The Mormons and the Hopi: a Study of Prophecy
The Mormons and The Hopi: A Study of Prophecy
Daniel Eggertsson
Submitted: April 20, 2005
Religious Studies
RST490 Independent Study
Graduation Expected: Spring 2005
Word Count: 14947
Introduction
This project addresses the concept of prophecy and the role it plays in how the
“other” is fit into the religious and cultural framework of a specific group. Not only do the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and Hopi have independently rich prophetic traditions, their prophecies and histories intersect in a variety of revealing ways. The goal of this analysis is to get as specific as possible to the prophetic issues pertaining to both the Mormons and Hopi and relate them to the larger context of how the conception of the “other” fits into a group’s culture and religion.
This paper starts with an overview of the general histories of both the Hopi and the Mormons in the United States. Where did these groups come from, where do they live, how long have they been there, and what makes them unique? Answering these questions provides a good background to how these groups came in contact with one another. Next, the paper will address the specific historical interactions of Mormon and
Hopi. Finally, it will analyze the specific prophecies of both groups, exploring how they relate to each other and how they relate to the relevant historical, political, economic and religious forces that have acted upon them. The final goal is to present an interpretation of prophecy and show that one of its functions has been to enable the “other,” who is at first a dangerous, or, minimally, unknown category, to be fit safely into the cosmic order of a group so that there is a definite hope for future cultural preservation. Prophecy also functions by placing the “other” into a neutral/shared category or, more extremely, it can act negatively as a religious critique of the group itself and/or the “other.”
This paper will show that Mormon/Hopi relations began long before the two groups first met in the mid 19th century as both groups had previously encountered in
1 some form or another groups similar to the other and these previous interactions brought forth strong ideological weight. These relations will form a theme that will repeat itself in this paper: both the Hopi and Mormons are minority groups whom are isolated and vulnerable. Therefore, religious ideology is a critical tool that must not only maintain group identity, but promote practical relationships with the “other” in the present. The desired future is one of prosperity and a return to the “traditional.” The religious pragmatics of the present are significantly based upon ideological idealizations of the past that shape what the desired and prosperous future will be for the group.
This paper uses the terms “religion,” “culture,” and “politics” extensively, therefore it is beneficial to the reader and the arguments of this paper to establish some sort of working definitions for them. The reader should consider their necessity, but understand that they are not the ultimate goal of the paper and continue to understand my larger and more important arguments.
Background on Prophecy
This paper builds upon the premise that the prophecies of the Hopi and Mormons are affected by the cultural, political, economic and historical forces that surround them.
Further, prophecies act as a vehicle that may direct the “other” away from being a potentially threatening group into an integral part of a desired future and they can also push the “other” entirely out of the future. Whichever direction prophecy take the
“other,” it is always incorporating them somehow or another into their own cosmology.
Further, prophecy can be used as an authoritative religious critique of the “other.”
Prophecy speaks loudly about the state of the culture of the people and how they choose to identify themselves. As Armin Geertz argues, “…myth is used by the Hopis not only
2 as a strategy to define themselves but also to define themselves in relation to other peoples.”1 Prophecy speaks specifically to how people want to define themselves.
Prophecy emphasizes an ideal reflection of a group’s past, what makes the group unique in the present, and shapes the desirable structure for the future. Prophecy solely represents the point of view of the person(s), or group(s) that create and emphasize it.
This paper will follow what Armin Geertz argues is necessary to a comprehensive analysis of prophecy:
Prophecy clearly fulfills deep-seated needs, and it plays a pivotal role in social and political strategies. It is therefore useful for our analysis to characterize the ways in which prophecies are used, to identify interest groups that manipulate the cosmological mythology, and to identify the themes that are meaningful to these groups.2
My interpretations of the relevant Hopi and Mormon prophecies will follow Geertz’s analytical suggestions. A variety of lines divide the Hopi, like they do to all groups. Each sub-group invokes Hopi “tradition” to its own end. Overall, most Hopi feel that they face a cultural survival today that is aimed at preserving them as an independent and sovereign tribal nation with a unique language, history and religious life. In most cases, the ultimate goal is autonomy from the dominant culture.
Mormon prophecies are also divided along a number lines, but they also follow a larger pattern that contains essential elements that most members of the group identify with. Historically, many Mormons believe that whites are the true rulers and that in order for there to be peace and for God to reign, the rest of the world must become “civilized” or “converted” into white culture and religion. Anglo-Saxon and Western European culture, founded upon “proper” Christian morals is what I would refer to as, “white
1 Geertz, Armin W. The Invention of Prophesy: Continuity and Meaning in Hopi Indian Religion (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 59. 2 Armin W. Geertz, The Invention of Prophesy, 58.
3 culture and religion” in this case. This includes a tenacious desire for land and wealth accumulation, as well as political power and always being in the position of ruler and never in a position of vulnerability.
Bruce Lincoln deals in depth with myths in various religious traditions and, in his analysis, “prophecy” may be regarded as a sub-set of “myth.” When he writes about myths that are set in the future, or deal with the future, he is also addressing prophecy:
Yet there are other myths, and extremely important ones, that are set not in the past but in the future, a mythic future that–like the mythic past–enters discourse in the present always and only for the reasons of the present. What is more, such myths may well be (and have often been) contested territory as competing segments of society seek to appropriate them and turn them to their own interests, be those interests the preservation of the status quo or the reconstruction of society in some radically new form.3
Myths or “prophecy” is therefore something that expresses the discourse or ideology of the group in the present as a result of the situation(s) that the group faces in the present.
Lincoln argues that prophecy is highly politicized and this study will support his position.
Segments of both Mormon and Hopi society compete for power and their individual interests through the use of prophecy, even though they do the best job they can to make it seem like they have the best interests of the larger group in mind.
Lincoln uses an example from Iranian religion to illustrate a point that will later come up in this study: prophecy can take the present in a variety of directions in the future. First, prophecy can have a “positive” ending in which the future will bring a merging with the “other” and other groups into a society of equality and mutual sharing:
“Here, social classes may be viewed as the result of demonic assault, with the corollary expectation that the estates merge into an egalitarian social body congruent to the single,
3 Lincoln, Bruce. Discourse and the Construction of Society: Comparative Studies of Myth, Ritual and Classification (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 38.
4 physical body from which they all came.”4 Importantly, prophecy creates the “other” not as something that is wholly different, but only something that is different in the present state of things, but all groups came from the same place in the past and will return to this primordial beginning in the future.
Likewise or oppositely, prophecy can promote separation from the “other” and link the mixing of the groups in the present as the cause of the group’s current problems:
“The evils of the final age are characterized by nothing so much as by intermixture, that is the state in which categories fall together that ought (according to traditional norms and the text’s viewpoint) be held apart.”5 Prophecy acts negatively towards the “other” through group politics that constructs boundaries according to their own interest that shut out the “other” for a variety of reasons. The specifics of prophecies are worked out according to the social, economic and religious affiliations of the individuals who promote, espouse them.6 Prophecy is a strategy to project one’s preferred social order into the present or often a critique of the present social order by forecasting the future doom it will lead to. These kinds of prophecies can, and have been powerful tools of the upper and ruling classes in justifying or mystifying the inequalities of the present. Who is in power in the present has a direct correlation to who is in power in the future, whether it be the same group or the oppressed/minority group and it is therefore something that needs to be paid attention to.
In the end, Lincoln argues that prophecy is not only political, but that it is most often used to preserve existing power relationships most often by those who are in the higher social positions: “That myth has been used more often and more effectively by
4 Bruce Lincoln, Discourse and the Construction of Society, 41. 5 Bruce Lincoln, Discourse and the Construction of Society, 43. 6 Bruce Lincoln, Discourse and the Construction of Society, 48.
5 those who seek to mystify and preserve exploitative patterns of social relations than it has by those who would reform or radically restructure such relations is not something I would ever contest.”7 Though “it is not something he would ever contest,” he also argues that prophecy, as myth in general, can serve non-dominant interests. The history of
Mormonism definitely illustrates both sides of this point, as Joseph Smith opened a can of worms by claiming authority through prophesizing that may others took and ran with, sometimes to places that challenged his authority. Therefore, he had to use prophecy again to say that only he could prophesize and keep the power over the group solely to himself. But in the overall, national context, Smith very much represents a non-dominant group who is trying to take the power in the future through his prophecy.
A final note on prophecy, specifically pertaining to these two groups and a great number of other groups: both sides often and sometimes specifically rely on a physical object as the center of their prophecies. The Hopi have the “prophecy rock” and the
Mormons have or had the “golden plates.” Certain individuals use these physical objects solely for the creation of authority by possession over and against those whom they are competing for power within the group and outsiders. They are effectively monopolizing prophecy and its subsequent power by limiting it to the individuals who possess these physical objects. Do these objects really exist or solely provide the power to prophesize?
Probably not as the “golden plates” that Joseph Smith once possessed have vanished, leaving him as the sole heir since he once “had” them. The Hopi do have a “prophecy rock” that physically exists to this day, but there are individuals who still prophesize without it, and who still get taken seriously without possessing it. It is just another example of the politics that go on behind the scenes of prophecy and the struggle for
7 Bruce Lincoln, Discourse and the Construction of Society, 49.
6 power. The physical object added “material” authority to otherwise considerably abstract claims by those who possessed it.
Hopi Historical Background8
The Hopi tribe is the western most Puebloan tribe and is located in Northeastern
Arizona. They occupy the tops and escarpments of three mesas, a plateau to the south and east of the Grand Canyon. The traditional settlements of the Hopi were high on the mesas and consisted of terraced pueblo structures made of stone and adobe, hence outside groups referred to them as cave peoples. The Hopi reservation is limited to 1,500,000 acres as a result of unfavorable legislation and population pressure from their neighbors the Navajo, who completely surround their reservation.
The Hopi people are descended from a mixture of prehistoric peoples loosely know as “Basketmaker” and Uto-Azteca-speaking groups also known as Anasazi peoples that migrated through the Colorado Plateau area sometime around 800 A.D. They distinguish themselves from other groups who speak related languages by being the only people that have a distinctly Puebloan culture. The Hopi believe their traditional territory is more than thirteen million acres that encompasses the San Francisco Peaks near
Flagstaff, the Grand Canyon, all of Black Mesa, and areas south of Interstate 40 which cuts through northern Arizona.
