More Thoughts on Mormons and Muslims

Paul Reeve is a professor of History at the University of Utah and author of Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness.

Much of the negative reactions to my Mormons and Muslims op-ed seem to come from Mormons who, if I understand them correctly, make this point: Mormons were peaceful settlers in the 19th century and Muslims are suicide bombing terrorists in the 21st century ergo Mormons did not deserve the labels of “murderers, traitors, fanatics, and whores” in the 19th century, but Muslims do deserve to be banned from the United States in the 21st century. The problem with that reasoning is a common misconception among 21st century Latter-day Saints–that their pioneer ancestors never did anything to raise even the slightest whiff of violence or threat to the surrounding host society.

Let’s look at some things that the Mormons did do that were designed to help the Mormons feel safe and protected on the inside of the group but that were perceived to be threatening, violent, and un-American from the outside. In Missouri Sidney Rigdon was the first to use the language of extermination in his 4 July 1838 speech: “And that mob that comes on us to disturb us; it shall be between us and them a war of extermination, for we will follow them, till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us.” Mormons then formed an extra-legal vigilante group called the Danites which eventually went on the offensive and attacked the homes and property of mobbers who had attacked the Mormons. One sided reports of the Danites’ actions reached the desk of the governor before he issued his extermination order.

In Nauvoo the Mormons established a militia, the Nauvoo Legion, which at its peak reached an estimated 2,500 strong at a time when the US Army included only around 8,500 troops. Joseph Smith was given the rank of lilieutenant general and also anointed king. For Mormons on the inside, the legion was seen as a legitimate defensive unit designed to protect them from forces similar to those that drove them from Missouri. Rather than an extra-legal vigilante group, they opted for a fully legal state sanctioned militia. But if you were on the outside looking in, it might seem like a little too much power in one person’s hands (JS was also mayor of Nauvoo and prophet of his church). Looks comforting and protective on the inside, but scary and threatening from the outside. From the outside it looked like a militarized theocracy on American soil, something deemed anti-republican and anti-American. Joseph Smith tempered the notion of a theocracy with democratic impulses which he called a theo-democracy. It was too subtle a distinction in a nation that had recently fought a revolution to throw off despotic power.

The Nauvoo Legion continued in Utah territory and actually was deployed to repel the US Army in the Utah War. Can Mormons today understand that that was viewed as un-American and traitorous? At the same time Mormon settlers, at the instigation of their Stake President, murdered 120 innocent men, women, and children at Mountain Meadows. This is at least a bit of context for how and why Mormons were defined as lawbreakers and threats to American democracy. Can Mormons today understand why one government official labeled their ancestors “murderers, traitors, fanatics and whores”? Is it possible to at least understand why Brigham Young was sometimes derisively called “Sultan ‘Brigham’” and Joseph Smith, “the vicegerent of Almighty God—the modern Mohammed of Mormon Allah”?

Do the actions of a few Mormons justify labeling all Mormons murderers? I don’t think so, but outsiders in the 19th century certainly did. That is the parallel to the labels thrown at Muslims today and the parallel to the blanket generalizations made about them. I wholeheartedly condemn ISIS and radical jihadists and find their ideology despicable. I also condemn the Mormons who killed 120 overland immigrants at Mountain Meadows in 1857. I’m also capable of distinguishing between their actions and ideology and the actions and ideology of peaceful Mormons and peaceful Muslims.

Latter-day Saints complain when news organizations and pop culture conflate FLDS polygamist offshoot groups with the LDS church headquartered at SLC but then sometimes fail to extend the same careful discernment toward Muslims. As far as the Cato Institute can tell there have been no Americans killed by immigrant terrorists from any of the seven banned countries in the last 40 years. Mormons killed more Americans in one day in 1857 than immigrants from the seven banned countries have killed in the last 40 years. The chances of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year. I do not believe that the Mormons deserved the derisive labels applied to them in the 19th century and I don’t believe that Muslims deserve the treatment they are receiving today from the Trump administration.

My hope for the op-ed was that it might cause some of us to take a step back and try to stand in someone else’s shoes based on Mormonism’s own history as a suspect religious group and as religious refugees.

Comments

  1. Articulate and deeply persuasive. Thank you.

    It’s sobering how little we know of our own history as a people.

  2. mikerharris says:

    Thanks for taking the time and effort to share some helpful insights.

  3. Thanks for the history and perspective. I agree with the “I do not believe” (both of them) in the second to last paragraph. Actually, I agree regarding Muslims and 21C U.S. views. I suspect that if I had been an outsider in the 19th century I would have viewed Brigham Young’s Deseret as a militarized theocracy.
    With respect to negative reactions to the op-ed, I think it’s worth pointing out that in my lifetime and memory much of the OP regarding Mormon history was found primarily in so-labeled “anti-Mormon” literature.

  4. Excellent post. Mormons in particular have good reason to recall and observe Exodus 22:21, one of the most enlightened passages in the old testament.

  5. Thanks Paul. Well said.

  6. I appreciate this post. I got about halfway through the Mormon War by LeSueur before I just had to stop – the cycle of offense and counter-offense, spiraling into more and more toxic interactions was just too much to take. We really should cover this stuff in Sunday School when we go over our history.

  7. My colleague Will Bagley would suggest that someone higher up in the chain of command than the stake president authorized the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but that’s a minor quibble in the context of your excellent response to the critics of your insightful op-ed. :-). In all seriousness, well done Paul.

  8. Excellent op-ed and additional clarification. Thank you.

  9. Kevin Barney says:

    I’m with ya.

  10. Half Canadian says:

    I don’t think that the history of muslim migrants in the USA is the best guide to predict how Muslims integrate into society. I think that the current state of affairs in the UK, France, and other European countries are a better guide. And many of these examples are not encouraging.
    Is it wrong to raise these concerns, and to use them to guide immigration policy?

  11. I’ve lived in Europe, and worked with the Muslim communities in Europe. I’ve also worked with Muslim communities in the U.S. The differences between these communities are vast, and include: levels of employment, levels of social integration, levels of religious freedom, percentage of legal Muslim immigrants versus undocumented, difficulty in gaining citizenship, and vetting processes. The current state of affairs in Europe is not at all a decent guide to predicting Muslim integration in the U.S.

  12. Half Canadian says:

    Tim,
    I agree that these differences exist, but accepting more refugees will also change the composition of the Muslim community in the US to match that in Europe. I don’t think that there is anything magical about the US that would prevent radicalisation.

  13. J. Stapley says:

    Thanks Paul.

  14. We’d have to admit a LOT more refugees to even come close. Tens of millions more. Last year the U.S. admitted less than 40,000 Muslim refugees. We could increase that by a factor of 10 and we’d still be nowhere near Europe.

  15. Excellent OP and an important history lesson. We seem doomed to repeat rather than learn from history.

  16. Dianne McAdams-Jones says:

    Thanks Paul and “Yes” Mormons need raw data and history lessons in Church; not the glossed over versions. When can we get this going? I offer my assistance!

  17. Paul, thanks for this. Always love reading your stuff – so glad to have met you in Guatemala a few years back.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s