One of the perks of being review editor forÂ IrreantumÂ is receiving unexpected review copies in the mail. Some weeks ago, I opened the mailbox to find the new edition of Terryl L. Givens The Viper on the Hearth: Mormons, Myths, and the Construction of HeresyÂ (Oxford University Press, 2013) waiting for me. If you’ve never had a chance to study this book, I highly recommend that you check it out. No student of Mormon literature should overlook it.
Earlier this week, Dr. Givens graciously agreed to answer five questions I had about the new edition ofÂ ViperÂ and other matters related to Mormon studies. Here are his replies:Â
What motivated the new edition ofÂ Viper on the Hearth? Was it simply the recent â€œMormon Momentâ€ or has more happened in the sixteen years since the bookâ€™s initial publication that necessitated a new edition?
Two factors led to the update. First, Viper was my first book and had a limited release. It was only available in a print-on-demand format that approached one hundred dollars. Obviously it wasnâ€™t going to get any circulation at that price, so Oxford agreed to do a paperback. Second, it wasnâ€™t just a matter of an additional 16 years of Mormon representations that needed filling in. A shift in the cultural winds had occurred, and Mormonism became interesting–or of interest–in new ways. One way to think about this is in terms of what I refer to as the 1893 devilâ€™s compromise. At the Chicago Worldâ€™s Fair, the Tabernacle Choir was given the silver medal, even as B. H. Roberts was denied a real forum and equal billing with other religions to present a discourse on Mormonism. The message was, you can sing and dance for us, but donâ€™t ask us to take your theology seriously. Â And in many ways, Mormonism signed on to that deal. For over a century, Mormons became to a large extent acceptable and increasingly respected–but not for their beliefs. The public face of Mormonism was more likely to be an Osmond, a Steve Young, or a David Archuleta, than a B. H. Roberts or Neal Maxwell. And Americans and Mormons alike were fine with that. But as Mormonism assumed a more prominent place American political lifeÂ in the last two election cycles, the compromise frayed. When a Mormon threatened to win the highest political office in the land, bringing his Mormon beliefs with him, the old nineteenth-century canards returned with a vengeance. One sign of the breakdown of coherent discussion about Mormonism was evident in the frequent insistence that, like Kennedy in his Houston Ministerial Association speech, Romney should address his religious beliefs to reassure an anxious public. Sadly, few journalists or pundits seem to have actually read the Kennedy speech. For in it, he said emphatically that he wouldÂ notÂ address those concerns: He wouldÂ not â€œstate once again what kind of church I believe in–for that should be important only to me.â€Â His message didnâ€™t penetrate very lastingly. Â In the Viper re-issue, I bring the story up to date by including those developments.