Today the Hopi population is just over nine thousand people. When the Spanish first contacted them in 1540 they probably numbered from five to six thousand. The Hopi population has gone up and down since then, but it looks as if there is a permanent and
8 All of this historical material came from a combination of sources: Clemmer, Richard O. Roads in the Sky: The Hopi Indians in a Century of Change (Boulder: Westview Press, 1995), 3-4. Bosco, Steve. Chief Editor. Encyclopedia Britannica Ready Reference 2003. Ortiz, Alfonso. Volume Editor, Sturtevant, William C. General Editor. Handbook of North American Indians Volume 10: Southwest (Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1983), 27, 754-755.
7 steady rise for the near future because of more favorable conditions than in the past. In
1870 the US government formally took over jurisdiction of the Hopi area and the population had dropped to probably fewer than 2,400 because of famine and smallpox epidemics.
The dominant economic practices for the Hopi today are mining and cattle grazing. Similar to the past, the Hopi consider farming a sacred practice, even though it is not as widespread as it used to be. Traditionally, the Hopi lived off of growing corn, beans, squash, and melons and by sheepherding. Matrilineal descent determines the family clans that structure Hopi society. The religious life of the Hopi has traditionally been steeped in religious ceremonies and involved secret rites held in semi-underground kivas (pit-houses) and the use of masks and costumes to impersonate kachinas (ancestral spirits). Prophecy has played an increasing role in the religious, cultural and political life in the last one hundred and fifty years or so.
Mormon History9
Living in Western New York, Joseph Smith founded the religion known as
Mormonism or The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints in the early 1830’s.
He purports to have had a vision from the angel Moroni that told him of the existence and location of golden plates containing God's revelation. According to Smith’s account, the angel guided Joseph to the golden plates buried in the hills near his house and he unearthed them. He purports to have been given the gift to translate the plates and in
1830 he published the Book of Mormon. This book was supposed to “fix” the Bible and be a complement and addition to it. Mormons accept the Christian Bible, in addition to
9 This entire section of Mormon history came from a combination of sources including; Steve Bosco, Chief Editor. Encyclopedia Britannica Ready Reference 2003. Eliade, Mircea (Ed. in Chief), The Encyclopedia of Religion: Vol. 10 MOAB-NUAD (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1987), 108-112, Brodie, Fawn M. No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith The Mormon Prophet, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985), 50-99.
8 Joseph Smith’s revelations and consider themselves Christians, though they diverged significantly from orthodox Christianity, especially in assertions such as God evolving from humans and humans having the potential to evolve into gods.
After publishing the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith created the Church and recruited members. Not too long after, he took the members from Palmyra, N.Y., to Ohio, to Missouri, and finally to Illinois, where a mob killed him 1844. Brigham Young took over as the leader of the Church after Smith’s death in 1846-47, and the majority of
Mormons migrated on a 1,100 mile trek to Utah, where they founded Salt Lake City and
“Deseret” or the Mormon “Kingdom of God.” Mormonism then proceeded to spread outwards from Utah to all over the world, thanks to the Church having a great deal of wealth as a result of promoting sound economic practices and a religious tithe of 10% for all members. Male Mormons are also required to do missionary work for two years when they become old enough. Today the church has a worldwide membership of nearly 10 million and Mormonism is the fastest growing religion in the United States. Finally,
Mormons look forward to the establishment of God's Kingdom in America that will be ruled by Jesus in person.
Mormon conceptions of Native Americans are grounded in the Book of Mormon, but the ideology presented there started long before Joseph Smith wrote or “interpreted” the book. In Joseph Smith’s early childhood in New York State, there were probably only a few Indians, and he probably paid as much mind to them as the next person. When he
“wrote” the Book of Mormon he probably got his information about the Indians from the stories of old settlers who had heard stories from other settlers.10 When Smith went to
10 Frasier, Gordon H. What Does the Book of Mormon Teach? An Examination of the Historical and Scientific Statements of the Book of Mormon (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964), 39.
9 Missouri a few years later, most of the Indians had departed farther westward, and he probably shared the common sentiment that the Indians were a dirty, lazy, lot of vagrants who would soon be pushed back or eliminated in the westward march of the white pioneers. In the Book of Mormon he describes them (the Lamanites) as “dark and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.”11 The enemy of the Lamanites was the Nephites who were clean, righteous and white people.
As a result of these qualities the Nephites were at first showed preferential treatment by
God and given the land in the Book of Mormon.12 The present situation is setup in a similar way with Mormons being the righteous people chosen by God, but the Lamanites are not at war with the Nephites as in the past and the mission is to restore them to the advanced form of Christianity they once possessed and fell out of.13 Therefore, modern
Mormon opinions about Indians are much more favorable today than in the past.
Joseph Smith’s own experiences, combined with some theories of his time period, and his imagination were probably the foundation of the theology of the Book of
Mormon. One purpose of this paper is to analyze how these “truths” have played out in the past and present. On the one hand it is important to take into account the historical forces that went into the writing of the Mormon scripture. But this study will take seriously what Joseph Smith writes and says because Mormons take it very seriously and this plays out in a variety of interesting ways. The theory that Native Americans were descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel had been one of the most popular ones around the
11 Gordon H. Frasier, What Does the Book of Mormon Teach?, 39. Also see, Arrington, Leonard J. and Bitton, Davis. The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), 145-146. 12 Gordon H. Frasier, What Does the Book of Mormon Teach?, 39-40. Also see, Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience, 145-46. 13 Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience, 145.
10 colonies over two hundred years before the time of Joseph Smith.14 Joseph Smith was probably one of the last few to push this theory and it has led to interesting consequences for his later followers and the groups they came into contact with.15
History of Mormon Settlement Patterns and Indians
One significant problem for Joseph Smith was that The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints that he founded had no concrete history for its members to discuss and identify with in recent past. Therefore, Joseph and his followers constructed their own history through interpreting the Bible and also interpreting the Native American history in the places they visited and settled. This interpretative tradition started when
Joseph Smith was a boy playing on the Indian burial mounds in Western New York.
There were many stories floating around about the origin of the burial mounds and
Joseph seems to have adopted them and elaborated further on them. He even asserted that around his house was the site of the battle: “He therefore accepted the popular theory of a lost race in all its details, including the last great battle of extermination, which he decided might very well have been in his own neighborhood”16(italics mine). This incident is the first time Joseph creates sacred space by making up stories of the past, i.e. the history of the Indians in the place he is living and taking it as his own. Joseph and other Mormons do this at many of the stops along the way west to Utah.
While the Mormons were still in Ohio Joseph sent some of his most trusted followers out to find a new place for them to live in Missouri. These missionaries not only preached to the Indians they came into contact with, but they believed the land they would settle on would be the New Zion:
14 Gordon H. Frasier, What Does the Book of Mormon Teach?, 39-40. Also, Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 35. 15 Gordon H. Frasier, What Does the Book of Mormon Teach?, 40. 16 Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 36.
11 He had not yet selected the site for the holy city. Pratt had returned from the Lamanite mission with glowing descriptions of Jackson County, near the Indian border in Upper Missouri, and Cowdery, who had remained there proselyting, was certain that in Independence, about two hundred and fifty miles up the Missouri River from St. Louis, he had found the ideal place for Zion.17
It is important to note that the property was adjacent to the Indian border and that the
Mormons thought this was an important aspect of the location. The plains were full of
Indians and Indian sites so they must have literally been in heaven while they were moving west. Interestingly, the policy of the US government was to relocate the Indians tribes westward at the same time the Mormons were moving west. Further, Joseph Smith also interpreted events by other groups that involved the Indians to be divine acts and signs of a promising future:
Missouri was now acutely conscious of the Indians at her western border. The Federal government, slowly purchasing land in Ohio, Kentucky, and Illinois, was moving thousands of them out upon the great treeless plains…They knew that Andrew Jackson was an unwitting tool in the hands of God, for this was the beginning of the gathering of Israel18(italics mine).
Joseph Smith filled the trip from Kirtland, Ohio to Missouri and the New Zion with interesting events and Indian/Mormon history lessons. When the Mormon party stopped for a three day camp in Salt Creek, Illinois on May 5, 1834 Joseph delivered this interpretation:
Joseph himself, however, added to the supernatural occurrences. Stopping near an Indian mound on the Illinois River, he excavated a skeleton from near its surface and said to his companions: “This man in mortal life was a Lamanite, a large, thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelf. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains. The curse of the red skin was taken from him, or, at least in part.” Lifting the thigh bone, which had been broken, and pointing to an arrowhead still lodged between two ribs, he described in vivid detail the great
17 Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 108. 18 Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 121.
12 battle in which Zelf had been killed. Brigham Young eagerly seized the arrowhead, and others carried off the leg and thigh bones for souvenirs.19
The Mormons were in a constant state of conflict with other groups everywhere they went and this inspirational act of Joseph Smith gave the Mormons the fuel to continue the fight. The history of the Indians and this particular Indian became Mormon history for the purpose of an ideal future. The present is constructing a narrative of inclusiveness for the past. This same dynamic would narrate Indians into the Mormon’s future.
When they finally reached Jackson County, Missouri Joseph again spoke of the place as the New Zion:
The glory of the scene made Joseph heady as with the new wine. “This is the valley of God in which Adam blessed his children,” he said, “and upon this very altar Adam himself offered up sacrifices to Jehovah. This place is Tower Hill, and at its feet we will lay out a city which shall be called Adam-ondi-Ahman. Here Adam, the Ancient of Days, shall come to visit his people. He shall sit on a throne of fiery flame, as predicted by Daniel the prophet, ‘with thousand thousands ministering unto him and ten thousand times ten thousand standing before him.’20
Joseph Smith is placing America, and Missouri in particular, into the context of the Old
Testament, similar to how he previously incorporated Indian history. This shows that the
Mormons as a group claim religious identity and literal descent from the prophets and history of the Old Testament. This is then transferred to America; the history of America is the history of the Bible and now also his Book of Mormon. A powerful way for Joseph
Smith to build group solidarity and maintain morality amongst the group was to give religious and narrative structure to the experiences of his people. This quote is also a prophecy that supports the earlier prophecy that Jesus will return to rule America, in this case, Adam will return to rule this city.
