MORMONISM IN EUROPE:

HISTORICAL AND

CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES

Edited by

Irén E. Annus

David M. Morris

and Kim B. Östman

MORMONISM IN EUROPE:

HISTORICAL AND

CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES

Edited by

Irén E. Annus

David M. Morris

and Kim B. Östman

c 2018 Szeged, AMERICANA eBooks

General editors: Réka M. Cristian & Zoltán Dragon

c Irén E. Annus, David M. Morris, and Kim B. Östman

ISBN: 978-615-5423-49-9 (.mobi); 978-615-5423-50-5 (.epub);

978-615-5423-48-2 (PoD)

Cover image:.

Book design: Zoltán Dragon

AMERICANA eBooks is a division of AMERICANA – E-Journal of American Studies in Hungary, published by the Department of American Studies,

University of Szeged, Hungary.

http://ebooks.americanaejournal.hu

C

This book is released under the Creative Commons 3.0 – Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs 3.0 (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) licene. For more information, visit: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.hu

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTRIBUTORS

INTRODUCTION

Reflections on 180 years of Mormonism in Europe

Irén E. Annus

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

The British Mormon Conversion Experience

David M. Morris

The Arrival of Mormonism in Nineteenth-Century Norway: A Brief

Historical Retrospect

Johnnie Glad

Mormonism and the Third Reich

Steven Carter

One-Hundred Years of Solitude: Mormonism in Italy, 1867–1964

Eric R. Dursteler

Gathering the European Saints to America in the Nineteenth Century

Fred E. Woods

Divergent Paths: Expressions of the Latter Day Saint Movement

in Europe

Steven L. Shields

CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES

Mormon Europeans or European Mormons? An ”Afro-European”

View on Religious Colonization

Walter E. A. van Beek

Mormon Studies in France: An Academic Tradition

Carter Charles

Inculturation of Mormonism in France

Bernadette Rigal-Cellard

Identity under Construction: The Conversion Experience of Hungarian

Latter-day Saints

Irén Annus and Nóra Csepregi

”The Other” in the Limelight: One Perspective on the Publicity

Surrounding the New Latter-day Saint Temple in Finland

Kim B. Östman

Freedom or Servitude: Russia and the LDS Church

Kahlile B. Mehr and Matthew K. Heiss

Seeking the ”Second Harvest”: Controlling the Costs of Latter-day Saint Membership in Europe

Armand L. Mauss

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND STATISTICS

Mormonism in Europe: A Bibliographic Essay

Michael J. Hunter

Statistics for selected European countries, 1980–2015

CONTRIBUTORS

Irén E. Annus is Associate Professor of American Studies at the University of Szeged, Hungary. Her main area of interest lies in Identity Studies, within which her research has focused on the socio-cultural position and identity construction of minority groups – with regards of religion, ethnicity and gender, both in the US and in Hungary. She is one among a handful of scholars engaged in studying the Latter-day community in Hungary, particularly their group-identity and daily practices. She has lectured and published in these areas in Europe, Canada and the US.

Walter E. A. van Beek is emeritus professor of anthropology of religion at Tilburg University, and at present is Senior Researcher at the African Studies Centre at Leiden University. His main area of study is Africa, in particular the Dogon of Mali and the Kapsiki-Higi of Cameroon, on which he has published extensively. Thematically his focus is on religion, indigenous African religions first, and various 'Christianities' second (plural intended), Mormonism among them. His recent publications include a volume on Cameroon: The Transmission of Kapsiki-Higi Folktales over Two Generations: Tales that Come, Tales that Go (New York: Palgrave-MacMillan, 2016); and a study on Mormonism: “Church unity and the challenge of cultural diversity: A view from across the Sahara,” published in Directions for Mormon Studies in the Twenty-first Century, edited by Patrick Mason (University of Utah Press, 2016, 72-98).

Steven E. Carter is a professor of European History at Henderson State University in Arkansas, USA.  His research on European Mormonism includes his Ph.D. dissertation, "Mormons and the Third Reich" (University of Arkansas, 2003); various articles, such as “The Rise of the Nazi Dictatorship and its Relationship with the Mormon Church in Germany, 1933-1939”  (International Journal of Mormon Studies, 2015), “Patriotism and Resistance, Brotherhood and Bombs: The Experience of the German Saints and World War II,” (International Journal of Mormon Studies, 2012);  and conference papers, most notably “The Helmuth Hübener Group and the German Youth Resistance Movement” (paper presentation, Mid-American Conference of History, Little Rock, AR, 23 September 2010); “The Rise of the Nazi Dictatorship and its Relationship with the Mormon Church in Germany, 1933-1939” (paper presentation, European Mormon Studies Association Conference, Turin, Italy, 31 July 2009); and “The Wolfsgrün Displaced Persons Camp: Mormon Relief Efforts in the Soviet Occupation Zone, 1945-1947” (paper presentation, Southwestern Social Sciences Conference, Las Vegas, NV, 14 March 2008).

Carter Charles is a certified teacher of English in France and a Teaching Professor at the University Bordeaux Montaigne where he teaches courses in Translation, English as an Applied Modern Language and in American Studies. His PhD dissertation (2013) focuses on the political integration of Mormons in the United States. As a socio-historian, he studies the interaction between religion and politics. He has published book chapters and articles on various aspects of Mormonism in France and in the United States.

Nóra Csepregi (Jarabek) is a certified teacher of English Language and Literature at Albert Szent-Györgyi High School in Békéscsaba, Hungary. As a graduate student at the University of Szeged, she investigated the process of conversion among the Hungarian Latter-day Saints. She defended her MA thesis entitled “The Conversion Pattern of the Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” in 2011 with distinction.

Eric R. Dursteler (Brown, 2000) is Professor and Chair of History at Brigham Young University. His research focuses on gender, religious identity and food in the early modern Mediterranean, with a side interest in Mormon history.  His publications include Venetians in Constantinople: Nation, Identity and Coexistence in the Early Modern Mediterranean (2006), Renegade Women: Gender, Identity and Boundaries in the Early Modern Mediterranean (2011), A Companion to Venetian History (2013), and The Mediterranean World: From the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Napoleon (2016), co-authored with Monique O’Connell.  His most recent book, Mormons in the Piazza: History of the Latter-day Saints in Italy, co-authored with James A. Toronto and Michael W. Homer, was published by Deseret Book in 2017.  His research has been funded by, among others, the Fulbright Commission, the NEH, Villa I Tatti and the Delmas Foundation. He is editor of the News on the Rialto, and book review editor for the Journal of Early Modern History.

Johnnie Glad studied at the University of Oslo, at Det teologiske Menighetsfakultet (MF Norwegian School of Theology) in Oslo, at Columbia University, New York, at Union Theological Seminary, New York, and at Boston University's School of Theology. He is a member of the clergy roster of The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. He served parishes in New York, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts. After returning to Norway in 1968 Professor Glad taught religion at Levanger Teachers’ College, Levanger, and later at what is now the University of Stavanger, Stavanger. He is Professor Emeritus, holding master's degrees in Theology and Religious Education and a doctorate in Theology. His extensive studies of Mormonism have brought him many times to Salt Lake City in the United States. His doctoral dissertation "The Mission of Mormonism in Norway 1851-1920: A Study and Analysis of the Reception Process" was published in 2006.

Matthew K. Heiss was born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area.  He served as an LDS missionary in the Germany Düsseldorf Mission (1975-1978).  He met and married his wife Becky in 1980 while attending Brigham Young University. They are the parents of two children. He graduated from BYU in 1984. He attended graduate school at the University of Virginia and graduated in 1986.  He began working at the Historical Department of the Church (now the Church History Department) in 1987. The focus of his work has been international Church history, specifically in Central and Eastern Europe and Africa.  Presently, he is an area manager in the Global Support and Acquisitions Division with responsibility for a third of the world (the best third!).

Michael J. Hunter is the Associate University Librarian for Public Services at the Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University. Formerly, he held the positions of History Librarian, Mormon Studies Librarian, and Chair of the Library's Religion / Family History Department at BYU, as well as that of Reference Librarian at the Historical Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City. He holds BA, MLIS, and MPA degrees from Brigham Young University and an MA degree from California State University, Dominguez Hills. He has published numerous articles and books in the field of Mormon Studies and Utah history, including Mormons and Popular Culture: The Global Influence of an American Phenomenon (Praeger, 2013).

Armand L. Mauss is Professor of Sociology and Religious Studies (Emeritus) at Washington State University and, more recently, visiting professor in Mormon Studies at the Claremont Graduate University in southern California. He is the author of several books and dozens of articles on the Mormon experience. His most recent book is Shifting Borders and a Tattered Passport: Intellectual Journeys of a Mormon Academic (University of Utah Press, 2012).

Kahlile Bliss Mehr, MLS, MA, is a retired Slavic librarian and bibliographer who has traveled extensively in Eastern Europe investigating genealogical sources in archives and has published twenty-four articles on genealogical topics. In addition, he is the author of two books and twenty-two articles on Mormon history and has received multiple writing awards from the Mormon History Association. He has served on the boards of the Mormon History Association, the Federation for East European Family History Studies, and the International Association of Jewish Genealogical Societies.

David M. Morris was awarded a PhD in History and Sociology of Religion, from Southampton University, England, analysing the relationship between class and religion in Victorian Britain by means of a case study on British Mormonism. As well as being one of the co-founders of the European Mormon Studies Association, Dr Morris also served as the General Editor of the International Journal of Mormon Studies. Academic interests include evolving Mormonism, as well as the nature of death and grieving in modern society. Dr Morris is currently working in British policing as a lead in policy and research.

Kim B. Östman has researched and written extensively on Mormonism in the northern-European country of Finland. He is a native Finn who holds a Ph.D. in comparative religion from Åbo Akademi University (2011) and a D.Sc. (with distinction) in microelectronics from Aalto University, the former Helsinki University of Technology (2014). He is also a co-founder of the European Mormon Studies Association (EMSA). Dr. Östman currently works as a Senior Research & Development Engineer with Nordic Semiconductor in Turku, Finland. However, he continues his Mormon studies involvement and Mormon history research on his free time. He is particularly interested in the intersection of minority religions and society, in times both past and present, and currently focuses his research on Mormonism’s societal relationships in early twentieth-century Finland and Sweden.

Bernadette Rigal-Cellard is Professor in North American Studies at the University of Bordeaux Montaigne where she founded the multidisciplinary Master’s program in Religious Studies in 2005. She is a specialist of North American contemporary religions, notably of Mormonism, and of Native literatures (literatures and spiritualities, and their common grounds). She is interested in how religions interact with culture, first the culture that surrounds their birth and development: how the doctrines reflect the history and culture of the group forming the new religion, and how the reverse is accomplished: in what ways a religious group influences society and culture around it. Then how the interactions operate in a situation of missions or of economical or political migrations: how are religions influenced by the culture they settle in, how do they adapt to it, or refuse to adapt, and in what ways do they impact in return the host culture (or do not)?

She has published many studies in France and abroad, notably: Le Mythe et la plume (Monaco: Le Rocher, 2004), and La religion des mormons (Paris: Albin Michel, 2012). She has edited several volumes on the adaptation of religions to other cultures, and on the impact of Christian missions: Les mutations transatlantiques des religions (with C. Lerat. Pessac: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux, 2000); Sectes, Églises, mystiques: Échanges, conquêtes, métamorphoses (Bordeaux: Pleine Page, 2004); Missions Extrêmes en Amérique du Nord: Des jésuites à Raël (Bordeaux: Pleine Page, 2005); Religions et mondialisation: Exils, expansions, résistances (Pessac: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux, 2009); and Prophéties et utopies religieuses au Canada (Pessac: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux, 2011). Currently she is writing the history of the Tekakwitha Conference and the inculturation of Catholicism in North American Native communities. Her book on the Messianic community of the Twelve Tribes is forthcoming.

Steven L. Shields, a sixth-generation Latter Day Saint and member of the Community of Christ, is the author of several books, including Divergent Paths of the Restoration (1975) and dozens of journal articles. He has devoted a lifetime of study to the rich heritage of the several hundred different expressions of the work of Joseph Smith, Jr.  Born and raised in Utah, he lived for several years in California, and more than a decade in Seoul, Korea. He has also lived in India, China, and Thailand. He served Community of Christ as a field minister for almost thirty years, retiring in 2016.

Fred E. Woods is a professor at Brigham Young University in the College of Religious Education. He has been a visiting professor at several universities and has lectured extensively in the United States and internationally. Professor Woods is a bridge builder and held a Richard L. Evans Professorship of Religious Understanding from 2005-2010. He has written many books, scores of articles, and has produced a number of documentary films. His primary area of research the past two decades has been Mormon immigration to America in the nineteenth century. He is the chief editor and compiler of the website Mormon Migration https://mormonmigration.lib.byu.edu/

INTRODUCTION

REFLECTIONS ON 180 YEARS OF MORMONISM IN EUROPE

IRÉN E. ANNUS

The idea of this volume was conceived to map the history and current state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Europe – a period that spans 180 years. The establishment of the Church is dated to April 6, 1830, when Prophet Joseph Smith organized the first church within the faith in Fayette, New York, which was called the Church of Christ. Missionary work started almost immediately: two months later, the Prophet’s younger brother, Samuel Smith, was called to serve as the first missionary to neighboring areas in Western New York. In October of the same year, four Saints led by Oliver Cowdery ventured further west, travelling as far as Ohio and Missouri, with the purpose of engaging in missionary activity among the Native Americans. As true missionaries driven by their convictions and conscience, however, they also shared their faith with the other travelers and locals they encountered on their way. Their successful efforts produced hundreds of new converts, particularly in Northeast Ohio, making the town of Kirtland, Ohio, one of the earliest Latter-day Saint centers in the region.

