its definitive adaptation to modern society has dampened “Israel restored” discourse in favor of “Christ’s church restored” discourse. Lost, evidently, is communal life and the drive towards repristinization. Gained, from another perspective, is a diversification-through-growth and the creation of a “indigenous” academic tradition: albeit under corporate pressure and often disclaimed; but still with enough “critical mass”#95.

The second road to fundamentalisation is the “Fundamentalist movement”, a “second order” fundamentalisation. Here the reverse holds of the LDS church. Not the corporation is the model, but the community. Repristinization is the goal here, and a peculiar one. However, the “relevant other” in this movement is not the Primitive Church; it is the 19th century Mormon village, which rejected the separation of church and state. From that same century the movement inherited polygamy as the major arena, as their peculiar way of fundamentalism. The canon is not closed, but remains open; and doctrine is important and “deep”: though not at all uniform in the various splinter groups. Here, discourse on the past is in full swing and has become dominant: Latter-Day Israel is fully-present in the sermons. Sharing the same scriptures with the LDS church, selective literalness, doctrine orientation and inerrancy of the sources prevail. Prudish sexual norms and the freezing of fashion tie in with the rejection of modernity.
Authority is the key word, as everywhere in Mormondom, and the principal fall-out with the church is about the authority to change. Fundamentalists recognize the fundamental authority of the Mormon church, while denying it the right to change. In short, the Fundamentalist movement has opted for precisely those aspects of fundamentalism that the LDS church had renounced: communalism, repristinization and the peculiarity of polygamy.

Though not dealt with in the description, the road of the “third party”, the Reorganised Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, is instructive here. This church, organised originally around the Smith dynasty, has opted for a different pathway, namely that of total assimilation. Though it has retained open scripture (its D&C is much larger than the D&C of the LDS church), it distanced itself completely from polygamy. Gradually this church changed the prophetic order (no longer any lineal inheritance); included women in the priesthood; and moved its doctrinal stances very close to mainstream protestant positions. This is the trajectory of assimilation and protestantizing. A denomination is the result. It is as close to mainstream majority as possible. It is now in the process of changing its name to maximize the distance from its Mormon roots..

The final conclusion has to be about fundamentalism itself as a category. The first suggestion from the peculiarities of the Mormon case(s) is that fundamentalism is a process rather than a phenomenon. Theologically it is a direction of thought, a discourse and a strategy for validation rather than a doctrinal system or a finished theologicy. Fundamentalism is a proclivity for certain types of arguments, a type of reaction against the environment, as well as a direction towards the future. Fundamentalism implies a continuous process of recurrent fundamentalization.
The second suggestion is that fundamentalism is ultimately about power. As a movement, and especially when embedded in institutions, it has a basic focus on power. Theologically, it appropriates the scriptural authority into its own organization, and Mormonism does that more efficiently than most other. Authority, legitimacy - in Mormon parlance “keys” - are the central concepts in a discourse and a practice that revolve around the power to interpret (and in Mormonism to produce) authoritative texts, and base institutional structures on that legitimacy.
The third issue is identity-construction. Fundamentalization is a process of adaptation and assimilation, as a way to “go with the times’ and still retain identity. Its tradition-oriented discourse permits an ideology of “constancy in change” despite massive transformations, both in its context as well as within the fundamentalist structures themselves. Which leads to the final conclusion: in our rapidly changing world, fundamentalism is here to stay and recurrent fundamentalization to be expected.

8. A selected reading list

General history:
Allen, James B. & Glen M. Leonard
1992 The Story of the Latter-Day Saints, Salt Lake City, Deseret Book (2nd ed.)
Shipps, Jan
1985 Mormonism. The Story of a New Religious Tradition. Urbana, University of Illinois Press

Theology:
Davies, Douglas
2000 The Mormon Culture of Salvation. Force, Grace and Glory. Ashgate, Aldershot.

Former polygamy:
Embry, Jesse
Mormon Polygamous Families. Life in the Principle. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Transformations:
Mauss, Armand
1994 The Angel and the Beehive. The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation. Urbana & Chicago, University of Illinois Press.