19 Brodie, Fawn M. No Man Knows My History, 121. 20 Brodie, Fawn M. No Man Knows My History, 211.
13 Further, like Joseph did at home with the Indians, He also believed that the
Garden of Eden not only literally existed, but the Biblical events of the garden and Cain killing Abel occurred here in Missouri and the Western US:
Saints had long believed that Independence, in Jackson County, was the original site of the Garden of Eden. Now Joseph told them that Adam-ondi-Ahman was the land where Adam dwelt after his expulsion from Eden, and that Far West was probably the exact spot where Cain killed Abel.21
The narratives of Joseph Smith materialized the dream of all Mormons to live in a Zion.
Conflicts with non-Mormons, known as Gentiles from the Mormon perspective, forced the Mormons to move out of Missouri and into Illinois. Amazingly, but not surprisingly, the site they came upon in Illinois turned out to be a sacred place:
When Joseph Smith stood on this hill after his escape from Missouri in 1839, the spot was wooded and trackless and swamps covered the lowlands behind him. But he could see the glistening river with is islands lying to the north like lush garden places, and the green Iowa hills beyond. “It is a beautiful site,” he said fervently, “and it shall be called Nauvoo, which means in Hebrew a beautiful plantation.” “Nauvoo” had the melancholy music of a mourning dove’s call and somehow matched the magic of the site.22
This site was not the same New Zion as the last, but it was none-the-less a special place and Joseph Smith created a history for it by giving it a Hebrew name.
Several additional details of Mormon history are in the following is a story of a hoax on the Mormons when they were in Nauvoo. Three men from the nearby town of
Kinderhook smeared acid over some plates to corrode them and then bound them together with a piece of rusted hoop iron. Lastly, they carefully buried them along with some Indian bones in an Indian mound near the town that had been an object of much curiosity and desultory digging over the years. They then proceeded to “discover” them and present them to Mormons, some of whom smelled a fake. Nonetheless, Joseph Smith
21 Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 211. 22 Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 256.
14 says in his journal that he “translated a portion” and discovered it to be a history of the person whose bones lay in the mound, “a descendent of Ham, through the loins of
Pharaoh, king of Egypt.” 23 He never did publish this partial translation of these plates, and it was probably a good thing for his followers. But from what he says in his journal, it is clear that he wants to establish that this text, similar to the Book of Mormon, was written in reform Egyptian script, and that the American Indians are descendants of the
Lost Tribes of Israel as well as not only the ancient Egyptians, but the kings of Egypt.
Nauvoo was a good place for the Mormons for awhile, but Joseph Smith was still seeking more and to build a great civilization somewhere in America. The vastness of
Native American sacred sites in the West makes it an ideal place for someone who believes that they will one day unite with their long lost brother the Indian and create an ideal race. Joseph in fact believed in rebuilding old Indian cities for his new civilization:
Joseph had seen an article in the Texas Telegraph describing ruins of Indian temples on the Rio Puerco, and traces of ruined cities and aqueducts in the Codilleras and on the Colorado. This set his imagination rocketing. What could be more appropriate than to build an empire on the site of the remnants of the vast civilizations described in his Book of Mormon?24
The West would in fact be where the Mormons would attempt to build the Kingdom of
God as they settled permanently in Salt Lake City, Utah to start building up their
“Deseret.” Gravitation toward Native American tribes, burial mounds and sacred sites highlighted previous patterns of Mormon settlement. Utah and its surrounding areas are therefore the perfect culmination of Mormon settlement patterns with its multiplicity of
Indian tribes and sacred sites. Utah was also the chosen place for Mormon settlement for a variety of practical and political reasons. It is wrong to suggest that the multiplicity
23 Brodie, Fawn M. No Man Knows My History, 291. 24 Brodie, Fawn M. No Man Knows My History, 359-360.
15 Indian imagery in Utah and the surrounding area is sole reason for Mormon settlement there. But it is still an important thing to keep in mind when looking at their history.
History of Mormons and Indians
It only took six months after the organization of the Mormon Church in 1830 to send out missionaries to the Native Americans.25 This continued as the Mormons moved from place to place and became more important when they later settled permanently in
Utah. Brigham Young was the leader of the Mormon Church after the death of Joseph
Smith and he was a smart and practical man. Soon after moving to Utah he made one of his most famous statements regarding Native Americans that soon became religious policy in the territory: “It is cheaper to feed the Indians than to fight them.”26 Brooks too points out the practicality of this policy based on the Mormon situation in Utah:
Thus from the time they entered the Salt Lake Valley, the Mormons were intimately responsive to, and keenly aware of the problem of getting along with the Indians. Apart from the precepts of the Book of Mormon, they were practical enough to know that they were isolated and very far from any succor; it was sound policy to render the Indians either friendly or neutral.27
The theme repeats itself again: both the Hopi and Mormons are minority groups that are isolated and vulnerable, therefore religious ideology must not only maintain group identity, but promote practical relationships with the “other” in the present to ensure group survival. The Hopi also had unique previous historical contacts when the Mormons first sent them missionaries. They had already been in contact with whites and in contact with religious organizations who had tried to bring them Christianity. Ninety years earlier they had tossed Catholic evangelists off thousand foot cliffs because of the inhumane
25 Brooks, Juanita. Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier from “The Utah State Historical Society, Vol. XII, Nos. 1-2” (Salt Lake City: January-April, 1944), 2. 26 Juanita Brooks, Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier, 2. And, Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience, 145-160. Prucha, Francis Paul. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians, Volumes I and II Unabridged (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984), 374-380. 27 Juanita Brooks, Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier, 3.
16 treatment that had culminated in a Hopi being tarred and burned for lack of obedience.
Three hundred years before the Mormons the Hopi also steadfastly resisted the Spaniards who had tried to gain a religious and landownership foothold of the area that the Hopi didn’t want to give into.28
In addition to white religious groups, the US government in extreme cases was using the army to tame the West and this greatly jeopardized the welfare of the Indians.
In most cases the whites pushed the natives off their traditional lands and placed them on small reservations of nearly uninhabitable land that the whites had no use for. The US government around the 1850’s was the main enemy of the Hopi as well as the Mormons and therefore the concept of factional fields applies to the Hopi/Mormon situation.
Factional fields deals with two or more groups that are often, but don’t have to be, very different and from different places, but are facing a common enemy. The groups then unite to resist the larger enemy and put aside their differences in the present. The US
Government is the larger enemy to both the Hopi and Mormons and in this case they unite on specific issues with other groups who appear to also be sympathetic to their situation and begin to fight the common, larger, and more important enemy.
The Mormon settlements in Utah that composed “Deseret” reached a population of seventy-seven thousand by 1856 and it was around this time they began to hear about the Hopi (or the “Moquis” as they are called by the Navajo) and tried to reach out to them. They probably heard about the Hopi from the Paiutes or Hispanos and probably
“elaborated a mythology about these town-dwelling people to the south of them and had
28 Gibbons, Helen Bay. Saint and Savage (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1965), 68. Also, Alfonso Ortiz, Volume Editor, William C. Sturtevant, General Editor. Handbook of North American Indians Volume 10: Southwest, 724-725.
17 great expectations of their first meeting.”29 Brigham Young sent the first Mormon missionaries under the leadership of Jacob Hamblin to visit the Hopi area in 1858. From the beginning there was an indication that some Hopi believed the Mormons were different from other whites they had come into contact with in the past. Some of the
Hopis greeted Hamblin as the long awaited Pahaana when the missionaries visited the village of Oriabi.30 Right on cue, Hamblin responded by saying: “We are Mormons. Our
Father in heaven has directed us to your villages. We come in peace, as brothers, to tell you of your forefathers and to bring you blessings.”31 There is often a difference between what people say they believe and what they actually practice and this was the case with the first Mormon mission to the Hopi. Despite great hospitality and religious support, the missionaries were still skeptical about the Hopi by the end of their mission because of the effect of the long winter, short food supply and Indian interactions that made them feel like outsiders. It took a final demonstration of generosity to show the men how wrong they were about the whole situation and the Hopi people: “The white men were deeply moved by this final show of Hopi generosity in the face of native hunger… ‘We called them unfriendly,’ said Andrew, ‘and look what they have done for us. This horse trade is greatly to our advantage. I feel a little ashamed.’”32
With increased trust between the Hopi and Mormons, the groups began to speak to each other about their beliefs and this increased the Mormons’ religious convictions that they were indeed messengers from God and possessed the truth.33 As a result of positive initial relations, Brigham Young decided to establish Mormon settlements near
29 Whiteley, Peter M. Deliberate Acts: Changing Hopi Culture the Through Oraibi Split (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1988), 33. 30 Armin W. Geertz, The Invention of Prophesy, 120. Also, Loftin, John D. Religion and Hopi Life in the Twentieth Century Second Edition (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), 66-73. 31 Helen Bay Gibbons. Saint and Savage, 74. 32 Helen Bay Gibbons, Saint and Savage, 83. 33 Peter M. Whiteley Deliberate Acts, 37. Also, Helen Bay Gibbons, Saint and Savage, 78.
18 the Hopi and continue missionary activity. There were more than fifteen official missions sent to the Hopi between 1858 and 1873, but none lasted for more than five months.34
The Hopi were the only tribe that Brigham Young seriously considered relocating:
The one case where Brigham Young seems to have considered seriously moving an Indian tribe from its homeland was that of the Hopi Indians of northern Arizona, whom the Mormons called by their Navajo name of “Moquis” or “Moquitches.” These were peaceful Indians, who practiced agriculture and had some skill in weaving. As early as 1858 Brigham Young toyed with the idea of persuading them to move across the Colorado River and settle nearer the Saints. On each of Jacob Hamblin’s visits to these people he tried to get a few of the Indians leaders to accompany him back to Utah, with the idea of further cementing their friendship and impressing them with the advantages of cooperation with the Mormons.35
The problem for Brigham Young and his relocation plans were preexisting Hopi prophecies that forbid them from moving across the Colorado River. So Young changed his plans for the Hopi in 1863 by building forts on the east side of the Colorado River to protect Mormon economic interests in the area.36 Juanita Brooks sums up the situation:
“To their credit it must be said that the Mormons did try to help the Indians, and that in general their program was far-sighted.”37 Rather than take this at face value, more analysis provides additional insights.