In subsequent years, Latter-day missionaries served in Canada as well, and in 1837 the first Saints, Heber C. Kimball and Orson Hyde, sailed to the British Isles to engage in proselytizing there. By the 1850s, LDS missionaries were active throughout the European continent, including Scandinavia, France, Germany, Switzerland and Italy. Since then, the Church has witnessed a steady growth in Europe, both in membership and territorial expansion. Currently, the Church has taken root all over the continent: its membership has exceeded half a million, organized into 1452 congregations, operating 44 missions and 12 temples.[1]

The studies in this volume revisit particular moments and challenges experienced by the Saints during this exciting period. At the same time, editors David M. Morris and Kim B. Östman also paid careful attention to design a volume that would capture the current state of Mormon Studies, both in and about Europe, representing recent concerns and research interests, exceptional projects and subsequent findings. Furthermore, they took great pains to include a wide spectrum of research topics, as well as reflecting the multiplicity of explorations in which scholars are engaged within a number of European countries. In addition, the studies they collected represent both a variety of academic disciplines and a range of methodological approaches. Irén E. Annus was entrusted with the final stages of the editing process, which involved, among other things, a careful review of the studies and the task of technical editing, including harmonizing the format throughout the volume.

The book is divided into two parts: the first contains studies concerned with Latter-day history within the European context, and the second contains investigations into current issues within the Church in Europe. The section on historical perspectives opens with a study by David M. Morris that conducts a qualitative examination of the complex phenomenon of the conversion experience and subsequent life patterns among 19th-century British Latter-day Saints in Staffordshire, Great Britain. He conceptualizes conversion as a life-long, dynamic process, which he breaks down into three separate stages: the pre-conversion experience (as part of that, he scrutinizes various forces that operate as catalysts for the conversion process); baptism, the formalized ritual through which initiation into the Church officially takes place; and the life path that follows from Church membership, including a set of new values and activities within the Mormon community and their perception within the wider society. This is followed by Johnnie Glad’s meticulous survey of the early Mormon presence in Norway. First, he revisits initial encounters between Mormons and Norwegians in the early 1840s in the region of Nauvoo, Illinois, which was the center of the Mormon faith at the time. Then, he describes the historical route through which Mormonism made its way to Norway: the initial encounters and successful expansion as well as a series of strains and hardships with which the early Saints struggled in the 1850s and beyond. In addition, Glad presents Mormon history in Norway between 1852 and 1920 as integral to the broader Scandinavian context and part of the dynamic European spread of the Church, wholly impacted by events in the American home Church.

The chapter by Steven E. Carter proceeds further on in time, discussing the somewhat ambiguous and strained relationship between the Mormon communities in Germany and the Nazi leadership in the Third Reich. This study sheds light on the strategies, policies and actions Mormons used to deal with the constantly changing political environment, one that frequently shifted positions in the view and treatment of the Mormon Church, ultimately disrupting its regular operation and thus causing both spiritual and material hardships for its members in multiple ways. Eric R. Dursteler studies the Italian religio-scape between 1867 and 1964, a period during which the Mormon Church remained dormant in Italy. He argues that the absence of the Church was much more the outcome of attitudes, concerns, misconceptions and events that characterized the Church in their American homeland – a topic he also investigates with rigor and empathy.

In the next chapter, Fred E. Woods presents a detailed examination of the immigration of European converts to the United States in the 19th century, with a particular focus on the immigration of the British and the Scandinavian Mormons – first to Nauvoo, Illinois, and subsequently to the Great Basin. This study not only traces the historical forces, including the potential push and pull factors, that altered the human landscape in Mormon America, but also explores the specifics of the immigrants’ journey, both difficulties they faced and inspirations that gave them strength and hope in overcoming obstacles. As the last chapter to address the history of the Saints in Europe, Steven L. Shields surveys the “divergent paths” that various groups of the faith have taken after the death of Joseph Smith in 1844, charting stages of the early fragmentation of Mormonism and chronicling the evolution and subsequent state of Restoration denominations in Europe.

Part Two of the volume contains a collection of studies that offers perspectives on the presence of the Church in various parts of Europe today. This part opens with a rather insightful investigation of the Church from a specific angle: the process through which it has emerged from the status of a colonized “tribe” to a powerful colonizer worldwide. Walter E. A. van Beek buttresses his claim by discussing points of similarity between practices of 19th-century colonization that Mormons suffered in the 1860s and those that Mormons outside of the United States may experience today in their relation to the “Domestic Church” in Utah. He closes his study by exploring these perceptions as related to identity constructions through the example of the Dutch Mormons, tackling aspects of the relation between religious/Mormon and ethnic/national identity in Europe.

In the chapter to follow, Carter Charles discusses the history of Mormon Studies in French academia, meticulously reviewing not only the broad tendencies and process of institutionalization of the field, but the research activities of leading scholars and devoted students, including academic degrees awarded in the discipline. In the next chapter, Bernadette Rigal-Cellard investigates the early history of LDS missions in France and observes that it took a different course than it did in other, mainly Protestant Western European countries. She then goes on to analyze the specific features of the rather relaxed enculturation process of Mormonism in France, and finds that it may be explained by the fact that this religious tradition has been particularly deeply embedded in American historical and cultural traditions.

The following study focuses on the conversion experience among Hungary’s Latter-day Saints in the post-socialist period. Through a series of semi-structured interviews, Irén E. Annus and Nóra Csepregi explore the daily practices and self-perception of the Mormons before and after their conversion, revealing the gradual change that the process of conversion brought about and the imprint that it has left on the identity of Hungarian Mormons. In the next chapter, Kim B. Östman maps the media attention that surrounded the building of the Helsinki Finland Temple, which opened in the town of Espoo in 2006. His analysis of the debate surrounding this process unveils the powerful hegemonic discourse that constructed Mormons as the religious and cultural Other in various ways, in addition to an emerging counter-discourse that sought to subvert attitudes aimed at Mormon marginalization.

In the chapter to follow, Kahlile B. Mehr and Matthew K. Heiss undertake the challenge of investigating the history of the Latter-day Church in Russia, based on which they offer their insights into the potential future course of the Church there as well. Their detailed discussion reflects on the various phases of Mormon efforts to establish the Church in Russian soil and discusses the activities of individuals – within this complex political and cultural context – who significantly shaped the future of Mormonism in the region. Next, Armand L. Mauss considers the perceived “costs” of LDS membership in a rather secular Europe, but then he also carefully outlines elements of a potentially successful strategy, through which the Church may experience a “second harvest” in a “detraditionalized” European culture.

The bibliographic essay fastidiously prepared by Michael J. Hunter forms the final chapter. It presents a wealth of academic work on the Latter-day Saints in Europe, including books, articles, dissertations and theses which are grouped by country or region and proffer an unfailing guide to the field. The volume closes with the Appendix, which contains the most recent membership statistics in various European countries.

The volume thus offers reflections on the unique and challenging journey of Mormons and Mormonism in Europe in the last 180 years. It contains introspective analyses of the past and critical assessments of the present as well as insights into the potential that the future may hold for the Church. It will indeed be an invigorating intellectual experience to track the path this exceptional faith and community will take on the “Old Continent” in the years to come.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

THE BRITISH MORMON CONVERSION EXPERIENCE

DAVID M. MORRIS

Marvel not that all mankind, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their     carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming     his sons and daughters; and thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this,     they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God' (Book of Mormon, Mosiah 27:25–26).

In his classic early twentieth–century work, The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), the American philosopher William James described the experience of conversion as:

[a] process, gradual or sudden, by which a self – hitherto divided, and consciously     wrong, inferior, and unhappy – becomes unified and consciously right, superior, and     happy in consequence of its firmer hold upon religious realities.[2]

This transformative impact of conversion upon an individual, as scholars Max Heirich and Meredith B. McGuire have argued more recently, invariably “involves a conscious shift in one's sense of grounding”[3] or a change in “the way the individual perceives the rest of society and his or her personal place in it.”[4] Beyond the general consensus upon this point alone, the concept of conversion remains a complex and unresolved one, open to a variety of sociological, historical, psychological and theological readings. In this chapter I explore the qualitative dimensions of the conversion experience including the multiple tensions preceding baptism, the becoming of a Saint and the continuing activity of lay membership within the Church as part of a lifelong conversional “career.”[5]

Issues concerning an individual’s spiritual autonomy, the role of Church authority and ritual, the immediacy of God’s presence in the world and the nature of sin and atonement as well as specific personal and social motivational factors, have led to a series of lively debates around conversion by sociologists and historians alike. Between 1837 and 1900 over 110,000 British individuals were baptised into the British LDS Church,[6] yet beyond this numerical observation little has been written of the Mormon conversion experience and their subsequent retention within the community.[7] This chapter provides the first sustained account of the Mormon conversion experience that focuses specifically upon the experience of Staffordshire members, depicting it as a dynamic process rather than an event–based occurrence. After examining the main historiographical themes and approaches to conversion presented by sociologists and historians, I examine the conversion problematic itself in three main stages: first, the ”pre–conversion” stage and the major catalysts for an individual seeking salvation; second, membership into the LDS Church as experienced through baptism, and finally a discussion of the key aspects of life in the Church.

The historiography of conversion: Sociological and historical reflections

The rise of new religious movements during the 1960s stimulated considerable sociological interest in the processes of religious conversion and sect typologies.[8] David A. Snow and Richard Machalek have since argued that this genre of research can be classified into three “waves” beginning with the early twentieth century where theological and psychological explanations, such as the seminal work of William James, dominated.[9] A second wave, focusing on “coercive persuasion” models of conversion, was inspired mainly by the experiences of American POW’s during the Korean War and finally the period from the 1960s which examined the rise of New Religious following discussion I highlight some of the key shifts and developments in this latter stage focusing on those theories most relevant to my examination of nineteenth–century Mormon experiences.

Arguably the most notable study of conversion in the 1960s was that by John Lofland and Rodney Stark, whose seven–stage typology of conversion represented a paradigm shift, outlining, as James Richardson later observed, not only the “push” factors for conversion but also why a particular movement might become highly attractive to and draw in potential recruits.[10] Lofland and Stark’s work moved analyses of conversion away from previous, more simplistic theories of “brainwashing” or “coercion” and attributed greater social agency to the subjects of conversion themselves.[11] Their model has subsequently been critiqued and refined by numerous scholars.[12] In 1978, for example, James A. Beckford’s study of the Jehovah’s Witnesses provided an alternative four–stage typology which emphasised the way in which personal narratives of conversion drawing upon available cultural resources functioned as subjective reconstructions that sought to make sense of such experiences.[13] The theories of Beckford as well as Lofland and Stark have particular relevance to historical examinations of conversion, as does Stark’s later collaboration with William Sims Bainbridge on a theory of religious commitment that highlighted the use of kinship networks as a tool for recruitment.[14] Given the prosopographical influences of British Mormon expansion during the nineteenth century already outlined in this thesis, Stark and Bainbridge’s work has been of obvious relevance to this thesis. Snow and Machalek’s argument that real conversion went beyond testimony, behavioural change and religious attendance to a deeper change in one’s “universe of discourse”,[15] has also proved influential, as has James T. Richardson and Brock Kilbourne’s development of the idea that conversion should be viewed as a mode of conflict and inner tension in which the individual subject was the main actor in the conversion experience.[16] Finally, Henri Gooren’s reassessment of conventional conversion models and his proposal of a new synthesis including pre–affiliation, affiliation and confession and disaffiliation as a “conversion career”, maps onto the experiences of the subjects of this chapter effectively.[17]

Despite the liveliness of sociological debates on conversion, the paucity of research into specifically Mormon experiences by comparison with other denominations was commented upon in 1984 by the sociologist Armand L. Mauss.[18] Since then, Jan O’Bannion has argued that conversion amongst British Mormon groups or, more accurately, an individual’s continued membership, was influenced more by strong bonds of social integration within their local congregations than other influences.[19] This point is supported by Max Heirich but with an important caveat: that the impact of social networks was particularly striking “for those already oriented toward a religious quest.”[20] This feature of the conversion process was typical in nineteenth–century Mormonism as I argue below.

Rather than engaging with the concept of conversion as a discrete typological construction, historians of nineteenth–century religion have tended to discuss conversion as part of a wider process of denominational expansion or evangelical activity. To take just a small selection of titles, in Michael Watts’ study of religious dissent, James Obelkovich’s study of a parish in South Lindsey, Lincolnshire and Kenneth Brown’s study of Nonconformist ministers, the changing social structure of each religious group receives the greatest attention with conversion mentioned only in passing.[21] In his seminal discussion of nineteenth–century evangelical religion, David Bebbington’s “quadrilateral of priorities” that formed the basis of Victorian evangelicalism included: “Conversion, the belief that lives need to be changed; Activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; Biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and what may be called Crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.”[22] Yet conversion as a distinctive and discrete process received little attention within Bebbington’s account. This neglect can be accounted for, in part, by historians’ dismissal of the type and extent of evidence available. David Hempton's and Julia Werner’s respective analyses of Methodist and Primitive Methodist denominations addressed the importance of the preacher’s role in disseminating the evangelical message and the role of dramatic revelatory conversions to the development of these dissenting congregations. But, in his most recent work entitled Methodism: Empire of the Spirit (2005), Hempton acknowledges that:

more attention needs to be paid to the religious conversions of the rank and file in Methodist societies. The main problem […] is lack of suitable evidence beyond the sprinkling of journals, diaries and obituaries which naturally contain their own built–in distortions.[23]

Hempton is correct in his assertion concerning the lack of available historical sources. This is certainly the case within British Mormonism and, in particular, the Staffordshire experience. In this chapter, I have drawn upon the most comprehensive range possible of the journals, correspondence, memoirs and diaries of Staffordshire Mormon converts, further supported by reports from the Millennial Star and the Manuscript History of the British Mission. These primary materials are less extensive than one would ideally wish for but, contra Hempton’s concerns over the “built–in distortions” of such personal auto/biographical narratives (a statement which suggests, somewhat problematically, that different historical records might be less distorted and more reliable), I would argue, along with sociologist James Beckford, that there is still much to be learnt from these deeply intimate, albeit infrequent narratives, about the internal aspects of an individual’s search for spiritual wellbeing and wholeness.