Contemporaneous polygamy:
Altman, Irwin & Joseph Ginat
1996 Polygamous Families in Contemporary Society. Cambridge University Press.

voetnoten:

#1 I thank dr. P. Staples and dr. A. Mauss for their constructive criticism.
#2 Barr, J. Escaping from Fundamentalism. London, SCM Press 1984:45 ff.
#3 Thoden van Velzen, H.U.E. & van Beek, W.E.A. , Purity, a greedy ideology, in Walter E.A. van Beek (ed.) The Quest for Purity. Dynamics of Puritan Movements. Berlin, Mouton/de Gruyter, 1988:10.
#4 Barlow, P.L Mormons and the Bible. The Place of the Latter-Day Saints in American religion. Oxford University Press, 1991:171.
#5 Hill, M.S. The Quest for Refuge. The Mormon Flight from American Pluralism. Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1989.
#6 Thoden van Velzen, H.U.E. & van Beek, W.E.A. o.c. p. 22.
#7 The LDS Church has 11 million members nowadays.
#8 In this article I consider the LDS Church, with Jan Shipps as a new Christian tradition: Shipps, J. Mormonism. The Story of a New Religious Tradition. Urbana, University of Illinois Press 1985.
#9 Arrington & Bitton Arrington, L. J. & Bitton, D. The Mormon Experience. A History of the Latter-day Saints. New York, Vintage Books, 1979; Allen, J. B. & Leonard, G.M. The Story of the Latter-Day Saints (2nd ed.) Salt Lake City, Deseret Book 1992; Cooper, R. E. Promises Made to the Fathers. Mormon Covenant Organisation. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 1990; Gottlieb, R. & Wiley, P. America’s Saints: The Rise of Mormon Power. New York, Putnam & Sons 1984; Shipps o.c..
#10 Recently the LDS Church has become more insistent on its proper name: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints. I shall still use the LDS Church as a shorthand, and use “Mormonism” to denote the religious movement started by Joseph Smith, from which the LDS Church plus some splinter groups, emerged. “Mormons”, then, are those inside the LD Church as well as those of the Reorganised Church – see below – and the many splinters, including those of polygamous persuasion.
#11 Van Wagoner, R. S. Mormon Polygamy. A History. Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1986:1.
#12 Leone, M. Roots of Modern Mormonism, Cambridge, MA, Harvard UP, 1979:1
#13 The main source on the United Order is Arrington, L. J., Fox, F. & May, D.L. Building the City of God. Community and Cooperation among the Mormons. Salt Lake City, Deseret Book, 1976.
#14 D&C means Doctrine & Covenants, the compilation of revelations to Joseph and some successors, that makes up one of the four Standard Works (=Scripture) of the LDS church.
#15 “Increase”, a typically agricultural term, later became to be interpreted as “income”.
#16 In fact Nauvoo came closer to the Puritan ideal of a “City on the Hill” than most Puritan settlements (see Cooper, R.E. Promises Made to the Fathers: Mormon Covenant Organization Univ. of Utah Press, 1990).
#17 The only one in the United States Army, at that time.
#18 Technically, polygyny, as one husband could marry more wives, not the reverse.
#19 Joseph Smith claimed that he had received the revelation long before committing it to writing and surely long before the majority of the Mormons knew about it.
#20 Altman, Irwin, & Joseph Ginat Polygamous Families in Contemporary Society. Cambridge University Press, 1996:27.
#21 Von Wagoner o.c. p. 56.
#22 Altman & Ginat o.c. p. 28.
#23 Altman & Ginat o.c. p. 28
#24 Joseph had been tried several times before and always had been released (Arrington & Bitton o.c. p. 165).
#25 Leone o.c. p. 16.
#26 The area was of course Indian territory, but sparsely inhabited. Mexico nominally owned the territory when the Saints arrived, only to become part of the US after the Mexican war of 1849. Anyway, the State of Deseret comprised all present-day Utah and Nevada, small sections of Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico, major portions of Arizona, even a small part of California. This claim was not accepted by the federal government which created the Utah Territory (still considerably larger than the Utah of today). But the former “Deseret” is still Mormon Country or the Mormon Corridor.