The Mormons did try to “help” the Indians in the sense that they provided economic and military relief in rough and changing times. They were much more favorable than the white settlers and US that were moving through and in some cases settling. When she states that “in general their program was far-sighted” Brooks means
34 Peter M. Whiteley, Deliberate Acts, 35. Also, Helen Bay Gibbons, Saint and Savage, 79. And, Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience, 145-160. 35 Juanita Brooks, Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier, 24. 36 Juanita Brooks, Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier, 25. And, Francis Paul Prucha, The Great Father, 374-380, Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience, 145-160 37 Juanita Brooks, Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier, 25.
19 that they were looking ahead and practicing the most practical and advantageous solutions to the problems that threatened self-sovereignty. The logic of her argument says that it just happened that the Indians got “help” for so long, but that is only because it was in the Mormons’ best interest to do so. I would agree to a certain extent, but push it further as the Mormon situation is certainly more advantageous today and they have not significantly changed their policies towards Indians to the point that they are no longer
“helping” them.
The settlements remained, but by 1880 there was a low number of Hopi converts, probably no more than a dozen, and this caused persistent missionary activity to slow down significantly.38 Another thing worth mentioning is that relations may have seemed positive for the Mormons, but it was not always the case for the Hopi. The permanent
Mormon presence at Tuba City would inevitably lead to strains on the Hopi and outbreaks of violence against them when arguments of things such as water rights and land emerged.39
There is one more historical phenomenon that needs to be discussed before we move on to specific prophecies. The Hopi developed specific terminology with regard to white newcomers and the categories are significant because they are favorable to
Mormons and show a willingness to change prior attitudes:
But it was not without significance that, as Whitely put it, ‘the Hopi developed separate categories of person for these types of newcomers—moronam (Mormons) and pahaanam (other Anglos)—and they trusted the former considerably more than the later.’ This indicates that the Hopis were constantly engaged in reassessing their ideas about White people.40
38 Armin W. Geertz, The Invention of Prophesy, 151. Also, John D. Loftin, Religion and Hopi Life in the Twentieth Century Second Edition, 66-73. And, Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 145-160 39 Peter M. Whiteley, Deliberate Acts, 37. 40 Armin W. Geertz, The Invention of Prophesy, 121. Also, John D. Loftin, Religion and Hopi Life in the Twentieth Century Second Edition, 66-73.
20 They trusted the Mormons enough to sell them their children on numerous occasions although that is probably because it was better than selling them into slavery by whites who would exploit them.41 The Mormons wanted to buy Indian children and raise them to be white as part of their religious plan and this is why it seemed more favorable because it is more humane.
These relations had further implications for the Mormons, as they upset their enemies; the US Government, because they felt every move was preplanned and only beneficial to the Mormons. The Indian agents were very suspicious of the Mormon self- preservation tactics and that is why they read every move as a menace to the Gentiles.42
US Indian agents felt that is was the Mormons’ fault that the Indians were hostile to them, a sentiment that is hypocritical and contrary to many significant events in US history. The history of the Indians with government agents surely provided solid background for the acceptance of preaching by Mormons in which they claimed distinction from the “Gentiles”.43
The Mormons further angered the government agents by directly contradicting one of the Bureau of Indian Affair’s main objectives, which was not so generous land allotment to the Indians and absolute US government control of the land and the people living on the land. Here is what one Indian Affairs officer wrote:
I suspect that their first object will be to teach these wretched savages that they are the rightful owners of the American soil, and that it has been wrongfully taken from them by the whites, and that the Great Spirit had sent the Mormons among them to help them recover their rights.44
41 Juanita Brooks, Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier, 14. 42 Juanita Brooks, Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier, 15. Also, John D. Loftin, Religion and Hopi Life in the Twentieth Century Second Edition, 66-73. And, Francis Paul Prucha, The Great Father, 374-380. 43 Juanita Brooks, Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier, 15. Also, John D. Loftin, Religion and Hopi Life in the Twentieth Century Second Edition, 66-73. And, Francis Paul Prucha, The Great Father, 374-380. 44 Juanita Brooks, Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier, 16.
21 It seems that the Mormons speak a bit of truth regarding the policies of the US government, whatever their self-interests might have been. The Mormons are speaking exactly what the Indians want to hear: they are the rightful owners of the land, and exactly what the US agents didn’t want to hear, as it could lead to Indian uprisings to reclaim their taken land. Like before, just because this is what the Mormons said their policies were, that doesn’t mean that is what they actually practiced. The Mormons were in the process of building up God’s Kingdom, known as “Deseret” and the Hopi and other tribes possessed land that the Mormons wanted and it seems that they gave the
Indians the choice of peaceful religious assimilation first, and then in some cases resorted violence to take what they wanted.
The rough history of the context of the Mormons and Hopi in relation to each other and other whites, mainly the US government, is important background for the tough religious questions that this paper set out to address. Now it is time to take these issues in detail. As pointed out by Juanita Brooks they form an interesting triangle: “Mormon-
Indian relations are interesting, the Gentile-Indian relations equally so, and in combination the three offer a triangle as intriguing as any provided by fiction.”45 Further, the relationship is more than just religious. It is also cultural, political, historical and economic. Analyzing the combination of these factors is the approach that Richard
Clemmer advocates and the method this paper follows:
A political economic historical approach assumes that a particular history of a particular group of people such as the Hopi is connected with a larger set of economic, political, social and cultural processes—understanding, of course, that any attempt to draw rigid cultural boundaries around any group of people is of dubious analytical utility.46
45 Juanita Brooks, Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier, 1. 46 Richard O. Clemmer, The Hopi Traditionalist Movement from “The American Indian culture and research journal” (Los Angeles: 1994), 136.
22
Economics, politics, culture, and society all need to be worked out because they are all interrelated and are an integral part of the analysis of Mormon/Hopi interactions, even though they can be very complicated.
Definitions of Religion, Politics, Culture and Society
It is not possible to establish an uncontestable definition of religion because it is such a vast and complicated subject that no model could ever fit it all. This section merely sets up a short definition of “religion” that gives the reader some background to consider when the words “religion” or “religious” are used. Therefore, religion is “the relation of human beings to God or the gods or to whatever they consider sacred or, in some cases, merely supernatural.”47 Religion can be either communal or individualistic as it is very common for a group with shared cultural values to also follow similar, if the not same religion. The communal aspect religion of is expressed through myths, doctrines and rituals, though these also occur on the individual level. Religion is constantly distinguishing itself from the “profane” world through the creation of sacred time and sacred space. The creation of sacred rites, sacred books, sacred places, a sacred dress and life code, and the creation of orders or fellowships achieve “religious” separation for the group and its members.
The most basic element associated with religion is some kind of active worship.
Participation in religious institutions, the display of correct beliefs and moral conduct can also all characteristics of the “religious” life. Religion does not mean adherence to moral behavior. The events September 11, 2001 show another side to religion. Religion can justify “immoral” actions just as easily as it can condemn them. There is a multiplicity of
47 Steve Bosco, Chief Editor, Encyclopedia Britannica Ready Reference 2003.
23 purposes for being a part of a “religion” or adhering to a set of “religious” doctrines.
Religion sets out to answer to the unanswerable and nagging questions of the rational mind pertaining to the human condition such as: where do we come from and what will happen to us when we die? Why do we suffer? Where does evil come from? And so on.
Religion can take a variety of forms including being inwardly focused or externally focused, they can be “this-worldly” or “extra-worldly”, they can be ethnic, racial, socioeconomic, and even gendered.
For the purpose of this study it is important to consider a few characteristics that structure what constitutes a “religious” life. At any given time there are multiple members hotly contesting the characteristics that constitute the correct “religious” life for the group. How this power struggle plays out is indicative of the larger issues facing the group. “Traditionalism” or adherence to a putatively established primordial form is one foundation of “religion.” This is a completely arbitrary category because the primordial form is unknown. It is unknown because over the course of time individuals emphasize certain aspects over others and claim their position as the “truest” or “most traditional” and the side that wins basically gets their viewpoint established until the next group comes along and the cycle keeps repeating itself.
Traditionalism plays itself out through the creation of myths and symbols that construct the person or the group about the past and constantly try to restore them to that primordial state. Within these myths and symbols are sacred objects and sacred places that further the process of traditionalism that is so essential to religion. Further, rituals are sacred actions that bring the individuals or groups back into the imagined primordial state through certain actions that take place in created sacred time and sacred space. As the
24 group faces new historical circumstances, all the primary aspects of religion get constantly reinterpreted, challenged and subsequently changed. One of the ultimate goals of most “religions” is salvation. (At least on its face, the favoritism of salvation as the ultimate end of the religious experience is mostly part of the Western tradition.) Again, this process is highly contested and is constantly changing. Each member of a given religious tradition unites with the fellow members to create a sacred society or sacred community of believers. The reason religion is often communal is the fact that it is through the community the relevant religious actions are given meaning and salvation occurs. The Hopi and the Mormons in this study fit well into it this model of “religion.”48
Politics is one of those words that everyone knows, but one that everyone gets stuck on when they have to create a working definition for. For this study, politics is “the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy” and also “the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government.”49 More specifically it is the “competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership in a government.”50 Therefore, when “politics” is referred to in this study, it refers to the actions of competing individuals or individual groups that try to influence the policies and direction of their government or ruling body so that their opinion of religion, history, culture, or the future will become the dominant of the society.
Religion and politics are a few of the factors that combine to form a society, and each individual society links to the larger group in some way to form a culture. It might
48 This entire definition of “religion” comes from a combination of sources including: Eliade, Mircea (Ed. in Chief), The Encyclopedia of Religion: Volume 12: PROC-SAIC (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1987), 282-292. And, Steve Bosco, Chief Editor. Encyclopedia Britannica Ready Reference 2003. 49 Steve Bosco, Chief Editor, Encyclopedia Britannica Ready Reference 2003. 50 Steve Bosco, Chief Editor, Encyclopedia Britannica Ready Reference 2003.