It could legitimately be argued that the limited literacy rates of an essentially working–class religion along with the lack of free time and writing materials associated with hard labour and poverty meant that few LDS wrote about their own conversions as testimony for others. But I would suggest this is only part of the reason for the silence. Salvation Army converts, for example, drawn from a similar social background, were exceptional in their encouraging of written testimonies so that others might be saved. These were often short, lacking in detail and highly formulaic, but they ended with a triumphant dramatic conversion scene that was an essential aspect of Salvationist spirituality. I would speculate, therefore, that a major reason for the absence of such conversion stories was actually a theological one – that the Mormon Church did not recognise conversion as simply an “event” or that this was the key moment in the history of an individual’s life of faith. Rather, they understood conversion as a lifelong experience and the moment of entry into the Church as just one aspect of a continuing “conversional career” that demanded obedience and fidelity to the precepts of the Church and gospel. Indeed, in his pioneering study of Welsh Mormon spirituality and elsewhere, Douglas J. Davies has argued that in sociological terms Mormonism, from its very earliest stages, was not “a Conversionist type of sect” as such but that it represented more of a “Manipulationist” typology.[24] According to the sociologist Bryan Wilson, conversionist sects typically believe that the world and its institutions (which usually include orthodox religion) are evil and that salvation necessitates a profound cleansing of an individual’s sin–ridden heart through the substitutionary atonement of Christ. In addition, the conversion event, invariably preceded by a long period of searching, is dramatic, instantaneous and “radically set over against institutionalized procedures and rituals.”[25] This is to be contrasted with Davies’s definition of the “manipulationist” who seeks to “gain power over evil by discovering some tool or technique for altering the faulty processes of life.”[26] Following Davies, this chapter demonstrates that although the need for repentance and faith was present in Mormon spirituality, conversion was indeed seen as a more dynamic and lifelong process of “gaining power over evil” rather than a specific, datable event. Conversion, followed by the ritual or ordinance of baptism, was merely the precursor to a new, transformed social framework for life centred in the Restored Church structure and, for some, the priesthood.

Catalysts for conversion

Throughout the nineteenth century debates surrounding the merits of instantaneous or gradual conversion experiences took place. Gradualist conversion, the steady and almost imperceptible recognition of faith in one’s life, often an intellectual assent, was relatively rare in Nonconformist circles. Instead, working–class revivalist and evangelical narratives focused on the sheer physicality of the conversion experience, or what Pamela Walker has described as the “cataclysmic, bodily engagement with the Holy Spirit.”[27] Classic nineteenth–century evangelical conversion narratives typically included agonising realisations of guilt and wrestling with God followed by a visceral experience of relief when the shackles were broken and the individual concerned felt overwhelmed with peace and freedom. In the Salvation Army, for example, conversion was an ecstatic religious practice with very real physical sensations. According to Walker, the Salvationist John Allen groaned and bellowed for twenty minutes before springing to his feet, shouting and crying with joy. Other Salvationist converts foamed at the mouth, believed that their flesh had changed colour and experienced feelings of bodily lightness.[28] The realisation of one’s guilt and sinfulness was frequently the trigger for emotional outbursts within the Methodist tradition as well. Linda Wilson shows that when Margaret Dargue, for instance, attended a Wesleyan Church in Barnard Castle in 1825, she recalled that she “could do little else than weep and pray, pray and weep, during the time of worship.”[29] In his book The Religion of the People: Methodism and Popular Religion, c 1750–1900, David Hempton argued that the dramatic nature of Methodist conversions and their intense religious zeal, especially during revivalist periods, not only fuelled local suspicions but led to “charges of madness” and “accusations of witchcraft.”[30]

The Mormon concept and experience of conversion contrasted interestingly with their Nonconformist contemporaries who remained overwhelmingly evangelical and conversionist in their theology despite the drift towards a more gradualist understanding of conversion by the end of the century.[31] Conversion was undoubtedly bound up with major theological convictions concerning whether or not salvation could be achieved by human effort or simply as a gift from God. In 1861, the Millennial Star identified true converts as those who had “experienced a change of heart and mind – after they have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and truly repented of their sins […] turned from sin and Satan to serve the Living God, accepting in all sincerity, with full purpose of heart, the truths of the Gospel and its blood–bought blessings.”[32] This greater emphasis on the agency of the individual reinforced the notion that no single event constituted the entirety of conversion in Mormonism, rather an individual’s conversional career consisted of a lifelong pattern of behaviour.

Both sociologists and historians alike generally agree that prior to conversional experiences some form of inner tension or personal trauma precipitated the event.[33] Even amongst more gradualist–type Mormon conversion narratives an individual’s conviction of their own sinfulness and the need for repentance were present. These were often provoked by particular recurring themes. In the following section I summarise some of the main catalysts described by Staffordshire Mormons when relating the reasons for their own conversion.

In his detailed diaries (which consisted of some eight volumes written between 1839 and 1868) Alfred Cordon, the first president of the Staffordshire Conference, made frequent references to his sense of personal guilt and sinfulness prior to conversion.[34] During this period, he recalled, “the Spirit of God sorely troubled me, but I rejected the stirrings of the Spirit. I made many a resolution to serve God, but the[y] failed as fast as I made them.”[35] Cordon struggled with serious bouts of drunkenness which led to him being dismissed several times from his employment as a potter and he returned repeatedly to his former dissolute lifestyle, whereupon his spiritual agitations recommenced. “I was troubled again and again on account of my sins, but I would not begin to serve God.” His anxieties were further compounded by being “brought to the gates of death once more with the Small Pox.”[36] As Julia Werner argues, a serious illness or the death of a loved one was a frequent impetus for religious conversions in an age of high mortality rates caused in part by regular typhus or cholera epidemics.[37] The Millennial Star was not above exploiting such occurrences for missionary purposes, reminding its readers that faith was the only antidote for cholera. In an 1866 editorial, the Apostle and European Mission President, Orson Pratt, advised that the remedy for cholera was:

faith in God, earnest prayer, and the laying on of the hands by authorized servants of God, and the anointing of the sick or afflicted with oil in the name of Jesus Christ. This is an unfailing remedy, and one in which every Latter–day Saint can trust with the most perfect reliance. This prescription is of divine origin, and is, therefore, as much superior to the prescriptions of the physicians as God is superior to man.[38]

Such promises of recovery or protection as here indicated led to numerous conversions and reconversions. As Douglas J. Davies has observed, this was a particularly influential factor in Welsh Mormon conversions during the 1850s and 1860s.[39] Given that many parents would witness the loss of a child or relative, it is not surprising that death or illness was also a catalyst for conversion in several Staffordshire accounts. Joseph Argyle (1818–1905), an early convert from South Staffordshire in 1851, records in his journal that it was the deep sense of pain and heartache after the loss of his third child, William, that led him to ponder religion and the prospect of an afterlife, thus precipitating his conversion.[40] For local Staffordshire/Cheshire convert George Morris (1816–1897), it was not only the death of  Jane, his 20 year old wife in April 1841, after just one year of marriage, but also the loss of his nine month old daughter Jane (died October 1841) which caused him “to feel sorrowful [and] to reflect much about religion.”[41] For the somewhat spiritually indecisive Cordon, the death of his eight month old daughter Elizabeth in 1838 at Burslem, after becoming ill with convulsions, triggered an “immediate deep loss and heartfelt sorrow”:[42] “I was aroused again in my mind and I began to pray to the Lord to direct me and to have mercy upon me”, writes Cordon, and at this point he finally decided that “I was quite willing to give up my sins and to do anything to find Salvation.”[43]

As has been shown already in this thesis, many Mormon converts came from other Nonconformist denominations. Not surprisingly, therefore, a study of Staffordshire conversion accounts indicates that spiritual and theological dissatisfaction with an existing denomination was a common issue for many prospective converts. The Longport potter Richard Steele (1818–1881) recorded in his diary in 1840 that he had attended Methodist School and Chapel for twelve years before hearing the Latter–day Saints and deciding “I should like them.” His father’s letter of 25 March 1842, warning him not to emmigrate and become one of Joseph Smith’s “slaves”, was received by him too late to make any difference.[44] The button maker and Mormon convert Thomas Day (1814–1893) came from a family which rejected orthodox religion. He recalled one occasion in his journal as a young child when his blacksmith father pointed to a nearby Wolverhampton churchyard and declared “I will never enter that building before I am carried thither. I do not believe in the creeds taught there, nor, indeed in any other church [but] the true gospel of Jesus will be given to the world in the future.”[45] But on the death of his father, needing now to support his three sisters, Day recorded that he seriously “contemplated religion” and soon joined the Arminian Methodists becoming a preacher. It was not long before he came into contact with Mormons at Earls Common, near Kidderminster, and was finally baptised into the LDS on 4 September 1842.[46]

Similarly, Thomas Crowther (1823–1898), recording his spiritual search prior to embracing Mormonism, commented in 1849: “I went from one sect to another, but I still feel an aken [aching] void. I seemed to be hunting something that none of the religious sects had got.”[47] Around the same time, the 26 years old Crowther married Sarah Thompson and was introduced to the Mormons through his new in–laws who had recently been baptised themselves.[48] On a family visit he met with, and was particularly influenced by, the preaching of Elder Thomas Shelly and the presentation of the Book of Mormon.[49] This text and the personal attention of Shelley appeared to greatly influence Crowther, as he reflected around 1896:

I read the Book of Mormon through and was very much interested in the little light that     I had gained […] It caused me to long for more. I was not long in hunting up the place where the Latter–day Saints held their meetings, and the first or second time I went to see them, one elder spoke in Tongues and another interpreted the Tongue […] I shall never forget the sensation that came over me at that time, for I was satisfied that these men spoke by the power of God […] In the next three months there were forty–four added to that branch, myself and wife included among them.[50]

As a result, Crowther was baptised a member of the Tipton Branch on 13 October 1850.[51] The writings of these three men demonstrate that, as sociologists Richardson and Kilbourne have argued, the convert was invariably an active agent in his or her own revelatory experiences, seeking out that denomination whose theology best suited their individual spiritual needs. One particular doctrine mentioned frequently as a major catalyst for favouring the LDS over other Nonconformist congregations was the terrifying prospect of hell for the non–believer or backslider. John Needham’s (1819–1901) daily journal which summarised his spiritual life during the two years prior to his eventual emigration to the United States provides a stirring and traumatic account of his quest “to know what I must do to find a remission of my sins.”[52] Needham had attended Methodist meetings for nearly two years but found himself “almost in despair on account of the preaching which taught so much hell and damnation to me.”[53] At times Methodist teachings tempted him “to destroy himself” as “the name of Jesus used to strike me with terror. I durst not take the name of Jesus in my life.”[54] When returning to see his parents Needham recalls that “I was so tempted to destroy myself that [I] used to shut my eyes and walked the middle of the bridge afraid I should jump in the river.”[55] In 1838 he first heard “an American gentleman” (Elder Orson Hyde, one of the initial missionaries to England) “being affronted by a Kenite preacher” in the Market place at Preston. Needham was obviously impressed: “though Elder Hyde had but said a few words in my hearing”, he recorded, “yet I could not forget them.”[56]

In Birmingham, Joseph Argyle’s grief at the death of his son William was further compounded by the local clergyman at New Church to whom he had turned to for comfort, promptly declaring that the child had gone to hell on account of not being baptised.[57] Argyle, a gas meter maker by trade, wrote after that “it was my son's death [that] brought me to reflection and was the means of my joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints.”[58]

Argyle’s refusal to accept the notion of infant damnation prompted him and his wife Rebecca (1824–1890) to investigate other denominations.[59] Following a brief study of local denominations and the doctrine of child salvation Argyle invited Mormon missionaries to his house.[60] Having questioned them on this issue he welcomed their theology that children under eight did not require baptism, for not only were they not damned, they were saved through the same God that gave them life. Argyle was baptised into the Mormon Church on 21 May 1851, recounting his greatly increased peace of mind.[61]

The doctrinal controversies between those who supported infant baptism, as found in Anglicanism, Catholicism and Methodism, and those rejecting it (such as the Baptists and Christadelphians as well as the LDS Church) persisted throughout the century.[62] Mormons regarded infant baptism as unnecessary since Joseph Smith had taught that in order to be baptised one must be fully accountable for the decision to choose a new life. According to Smith, those under the age of eight were incapable of committing sin as they had yet to reach an understanding of what it, and repentance, meant. The atonement of Christ rendered children under eight spiritually pure.[63]

On 8 June 1840, the Mormon evangelist Theodore Turley preached at Greets Green in South Staffordshire at the house of John and Mary Robinson just three days after the Robinsons, along with Mary’s sister Jane Wood (1818–1849), had been baptised.[64] That evening the brother, George Wood (1822–1908), visited.[65] Wood had previously attended the Primitive Methodist Church to which he was grateful for saving him “from many evils and snares.”[66] But Wood entered into “an interview” with Turley and what began as an intellectual conversation ended with him requesting baptism into Mormonism that same night having been convinced of the news of a restored church and a renewed priestly authority.[67]

As already noted above in the example of the Woods family, LDS missionaries frequently exploited kinship networks to provide a ready–made pool of contacts. Perhaps in such a situation the nature of conversion itself was experienced differently. David Smilde has argued, for example, that these forms of conversion processes were frequently not so much a desire to resolve a tension, a “push” factor, but the influence of social contacts and/or family influences, a “pull” factor.[68] As sociologist Rodney Stark has argued with reference to the rise of Christianity more generally, “conversion is not about seeking or embracing an ideology; it is about bringing one’s religious behaviour into alignment with that of one’s friends and family members.”[69]

The Rushton family who lived in Leek, Staffordshire until 1842, serve as an even more powerful example of the familial conversion experience. Silk manufacturers by trade, Richard Rushton (1780–1843) and his wife, Lettice (1784–1846) had three sons and four daughters. Their youngest son Edwin recorded in his journal that on hearing of the Mormons’ arrival in Leek in 1840 his father commented: “A new religious sect is holding a meeting tonight. I wish you would go and hear what they have to say.” “Why don't you go yourself?” answered Edwin. “Because, son”, replied his father Richard, “they are a very unpopular people and it might hurt my business.”[70] At the behest of his father Edwin Rushton attended the LDS meeting and returned full of conviction, announcing, “These men have the truth.”[71]

Although Edwin says little in his journal about who the missionaries were or the precise date of the meeting, a journal entry by the local Mormon leader Alfred Cordon, dated 29 March 1840, provides further insight into, and confirmation of, this event:

I went to Leek in company with Bro William Bradbury […] I preached in the Evening to a Crowded house, and a many were Believing the Works. Several staid [sic] after the Service was over in the house, but there was none baptised. We conversed with a Young man named Rushton. He was full of faith. He promised that he would be baptised.[72]

As a result of Edwin’s reaction, Richard and Lettice embarked upon conversion and baptism for themselves and their other children.[73] In a journal entry dated 12 April 1840, Cordon further records, “I baptised Rushton”, although he fails to say which Rushton it was or if it was the family en–masse. In a later entry dated 7 October 1840, Cordon reports that Elders Rushton had embarked on a local missionary endeavour.[74] Richard Rushton had indeed begun an outreach programme through his extensive familial and social networks beginning with his three other daughters, Harriet and her husband Stephen Nixon, Henrietta and her husband Thomas Bullock, and Fanny and her soon–to–be husband George Wardle (1820–1901). Unfortunately, Rushton’s service to the Church was cut short when he died of dysentery at Nauvoo, Illinois, following his emigration in October 1843.[75]

Another Staffordshire convert, Thomas Day, on hearing of a “restoration” of the very Church that Christ had established, recorded that when “its first sound penetrated [his] heart […] [he] immediately desired baptism.” His wife, however, fearful of the potential “persecution and proscription disarmed him and he faltered.”[76] Day subsequently recalled that:

one evening the Spirit's voice became too strong for resistance, and I quietly slipped through the back door lest wee wifie [sic] should take notice, and lest her gentle persuasions and sad tears should again unman me.[77]

Day was baptised without her knowledge. Ten days later, however, following “long conversations and prayerful forethought”, his wife Ann was also baptised.

