J. Stapley: I’m a newcomer to communal studies, but my impression is the CSA conferences always have lots of intriguing papers like Paul Reeve’s.

Clark: Thanks for the further thoughts on the legacy of communitarianism and contemporary Mormonism.

Marc: Interesting point about the United Orders.

I also think this then ties to issues of people leaving Church. Those who grumble a lot about Church when leaving or whom leave due to loneliness probably value the communitarian aspects. That is they think the Church should be telling them all these odd historical issues rather than learning on their own or they think the Church should be providing a rich and fulfilling social life for them. I’m torn. I do think the Church could do more to be socially engaging for more people as well as helping people learn. But I also think that people tend to put too much weight on the Church for such matters. So to me I really don’t care if a Bishop is an idiot. (Mine isn’t for the record – but I’ve had some in the past who were) But those who place all this communial weight on the ward are much more likely to be offended by an idiot or two.

I think you should use the United Order Journal of Kingston that I’ve edited for USU, but I don’t suppose it will be off the press — if the press is still there — in time. :)

Christopher: We’ve heard a lot about the “graying” of Mormon studies. A similar dynamic can certainly be seen in the Communal studies Association. However, there does seem to be a strong group of younger scholars participating with the CSA (both the current president and vice-president are in this category), and I think they would be thrilled to see more students and younger people involved. I just finished reading the entries to our student paper contest–there’s lots of great work being done out there by students on these topics. (Older scholars often dominate at most scholarly meetings, as they are more likely to have the resources to attend.)

Ardis: Great thoughts. You make a persuasive case (better than I could have done) for placing Mormonism within communal studies. Also, the tensions that you mention are very perceptive (though I think they exist not only between individuals, but within individuals as well). Some of this is just human nature, but some is also a reflection of the Mormon heritage.

Ben: Interesting thought on how American communal groups have tried to balance the tensions between individualism and communalism.

One more question: I’m teaching a course in Communal Groups and Utopias next fall. It’s a senior-level course that will have students from all of the Liberal Arts majors. Any recommendations on what books you would assign (I’d like at least one book to represent the Mormon experience, but I’m happy to hear other suggestions as well)?

And I’m with Ardis regarding the importance of “placing the study of Mormonism in this context.” It seems like there is still a number of fruitful avenues that could be explored, not only in utilizing Mormonism in comparative frameworks with other communal groups, but also in exploring (as Ardis gets at in her second to last paragraph) the lingering effects of early Mormon communalism on the church today, the way that Mormon Fundamentalists today have used communal practices as a boundary marker and litmus test of orthodoxy to establish their own identity as the “true church,” the relationship between Mormon communalism and other significant aspects of early Mormon identiy (polygamy, for instance), etc.

Thanks for this post, and the work you’re doing at the CCS, Matt.

I am fascinated by how American communal experiments included more individualistic aspects to it–that the American ideal “self-reliance” (thanks Emerson) still had a place in their utopia. This is something I think is different from European examples. Mormonism, of course, is a great example of this, and O’Dea mentioned how the church came the closest at merging cooperative efforts and individual responsibility.

“Does placing the study of Mormonism in this context make sense?” Of course; more than many of us realize. If we have even a general, non-scholarly understanding of the many ways that cooperative behavior shaped Mormon thought and life in the past, anyone can get a clearer understanding of some of the reasons we were marginalized and treated as different. We were different. Think for a moment of the gut reaction most of us have toward hippies and Moonies and the Branch Davidians and Charles Manson’s “Family” and white supremacist “compounds” and eastern religious ashrams in the Northwest and polygamous communities, and we have an idea of how mainstream America looked at us. Sure, part of our reaction is to what we know, or think we know, of such groups’ violence and brainwashing and weird sex practices — but that’s what people saw in our communal life, too. Much of the “weirdness” in any communal group is compounded by the fact that they live apart and differently in all ways from the mainstream. If the Moonies weren’t communal, we’d think their brainwashing was not much different from, say, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and we’d accept it. If the FLDS weren’t communal, we might not even notice their polygamy as any different from your neighbor’s different-girl-on-every-weekend lifestyle.

Awareness of our communal tendencies might also help modern Mormons understand a growing conflict within our own community: Some of us look to our church community for a great deal beyond mere Sunday worship, and others find that community stifling (I’m thinking of those who resent visits from home/visiting teachers, or who think weeknight activities are an intrusion on personal time). Some of us look to communal associations as the best way to finance relief efforts (beyond tithing and fast offerings; I’m thinking here of government- or community-sponsored social services), while others consider every such program to be an unconstitutional, ungodly extraction by force of their personal, private property).

I dread seeing how long this comment will look on screen. Sorry. But I appreciate the direction of this post, Matt. Thanks.