25 seem that a culture is a society but there is a fine difference. First the word “society” will be defined and then it will be distinguished from culture. Bruce Lincoln breaks down the linguistic history of the word “society” in order to help to define it:
Often, however, analyses of social institutions or systems of social organization pass for the analysis of society itself, and it is worth recalling that the elusive and ill-defined entity that we call society (from the Latin verb socio, to join or unite together, to associate) is basically a grouping of people who feel bound together as a collectivity and, in corollary fashion, feel themselves separate from others who fall outside their group.51
Society is an association of people who create an identity for themselves through commonalities. These commonalities purposely separate the members of this group from others peoples and groups who choose to emphasize other commonalities for their identities. Further, Lincoln believes there are a variety of factors that are used to create these societal boundaries:
Numerous and varied factors may help to mark and enforce such borders, for instance, differences in language, topography, diet, patterns of economic and marital exchange, habituated behaviors (customs), normative practices (values in the moral sphere, aesthetics or taste in others), and so forth.52
It is important to take these factors into consideration in the case of the Hopi and the
Mormons because it is true that the societies that both groups work within and around display these patterns of differentiation, whether by way of affiliation or separation.
Mormon society creates identity through uniting its members around their religion, and over and against the other(s) who don’t follow this religion. But it is further separated within the community itself between groups and people who classify themselves as
“fundamentalists” and those who are more mainstream or “orthodox.” The Hopi consider themselves unique as a result of history, land, language and religion. Due to these
51 Bruce Lincoln, Discourse and the Construction of Society, 9. 52 Bruce Lincoln, Discourse and the Construction of Society, 9.
26 perceived uniquenesses, the Hopi consider themselves an independent tribe and nation.
Beyond these general distinctions, groups within Hopi society further separate themselves into sections through how they view history, modernity, and the future of the
Hopi. There are the “traditionalists,” whom this paper deals with considerably, but there are also “progressivists” and others whom don’t want to associate with either, and so on.
Culture/meaning making systems are the largest group entities that combine all the “lesser” differences within a society. When someone speaks about the “culture” of a group, they are referring to most significant and common markers of their identity that make this large group specifically different from other larger groups. These larger markers include an adherence and belief in a common history and common religious affiliations. Religion cannot be underestimated as one the most important of the cultural markers as is the case with Mormons especially and also the Hopi.
The creation of Mormon cultural distinctiveness is similar to many other religious organizations, but it seems that Mormons are much more highly visible in the areas they exist. “The implication is not that Mormons, as persons, are necessarily more religious than others but that, as a group, they constitute a highly self-conscious subculture whose chief bond is religion and one which has long established its mark upon the life and landscape of a particular area.”53 Religious identification is the foundation of Mormon culture and social identity and is the distinct marker that makes Mormons unique.
Religion is a primary area where Mormon cultural identity is created/maintained and social identity permeates from this core. Expanding from the religious identity and ideology, the Mormons further distinguish themselves in a variety of ways, including their marriage practices, family values and aggressive economics. The important thing to
53 D.W. Meinig, The Mormon Culture Region, 191.
27 remember is that these distinguishing practices are a result of the Mormon religious ideology and this is one way they define their culture.54
The Hopi are a much smaller group than the Mormons, but religious affiliation is still an important marker for them. The Hopi create cultural identity within their group through affiliations to clans and sometimes movements, in addition to the outside world.
The assumption that Mormon culture is unified and homogenous is incorrect. A shared religious ideology is the foundation of Mormon culture, but there is more taking place under the surface that prevents complete unification. There are always differing opinions within a group that create differing ideologies and differing identities. The difference in the Mormon case is that their religion is so distinctively different from that of mainstream culture that they have to remain culturally and religiously cohesive over and against the larger culture they are trying for the most part to resist, that they seem cohesive to an outside observer. Sweeping away and hiding differences maintains a perceived group unity to both inside and outside observers.55
Mormons have successfully created a society that appears uniform, stable, cohesive and self-conscious and this is a very attractive characteristic for its members and a result of a turbulent history of violence and suppression against Mormons. The problem is that American society in these same towns is heterogeneous, mobile, volatile, splintered and unreceptive to Mormon domination.56 This raises yet another point,
54 This argument insists that religion is the basis of Mormon cultural uniqueness. But I do not underestimate or forget that these features could have been foundational in their own right. 55 Some examples of internal Mormon differences include Fundamentalists such as Dan Lafferty, the main character of the popular book, Under the Banner of Heaven whom most Mormons detest. There has always been and continues to be differences within Mormonism about the practice of plural marriage or monogamy as the preferred practice. A Colorado Mormon recently said Joseph Smith never possessed the golden tablets of the Book of Mormon. Obviously he was excommunicated. Some of these are extreme examples, but the main point to consider is that Mormons face internal strives and division everyday like any other group and continue to move forward through these divisions while trying to maintain a perception of group solidarity. 56 D.W. Meinig, The Mormon Culture Region, 211.
28 Mormon/Gentile relations are very distinct in the areas where the two mix. Mormons choose to remain recognizably distinct over and against the other groups.
More than just being a distinct group, the Mormon history of oppression and violence brings the need for concrete examples of Mormon security in an area. This phenomenon had manifested itself in many places. An example I used in a previously paper on Mormons/Hispanics was in the San Luis Valley where Mormons consistently build churches in historically non-Mormon areas and on the top of hills or mountains.
“Characteristically, the discourse ended with the words: We had fifty years of persecution, but now we are safe. The Church of God is planted on the mountain tops where all the world can see.”57(italics mine)
The Hopi try to do the same types of things to resist dominant culture and maintain their own distinct identity and much like the Mormons they can mobilize against a great enemy, usually whites and the US government, to form a cohesive group.
But more visible signs that the group is often splintered or divided are discerned when analysis is focused upon them. For example, all Hopi agree that they need to preserve themselves, their land, their religion and their culture. It is always ideologically motivated and contestable to say that one ideology speaks for the group or is representative of the group as there are differences of opinion about the best possible way to obtain a prosperous/safe future and different ways of constructing authority and access to resources in the present. Richard Clemmer writes extensively about Hopi
Traditionalists and makes a point to clarify that it is a movement, i.e. a part of the larger culture that doesn’t include all its members. Movements encompass ideological
57 Taylor, P. A. M, Religion and Planning in the Far West: The First Generation of Mormons in Utah (The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 1, 1958, 71-86), 74.
29 differences that challenge a group and this makes them significant for study in their own right. The Traditionalist movement is important in our case because some its members embraced prophecies that involve Hopi and Mormons and their relations in the past, present, and future. “The Traditionalist movement called for sovereignty; embraced Hopi traditions, customs, symbols, and religion; and called for resistance to acculturation at a crucial point in Hopi history, when contradictions and reversals in U.S. policy had created an irrational political economic structure.”58
Generally speaking, Hopi/Mormon interactions show that culture is a complicated process of that involves creation, and then later reinterpretation and further creation upon new situations presenting themselves. Similar to many Native American tribes in the face of colonization, the culture of the Hopi that is most often non-violent and peaceful can become highly politicized as a self-preservation reaction in the face of colonizers trying to stamp out native culture.59 To better understand the phenomenon of culture there needs to be a further analysis of one of Clemmer’s arguments: “Culture is collective, creative, and creating, meaning that it operates autonomously from politics, economics, and society but always affects, and is affected by, these aspects of experience.”60 History shows that culture is fact directly driven by and constantly reinterpreted through these factors and at first glance this seems to challenge Clemmer’s argument that culture operates autonomously from them. This is not entirely true as Clemmer’s point needs to be clarified by saying that culture creation is processual insofar as it moves forward to an idealized future through a political, economic and societal interpretation of the present and the idealized past. One question would then persist: could a pure “independent
58 Richard O. Clemmer, The Hopi Traditionalist Movement, 150-151. 59 Richard O. Clemmer, The Hopi Traditionalist Movement, 128. 60 Richard O. Clemmer, The Hopi Traditionalist Movement, 136-137 And, Bruce Lincoln, Discourse and the Construction of Society, 48-49.
30 cultural ideology” exist before economics, society and politics influenced it? The most convincing argument seems to be that both coexist at all times, but cultural ideology must first exist independently. Therefore, economics, society and politics simultaneously provide the platform for the definition of “culture” based on an idealized ideological foundation that preexisted and will shift forward as the three factors change. The groups considered in this paper embody this approach towards the creation of cultural ideology.
Following this point further, culture must effectively deal with changes in the present that may be detrimental to the ideal future of the group. In the Hopi situation, it must render the future of white intrusion as something comprehensible and manageable, or at worst neutral. “The challenge to subordinated groups is to turn their situations around to their advantage or to render such situations neutral in terms or pursuit of their own goals.”61 Modernity is often a daunting problem for many groups and it must be safely fit into tradition: “The Hopi have stretched various cultural traditions to accommodate modernity to tradition and tradition to modernity.”62 His approach suggests that modernity and tradition are somewhat stable entities and I don’t entirely agree. The specifics of modernity are constantly changing although it is all in the overall category of something “new” and therefore modern. Tradition is also constantly changing because the group is emphasizing specific elements of the past in light of the present. Again, all
“tradition” is under the same category, which is relatively stable, but what is being emphasized often changes and over the course of time tradition loses certain things and gains new things.
61 Richard O. Clemmer, The Hopi Traditionalist Movement, 137. 62 Richard O. Clemmer, The Hopi Traditionalist Movement, 156.
31 The Hopi Traditionalist movement is a modern and modernist phenomenon, which is not at all surprising because that is one of the main issues that is threatening the
“traditional” Hopi way of life and what better way to safely deal with it than to incorporate it into tradition. “Thus modernization is more than just certain kind of change. It is planned and implemented according to a set of goals and an ideology of values.”63 Tradition grows and gains more ideological power as a response to modernity, therefore the two are often intertwined and tradition is not necessarily superceded by modernity. In the Hopi case, it was both nativistic because it attempted to perpetuate certain selected aspects of its culture and millennial because it sought to bring on an idealized “new age” promised in mythic ideology through the rejection of the dominant culture.64
Not all Hopi are Traditionalists, but all Hopi in some form or another assert that their ideology is true to tradition. Similar to the Hopi linguistic differentiation between
Mormons and other whites, some Hopi, in this case Traditionalists and a few others have different names for themselves and they are culturally significant. The Hopi word for
Traditionalist of those Hopi who are outside of the movement is aiyave, which means
“nonconformist.” But the members of the movement itself refer to themselves as hopivitsukani, meaning “living the Hopi way.” The Traditionalists further distinguish themselves from the progressives by calling the, “pahanvinaquti,” meaning “white,” or
“pensilhoyam,” little pencil people.”65 These distinctions are worth mentioning because they are powerful in relation to how a group creates authority for itself vis-à-vis others.