Others such as Thomas Crowther from Tipton in Staffordshire were brought into contact with the Church in 1849 through his wife’s family. On one visit Crowther recalls:

There happened to be a Mormon Elder at my mother–in–law's, by the name of Thomas Shelly, [who] presented me with a copy of the Book of Mormon which I took home and read it through, and truly I thought I had found the pearl of great price. My father–in–law and mother–in–law had already been baptised into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints, and had two of their children healed in a miraculous manner.[78]

Heirich’s argument that prosopographical networks of conversion were most effective amongst those already embarked upon a religious quest is certainly borne out by Alfred Cordon and his neighbours. Within one month of baptism (June 1839) through ceaseless outreach work within his local community of Burslem, Cordon managed to convince his wife, Emma, and friends from their former Aitkenite affiliation, namely Henry Glover and his wife Emily, as well as Elizabeth Ravenscroft to be baptised.[79] Emma Cordon’s support of her husband’s religion seems to have come after his conversion, for he records on the day of his baptism that despite Emma having “whished [sic] she had me asleep. She would cut my throat”, that “this did not daunt me at all.”[80] The Rev. Robert Aitken (1799–1873) is believed to have been one of the earliest clergymen to oppose Mormonism on a national level.[81] John Jones, an Aitkenite priest, had informed his congregation that Alfred and his friend William Bradbury “were deluded” and that when they returned from Manchester they must be treated “as enemies of the Cross of Christ.”[82] This threat of persecution may well have accounted for Emma’s initial antagonism, but a month after her husband Emma herself was baptised.[83] We do not know what caused her change of heart.

All of these early Staffordshire Mormons were either relatives of Cordon or shared a former religious affiliation with him. Cordon further exploited his intra–social and religious networks and saw the successful conversion to Mormonism of the majority of the Aitkenite congregation in Doncaster, Yorkshire.[84] Cordon’s personal network of converts was further expanded through his wife’s family where his siblings–in–law Elizabeth Parker, Edwin Parker and Harriet Parker were also recruited.[85] Interestingly, Cordon was less successful with his own parents, but nevertheless continued with his pattern of familial and kinship–based referrals including that of a domestic servant, Mary Smallman, who then introduced Cordon to her employers, William and Ann Benbow. On 2 January 1840, Cordon visited the Benbows in Hanley after they had closed their shop. According to Cordon, they “received the truth joyfully” and were baptised a few weeks later at midnight in order to avoid any disturbances.[86]

The conversion and baptism of William Benbow proved to be especially significant for outreach work in the nineteenth–century LDS Church, even more so than Joseph Fielding’s prolific efforts in Lancashire and Bedfordshire. The American Apostle Wilford Woodruff occasionally stayed with the Benbows in the Potteries during his six week stay in early 1840, and was introduced through them to William’s brother John, a wealthy Herefordshire farmer and a leader of the United Brethren.[87] Having successfully converted and baptised John Benbow in April 1840, Woodruff gained extensive access to United Brethren congregations, resulting in over 1,000 baptisms into Mormonism in less than four months, totalling 1,800 by January 1841.[88] No wonder that Cordon saw it as “a most precious season.”[89]

These examples illustrate not just the importance of intimate social networks to Mormon expansion but also the power of influential Mormon preachers. The role of missionaries is the final theme or impetus to conversion that appears regularly in the records of Staffordshire Mormons. In most Dissenting denominations, preaching was the chief method of winning converts, thus great emphasis was laid upon the art of a good sermon. According to David Bebbington, the Scottish evangelical Thomas Chalmers “was reputed to have visited 1,000 homes in his Glasgow parish during a single year.”[90] Like the Evangelicals, LDS missionaries preached a simple gospel message readily understandable by the working classes. Unlike the Anglican clergy most Mormon preachers hailed from this social stratum themselves. Thus what Joseph Smith described as the “First Principles” of the gospel (first, faith in Jesus Christ, second, repentance, third, baptism and fourth the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost),[91] was the primary message of LDS missionaries rather than any complex mysteries of the kingdom.[92] Mormons taught of modern–day prophets, open heavens and modern revelation, the salvation of children and the rejection of infant baptism. Such optimistic doctrines preached in halls, market places and homes, combined with the youth and the “novelty value” of the American preachers themselves, gave religion and Mormonism a fresh appeal to the ordinary person.

Baptism and a new birth

The rite of baptism marked the official commencement of a convert’s association with Mormonism whereupon their name was formally entered into the membership records. As the Millennial Star directed of new members:

After they have turned from sin and converted it is necessary that they should be baptised in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, as a sign, seal, and token of the remission of their sins, their adoption of the new covenant, and their initiation into the Church and Kingdom of God.[93]

Baptism represented the death and burial of the old life and the new birth or resurrection of a new life, in other words, being spiritually reborn and being made “clean” before God. This was explained by Joseph Smith in April 1830:

All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the Church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his Church.[94]

Baptism, argues David Bebbington, was “the chief theological controversy of the early and mid–nineteenth century”[95] in terms of relationship to the experience of conversion itself and the age or specific point at which a child or adult became spiritually regenerate. The corollary of the centrality of conversion in Evangelical Nonconformity was a certain difficulty with the purpose of baptism. But in Mormonism the function of baptism was made clear by Smith and his preachers: it was intended for (i) the remission of sins; (ii) a gateway to the straight and narrow path leading to salvation and (iii) was essential for complete salvation. Thus, while a convert may have been baptised numerous times in other denominations this had no validity; only baptism by a Mormon holding the priestly authority to do so was religiously authentic.

Two aspects of Mormon baptism were specifically prescribed – that of total immersion in water to symbolise the convert’s rebirth and that of the ceremonial procedure itself – these following the instructions given by Joseph Smith in April 1830:

The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water.[96]

As a public sign of commitment to the Mormon religion, a convert was thus baptised by total immersion to complete their conversion experience. The procedure was officiated by a Priest from the lower Aaronic Priesthood, raising his right hand to the square as a sign of authority and repeating the words of the set prayer which called the person by name at which point the candidate was lowered into the water.[97]

Baptism not only marked a convert’s formal entry into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints but also represented an essential sacrament of salvation. In this latter aspect the Church differed with other Dissenting denominations that recognised baptism simply as a sign of conversion. Elsewhere I demonstrated that Staffordshire Mormons were a young congregation with 67% of those baptised between 1839 and 1870 under the age of 26. The venue for baptism was not in dedicated buildings with fonts (Mormons had none of these), but was any open place with a body of water sufficient for full immersion, including rivers, lakes and pools. In Staffordshire it was the canals that were mainly used to baptise converts, often in freezing temperatures. Thomas Bullock, employed as one of Her Majesty’s Excise Officers in Stourbridge after serving an apprenticeship at a solicitor in Leek, wrote a spiritual journal that was then reprinted in the Millennial Star in 1852. Bullock remembered his baptism taking place “on a cold November night, when ice was on the canal and the keen frosty air was blown in all its severity.”[98] More importantly he writes it was the moment when he “received […] remission of [his] sins, and beheld a sign in the heavens, that self–same hour confirming [his] belief.”[99]

It was when the Staffordshire cobbler George Morris heard about the “dippers”, a local slang reference to Mormon baptism by full immersion, that he was introduced to the church. He recalls in his autobiography:

I was sitting in my shop making shoes. The door was open, and some little children stopped before the door to play. My attention was arrested by hearing them talking about people they called “dippers.” They said that they dipped people over head in water and talked gibberish in their meetings, and the children tried to imitate speaking in tongues. I asked them where they held their meetings, and they said, in an old room up town and pointed it out to me. So I made them [a] visit the next week. I heard something at the first meeting that suited me better than anything that I had ever heard     from any of the sectarians.[100]

A week before his baptism Morris retired to a riverside to meditate on the meaning of salvation which, he writes, “had occupied my mind very forcibly for some time.” As a result of this typical period of retreat, he reported that “my sins were made manifest to my mind; my ignorance and imperfections were shown to me […] so keenly that I wept again and again over my condition […] asking forgiveness from the Lord […] and that I would forsake all of my sins and begin from that very hour a new life.”[101] In a dramatic account of his conversion experience he described the way in which God had

heard my prayers and poured out his Holy Spirit upon me mightily which caused me to weep for joy and rejoice […] My heart was made as light as a feather that very hour for a change had taken place which caused me to feel like I was in a new world; the rippling in the river was like sweet music in my ear, and the birds sang sweeter than I had ever heard them before. I looked forward with joy to the time when I should be baptized and enter in through the door into the kingdom of God, for I had seen it and had a foretaste of its joys, which to me were sweeter than honey from the honeycomb.[102]

As shown above then, the progression from religious seeker to Mormon conversion was approached through very different experiences although all had to undergo admission into the Church through baptism by total immersion. This marked not the end of the conversion experience but the beginning, as the final discussion in this chapter will demonstrate.

New life in the Church: The conversion career fulfilled

After baptism a host of new rituals, theologies and responsibilities lay waiting for the new convert. Those who were burdened with an overwhelming sense of guilt and sinfulness prior to conversion were now released into participation in a wider plan of salvation and the development of their own spiritual and conversional trajectory. As sociologist James Craig argues, while conversions could be abrupt and immediate the development of an individual’s spirituality was only achieved over time.[103] The increase in religious activism, godly attributes and doctrinal knowledge was what led a Saint to become more active in the faith.

Thus, for the Mormon, conversion marked the new beginning of a life of anticipated obedience which went beyond simple church attendance. In many conversion narratives, however, within the first few weeks of baptism not all new converts recorded feelings of joy but of despair or struggle. Both Alfred Cordon and William Bradbury, the first Mormons in Staffordshire in 1839 recalled that soon after their baptism “we had a dreadful Struggle with the Devil. We felt as though God had forsaken us.”[104] It became fundamental, therefore, for the church to employ various methods to help retain a convert’s commitment, attendance and, just as importantly, their financial contributions. The key to ensuring members’ loyalty, as argued earlier, came through the formation of strong community bonds through shared practices and disciplines. This embedded converts into their new community whilst weakening older, unhelpful ties and relationships. The most obvious of these was the weekly sacrament of bread and wine (later water, due to cost) which functioned as a regular point of renewal of the vows made by the convert at baptism. The bread would be passed around on a tray whereupon each member who considered himself or herself “worthy” took a piece and ate it, reminding them of Christ’s sacrifice. The water, however, was simply blessed and passed around in a large cup but the sharing of this sacrament was a powerful means of promoting group cohesion.

Other practices were also regarded as progressing a member’s faith such as the public declaration of one’s belief in God or trust in the leaders of the church and Mormon religious writings. Public prayer, attendance at religious meetings, financial support for local missionaries, subscriptions to the Millennial Star, Temple (a holy edifice in Nauvoo, Illinois) and Tithing donations were also indicators of a person’s status and preparedness to take on a Saintly life. At times these practices prompted considerable controversy and social hostility both within and outside the Mormon Church. Frequently, for example, the newly baptised member might experience the “gifts of the spirit” in meetings, as outlined in the Doctrine and Covenants: “And again, it is given to some to speak with tongues; and to another is given the interpretation of tongues.”[105] Speaking in tongues was often described as witchcraft as having satanic origins. Writing to Conference leaders on 6 November 1840, Elder Rushton reported that

Brother Uxley, from Burslem, came […] last Sunday to Leek and caused some little dispute in our church by saying that some of the sisters spoke in tongues by the power of the devil and calling them hypocrites. But we have nearly got over these difficulties now, thanks be to God.[106]

But despite being ridiculed by local Staffordshire children as speaking “gibberish”, the gift of tongues was regarded within the Mormon community as an early sign of profound spiritual growth. Elder Rushton, now branch president of the Leek branch, reported to conference leaders on 25 September 1840, for example, that:

We have had many blessings in our church at Leek since last Sunday. Sister Mary Wych came over from the Potteries, and at the meeting the gift of tongues fell upon many of our sisters. Sister May and Fanny had the gift of tongues, Sister Plant and her two daughters, Sister Wardle and Sister Harriet Wardle, Sister Alouck, Sister Mary Ann Patton and Sister Mycock have all got the gift of tongues. These things, of course, cause great opposition from the sectarians. Our room is crowded every meeting.[107]

And, while on a missionary visit to West Bromwich in December 1840, Alfred Cordon recorded that “the brethren have baptized several. Six have received the gift of tongues and one interpretation, which have caused them to rejoice abundantly.”[108]

As noted earlier, while some cross–disciplinary research has been undertaken on adult conversion, few scholars have addressed the conversion process of children. We know from the Staffordshire Mormon Dataset – constructed for the purposes of this thesis – that most children who became associated with Mormonism did so through the experience of their parents or other family members. Although Sunday schools began to appear from the mid–1840s in places like Stratford, Barford and Birmingham, Mormon teaching focused almost exclusively on adult converts with little provision made for children until 1853[109] when the Catechism for Children was written by John Jaques (1827–1900), an 1845 English convert and onetime Mormon missionary in Staffordshire.[110] Jaques, a cabinetmaker by trade, announced in the November 1853 edition of the Millennial Star his intention to publish this work serially.[111] The Millennial Star editorial highlights the scarcity of teaching aids for children: “Those Saints who have many times wished for a catechical work suitable for the instruction of their children, may now realize their wishes.”[112] Catechism for Children, written by a Staffordshire missionary, became the first theological text specifically aimed at children and their own conversion “careers” in the Mormon Church worldwide. After 1853 many more local Sunday schools appeared in Staffordshire at places like Willenhall, Hockley, and Smethwick, with a brand new curriculum stimulated by Jaques” work.[113] While men acted as the Sunday school superintendents, local Mormon women such as Sister Olivia Stokes from Smethwick normally taught in them.[114] The size of each class varied dramatically from region to region; for example in 1848 the class in Sheffield consisted of over sixty children, whilst in 1854 the local Mormon Sunday school in Camden Town was attended by those numbering in the twenties.[115] More typically, however, Sunday schools in Staffordshire had perhaps a dozen or so children in attendance and when membership numbers declined further during the 1860s, Mormon children such as 11 year old David Coombs, son of Staffordshire converts George and Eliza Coombs, simply attended a local Methodist school instead.[116] Evidence from records held in the Manuscript History of the British Mission suggests that not only were British Mormon Sunday schools an important precursor to those of the wider church in Utah, but that the heartland of the Sunday school programme was indeed strongest in the Midlands in the early decades. Providing spiritual and pastoral education for the children of Mormon families was an important way of retaining Church loyalty and adherence.