#27 Leone o.c. p. 58.
#28 Shupe, A.D. & Heinerman, J. Wealth and Power in American Zion New York, Mellon, 1992, Quinn, D. M. The Mormon Hierarchy. Origins of Power. Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1994.
#29 Arrington, Fox & May o.c.
#30 This proviso is not made for the Book of Mormon, also a – claimed – translation.
#31 Montsma, J. De exterritoriale openbaring. The openbaringsopvatting achter de fundamentalistische schriftbeschouwing. Amsterdam, VU, 1985
#32 Matthews, R. J. A Plainer Translation”. Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible. A History and Commentary. Provo, Brigham Young University Press, 1985.
#33 Barlow o.c. p. 92, 93.
#34 “Official Declaration 2” Doctrine & Covenants, abolishing color discrimination from the church.
#35 Montsma o.c. p. 58.
#36 In the Pearl of Great Price, the last one of the four Standard Works, i.e. Scriptures.
#37 Genesis 24
#38 Davies, D. The Mormon Culture of Salvation. Force, Grace and Glory. Ashgate, Aldershot, 2000.
#39 The internationalization of the Church in the last decennia has made such a discourse increasingly awkward (Mauss 2001, forthcoming).
#40 Evidently, this was one of the points of conflict with the other Missourians.
#41 It no longer does. The injunction to migrate has been lifted in the 20th century, especially after WW II. The notion of gathering has changed into gathering in the “stakes of Zion”, i.e. in all countries where the church is organised. In practice this means staying at home.
#42 Brigham Young University has a branch on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem.
#43 It is in downtown Kansas City nowadays.
#44 Where Joseph found the plates of the Book of Mormon.
#45 The most probable site for the Book of Mormon events.
#46 Mauss, A. The Angel and the Beehive. The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation. Urbana & Chicago, University of Illinois Press, 1994.
#47 Leone o.c. p. 102.
#48 Recently, the LDS church issued a “Proclamation on the Family”, as an official statement of the presidency, stressing again the sanctity of marriage and the family. This proclamation is couched in terms which render it almost on a par with a revelation. But the content was not new at all, so it remains a proclamation.
#49 This description of the ups and downs of Utah polygamy, is based upon Embry o.c.; Ostling, R. N. & Ostling, J.K. Mormon America. The Power and the Promise. San Francisco, Harper Collins, 2000; Reiman, P. E. Plural Marriage Limited. Salt Lake City.
1974, van Wagoner o.c.
#50 Arrington & Bitton o.c. p.166.
#51 Bunker, G. L. & Bitton, D. The Mormon Graphic Image, 1834-1914, Salt Lake City, U. of Utah Press, 1983.
#52 Arrington & Bitton o.c.
#53 Van Wagoner o.c.
#54 van Beek, W.E.A. Chiliasme als identiteit. De Heiligen en hun allerLaatste Dagen, in L.G. Jansma & D. Hak (eds.) Maar nog is het einde niet. Chiliastische stromingen en bewegingen bij het aanbreken van een millennium. Amsterdam University Press, p. 117-138. Erickson, D. “As a Thief in the Night”. The Mormon Quest for Millennial Deliverance. Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1998; Underwood, G. The Millenarian World of Early Mormonism, Urbana, Univ. of Illinois, 1993.
#55 There is some discussion about the intensity of the expectations, yet a number of various arguments for the Saints pointed at 1890/1. Yet, it should be borne in mind that the LDS church never indulged in date setting for the Parousia (Underwood, o.c.).
#56 Arrington & Bitton o.c. p. 182.
#57 Altman & Ginat o.c. p. 37.
#58 Van Wagoner o.c. p. 168.
#59 Studies on Mormonism as a corporate endeavour abound: Allen & Leonard o.c. 1992, Gottlieb & Wiley America’s Saints: the Rise of Mormon Power, New York, Putnam & Sons, 1984; Ostling & Ostling o.c. 2000, Quinn The Mormon Hierarchy. Origins of Power, Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1994.