The Traditionalists are laying claim to sole possession of Hopi tradition by calling
63 Richard O. Clemmer, The Hopi Traditionalist Movement, 129. 64 Richard O. Clemmer, The Hopi Traditionalist Movement, 132. 65 Richard O. Clemmer, The Hopi Traditionalist Movement, 133.
32 themselves the people who are “living the Hopi way.” While at the same time they are discrediting other groups whom they don’t agree with by associating them with the enemies, “whites” and mocking them. These distinctions are significant for this paper even if not all Hopi use them or agree with them because it shows that not all members of a group agree on issues such as modernity and tradition.
For the final part of this paper we still need to answer the fundamental question: how does prophecy attempt to diffuse the potentially and most often threatening “other” safely into the religious, culture, social and economic framework of tradition. This is more of a hypothesis than a question and Clemmer says something very similar which supports the analysis of this hypothesis: “Culture is what humans create as they make traditions, develop strategies, hammer out new social relationships and roles, manipulate old ones, embrace technological and material items, and collectively create historical conditions or adapt to them.”66 The Mormon and Hopi cases provide intriguing examples for exploring this hypothesis.
Mormon Prophecy
Prophecy has been a defining characteristic of Mormonism ever since Joseph
Smith prophesized his own prophesizing in the Book of Mormon. The prophecies that deal with Native Americans or Lamanites as Mormons refer to them are the most significant to this study. But there are other prophecies that illustrate the politics and power of prophecy within Mormonism that are important to consider. Joseph Smith opened the door when he said that every man can prophesize, as this is how he created authority for himself. But this would ultimately lead to interpretations that threatened
66 Richard O. Clemmer, The Hopi Traditionalist Movement, 137. Also, Bruce Lincoln, Discourse and the Construction of Society, 48- 49.
33 Joseph’s power as the leader. Therefore, within the Church prophecy had to be and was polarized and controlled by Joseph, which is contradictory, but speaks about the power of prophecy. Ultimately, long term power struggles are getting played out through prophecy, there is an attempt to channel this authority.
Joseph Smith’s revelation(s) about polygamy are an excellent example of how political and polarized prophecies can be and usually are. Joseph decided to wait until the
Saints settled in Nauvoo, Illinois to present his ideas about polygamy, even though he had been considering polygamy since founding the Church. Cautiously, he first presented polygamy to the Saints in the form of a pamphlet of Old Testament verses, written by someone else. This created a public outcry against the practice, so Joseph had to publicly denounce it, even though he had been engaging in the practice since he had founded the
Church.67 After Joseph’s initial failure to convince his followers of the validity of polygamy, he came out with a highly politicized prophecy that said polygamy was divine, but the time wasn’t right for it yet:
As the prophet explained to his innermost circle in 1832, “he had inquired of the Lord concerning the principle of plurality of wives, and he received for answer that the principle of taking more wives than one is a true principle, but the time had not yet come for it to be practiced.” More correctly, the time had not yet come for the practice to be made public.68
Jon Krakauer points out that Joseph Smith was smart enough to know the terrain, and he knew that he would lose all credibility and leadership status if he installed polygamy at this time. He was engaging in the practice behind the scenes and he needed to justify it with divine support, but he also had to survive as the leader of the group, so he put off a public pronouncement.
67 Krakauer, Jon. Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (New York: Anchor Books, 2004), 118. 68 Jon Krakauer, Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith, 121.
34 It wasn’t until more than ten years later on July 12, 1843, that Joseph formally codified the putatively divine commandment revealing the sacred importance of plural marriage. Unlike other purported revelations of this period, it was kept secret and wasn’t acknowledged until 1852, a full eight years after Joseph’s death.69 This again shows how political the issue of polygamy was within the Church itself and with outside groups whom the Mormons didn’t want to give any ammunition for a potential fight. The issue of polygamy continued to present itself as the Mormons settled in Utah and the Church had to adopt an anti-polygamy stance because the US Government was cracking down on them and their group’s survival depended on it, even though many of the leaders, including Brigham Young, had multiple wives themselves.
The politics of polygamy has invariably led to some Mormons, known as
“fundamentalists,” to denounce the current policies of the Church and attempt to return to the literal letter of the Mormon Scriptures. Again, there is a struggle for who can control and who inherits the prophecies that Joseph Smith setup for himself. The prophecy of polygamy has been mentioned, but Joseph Smith also prophesized about the coming of himself, and this has been taken by others, such as the “fundamentalists” to legitimize their own viewpoints:
Their second-most-popular citation is likely Section 85, in which it was revealed to Joseph that “I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong…to set in order the house of God.” Many fundamentalists are convinced that the one mighty and strong is already here on earth among them, “holding the scepter of power in his hand” and that very soon now he will lead the Mormon Church back onto the right path and restore Joseph’s “most holy and important doctrine.”70
The “fundamentalists” use this doctrine to challenge the “Orthodox” Mormon Church and the policies that they don’t agree with by saying that Joseph Smith prophesized that
69 Jon Krakauer, Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith, 121-122. 70 Jon Krakauer, Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith, 7-8.
35 someone will come and fix the Church and “set in order the house of God.” The prophesized “someone” will be a “fundamentalist.” Not surprisingly, Under the Banner of Heaven presents numerous examples of polygamist communities ruled by autocratic religious leaders who vehemently assert that they are restoring God’s Will.
Polygamy is a highly visible political issue, but there are others that are also political and pragmatic, such as the Native American prophecies. The Mormon prophecies of the Book of Mormon that regard the Lamanites are best summarized here:
The Mormons were very interested in the Indians because, as is well known, the Book of Mormon calls them the Lamanites, one of the lost tribes of Israel. According to Mormon eschatology, the ten tribes will be restored, Zion will be built in North America, where Christ will reign personally on earth, and the earth will be renewed and become a paradise. During the gathering of the tribes, the Lamanites, who had been cursed with dark skins, will be converted and become white again.71
The revealing aspect of this prophecy is what “will be converted and become white again” implies. According to the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites or Indians lost their white skin as punishment for their sins against God. Therefore, it must be assumed that once they are all converted back, God will once again make their skin light. That would be the literal interpretation of the meaning of the passage. A more practical reading was practiced in the Hopi situation as the Mormons not only preached to the Hopi, but they adopted Indian children to later be married to whites, and many leaders including Jacob
Hamblin decided to take Indian wives and start the process of making the Indians religiously and literally “white” themselves. It is hard to pin down the specific approaches the Mormons used and believed would be the most effective in bringing about paradise on earth. It is clear though that the Indians presented a situation that could reinforce their prophecies and subsequently their religious faith.
71 Armin W. Geertz, The Invention of Prophesy, 120.
36 Hopi Prophecy
Now it is time to focus specifically on Hopi prophecies that deal with whites and especially Mormons in order to analyze and compare them with the outlined models.
Therefore, the history of the Hopi contact with whites is the best starting place. The mid
19th century is the focal point of Hopi contacts with missionaries as this is when the circumstances of the Hopi began to change the most drastically. White settlers in addition to Mormons were flooding through Hopi lands and pushing the Hopi further and further into a corner. By 1868 when the US Government formally took jurisdiction of Indian
Affairs from the Mormons, epidemics of small pox and famines had reduced the Hopi population to less than 2400.72 The situation was not getting any better for the Hopi as they lost a great deal of their land to the Navajo in treaties with the US government.
The first Mormons came in late 1850’s and the Hopi were in need of protection and hope for the future at an all time low point in their history. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the Hopi had worked out prophecies before they met the Mormons. The prophecies defuse the hostile and potentially dangerous “whites” into a safe category in which they are a part of an improved future taken from an idealized past. Prophecies allow them to assert some degree of narrative control over an otherwise out of control situation, to make the story of history their history. The fact that these prophecies change, and not all Hopi agree on them is important, but for now analysis of the first things the
Hopi said to the Mormons when they visited them is important. Chief Tuba is reported to have said:
‘I am Tuba, son of Nuunu Rinwah and Quwonghoningway,’ he said in his native tongue, Naraguts interpreting, ‘I am chief of the Corn and Water Clan in this
72 Richard O. Clemmer, The Hopi Traditionalist Movement, 133, and Alfonso Ortiz. Volume Editor, William C. Sturtevant, General Editor. Handbook of North American Indians Volume 10: Southwest, 724-725.
37 ancient village of Oraibi. We have been waiting for you. Our fathers told us you would someday come from the west.73(Italics mine)
Chief Tuba establishes his religious authority first and then authority for the prophecy by saying that it has come from “our fathers” meaning it is traditional and ancient. The most important aspect of this passage is that the prophecy says that the supposed saviors would
“come from the west.” Biased white Mormon missionaries wrote this source and that is why it is uncertain that all the Hopi share this viewpoint.
This part of the prophecy not only changes later but reveals an obvious connection to the historical situation. The settlers of the 18th century were moving west, that means they were coming from the east, and the US government was in the east. This indicates that all the enemies of the Hopi came from the east and it is logical to think that they thought a savior would have to come from another direction. This means north, south, or west. The Spaniards had come from the south so that probably eliminated it from becoming a potential direction for a savior. Since west is the direct opposite of east, and the savior would be the ultimate good as opposed to the ultimate evil that the east has brought, the west was probably the ideal direction for the prophecy. Further, since this party of Mormons did come from the west, the prophecy could have been framed accordingly.
The analysis of another passage from the Mormon missionaries shows more about the nature and purpose of prophecy that Armin Geertz notes from another author:
“Kennard expressed this malleable aspect of Hopi prophecies in the following way: ‘Like all prophecies and forecasts of the future, they are sufficiently vague so that a certain amount of interpretation is essential in fitting today’s events into the pattern of
73 Helen Bay Gibbons, Saint and Savage, 74.
38 tradition.’”74 As with the prophecy itself, the structure allows for developments in the future to be continually fit into the model created. This is seen in what the Hopi are reported to have said:
Village elders said that they had long been told that some day men of light skin would come to their villages, not from the east, but from the west, would call them brother, and would tell them of their forefathers. Some of the Hopis, particularly Chief Tuba, believed that the Mormons truly were the white men mentioned in ancient prophecy.75
The prophecy is vague at some points, yet specific enough at others to create credibility; first the “whites” or “men of light skin” will come to their villages. White contact is an established and continual phenomenon for the Hopi, so this part of the prophecy can easily be used again in the future. These light skinned men would call them brother and tell them of their forefathers and this is getting a little more specific. The fact that these are Mormons and that they believe that they have knowledge of the Hopi past fits in perfectly. Specifically they would come from the west, but this is not one of the most important parts of the prophecy and therefore, like the rest, can be changed to fit the future. Finally, we get for the first time the belief by some, including Chief Tuba, that the
Mormons and not any other group will be the saviors. These initial positive relations led to further positive relations that may have in some ways supported the prophecies for both Hopi and Mormons.