Hymnody

The singing of hymns formed an important part of Mormon worship not only at Sabbath services but also on a more regular basis within the home. They also had a sacred, because revelatory, status within Mormon spirituality. Soon after the Church’s organisation in 1830, Joseph Smith had received a revelation directing his wife, Emma Hale, to compile “a selection of sacred hymns…to be had in my [God’s] church. For my soul delighteth in the song of the heart” wrote Smith, and “the song of the righteous is a prayer unto me.”[117] With Emma’s Methodist upbringing it was no coincidence that 50 of the 90 hymns she produced were either borrowed or rewritten from existing Protestant hymnody and music became an institutionally and theologically significant part of Mormon worship. Thus, when Apostle Brigham Young first arrived in the British Isles in 1840 he reported:

Concerning the hymnbook, when we arrived here we found the brethren had laid by their old [Protestant] hymn books, and they wanted new ones; for the Bible religion, and all [Mormonism], is new to them.[118]

This type of editing or production, as indicated above, was not uncommon. As Owen Chadwick has observed, hymns were often altered in order fit with the doctrinal message of a particular group.[119] New hymns therefore needed to be written and Apostle Parley P. Pratt was responsible for adapting the older hymns in order to create a more usable collection for Mormon worship. “[A]s to hymns” he declared in 1840, “I am writing several new ones every day, and hope to contribute one hundred new ones to the volume we now print. There is indeed a great call for hymn books, suited to our worship.”[120] Following the arrival of other Mormon Apostles to Britain in April 1840, the decision to publish a new collection of 241 hymns was made and thus the “Manchester” hymnal was approved and published in July 1840.[121] Its preface highlighted the need of British Saints for a suitable hymnal and underlined the importance of this activity as a means to sustain faith amongst communities of worship.[122] Compiled under the direction of Parley P. Pratt, John Taylor and Brigham Young, it also reflected a greater communal sense of Mormon theology and thought.[123] Once again Staffordshire Mormons were indirectly seminal contributors – John Benbow brother of William at Hanley, ex–leader of the United Brethren and convert of Wilford Woodruff, bore the majority of the £58 publishing costs for the 3,000 copies of this enormously influential hymnal having only been a Mormon himself for several weeks at the time.[124] The “Manchester” hymnal would also serve as a book of instruction on a par with sermons, lectures and publications. Its influence extended beyond Mormon Europe and even influenced the format of later hymnals, being republished nine times in ten years with 54,000 copies being printed.[125] Whether focused upon doctrinal themes such as the atonement or the resurrection or the human experience of mob persecution and martyrdom, the hymnal remained a centre of theological teaching largely supported by Saints of the Midlands.

Communal singing was, of course, a very powerful way to strengthen social cohesion, not least because many British converts found familiar aspects of their old religion in the new one which appeared to help retain individual commitment for longer. The British Mormon convert, Fanny Stenhouse, recalled in 1875 that the “congregation sang with an energy and enthusiasm which made the room shake[…] and an ecstasy of rapture seemed to possess the souls of all present.”[126] Often the presiding Elder would commence by humming the tune unaccompanied and those congregants that recognised it would then join in.[127] Meetings always commenced with hymn–singing followed by prayer; this remained the pattern of all Church meetings, whether held in a house, hall, or even in the street. In his journal entry dated Sunday 9 August 1840, John Needham records that at a meeting held for the breaking of the bread “Elder Cordon opened the meeting by singing and a prayer.”[128] Once the tune had been completed the Elder gave a line or two to which the congregation loudly sang, followed by another couple of lines and so forth.[129] This approach had practical applications. First, it assisted those who were new to Mormonism or unfamiliar with the text to join in, and second it provided a mechanism for illiterate worshippers who were unable to read the text of a hymnal to take part or perhaps when too few hymnals were available for a larger congregation. Hymn–singing thus strengthened the unity of the branch. Moreover, as branch composition was mainly drawn from working and labouring classes, the use of hymnody also successfully crossed literacy, cultural and class boundaries.

Hymns were not only used for worship. Missionaries also used them as an effective means of announcing their street meetings in order to gather listeners. Frequently, of course, they also acted as a magnet for opponents, as in the case of a public meeting held at the “Bull Ring” in the centre of Birmingham. The Hockley Branch records show that on this occasion the Elders had commenced in the usual way with singing and prayer and had gathered quite a large crowd including some antagonists who created a “great deal of excitement” among the audience, such that a police officer arrived and ordered the Elders to move on.[130] But the medium of music and song maintained morale even when Mormons had left their local Staffordshire congregations and were on board ready for the Atlantic crossing to Utah. Staffordshire convert, William Bramwell, the appointed president of the Amazon’s emigration company, recalled that “the music from the brass band, songs and hymns succeed each other to cheer the hearts of the Saints.”[131]

It was thus appear that the career of a Mormon convert was strengthened as much by spiritual or physical challenges as by devotional activity. This chapter has sought to illustrate the qualitative aspects of the conversion experience drawing upon the primary accounts of over a dozen leading Mormons. That there are limited individual accounts of conversion is a frustration, but need not be a complete hindrance to analysis. Only in the specificity of such biographical accounts can we recapture the tensions, drama and the depths of anguish that an individual convert encountered; only in these accounts can we recover the neglected authentic voices of the Staffordshire Mormons. That there are not numerous sources available means simply that any extrapolations to be made and any scope of conclusions that can be drawn are necessarily more limited.

Nevertheless, this chapter has still been able to show that catalysts such as the personal traumas of death, illness or individual guilt, religious apostasy, the influence of family and friends and the persuasiveness of preachers, were fundamental to the conversion process which was then formalised in the ritual of baptism. After this, as new members of the Church and participants in a life of transformed values and activity (including a not insignificant amount of wider cultural scepticism and hostility), their conversion careers had really begun.

THE ARRIVAL OF MORMONISM IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY NORWAY: A BRIEF HISTORICAL RETROSPECT

JOHNNIE GLAD

The first contacts Norwegians had with Mormonism took place not in their native land, but on the other side of the Atlantic in the early Norwegian settlements at Fox River, Illinois, Sugar Creek, Iowa, and Koshkonong in Wisconsin Territory. These areas were located not too far from Nauvoo, a city built by the Mormons on the bank of the Mississippi River and where a new temple was being erected. Nauvoo could at this time rightly be considered the headquarters or capitol of the Mormons.[132]

In March 1842 a Mormon elder, George P. Dykes, visited the Norwegian Fox River colony in LaSalle County, Illinois. He was sent as a missionary from Nauvoo. Within a month the Mormons had gained a number of new members. The Fox River congregation was called the LaSalle Branch. The leadership of this group consisted in part of Haugean lay leaders and preachers like Jørgen Pedersen who had been a schoolteacher in Norway and Ole Heier, an active Haugean from Telemark, who although having risen to high rank in the Mormon Church later on joined the Baptists. Endre Dahl, another leader of this group, was a well-known member of the sloop folk of 1825 and a first settler at Fox River. He was sent by the Norwegian Saints at Fox River to Nauvoo with one hundred sheep and cattle and some money as a contribution toward the building of the temple. During his stay in Nauvoo he met Joseph Smith and was invited to his home. Joseph Smith was much impressed by Endre Dahl and told Apostle George A. Smith that the Scandinavians would play an important role in the church. Other prominent Norwegians were Gudmund Haugaas from Stavanger who also was of the sloop folk and whom George P. Dykes ordained an elder and who later on became a Mormon bishop, and Knud Pedersen, a native of Hardanger, later known as Bishop Canute Peterson, who came to Fox River settlement in 1837. He worked as a Mormon missionary among the Norwegians in Illinois and Wisconsin before leaving for Utah in 1849. Both Canute Peterson and Erik G. M. Hogan, a native of Telemark who immigrated to America in 1837, were later on appointed to serve as missionaries to Norway.[133]

The Norwegian Saints from Fox River were quite active in their missionary endeavours proclaiming their new faith in other Norwegian settlements in Iowa and Wisconsin. January 1843 Gudmund Haugaas and J. R. Anderson spent three weeks in Lee County, Iowa, where they baptized ten people including Erik G. M. Hogan and his family. Hogan had come to America on the same ship as Canute Peterson and Ellen Sanders[134] who became the wife of Brigham Young’s counsellor Heber C. Kimball and was one of the three women in the first company of Mormon pioneers that entered the Salt Lake Valley in 1847. In late 1844 Gudmund Haugaas and Canute Peterson left for the Muskego and Koshkonong settlements in Wisconsin. They baptized four settlers in Muskego and held several meetings in the Koshkonong area. Here they ran into problems with the Norwegian Lutheran pastor J. W. C. Dietrichson, who although showing hospitality towards these two men by entertaining them at his home, nevertheless accused them of fishing in disturbed waters and preaching false doctrines. Dietrichson’s strategy was to avoid making martyrs of the Mormon missionaries. Dietrichson was distressed that sects and schisms among the settlers were destroying Lutheran unity. By 1845 almost a hundred and fifty Norwegians in the western settlements had converted to Mormonism, approximately eighty of these in the Fox River colony alone.[135] However, in spite of how distressing the situation may have seemed to Dietrichson it is important to keep in mind what Theodore C. Blegen points out in regard to Mormon missionary efforts in the Midwestern settlements:

Notwithstanding such missionary efforts, the Mormons made relatively little headway among the Norwegian immigrants in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois. The chief significance of the movement probably lies in its direct impact upon Norway through     missionaries sent to that country after the great trek to Utah.[136]

The contacts with Mormonism the early Norwegian immigrants made in the Midwestern settlements must not be overestimated, even though from a Mormon viewpoint these contacts from close-by Mormon headquarters in Nauvoo were considered of great importance. Whether these happenings had taken place or not there can be no doubt that this new religion would nevertheless have found its way to the shores of Norway. The fact remains that it was only after the great trek to Utah that the missionary work in Norway accelerated. According to Theodore C. Blegen, “The fact remains that Mormon lines of sequence and of influence can be drawn from the Fox River and Sugar Creek Norwegian settlements to the Old World by way of Utah.”[137] In other words, that which took place in the Norwegian settlements at Fox River and Sugar Creek would not alone have triggered off the vigorous Mormon missionary thrust in Norway. The Mormon Church had already from its early days initiated a vigorous missionary program that included Great Britain and Scandinavia. As important as individual settlements may have been in winning new converts, it was only when this work was organized and directed by the leadership of the Mormon Church that one can speak of a more planned and systematic missionary program. An added impetus to this work was the fact that many of the first missionaries to Norway, Denmark and Sweden were natives of the countries to which they were sent and as such had no difficulties speaking the language.

What signals did that which took place in the Midwestern settlements send to the Norwegian immigrants as well as those back home in Norway? It must have been shocking news that Haugean lay preachers and teachers in the Fox River colony like Jørgen Pedersen and Ole Heier had embraced Mormonism and become leaders of the group. In Norway the Haugeans had been very severe in their criticism of Norwegian Lutheran clergymen of the State Church and because of this often came in conflict with the clergy. Although the Haugeans fought to abolish the Conventicle Law they were not favourable to the Dissenter Law. They were perhaps afraid that the layman’s movement would come out of balance in its relationship to the State Church. This again could bring about a confessional disintegration, if the Dissenter Law was adopted.[138] However, soon after having joined the Mormon Church many of these very same people with a Haugean background were ordained into the Mormon priesthood that according to Mormon belief is the only valid priesthood on earth. Some rose to high ranks on the ecclesiastical ladder, such as Gudmund Haugaas who had become a “High Priest of the Order of Melchisedek” as J. W. C. Dietrichson described it.[139]

What were the theological reasons that caused staunch Haugean laymen to leave their religion in favour of Mormonism? There may be several answers to this question. First of all, the Haugeans were brought up within the confines of Pietism where the interest for missions was prevalent. This found a resonance in Mormonism where missions played an important role. Secondly, Pietism was a religion of the heart where followers were taken care of and organized into groups with spiritual leaders. The main object as well as concern was to take care of the flock. This too was true in regard to Mormonism. Thirdly, the Haugeans did not adhere to a strong ecclesiastical theology. The important thing for them was the meeting of friends (vennesamfunnet). This very same thing characterized also the new religion. In addition, Mormonism gave people the opportunity to advance to prominent positions within their religion, something that was difficult for laymen to achieve in many of the major church denominations.

