DIALOGUEa journal of mormon thought is an independent quarterly established to express Mormon culture and to examine the relevance of religion to secular life. It is edited by Latter-day Saints who wish to bring their faith into dialogue with the larger stream of world religious thought and with human experience as a whole and to foster artistic and scholarly achievement based on their cultural heritage. The journal encour- ages a variety of viewpoints; although every effort is made to ensure accurate scholarship and responsible judgment, the views express- ed are those of the individual authors and are not necessarily those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of the editors. ii DIALOGUE: AJOURNAL OF MORMON THOUGHT, 44, no. 4 (Winter 2011) Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought is published quarterly by the Dia- logue Foundation. Dialogue has no official connection with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Contents copyright by the Dialogue Foundation. ISSN 0012–2157. Dialogue is available in full text in elec- tronic form at www.dialoguejournal.com and is archived by the Univer- sity of Utah Marriott Library Special Collections, available online at: www.lib.utah. edu/portal/site/marriottlibrary. Dialogue is also avail- able on microforms through University Microfilms International, www. umi.com., and online at dialoguejournal.com. Dialogue welcomes articles, essays, poetry, notes, fiction, letters to the editor, and art. Submissions should follow the current Chicago Manual of Style. All submissions should be in Word and may be submitted electroni- cally at https://dialoguejournal.com/submissions/. For submissions of visual art, please contact [email protected]. Allow eight to twelve weeks for review of all submissions. Submissions published in the journal, including letters to the editor, are covered by our publication policy, https://dialoguejournal.com/sub- missions/publication-policy/, under which the author retains the copy- right of the work and grants Dialogue permission to publish. See www. dialoguejournal.com. EDITORSEMERITI Eugene England and G. Wesley Johnson (Vols. 1:1–5:4, 1966–70) Robert A. Rees (Vols. 6:1–11:4, 1970–76) Mary Lythgoe Bradford (Vols. 12:1–16:4, 1977–82) Linda King Newell and L. Jackson Newell (Vols. 17:1–21:4, 1982–86) F. Ross Peterson and Mary Kay Peterson (Vols. 22:1–26:4, 1987–92) Martha Sonntag Bradley and Allen D. Roberts (Vols. 27:1–31:4, 1993–98) Neal Chandler and Rebecca Worthen Chandler (Vols. 32:1–36:4, 1999–2003) Karen Marguerite Moloney (Vol. 37:1, 2004) Levi S. Peterson (Vol. 37:1–41:4, 2004–8) DIALOGUE: AJOURNAL OF MORMON THOUGHT, 44, no. 4 (Winter 2011) Contents ARTICLES AND ESSAYS Rethinking Retrenchment: Course Corrections in the Ongoing Campaign for Respectability Armand L. Mauss 1 The Persistence of Mormon Plural Marriage B. Carmon Hardy 43 Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology Taylor G. Petrey 106 PERSONAL VOICES Mormonism in Western Society: Three Futures Frederick Mark Gedicks 144 from “A Paris Journal” Lance Larsen 163 POETRY Four Passes on Mount Horeb Les Blake 168 Dark Energy Dixie Partridge 170 Visible from Here Dixie Partridge 171 Vitae Dixie Partridge 172 FICTION Scaling Never Carys Bray 176 INTERVIEWS AND CONVERSATIONS Walking into the Heart of the Questions: An Interview with W. Grant McMurray Gregory A. Prince 188 REVIEWS Canon: Open, Closed, Evolving David F. Holland, Sacred Borders: Continuing Revelation and Canonical Restraint in Early America Samuel M. Brown 195 iii iv DIALOGUE: AJOURNAL OF MORMON THOUGHT, 44, no. 3 (Fall 2011) Mormons, Southerners, and American Assimilation Patrick Q. Mason, The Mormon Menace: Violence and Anti-Mormonism in the Postbellum South Mark Brown 204 Can Mormonism Have a Systematic Theology? Charles Harrell, “This Is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology Matthew Bowman 207 Inside the “Loyal Opposition” Philip Lindholm, ed., Latter-day Dissent: At the Crossroads of Intellectual Inquiry and Ecclesiastical Authority Stephen McIntyre 212 A Missionary Model Misapplied Reid L. Neilson, Early Mormon Missionary Activities in Japan, 1901–1924 Andrew R. Hall 221 Elder Price Superstar The Book of Mormon (current Broadway musical) Michael Hicks 226 FROM THE PULPIT “Wholesome, Hallowed, and Gracious”: Confronting the Winter’s Night Richard Haglund 237 CONTRIBUTORS 247 ARTICLESAND ESSAYS Rethinking Retrenchment: Course Corrections in the Ongoing Campaign for Respectability Armand L. Mauss Almost two decades have elapsed since I published The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation (Urbana: Univer- sity of Illinois Press, 1994). My book began by acknowledging and illustrating the “Americanization” thesis advanced by others— namely that the LDS Church and religion had spent the first half of the twentieth century in a deliberate policy of assimilation with American society and was thus following the time-honored trajec- tory traced by such early scholars as Ernst Troeltsch and Max Weber—from a peculiar and disreputable sect toward a respectable