As time progressed for the Hopi, so did Mormon presence and modernization. But the Hopi situation didn’t improve like the prophecy seemed to promise and new religious leaders took control within the Hopi. In 1935 the prophecies of Dan Qotshongva (called
Katchongva by white people) who took over as the leader of the Traditionalist Movement
74 Armin W. Geertz, The Invention of Prophesy, 56. 75 Helen Bay Gibbons, Saint and Savage, 78.
39 after the death of Yukiwma, were published in the Mormon journal “The Improvement
Era”.76 It is clear that the wave of technology associated with modernization has now made its way into Traditionalist prophecy:
American technology enters into Hopi prophecy for the first time, i.e., the White Brother will return when ‘a road is made in the sky’. Qotshongva’s expectations are more soteriological than earlier prophecies, but he also envisions a universal brotherhood, a common language, as well as intermarriage. And even though the land is now an issue as might be expected, Qotshongva actually envisions a mutual sharing of the land by ‘the faithful Indians and the righteous Whites’ which later turned out to be effective in recruiting outside support.77
The Mormons had enough interest in this prophecy to print it because it supported at a few points in the ideology of the Book of Mormon; mainly that the Indians support intermarriage, a common language and believe that they will one day be a part of a universal brotherhood in which everyone will be the same color, or at least in the eye of the other. This prophecy is similar to the earlier Hopi prophecies because it says the potentially threatening events of the recent past and present are instead natural and an integral part of a better future. The whites won’t come from the east, but from the sky, meaning in airplanes, which the Hopi have probably already seen flying around.
Intermarriage had been going on since the beginning of Mormon contact. If Hopi could speak a common language with whites in the future, these relations would be much fairer for the Hopi than in the past. It would be much harder for whites to take advantage of the
Hopi in legal documents and treaties if they speak a common language. Modernity and
Mormons are taking on a positive spin in this prophecy, which is not always the case in all prophecies.
76 Geertz, Armin W. The Invention of Prophesy: Continuity and Meaning in Hopi Indian Religion, 135. 77 Geertz, Armin W. The Invention of Prophesy: Continuity and Meaning in Hopi Indian Religion, 137.
40 The single most important difference that inevitably led to divisions in the Hopi camp is the last sentence in which “the faithful Indians and the righteous Whites” will mutually share the land. Traditionally, Hopi prophecies painted a bright future in which the land would be in the hands of the Hopi as in the past, and there would be prosperity.
It is quite possible that some Hopi, the Traditionalists observed here, assumed that this would probably never again be the case, so the next best scenario would be for whites, whom had taken the land, to share it mutually and respectively with the deservingly faithful Hopi. The fact that they claimed that this is “the Hopi way” and based on tradition, led to others to disagree, this is why Hopi Traditionalism a movement rather than a culture-wide phenomenon.
Clemmer gives accounts of the “Roads in the sky” prophecy by three different
Hopi. These accounts give insight into how some Hopi interpret the specific prophecy and prophecy in general. The first is just a general prophecy about the creation of “roads in the sky”:
When I was a boy, down in the field, my father said someday, something pick you up, take you, drops you right at your door. And someday there’d be roads in the sky.”—Corn Clan man, 72, Shungopavi (Clemmer, field notes, 1968)78
The prophecy is vague, yet specific, again a common characteristic that allows for the adaptability of the prophecy in the future without compromising the provided security.
The time will be “someday” and the event will be “something,” although at the time of the prophecy it could have already started and the object could be airplanes specifically.
A more specific prophecy was recorded in 1956:
Our forefathers…told us that…there would be a road in the sky. How could anyone build a road in the sky…? When we see airplanes going back and forth
78 Richard O. Clemmer, Roads in the Sky, 1.
41 over us we know what they were talking about.” (Italics mine) -- Sun Clan, ca. 90, Hotevillas (Kochongva 1956)79
The last sentence offers a clear interpretation that gives the prophecy definite meaning and truth. The concept of airplanes and “roads in the sky” were completely foreign to the
Hopi in the past, and even in the recent present. But this prophecy gives this Hopi man a sense that what he cannot control, or would never think is possible, is indeed something natural and something that was not unforeseen. This point is further elaborated by another
Hopi man in 1968:
All this is known from prophecies: taxes, the road in the sky -- that’s airplanes -- even the landing on the moon and the atomic bomb was prophesied. We know what is going to happen.”(Italics mine) --Badger Clan man, 48, Hotevillas (Clemmer, field notes, 1968)80
It is obvious from doing math on the dates that this man was a child in the 1920’s, long after airplanes had appeared, but that is not the point. “We know what is going to happen” is the key statement because it is the most obvious indication that this man is clinging to prophecies of the past to deal with the uncertainties of the present that present real dangers to him and Hopi culture. Since all these prophecies were recorded when these people were older, it is likely that the prophecies have evolved or adapted in the minds of the person. It is uncertain whether these prophecies are the same stories that were told to these men in the past or their own reinterpretations of what the prophecies were supposed to mean then. I would argue that it is, as is all prophecy, but that is not the point. It is important to understand how the people have reinterpreted the past through present events, usually hoping to preserve a sense of security and control in a changing world. Another major feature of some prophetic traditions, including the Hopi, is that
79 Richard O. Clemmer, Roads in the Sky, 2. 80 Richard O. Clemmer, Roads in the Sky, 2.
42 they can serve as a kind of warning to the group – “If you don’t change your ways, this is what the future will be like.”
The Mormons would continue to fit into the prophecies of this time because they had accumulated a great deal of wealth and land in the West and were still an appealing alternative to the US government and even other Indian tribes. Hopi Traditionalism is historically associated with Third Mesa within the Hopi territory. 81 Not surprisingly, this has direct correlation to the history of Third Mesa. Third Mesa depends on livestock for food and wealth more than other Hopi mesa. The US government reduced the livestock of the Hopi in 1944 and this negatively affected Third Mesa the most.
This is just one of the potential reasons that the Traditionalist movement took root on the Third Mesa. They became the most visible resistance to the US government and its shifting policies on how deal with the “Indian Problem.” The Traditionalists then proceeded to reject some aspects of modernization and embrace others. In 1966, they announced their rejection of public utilities such as telephone, electricity, water and sewer lines.82 Clemmer argues that this rejection “is symbolic of their vehemence against dependence.”83 I argue that it is symbolic of their resistance to assimilation as well as dependence upon distrusting whites. This seems counter to the previous prophecy where the Hopi were embracing some aspects of assimilation, but this prophecy is twenty to thirty years later and it is obvious that things have changed for the Hopi and it is not surprising their prophecies will follow suit. They are asserting identity and autonomy by saying we don’t need outsiders to bring these things, we are hard working and don’t need
81 Richard O. Clemmer, The Hopi Traditionalist Movement, 140-149. Also, John D. Loftin, Religion and Hopi Life in the Twentieth Century Second Edition , 66-73. And, Alfonso Ortiz. Volume Editor, William C. Sturtevant, General Editor, Handbook of North American Indians Volume 10: Southwest, 27, 724-725. 82 Richard O. Clemmer, The Hopi Traditionalist Movement, 147. 83 Richard O. Clemmer, The Hopi Traditionalist Movement, 148.
43 them to survive and prosper. Our ancestors didn’t need them, and they lived fine, so we don’t need them now, they are just hindering us from achieving our goals. They could have also been visible signs that the present Hopi are not living the same life as their ancestors and this may be a cause of their sufferings.
Hopi prophecies about the “white brother” continue into the present. One resident of the Third Mesa, Dan Katchongva, says that the Hopi often mention the Bahana, the
Hopi’s lost white brother, who vowed to return to the Hopi to establish peace and spread wisdom, that some are still waiting for him.84 Interestingly, this means that some Hopi reject that Mormons are their long lost brothers. When Dan Katchongva spoke the prophecy in 1955, it is entirely possible that some Hopi were already rejecting the
Mormons:
In ancient time it was prophesied by our forefathers that this land would be occupied by the Indian people and then from somewhere a White Man would come. He will come either with a strong faith and righteous religion which the Great Spirit has also given to him, or he will come after he has abandoned that great Life Plan and fallen to a faith of his own personal ideas which he invented before coming here.85
We don’t know if the Mormons have “fallen to a faith of their own personal ideas which they invented before coming” or are “of a strong faith and righteous religion which the
Great Spirit has given them” but it is an interesting development that is worth noting because it opens up the interpretative horizon entirely. History has brought the Hopi many whites whom they hoped would be their saviors in the form of many religions and apparently none proved to fulfill the prophecy. Therefore, they created the categories of category of “fallen faith” and “man made” religions. This is reinforced in the words of
84 Nabokov, Peter. Editor. Native American Testimony: A Chronicle of Indian-White Relations from Prophecy to the Present, 1492- 2000 (New York: Penguin Books, 2001), 6. 85 Peter Nabokov, Native American Testimony, 6-7.
44 Dan Katchongva: “These things we were warned to watch, and we today know that those prophecies were true because we can see how many new and selfish ideas and plans are being put before us.”86
All of these shifts illustrate the core features of prophecy: (1) prophecy is tremendously authoritative, as it claims to come from God, the gods or some supernatural entity, that is why it is embraced as “timeless.” (2) But, prophecy is absolutely flexible, as it is always spoken by human agents in specific historical contexts. In sum, prophecy is that discourse which makes the greatest claims to divine authority, but human hands in the present most clearly shape it.