News of what had taken place in the Midwestern settlements must have been very disturbing to those back home in Norway. How could Haugean lay preachers and teachers who were brought up and deeply rooted in the Lutheran faith leave their church and all what they had been taught from childhood on for a sect like the Mormons? That this could be expected of some was one thing, but that lay preachers and schoolteachers with a Haugean background and who presumably were skilled in scripture and Lutheran doctrines could decide to leave the Lutheran Church for the Mormons was something quite different. Likewise, the Norwegian immigrants in the various settlements who had remained faithful to the doctrines of the Lutheran Church from back home must have been just as dismayed and shocked as those left behind in their native country.

That which took place in the Norwegian settlements in America served as a prelude to the arrival of Mormonism in Norway. At a general conference in Salt Lake City in October 1849 it was decided among other things to start missionary work also in Scandinavia. Apostle Erastus Snow and Peter O. Hansen, a Dane, were appointed to start work in Denmark, while John E. Forsgren, a Swede, was to start work in Sweden. In addition George P. Dykes, who had visited the Norwegian settlement at Fox River, Illinois, and who was familiar with the Norwegian language, was asked to join in this undertaking.[140] They arrived in Copenhagen during the summer of 1850. Copenhagen became the headquarters of the Scandinavian Mission till 1905 when Sweden became a separate mission, leaving Norway and Denmark to form the Danish-Norwegian Mission.[141] Norway became an independent mission in 1920.[142]

Mormonism’s entrance to Norway started with Svend Larsen’s visits to Aalborg, Denmark. Svend Larsen was a skipper from Østerrisør who sailed with lumber between his hometown and Aalborg. Here he got acquainted with a tailor Olsen from Halden in Norway who had settled down in Aalborg. Olsen used to visit Larsen onboard his boat to get information on what was going on in Norway, while Olsen informed his friend in regard to the situation in Denmark. The topic of Mormonism was also brought into the conversation, not the least after Olsen and his wife had joined the Latter-day Saints.[143] During one of his visits to this Danish city Svend Larsen came across a newspaper article that referred to Apostle Erastus Snow and the other Mormon missionaries who had arrived in Denmark in 1850. This caught his interest and curiosity and made him determined to meet Erastus Snow next time he came to Denmark to find out more about this new religion. The meeting between Larsen and Snow took place in the beginning of the month of September 1851. However, Erastus Snow was not able to comply to the wishes of Svend Larsen and accompany him back home to Østerrisør. Instead it was decided that Hans F. Petersen, the new branch president at Aalborg should come along. In spite of stormy and poor weather the two men arrived in Risør September 11, 1851. At this Mormonism had arrived in Norway. The day after their arrival Petersen started to distribute Mormon tracts among the people. This activity was soon stopped by the civil authorities who claimed that Hans F. Petersen’s passport was invalid. This resulted in that Larsen and Petersen returned to Aalborg September 20. A few days later they left once again for Risør where they arrived October 7, this time accompanied by yet another missionary, Johan August Åhmanson.[144]

July 1852 Hans P. Jensen, a Danish foundry owner from Aalborg, and Svend Larsen purchased a sloop to be used for transporting members and missionaries to conferences and meetings along the coastal areas of Norway and Denmark. It was named Zions Løve (Zion’s Lion). The first trip that was made with this sloop was to Fredrikstad where elders Åhmanson and Hans Peter Jensen started their work among the people in that city. Wherever the sloop arrived curiosity and interest from the public was aroused. In that sense it made good public relations and provided good advertisement for the new religion. The purchase of Zion’s Løve was indeed a strategic move by the Mormons providing them with housing aboard while at the same time bringing them to various parts of Norway. [145] Prior to Mormonism’s arrival in Norway Methodism had been introduced in Fredrikstad by Ole Peter Petersen in 1850.[146] As time went on the relationship between the Mormons and the Methodists became strained when Mormon infiltration resulted in that some of Ole Peter Petersen’s own family and former converts joined the Mormons.[147]

The first branch of the Mormon Church in Norway was organized in Risør 16 July 1852 with 18 members. Fredrikstad branch was organized with 7 members 25 July 1852. Brevik branch was organized with 8 members 5 September 1852.[148] The following years after 1852 a number of branches were organized in various parts of Norway, such as Kristiania (1853), Stavanger (1854), Kristiansand (1856), Halden (1856), Trondheim (1857), Bergen (1858), Arendal (1864), Tromsø (1888), Ålesund (1893), Kristiansund (1898), Bodø (1899), Moss (1899), Haugesund (1901), Tønsberg (1903), and Narvik (1905). [149]

At a general conference held in Copenhagen August 12, 1852, a decision was made to establish a conference in Norway consisting of Risør, Fredrikstad and Brevik branches. The name was to be Brevik Conference.[150] In 1862 the name was changed to Christiania Conference.[151] In 1899 the decision was made to divide Norway into three conferences, Bergen, Trondheim and Oslo. In 1927 the designation conference was changed to district. Thus Norway was divided into three geographically districts, Oslo, Bergen and Trondheim.[152]

Life for the early LDS converts in Norway was far from easy. They were often confronted with problems and difficulties both from within as well as from without their own circles. They suffered often persecution and harassment from their own fellow countrymen and relatives. In addition they found themselves quite often in confrontation and trouble with the civil and ecclesiastical authorities that put obstacles to their work. A typical example is that which took place in 1919. Hans J. Christiansen who at that time was President of the Danish-Norwegian Mission with headquarters in Copenhagen was after a visit to Norway denied entrance to Copenhagen. The new rules required that the departure had to be registered in the passport and a new entrance registered beforehand or a new application submitted. A minor deviation from these rules could cause great difficulties. Hans J. Christiansen had to return by ship to Oslo where he was requested to leave Norway as soon as arrangements in regard to entering Denmark was taken care of. A member of the Oslo Branch contacted personally the Central Passport Office where he met little understanding and was asked to leave the office. Finally the problem was solved and Christiansen could return to Denmark. Little flexible rules as such between Denmark-Norway and foreigners as a whole was indeed frustrating and time consuming. This problem was solved to some extent for the Mormons when Denmark and Norway became independent missions each with their mission presidents.[153]

Members of the LDS Church were expected to help support the church financially in various activities and enterprises. This could often become a heavy burden for many, particularly keeping in mind that many if not the vast majority of these people, came from the working class and those of lesser means. In addition to the Perpetual Emigration Fund established by Brigham Young to help people defray the cost of travel to Utah, a more local emigration fund was established in Norway as in other countries. Proceeds of this fund were given to those who could not afford to pay for their own travel to Utah. The money was considered a gift, but most felt a moral obligation to pay back the sum of money when they were able to do so. In addition, the choir of the Oslo Branch had established an emigration kitty for members of the choir. This was money that could be borrowed, but it was expected of the borrower to pay back the sum as soon as possible so others could benefit from it. Unfortunately, not everyone complied to these rules and some only partly. However, the choir members managed over and over again to replenish the kitty.[154]

During the years 1850-1860 the Mormons in Norway contributed to yet another fund, namely the one that had to do with the building of the temple in Salt Lake City. In addition to all this the LDS members in Norway were encouraged to help the missionaries economically. Family breadwinners were often on missions to a much greater extent than was the case in later years. As a result of all this there can be no doubt that the Mormons in Norway carried heavy economic burdens as LDS members in addition to their everyday duties and responsibilities in society.[155]

Much of that which took place and was decided within the LDS Church in America had implications for the Saints living in other countries. Norway was no exception. The topic of celestial marriage was announced for the first time for the members of the LDS Church in the Scandinavian Mission 1 October 1853, although the subject was known before this date also among people not belonging to the Mormon Church. However, in spite of this the doctrine of celestial marriage caused considerable sensation in Norway not only among non-Mormons but also among the Mormons themselves. Mass meetings were held all over the country and the newspapers were extremely busy with numerous articles on the subject.[156]

The so-called “Reformation” of the 1850s was a dramatic religious event that took place in America particularly during the years 1856-1857. The leaders of the LDS Church were concerned in regard to what appeared to be signs of a moral and spiritual decay. They travelled around the territory preaching repentance persuading the members to dedicate themselves to righteous living and to seal this rededication with rebaptism. The driving force in this movement was Elder Jedediah M. Grant, counsellor to Brigham Young and a member of the First Presidency. Thousands of Saints rededicated themselves and sealed this with rebaptism. The entire membership of the all-Mormon territorial legislature was re-baptized for the remission of their sins on December 30, 1856. All were confirmed by the laying on of hands of the Twelve Apostles.[157]

In a letter from Brigham Young to Elder Orson Pratt, Mission President in Great Britain[158], Young pointed out the need for a great Reformation in England, Scotland and Wales. The Saints were dead and did not drink of the living waters. The fire of the Almighty was not within them. This was also applicable to the elders who were sent out to preach.[159] As a result of this letter the LDS Presidency in Liverpool urged the Saints to read Brigham Young’s letter with the warnings and counsels and accept them as God’s word. The conversions and the work of the Reformation should start immediately. First of all, all the missionaries from the Presidency on in Liverpool and all the countries mentioned should convert and better themselves in word and deed, in thoughts and diligence. There were many things from which one ought to turn away. Every person should be aware of where one had failed and do something about it. People were encouraged to become faithful and renew their covenants and be re-baptized with water that they might be filled with the power of God.[160]

The leaders of the Scandinavian Mission with headquarters in Copenhagen gave their full support to this movement that had started in Zion and continued in England. As a matter of fact, they had already started the implementation of this work in Copenhagen. They requested the priesthood and all the Saints in Scandinavia to stand by and help in this undertaking.[161] As a result of this Elder Niels C. Paulsen was appointed primarily to travel around in Norway and give information about this movement to the members of the church. He left 11 April 1857 and travelled via the southern part of Norway to Stavanger and Bergen and then by boat to Trondheim.[162]

In 1857 a serious political crises occurred between the Mormons and the Government of the United States resulting in that President James Buchanan sent military forces towards Utah in the fall of that year.[163] In order to defend oneself against the US Army, if necessary, Brigham Young decided to recall home all the missionaries in the European Mission. Many of the missionaries in Norway decided to leave for home. Also the leader of the Scandinavian Mission, President Hector C. Haight left. This was a serious blow to the mission work in Norway since it now appeared to be a shortage of missionaries. However, in spite of the existing situation the work did not stagnate but was carried on just as previously with local workers. At the end of 1858 President Brigham Young gave orders to proceed with emigration since the tense political situation in America had subsided and the dangers of war diminished. The following year missionaries from America started to return to Norway. The majority of these were Norwegians who previously had emmigrated and as such were thoroughly familiar with the Norwegian language.[164]

From a Mormon viewpoint the missionary work in Norway was difficult. In 1857 President Hector C. Haight reported to President Orson Pratt in England on the mission work in Scandinavia. The report pointed out that people reacted differently in various regions of Scandinavia. In Denmark at the present time the Mormons enjoyed more freedom than before both in regard to preaching and the distribution of literature. When Haight arrived a year and half ago the scene was quite another with missionaries being whipped and robbed and driven away from the fields of their labour. Looking into the matter Haight discovered that the missionaries themselves were at the roots of this problem. The missionaries were too harsh in preaching and reproving the priests and the people in regard to their religion. Haight counselled the missionaries through the Mormon periodical Skandinaviens Stjerne as well as in public meetings to show more meekness and kindness to the people they were addressing. It was important to show them the principles and materials in regard to building a better life before starting to attack their beliefs. After having followed these guidelines much of the opposition and prejudice subsided and the missionaries went into areas where they previously had been hesitant to enter.[165]

In 1858 Elder Saamund Gudmundsen, president of the Norwegian Mission, reported that 11 branches were organized in Norway with a total of 376 members. The Mormon missionaries were in some places being persecuted while in other places they were being thrown into prison by the civil authorities or fined heavily. However, in Christiania the authorities were more humane and open meetings were being held continually.[166]

According to Hector C. Haight Norway was a rocky land and the Saints were figuratively speaking hewn out of the rocks. That is why the missionaries had such a hard time. The price to pay for almost every converted soul was fines and imprisonment.[167] In 1858 another mission president, Carl Widerborg, used the same illustration to describe how difficult the work in Norway was. Norway was a rocky land and it was rather hard work to hew the Saints out of the rocks.[168] Hector C. Haight was of the opinion that the difference between Sweden and Norway was that the Norwegian authorities were more humane towards the Mormons never permitting the missionaries to be poorly treated though they were strict in executing the laws.[169] President Carl Widerborg representing the Scandinavian Mission at a special council meeting in Birmingham, England, January 1, 1859, sustained in his report this opinion, pointing out that the civil authorities in Norway had regard for humanity and generally respected a person in his position although the authorities had to implement the law.[170] This coincided with a report in 1865 from Elder Geo. M. Brown to Carl Widerborg informing him of the conditions in Norway. Here he pointed out that although the missionaries were being subject to imprisonment and fines as often was the case, he nevertheless had to acknowledge that the majority of the priests as well as the government officials and police authorities had been very liberal in their treatment of the Mormons, giving them liberty to hold meetings, and even protected them.[171]

To begin with the Mormons gathered in private homes and rented quarters. However, as time progressed the need of getting their own facilities became more urgent. This was particularly true in the larger cities like Christiania, Bergen and Trondheim. Christiania was particularly important since this was the headquarters for the Norwegian Mission. A lot was procured in 1870 and 9 November of the same year work was started to erect a building. This was the first building in the Scandinavian Mission that legally belonged to the LDS Church. Sunday 23 July, 1871 the assembly hall on the third floor was dedicated. Approximately 400 people including 75 from Fredrikstad attended the dedication ceremony in Osterhausgaten 27.[172] After over 30 years of service the building was torn down in 1902 due to poor ground conditions that made it unsafe. A new building was erected in the same place and dedicated 24 July 1903. That this event was considered important can be seen of the long list of attendees such as, Apostles Francis M. Lyman, president of the European Mission, Chr. D. Fjeldsted of the Seventies, Anthon L. Skanchy, president of the Scandinavian Mission,[173] Willard T. Cannon, president of the Netherlands Mission, and Levi Edgar Young, president of the Swiss Mission. In addition, 159 elders and visitors from Zion (America), nearly all the missionaries labouring in the Scandinavian Mission, 18 elders from the German Mission, 16 from the British Mission, 1 from the Netherlands Mission, and 21 visitors from Utah, were present.[174]