#60 Mauss o.c. p.160 ff.
#61 Barlow o.c. p. 91, Mauss o.c. p. 171 ff.
#62 Mauss o.c., title.
#63 Such as B.H. Roberts The Truth, the Way, the Life: an Elementary Treatise on Theology [1928], ed. by J. Welch, BYU Studies 1994
#64 O’Dea, T. The Mormons, Univ. of Chicago Press 1957.
#65 van Beek, W.E.A. 1996, Ethnisation and Accomodation. The Dutch Mormons in the Twenty-First Century, Dialogue, 29, 119-138.
1996
#66 Mauss o.c. p. 191.
#67 van Beek o.c. 1996.
#68 The massive bibliography of Allan, J.B., Walker, R.W. & Whittaker, D.J. Studies in Mormon History, 1830-1997; an Indexed Bibliography, Univ. of Illinois Press, 2000, offers seven large and densely printed pages of references to schisms.
#69 The RLDS is undergoing a name change at this moment, in which the “Mormon connection” is done away with. For the sake of clarity I shall still use RLDS in this article.
#70 The description of the Fundamentalist position is based upon Altman & Ginat o.c., Anderson , J. M. The Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact. Salt Lake City, 1977, Anderson J.M. Fundamentalists, in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol 2. Macmillan New York, pp 531-532; Baer, H. Recreating Utopia in the Desert. A Sectarian Challenge to Modern Mormonism. Albany, State University of New York Press, 1988; Marty, M.E., & Appleby, R.S. (eds.) Fundamentalisms and Society: Reclaiming the Sciences, the Family, and Education, University of Chicago Press, 1993; Quinn o.c. 1998, Embry, J. Mormon Polygamous Families. Life in the Principle. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 1987.
#71 In Mormon parlance, the “keys”.
#72 Altman & Ginat o.c. p. 44
#73 Quinn o.c. 1998, p. 14
#74 Baer o.c. p. 35.
#75 Like the “Apostolic United Brethren”, the “Latter-Day Church of Christ”, the “Church of the
Firstborn”, “Church of Jesus Christ of Solemn Assembly”, “Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times”, “Church of Christ, patriarchal”.
#76 Because of the illegal situation and the emotion associated with polygamy in Utah, they are not easy to count.
#77 Altman & Ginat o.c. p.1.
#78 Quinn o.c. p. 10.
#79 The LeBaron case, though quite atypical, has drawn nation wide attention.
#80 And sometimes the LDS church tries to find out on its own, with teams spying on people gathered at fundamentalist homes, or trying to infiltrate in fundamentalist circles (Quinn o.c. 1998, p.27).
#81 Altman & Ginat o.c. p.59.
#82 The highly publicized Green case, prosecuted and sentenced in 2001, seems to be atypical. Green divorced his 5 wives after marrying them, though still cohabiting with them and their 29 children. Both his claims
on social welfare and his tendency to aggressively seek publicity (also on the Internet), proved to be a bridge too far for the Utah law. Of course, the LDS Church does not recognize Green as a member, even if Green claims to be so.
#83 Shipps, cited in Quinn o.c. 1998, p. 9.
#84 The same held for Brigham Young who performed close to 2000 divorces during his presidency.
#85 Embry o.c. p. 46.
#86 Quinn o.c. 1998, p. 29.
#87 Baer, H. Recreating Utopia in the Desert. A Sectarian Challenge to Modern Mormonism, Albany, State Univ. of New York Press, 1988
#88 “It shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong … to set order in the house of God”. This text is crucial for most fundamentalists.
#89 Baer o.c., title.
#90 Cooper o.c.; Staples, P. “Patterns of purification: the New England Puritans”, in W.E.A. van Beek (ed.) The Quest for Purity. Dynamics of Puritan Movements, Mouton/de Gruyter, Berlin, p. 63-90.
#91 Apostle James E. Talmage was instrumental for that, among others, during the early 20th century.
#92 Such as the racial issue, see D&C 137.
#93 Foster, L. Sexuality and Relationships in Shaker, Oneida, and Mormon Communities” Communities: A Journal of Cooperative Living,1995, 82:53-56.
#94 Cornwall, M., Heaton, T.M. & Young, L.A. Contemporary Mormonism. Social Science Perspectives. Urbana, University of Chicago Press, 1994.
#95 Mauss o.c.