It is apparent that whites have come from a variety of directions in the past, so in the future is not as specific as the past as to where they will come from. First it was the east, and then it was the sky, now it is “from somewhere.” It also doesn’t specifically say that the Hopi will retain complete sovereignty or will coexist mutually with whites on the land. It seems that Hopi prophecy is getting increasingly vague at times, and quite pointed at others to avoid the failures of the past and still promise an improved future through rhetorical authority in the present. Through the course of all versions of the prophecy we must not forget that the “other” in this case “whites,” are being safely incorporated into the ideal future although they are the adversaries of the present. There is a shift with the prophecies as whites are being criticized, but this doesn’t mean that the future cannot include them somehow, it can go either way.
Conclusion
One of the most striking things about this study is the extent in which both groups used events from the past to determine how they perceived the “other” in the present. The
86 Peter Nabokov, Native American Testimony, 7
45 past is constantly being reinterpreted and reinvented based on the circumstances of the present and always fits the “other” in as part of the hope for a prosperous future. Many times, when groups or individual groups’ members use terms such as tradition, ancient prophecy, or divine inspiration they are trying to create religious authority for the prophecy or viewpoint they are advocating and therefore we see that we should be cautious and analyze further when we see these terms being advanced. “Ancient truth” is a kind of cultural “capital” that is contested in the present and unveiled in the future.
Since the first mission in the mid 1850’s Mormon zeal about converting Hopi has gone up and down with each generation of Saints. At certain times when relations are good, Mormons look to Hopi as proof of the authenticity of their scripture and it reinforces their faith. Other times, after conversion failures, the zeal seems to wane, but their faith is not abandoned. Similar to the Hopi the Mormons were once in an adverse situation facing an uncertain future and needing to defuse the dangerous “other.” I argue that the Mormons don’t view some of their failures with the Hopi as a negative thing, but continually look to other achievements as positive signs for the future and reinterpret their Scripture and prophecies accordingly.
In this case they have effectively secured themselves from the seemingly hostile and dangerous Native Americans who surround them in Utah and other places and this is a step in the right direction for their prophecies. Surviving in Utah surrounded by Indians might not be the main issue, but it is significant that the Church has become economically so successful and grown so much. The Mormon Church takes a tithe of 10% so it is very wealthy and Mormonism is the fastest growing religion in the United States. The conversion of Native Americans can now resume and potentially have better results with
46 these new circumstances. In the Mormon case, prophecy creates an ideal future by continually reinterpreting the failures of the past with the prosperity of the present and it moves the group closer to the eventual creation of the Kingdom of God on earth, specifically in America. Further, there are still Hopi who believe that the Mormons are their long lost brother and possess the truth, so this can only serve to strengthen Mormon faith in their missionary activities throughout the world. If all else fails, prophecy can provide lofty goals for the future that can definitely be psychologically, and potentially physically beneficial for a group.
After the analysis of several of the relevant prophecies of both the Hopi and
Mormons, it is clear that they are affected by the cultural, political, economic and historical forces that surround and act on them. These prophecies for the Hopi and the
Mormons act as religious means to domesticate the “other”, or it can push them entirely aside. Further, some Hopi use prophecies for an authoritative religious critique themselves and of the “other” including Christians and even possibly Mormons. The prophecies of both groups speak a great deal about the state of their culture and how they choose to identify themselves vis-à-vis others: “…myth is used by the Hopis not only as a strategy to define themselves but also to define themselves in relation to other peoples.”87
For the Hopi specifically, prophecy is an ideal reflection of what the past meant, the present is, and what the future should be and this is why it speaks specifically to how people want to define themselves. Similarly, prophecy for Mormons created a significant past, explained the present, and gives a definite plan for an ideal future of happiness filled with religious and political superiority. The Mormons and Hopi cases support the hypotheses of Bruce Lincoln and specifically Armin Geertz when he says:
87 Armin W. Geertz, The Invention of Prophesy, 59.
47 Prophecy clearly fulfills deep-seated needs, and it plays a pivotal role in social and political strategies. It is therefore useful for our analysis to characterize the ways in which prophecies are used, to identify interest groups that manipulate the cosmological mythology, and to identify the themes that are meaningful to these groups.88
This study did what Geertz argued is necessary in the methodology of studying prophecy and it suggested in each case the politics of prophecy, which is the argument of Bruce
Lincoln. The Hopi are in a state of cultural survival and want to maintain identity and autonomy from the dominant culture and some interests groups, such as the
Traditionalists who are taking the authority of tradition and using it to create authority in the present. Likewise, we see through their prophecies that the Hopi want to be an independent, self-sustaining people who are at peace with themselves and their neighbors through living correctly or “the Hopi way.” The Mormons want to also distinguish themselves from any other group and their prophecies show that they are bent on territorial, religious and ethnic domination of America and then potentially the world.
The Mormons believe that whites are the true rulers of America and the world and that in order for there to be peace and for God to reign, the rest of the world must become
“civilized” or “converted” into white culture and religion. This includes a tenacious desire for land and wealth accumulation, as well as political power and always being in the position of ruler and never in a position of vulnerability.
Overall, the purpose of this study was to try to understand not only what
“prophecy” is, but how it has been, is, and probably will be played out in the future in the form of concrete examples. The Mormons and Hopi provided a unique opportunity for study because both groups use prophecy to some extent, and their prophecies overlapped at some points. It was significant to see how prophecy was used, who used it, how often it
88 Armin W. Geertz, The Invention of Prophesy, 58.
48 was used, to look at the reasons why not only the individuals used them and the reasons why the prophecies took the shape they did. The politics of prophecies and how easily religion can express, shape and inform cultural, economic, and political clashes/confrontations is one of the most important aspects considered in this study.
Never take anything at face value, because if something is anything like prophecy, face value tells you very little about what is really going on.
49 Bibliography
1.) Arrington, Leonard J. and Bitton, Davis. The Mormon Experience: A History of the
Latter-day Saints (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979).
2.) Axtell, James. Some Thoughts on the Ethnohistory of Missions (Ethnohistory, Vol.
29, No. 1 (Winter, 1982), 35-41).
3.) Beaver, R. Pierce. American Missionary Motivation before the Revolution (Church
History, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Jun., 1962), 216-226).
4.) Bosco, Steve. Chief Editor. Encyclopedia Britannica Ready Reference 2003.
5.) Brodie, Fawn M. No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith The
Mormon Prophet, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1985).
6.) Brooks, Juanita. Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier from “The Utah State
Historical Society, Vol. XII, Nos. 1-2” (Salt Lake City: January-April, 1944).
7.) Clemmer, Richard O. Roads in the Sky: The Hopi Indians in a Century of Change
(Boulder: Westview Press, 1995).
8.) Clemmer, Richard O. The Hopi Traditionalist Movement from “The American
Indian culture and research journal” (Los Angeles: 1994).
9.) Dowd, Gregory Evans. A Spirited Resistance: The North American Indian Struggle
for Unity 1745-1815 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992).
10.) Eliade, Mircea (Ed. in Chief), The Encyclopedia of Religion: Volume 10: MOAB-
NUAD (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1987).
11.) Eliade, Mircea (Ed. in Chief), The Encyclopedia of Religion: Volume 12: PROC-
SAIC (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1987).
50 12.) Frasier, Gordon H. What Does the Book of Mormon Teach? An Examination of the
Historical and Scientific Statements of the Book of Mormon (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1964).
13.) Geertz, Armin W. Contemporary Problems in the Study of Native American
Religions with Special Reference to the Hopis (American Indian Quarterly, Vol.20,
No. 3/4, Special Issue: To Hear the Eagles Cry: Contemporary Themes in Native
American Spirituality (Summer – Autumn, 1996), 393-414).
14.) Geertz, Armin W. The Invention of Prophesy: Continuity and Meaning in Hopi
Indian Religion (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).
15.) Gibbons, Helen Bay. Saint and Savage (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company,
1965).
16.) Krakauer, Jon. Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (New York:
Anchor Books, 2004).
17.) Lincoln, Bruce. Discourse and the Construction of Society: Comparative Studies of
Myth, Ritual and Classification (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).
18.) Loftin, John D. Religion and Hopi Life in the Twentieth Century Second Edition
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991).
19.) McDermott, Gerald R. Jonathan Edwards and American Indians: The Devil Sucks
Their Blood (The New England Quarterly, Vol. 72, No. 4 (Dec., 1999), 539-557).
20.) Murphy, Thomas W. From Racial Stereotype to Ethnic Identity: Instrumental Uses
of Mormon Racial Doctrine (Ethnohistory, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Summer, 1999), 451-
480).
51 21.) Nabokov, Peter. Editor. Native American Testimony: A Chronicle of Indian-White
Relations from Prophesy to the Present, 1492-2000 (New York: Penguin Books,
2001).
22.) Niezen, Ronald. Spirit Wars: Native North American Religions in the Age of Nation
Building (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000).
23.) Notarianni, Diane M. Making Mennonites: Hopi Gender Roles and Christian
Transformations (Ethnohistory, Vol.43, No.4, Native American Women’s
Responses to Christianity (Autumn, 1996), 593-611).
24.) Olson, James S. and Wilson, Raymond. Native Americans In The Twentieth Century
(Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1984).
25.) Ortiz, Alfonso. Volume Editor, Sturtevant, William C. General Editor. Handbook of
North American Indians Volume 9: Southwest (Washington: Smithsonian
Institution, 1979).
26.) Ortiz, Alfonso. Volume Editor, Sturtevant, William C. General Editor. Handbook of
North American Indians Volume 10: Southwest (Washington: Smithsonian
Institution, 1983).
27.) Prucha, Francis Paul. The Great Father: The United States Government and the
American Indians, Volumes I and II Unabridged (Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press, 1984).
28.) Shepherd, Gary and Gordon. Mormon Passage: A Missionary Chronicle (Chicago:
University of Illinois Press, 1998).
29.) Shipps, Jan, Mormonism: The Story of A New Religious Tradition (Chicago:
University of Illinois Press, 1985).
52 30.) Smith, Joseph. Translator. The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ
(New York: Doubleday, 2004).
31.) Tock, Harry Thomas. A Resume of Christian Missions among the American Indians
(The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Jul., 1920), 368-385).
32.) Topper, Martin D. “Mormon Placement”: The Effects of Missionary Foster
Families on Navajo Adolescents (Ethos, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Summer, 1979), 142-160).
33.) Whiteley, Peter M. Deliberate Acts: Changing Hopi Culture the Through Oraibi
Split (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1988).
53