The treatment of the Mormon missionaries could vary from place to place. A report from the year 1892 indicate that the Mormons were busy in many parts of the country like Hedemark, Bergen, Trondheim, Langesund, Kragerø, Arendal, Mosby and Fredrikstad. In some places Lutheran priests prevented the Mormons from hiring localities in order to hold meetings. In Christiania Pastor Andreas Mortensen lectured against the Mormons. In a newspaper advertisement the Mormons promised to answer the accusations against them. A meeting was held 30 May 1892 with an overflowing attendance including Pastor Mortensen. When Mortensen was invited to speak he refused to do so. Later on in the same year missionary work was reopened in Aalesund.[175]

In 1895 two Mormon missionaries, Heber C. Christensen and Nephi Anderson embarked upon an eight weeks trip to the northern part of Norway. They hired the Good Templars Hall in Tromsø and a hall in Vadsø where they held meetings that were well attended. During this trip they held 10 meetings, visited 194 families, had 108 so-called gospel conversations, and sold and distributed many books and pamphlets.[176]

In 1896 the Assistant Church Historian Andrew Jenson made a tour of all the Latter-day Saint missions throughout the world in order to gather information for LDS church history. On this tour he visited Christiania and attended a conference there September 12 and 13. Visits as such were of great inspiration to the local members giving them encouragement to continue their work and letting them know that although they were in minority in the society they lived they were not alone, but belonged to a church that was expanding worldwide.[177]

At the turn of the century conditions in Scandinavia had changed considerably compared to the fifty-year time span before the new centennial. This was particularly noticeable by the Mormon missionaries. In earlier days the missionaries could travel almost without “purse or scrip” and as a rule be welcomed into the home of peasants who were happy to entertain travellers who came from far away places. The strangers were treated to meals and lodging, most of the times without request for remuneration. This had now changed in 1901. The Scandinavian people had now been taught by visitors from America and other countries to charge visitors for accommodations offered to them. The missionaries were now treated as regular tourists except when they stayed at the homes of fellow members, friends or investigators. At the beginning of the new century not too many Saints were able to extend hospitality to the missionaries due to the fact that the more well-to-do members had emmigrated to Zion.[178]

Another change that took place at the turn of the century was related to the effectiveness of missionary service. Many of the first missionaries to Norway were native Norwegians who had immigrated to America, but later on returned to the country of their birth on missions for shorter or longer periods of time. They knew the language and the customs of the country and could therefore step right into the work they had come to do. In the new century many of the American missionaries were sons or grandsons of these earlier missionaries and had been born and raised in America. Most of them were unable to speak the languages of Norway, Denmark or Sweden. The first year of their missionary service was therefore often used to study the language of the country. In addition, the missionaries were unacquainted with the customs and habits of the people among whom they had come to work and as such were unable to approach them in an effective way as their ancestors had done. Add to this the fact that the natives did not understand the Mormon missionaries with their American training and methods. The result was that the work in general suffered.[179]

During 1901 Apostle Francis M. Lyman, president of the European Mission, visited Scandinavia. In addition to Denmark and Sweden he attended conferences in Christiania, Bergen and Trondheim.[180]

Anna Gaarden Widtsoe and her sister Petroline (Lina) Gaarden were the first regular Mormon women missionaries to Norway. The two sisters were over fifty years of age when they arrived in the summer of 1903 and were assigned to the Trondheim Conference. Anna was the widow of a recognized educator John A. Widtsoe of Frøya in Sør-Trøndelag. Both her sons John A. Widtsoe and Osborne J. P. Widtsoe became prominent members and leaders of the LDS Church. Anna and her sister worked also in the Christiania and Bergen conferences before being released on October 31, 1907.[181] The two sisters must have made quite an impression wherever they came. They were both mature women who spoke Norwegian fluently and knew the customs of the country in and out. In addition one of them was a widow of a respected educator from Frøya. In their missionary endeavours the two sisters contacted persons of prominence in order to stop anti-Mormon prejudice. Here they found help among some of the friends of Anna’s departed husband of whom some served in the Norwegian Parliament (Storting). Many received them with kindness and courtesy. Some gave material assistance. Professor Kristofer M. Hægstad, a boyhood friend of Anna’s late husband who now was a member of the Parliament,[182] presented a petition to restore the widow’s pension, based upon her husband’s service to the state. Anna had been deprived the pension when she converted to Mormonism. The pension was restored and the sum due for the years it had been unlawfully withheld was paid back.[183]

Anna Gaarden Widtsoe’s first contact with Mormonism took place through a shoemaker where she lived. The shoemaker who was a Mormon used to leave Mormon tracts in the shoes he repaired when they were returned to his customers. Anna became curious in regard to what she read and contacted the shoemaker. First after two years of investigation she was baptized by Anthon L. Skanchy April 1, 1881. Two years later she immigrated to Logan, Utah, with her two sons.[184]

From 1850 to 1905 the Scandinavian Mission consisted of Denmark, Sweden and Norway. In 1905 Sweden became an independent mission. At the time of the division the Scandinavian Mission consisted of 10 conferences and 63 organized branches. Of these 3 conferences and 17 branches were in Denmark, 4 conferences and 28 branches in Sweden, and 3 conferences and 18 branches in Norway. After the withdrawal of Sweden Denmark and Norway formed the Danish-Norwegian Mission that lasted till 1920 when these two countries became independent missions. Thus what had originally started out as the Scandinavian Mission was now called the Danish Mission, the Swedish Mission and the Norwegian Mission.[185]

Visits of leaders from the headquarters in Utah, mission headquarters in Scandinavia and mission headquarters of the European Mission in Great Britain were of great importance and encouragement to the Saints in the Scandinavian countries.[186] In 1910 President Joseph F. Smith, the sixth president of the LDS Church, and the Presiding Bishop Charles W. Nibley with families arrived in Copenhagen July 27 on a visit to Scandinavia. They were accompanied by President Andrew Jenson who served as interpreter and guide. Visits were made to a number of places in Denmark and Norway. Meetings were held in Copenhagen, Christiania and Stockholm. Newspapers in Denmark and Norway covered the events.[187]

In 1912 the Mormons purchased Kong Oskarsgade 44 in Bergen to which the Bergen Conference moved their headquarters. The purchase price was Kr. 50,000.00.[188] This property was later on sold due to opposition on the part of Lutheran clergy in Bergen. New property was purchased at Store Markevei 36. This property was exchanged for another place at Vaskerelvsgade 1.[189] In 1914 property located at Gamle Kongevei in Trondheim was secured and dedicated February 8 the same year.[190]

When the war broke out in 1914 most of the Mormon missionaries from America left for home. Twenty missionaries were left in the Danish-Norwegian Mission of whom Norway with Bergen district got two missionaries and Oslo and Trondheim districts got three each.[191] Without sufficient amount of missionaries from abroad more responsibility fell upon the local Saints who had to take a greater part of the work. A message from Hans J. Christiansen, President of the Scandinavian Mission, was printed in Skandinaviens Stjerne admonishing the Saints to keep calm in these terrible times of war and fear and to continue undisturbed to proclaim the saving news of the gospel until Him who directs the fate of people and who knows everything through his chosen servants in Zion says: It is enough.[192] Even though many of these members had previously taken part in the work and been trained to do so, the responsibility of being left with only a few missionaries was a heavy burden to carry for ordinary members of the church who belonged to a small religious body that had been used to depend upon help and guidance from America. It was therefore important for President Hans J. Christiansen to keep in close touch with the Saints in Denmark and Norway. This was done in 1916 as well as previous years by extensive travelling in these countries, attending conferences, meetings and counselling the workers. No new missionaries arrived from America in 1917 in the Danish-Norwegian Mission. At the close of 1917 the number of missionaries from America were 13 in Denmark and 10 in Norway. During this year 59 baptisms were performed in Denmark and 67 in Norway.[193]

13 July 1917 the Department of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a new law in regard to passport requirements for all foreigners. Also American citizens had to apply for visa via the Central Passport Office in Oslo. The Mormons claimed that some of those who were in charge of issuing visas avoided as much as possible to give residence permit to LDS missionaries. When in addition those who already had been serving as missionaries in the country were released to return home a shortage of full-time missionaries occurred in the mission. To counteract this situation it became necessary to call local missionaries to step in. However, this process took time regarding for instance the economic arrangements that had to be made for the local substitutes. To begin with the supply of missionaries was not sufficient. The leadership of the LDS Church in Salt Lake City tried through diplomatic channels to get the Norwegian authorities to stop their discriminatory ban or handling of Mormon missionaries. Attempts made through Norwegian and American legations to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs seemed to be ignored or delayed. Finally in 1923 after the American legation had contacted the Department of Justice informing the Norwegian authorities that polygamy was abolished and that the LDS members in America were law-abiding citizens like all the others, the difficulties pertaining to application for residence permit ceased.[194]

In the same year (July 1923) three prominent Mormon leaders visited Norway, namely Apostles Reed Smoot, David O. McKay and John A. Widtsoe. Smoot came to visit the relatives on his mother’s side in Fredrikstad. While in Norway he also had an audience with King Haakon at the royal castle in Christiania. David O McKay was president of the European Mission visiting Norway in that capacity. John A. Widtsoe came as a companion to Reed Smoot and to visit his native land, Norway.[195] Reed Smoot’s mother from Onsøy in Østfold converted to Mormonism 21 years old. She experienced persecution because of her conversion and had to leave home. Together with an older brother she left for America in 1855. She got married to the Mormon bishop Abraham O. Smoot in 1856 and got seven children of whom one of them was Apostle and later on Senator Reed Smoot. Reed Smoot became a respected senator from Utah in the US Senate (1903-1933). He threatened to resign his apostleship in the LDS Church if church leaders did not stop performing secret plural marriages after the 1890 manifesto. He also refused to vote for Quorum of Twelve Apostles at general conference October 1905 because of post-1890 polygamy by Matthias F. Cowley, George Teasdale and John W. Taylor, prominent members of the church. He threatened to resign his apostleship if the First Presidency did not publicly punish Matthias F. Cowley and John W. Taylor.[196]

Visits from high-ranking officials in the church such as referred to above were a tremendous encouragement to the Mormon community in Norway. The self-image was further enhanced when in addition one of these men with ancestors in Norway was a senator representing the State of Utah in the US Senate, and who while in Norway had an audience with King Haakon.

Many of the Mormon missionaries who came to Norway were people who had emmigrated to America and then returned home to their native country to engage in missionary work for a period of two or more years. Some of them served several times missions in Norway.[197] This was of great advantage to the Norwegian Mission since these people knew the language and the customs of the country. As years went by the descendants took over and followed in the footsteps of their forefathers.

Mormons were not the first ones to challenge and pose a threat to the civil and ecclesiastical authorities in Norway. Long before the Mormons arrived on the shores of Norway there had been many forerunners. It should be sufficient to mention the Quakers and the Haugean Movement with Hans Nielsen Hauge as examples in that respect.[198] When the Mormons arrived they joined their predecessors and became one more link in the chain challenging the Norwegian society in their fight for religious freedom.[199]

In addition to what has been discussed and referred to in this article other significant events and issues took place during this period, such as the Mormons and the Dissenter Law, how people in general as well as civic and ecclesiastical authorities reacted to this new and strange religion and how the Mormons themselves responded.

A brief statistical overview of the Norwegian Mission for the period 1851-1920[200] reveals the following:

Baptisms            7939 persons

Emmigration        3326 persons

Removed            1304 persons

Deaths            769 persons

Excommunications    1997 persons

Total membership as of 31 December 1920 was 1287.

During this period 1266 missionaries from Zion (America) among which 11 were women missionaries did missionary work in Norway.

The numbers of excommunications (1997) compared to the numbers of baptisms (7939) are somewhat sensational. Those excommunicated constitute one fourth of those having been baptized. This group constitute quite a large number. The exact reason for this is difficult to point out since records pertaining to such matters are difficult to obtain from the LDS Church. However, certain assumptions may suggest the following: Many converts were baptized without first having received proper instruction and as such had not acquired sufficient knowledge of Mormon doctrine. Mormon missionaries were often too eager to get as many converts as possible into the church that resulted in unduly pressure on the ones to be baptized. This method was not conducive in retaining members for the church. Others just fell away by inactivity and non-support of the church as well as not adhering to the rules and regulations of the church. Some were excommunicated on moral grounds. The number of removals is also quite high and may suggest that many became disappointed with this new religion or just lost interest and dropped out.

Was the Mormon missionary work in Norway a success? In order to answer this question one must come to terms with the word success. Does success mean number of converts or does it include other connotations? If success depends upon numbers the verdict appears to be kind of poor.

Considering the strategy the Mormons used and the resources they poured into their missionary endeavours in the form of personnel (missionaries) and money during this approximate 70-year period the results seem rather meagre. From a Mormon viewpoint it may be argued that although there were a number of standards of success that the Mormons in Norway never could measure up to, they nevertheless refused to give up in spite of adversities and persecutions. They remained in the country and continued to proclaim their message.[201]

MORMONISM AND THE THIRD REICH

STEVEN CARTER

The rise of Adolf Hitler and the coming of the Second World War had an enormous effect throughout Europe, particularly Germany. During the fifteen year reign of the National Socialists many throughout the Third Reich experienced harassment and persecution; later they endured the ordeals of war. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormons, living in Germany, like their fellow countrymen, had to adjust to the New Order of Hitler’s Germany. During the 1930s, as the Nazis were consolidating power, Mormons sought to avoid direct conflict with the regime. After 1939, they endeavored to survive the Second World War.

The rise of Hitler and the formulation of LDS policy

Prior to World War I the spread of Mormonism in Germany had been slow. During the 1920s, however, the denomination enjoyed impressive growth throughout the country. In 1930 Mormonism claimed over 12,000 followers in Germany; by 1938 this number had passed 13,000.[202] This represented the largest pocket of Latter-day Saints outside the United States. Because of such success, Mormon leaders in the USA were optimistic about the prospects for Church in Germany well into the 1930s.[203]

By the middle of 1933, the Nazi regime had busied itself consolidating power in Germany including implementing its policies toward the Catholics and Protestants. At this point, the Nazis began to investigate the smaller denominations.[204]

That summer, both mission presidents – is Francis Salzner of the Swiss-German mission and Oliver Budge of the German-Austrian mission – were confronted by Nazi authorities and asked to provide written statements regarding Mormon attitudes toward the Hitler regime.[205] Although leaders in Utah had advised the mission presidents to “get along” with government officials, they did not provide specifics on how to proceed.[206] As a result, Salzner and Budge had the unenviable task of formulating Church policy vis-á-vis the German state. Their near-identical responses to the Nazis became the basis of Mormon policy toward the Third Reich.