church, increasingly comfortable with the surrounding American culture.1 My main argument, however, was that, since the mid- twentieth century the Church had begun to reverse course and was trying to recover some of the distinctiveness that seemingly had been lost during assimilation. I called this reversal a process of “retrenchment,” and I emphasized that it was a historic anomaly, for conventional wisdom predicted that all new religions would ei- ther be stamped out, be socially and politically quarantined, or eventually be assimilated by the dominant surrounding culture. Once on the path toward assimilation, how and why did the LDS Church resist and then reverse course? I answered that question by drawing on recent sociological theories about new religious movements, arguing that new reli- gions thrive not by full assimilation but by maintaining a degree 1 2 DIALOGUE: AJOURNAL OF MORMON THOUGHT, 44, no. 4 (Winter 2011) of peculiarity and thus tension with the surrounding culture.2 If this tension becomes excessive, the new religion will face a “pre- dicament of disrepute,” as Mormonism did in the nineteenth cen- tury, and its survival will be jeopardized. However, if assimilation proceeds too far, the religion faces a “predicament of respectabil- ity,” where its identity or “brand” does not stand for anything dis- tinctive enough to be attractive—a condition which Mormonism approached by the middle of the twentieth century.3 Growth and prosperity depend upon finding and maintaining an optimum level of tension on a continuum between disrepute and respect- ability.4 This external tension typically arises in part from a certain internal strictness and sacrifice entailed by Church membership, lest members grow complacent in assuming that the promised re- wards can be had without any “cost.” The costs and sacrifices im- posed on members define the boundaries of the LDS way of life and therefore their very identity as “Mormons”—even as these boundaries help also to define the external image of the organiza- tion. The leaders of the LDS Church by midcentury seem intu- itively to have understood all this and to have deliberately begun moving the religious and political culture of the Church back in a sectlike direction, as though to recover some of its lost distinctive- ness and societal tension. I went on to identify various institu- tional expressions through which the resulting LDS retrenchment process had become evident, especially in the realms of formal or- ganization, focus on modern prophets and scriptures, gender and family, missionizing, genealogy and temple worship, and reli- gious scholarship. While The Angel and the Beehive was well received and fairly re- viewed in general, it has been criticized, and properly so, for cer- tain inconsistencies or ambiguities. Any theoretical framework is likely to fit the data only imperfectly. One issue seems to be the nature and scope of the assimilation process that I described. To some of my readers, it has not been clear just what about Mor- monism was being assimilated to what else? I had originally been thinking in terms of Mormon assimilation broadly with American culture, especially American popular culture. Yet some critics seemed to see continuing assimilation, rather than retrenchment, in the Mormon turn toward political conservatism and in the con- stant Church efforts to convince other Christians—especially Mauss: Rethinking Retrenchment 3 Evangelicals—that Mormons are legitimately part of the Christian family.5 Isn’t the Church, in effect, pursuing a policy of assimila- tion with the more conservative denominations? My answer is no. To the extent that Mormonism identifies itself with other rela- tively high-cost religions, it is still resisting and rejecting assim- ilation with the secular culture of the society in general. A derivative ambiguity in my assimilation-versus-retrench- ment argument was my failure to emphasize enough that, while the retrenchment in question, has external implications, it is pri- marily an internal process. Externally, the Church continues to seek respectability and acceptance as one Christian religion among others. Members will recognize, however, that what we tell ourselves internally is that there is only one true church, and ours is it! We continue to cherish our peculiarities as ways of emphasiz- ing that exclusive claim, even as we cringe over what outsiders make of those peculiarities and try to gloss over them whenever we are confronted with them. Another critic has focused on my interpretation of the part played by the “correlation movement” in the retrenchment pro- cess. Whereas I saw correlation as the vehicle by which retrench- ment was implemented, Roger Terry sees correlation as a major feature of assimilation. He argues that, even though the retrench- ment process was focused on resisting the worldly cultural en- croachments of the 1960s and 1970s, the Church actually was qui- etly coming to resemble the rest of the “global economy domi- nated by multinational corporations, organizational values, and professional managers.