The essence of their statements was to affirm the Church’s spiritual mission. They emphasized that, although Mormons considered themselves “apolitical,” the Church taught its followers to be law-abiding citizens and to support the “powers that be” in accordance to the Church’s Twelfth Article of Faith.[207] They stressed the Mormon belief in religious toleration.[208] Furthermore, the mission presidents suggested that the Church’s lay ministry and self-supporting missionary program brought foreign currency into Germany.[209] Finally, they addressed values such as the family that were shared by both parties.[210]

There were three goals Mormons sought to achieve. First, they wanted to “get along” with the Nazi regime and avoid confrontations that could place the Mormon community in peril. Second, they sought to maintain the Church and its “gains” in Germany. Finally, mission leaders hoped to continue spreading the spiritual message of Mormonism through missionary activity.[211] The German mission leaders’ policy was congruent with the prevailing Church accommodation policy toward secular government and the Twelfth Article of Faith established in 1890.

Apparently, the mission presidents’ statements satisfied Nazi authorities. There are no immediate reports of harassment of any kind. Commenting on conditions in Germany, the 21 October 1933 issue of the Salt Lake City Deseret News, Church Section, reported, “The German-Austrian mission has been left almost untouched by the revolution in Germany.”[212]

Harassment of the Mormons

Although Mormons escaped the initial persecution suffered by other denominations, they did not go unnoticed by Nazi authorities. As Hitler tightened his grip, the Gestapo kept vigil on all religious groups,[213] including the Mormons. On the national level, before 1936, Mormons experienced only minimal pressure from the regime. On occasion, Gestapo agents monitored LDS worship services,[214] interrogated branch and district presidents, or confiscated branch records.[215] Some requested lists of branch members accompanied by their political party affiliation.[216] In their effort to “get along,” LDS leaders complied with these demands.[217]

A real concern for branch presidents, though, was that a member might say something that agents would consider subversive. Local leaders and American missionaries cautioned their congregations about such dangers and reminded them to follow the Twelfth Article of Faith.[218] Because of these measures, the Gestapo was unable to detect anything “subversive” about Latter-day Saint meetings. [219]

As part of Hitler’s program to control the German youth organizations,[220] Nazi authorities in March 1934 notified Mormon officials to incorporate the LDS Scouting program[221] into the Hitler Youth or to disband. For weeks, Mormon youth leaders corresponded with government officials pleading their case for maintaining the program.[222] Throughout the correspondence, Mormon Scouts continued to function and carry out their activities.[223] Finally, under duress, and desiring to “remain in harmony with” the Nazi regime, the Mormons acquiesced and dissolved its Scouting program on 30 April 1934.[224]

The dissolution of the Scouting program sheds light on Mormon policy toward the Nazi regime. By abandoning the Scouts, the Mormons indicated their willingness to oblige the Nazis. Still, they haggled with the regime and then dissolved their troops rather than incorporate them into the Hitler Youth. The Mormons chose to accept their fate,[225] but in such a way as to avoid direct Party control over their youth.

There were additional cases where Mormons were affected by the general prohibitions placed on all religions by the Nazi regime. For example, in 1934, the National Socialists restricted the use of Hebrew words such as “Israel”, “Sabbath”, “Zion” – words common in Mormonism.[226] In keeping with the spirit of accommodation, Mormons throughout Germany complied with this decree.[227] Government officials also banned the book, The Articles of Faith by James E. Talmage, because of its references to “Zion” and “Israel”[228] and tracts, including “Göttliche Vollmacht (Divine Authority)” which, Party activists claimed, constituted an affront to their own power.[229]

Nazi officials were also concerned that foreign-based religions might drain the Reich of much-needed currency.[230] This concern led German authorities to monitor Mormon financial activities. In October 1934, as part of Hjalmar Schacht’s new economic plan to control foreign exchange,[231] the government withdrew from the missionaries the privilege of purchasing valuable “Registered Marks.”[232] Although Mormons were not the primary target of this plan, German officials charged that the missionaries were not paying their own way. Schacht’s policy forced the missions to curtail their activities.[233] In response, the mission presidents[234] in Europe and the First Presidency in Utah worked through the U.S. State Department to resolve this crisis. In March, 1936, the regime finally let up and restored to the missionaries the privilege of remitting Registered Marks.[235]

The illusion of ”good relations”

Between 1934 and 1936, most religious denominations suffered increased persecution at the hands of the Nazis. Both Catholic and Protestant clergymen encountered Nazi harassment and imprisonment. The Nazis also proceeded viciously against the smaller denominations. By contrast, harassment of the Mormons suddenly subsided in mid-1934 as noted by both Mormon and American government officials. In July, Francis Salzner, was questioned about Mormon views of the regime to which he reaffirmed the LDS accommodation policy and positive attitudes toward secular government. After the meeting, a surprised Salzner reported that the Gestapo agent confided to him that the Mormons had nothing to fear from the Nazis.[236] On 31 July, Utah Senator Elbert Thomas met with American Ambassador William Dodd in Berlin to discuss issues relating to Mormon missionaries in Germany. After the meeting, Dodd noted in his diary, “There are a number of Mormons in Germany and Hitler has not dissolved their organizations or expelled their active preachers. There are other than religious aspects to Hitler’s let-up on the Mormons.”[237]

Some historians have suggested a collaborationist relationship between Mormons and the Nazis based on a conjunction of worldviews including similar beliefs, doctrines and practices; a view Mormons tried to convey to Nazi officials in order to escape persecution.[238]

Historian Douglas Tobler counters this thesis by arguing it was actually a disjunction of worldviews which formed the “foundation of the Nazi-Mormon relationship.” According to Tobler, although there was some agreement of peripheral principles, the Nazis were concerned with gaining a “monopoly of power” and considered sectarian theology nonsense. On the other hand, Mormons were interested in their spiritual mission, not political power.[239] Mission documents bolster this argument. In 1935, for example, mission records indicate “that the German attitude toward the [Mormon] Church, or any church, was that the churches were for the “soul saving’ part of life only, and that the state should develop the youth, and that the churches should not interfere in state affairs.”[240]

The Nazis, in other words, found little in Mormonism they considered subversive. The regime seems to have regarded Mormons as “apolitical” and patriotic citizens. They may also have accepted some Mormon beliefs and practices as compatible with their own values. Tobler maintains that “presumably, the Nazis found no specific doctrines like rejection of military service, occultism or total reliance upon God’s power in healing the sick” that would cause them concern.[241] Hitler’s regime was thus willing to tolerate Mormons while it continued to consolidate power.

Official tolerance of the Mormons, however, turned out to be a mirage. Douglas Tobler and Alan Keele have described this two-year illusion of harmonious relations as a “fool’s paradise.”[242] Mormons continued their policy of accommodation with the Nazis, though the regime appears to have paid little attention to them except within the context of an overall policy on religion.[243] Each side was willing to ignore the other as long as it was left alone. As Tobler and Keele assert, “[b]eing largely oblivious to the thrust of the numerous major events and policy changes going on at the time, Mormons tended to evaluate their circumstances largely in isolation on the basis of their personal well-being and the condition of the Church.”[244] Nevertheless, both sides took advantage of opportunities presented by the other to advance their goals.

Doctrinal parallels and compatibility

That said, it cannot be denied that Mormons and Nazis did by coincidence rather than design share some common doctrinal ground, and both were aware of the similarities. [245] And it was these parallels that reinforced illusions held by German Mormons.[246]

Among views shared by the two parties were an emphasis on genealogical research, the family, and the importance of health. Many Mormons also viewed several Nazi programs as resembling their own such as one of Hitler’s program known as Eintopf Sonntag or “stew Sundays,” in which participants fixed a modest meal and donated what they saved to the Nazi welfare program; a practice similar to the traditional Mormon “Fast Sunday.”

Although superficially similar, the goals and objectives of the Mormons and Nazis were quite different.[247] Mormon programs reflected the faith’s spiritual mission, while those of the Nazis represented their obsession for political and racial domination. Even so, common attitudes made Nazism more palatable to Mormons and Mormonism less suspect to Hitler’s minions.[248]

Contacts with the government

On 1 August 1934, Roy Welker became president of the German-Austrian mission; his tenure as mission president contributed to the illusion of “good feelings.” Before leaving, Welker met with President Heber J. Grant to discuss the German situation. Grant verbally instructed Welker to “meet the situation as it was,” and to “exercise [his] own wisdom.”[249] These vague directions left Welker on his own to deal with the Nazis.[250] Throughout his presidency, Welker continued the accommodation policy by complying with Nazi requests and investigations[251] which he asserted was the “best policy.”[252]

Welker also sought contacts with government officials. In 1936, he sent copies of Mormon scriptures to government officials including Hitler.[253] Furthermore, Welker met a low-ranking official from the Ministry of Religion who assured the mission president that the Mormons were in no danger.[254] Welker’s wife, Elizabeth, also cultivated ties with the regime by occasionally meeting and establishing a working friendship with Gertrude Scholtz-Klink, head of the Nazi women’s auxiliary, the NS Frauenschaft.[255]

Although the Welkers believed that their efforts improved the status of the Mormon Church in Germany, there is little evidence to bolster their claims. As Tobler concludes, “Welker apparently was convinced that “…Hitler was very much impressed with the Mormons,’ a statement lacking support from other evidence.”[256]

Harassment of LDS at the local level

While governmental pressure on the Latter-day Saints at the national level subsided during 1934, at the local level harassment became quite intense.[257] In their 1933 year-end reports to Salt Lake City, both Salzner and Budge wrote that the Reich government had interfered little with the activities of the Church.[258] But Budge also indicated that zealous party members had harassed both the members and the missionaries; a point alluded to by Salzner.[259] Mission records from 1933 on indicate that local Nazi officials, aided by Catholic and Protestant clergymen, led the attacks.[260]

In many localities the police limited missionary proselyting activities such as prohibiting going door to door or banning “cottage meetings.”[261] Occasionally, police arrested missionaries and searched their apartments for subversive items. Throughout Germany, party officials banned missionaries from their cities. In extreme cases, local brown shirts used physical violence against the missionaries.[262]

Local authorities also interrogated local members, confiscated branch records, and disrupted worship services.[263] Usually, members met with the police, explained Mormon activities and the quoted the Twelfth Article of Faith. Most of the time they convinced party officials that their “intentions were in harmony with those of the government” and not subversive.[264] In extreme cases based on “political suspicion,” police closed the meeting halls[265] used by Mormons forcing the closure of several branches. [266]

Local harassment of Mormons varied from place to place, and from official to official. In Karlsruhe, Mormons were treated well.[267] On the other hand, branches in Breslau, Dresden and Hamburg suffered intense harassment. In 1935, missionaries were banned in Saxony.[268] This pattern of uneven treatment suggests that local Nazi leaders, not the Reich government, determined policy regarding Mormons.

The 1936 Berlin Olympics

By mid-1935, mission documents state “tracting averages for the missionaries have reached a low point. Plans are being worked out to find a way in which this important missionary activity, in spite of police restrictions, can be increased.”[269] Missionaries in both missions turned to unusual and unorthodox methods to contact potential converts. In particular, American missionaries turned to basketball,[270] which President Welker endorsed.[271]

It is impossible to determine the impact of “basketball proselyting” although some missionaries did develop a good rapport with the local officials at a time of intense local harassment.[272] One unexpected outcome, however, occurred in 1935 when the German army recruited a handful of missionaries to teach basketball to the soldiers.[273] Later, officials asked several missionaries to train the German Olympic basketball team and help officiate during the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games.[274] Mormons saw this representing recognition by national leaders and as a way to improve the religion’s status in Germany. The Nazis believed that Mormon missionaries could help them in their propaganda effort by achieving a victory for the German basketball team.[275] In the end, however, the German Olympic basketball team exited the tournament early. And although Mormons were involved in such a high profile event, there is no evidence the Olympics raised their profile or respectability.[276]

The Olympics, however, did benefit Mormons indirectly as the Hitler dictatorship put forth its best appearance and temporarily relaxed its attacks on religion.[277] Under these conditions, Mormons held their largest youth conference before World War II in Berlin, and missionaries found it easier to proselytize at this time. Mission records from October, 1936, noted “[t]racting and visiting totals continue to show increased activity on the part of the missionaries.”[278]

Renewed harassment

The Olympics represented the climax of a two-year period of seemingly cordial relations between Mormons and the regime. Shortly after the Olympics, the Nazis renewed their assault on the Christian churches including the Mormons.[279]

In Hamburg, Nazis accused district president, Alwin Brey, of spying for the United States.[280] For months, authorities monitored LDS congregations and missionaries, censored their correspondence, and confiscated records and publications. Moreover, officials informed Brey “[I]f the Church wished to remain in [Hamburg] they must cease all youth activities and gathering.” Brey complied and canceled a proposed “Youth Day.” The impact upon the LDS community in Hamburg was chilling. Church reports noted, “[a] decided tension between the government’s attitude in this district was everywhere apparent.”[281] Similar harassment and “investigations” occurred throughout the Reich.[282]

Many missionaries felt the sting of Nazi persecution. In addition to the usual harassment, a number of missionaries were arrested for espionage and incarcerated for several days.[283] There were also incidents of anti-Mormons who denounced the missionaries as representatives of a banned sect. The missionaries would have to prove, through interrogations, that this was not the case.[284]

A concern among Mormon leaders was that young callow missionaries might do something to endanger the Church,[285] and during the late 1930s there were two incidents in which missionaries did offend Nazi sensibilities. In 1937, Alvin Schoenhals was arrested after the Nazis intercepted a letter he wrote criticizing the regime. After a month in jail, Schoenhals was deported. [286] Later, a set of missionaries had to flee to Switzerland after the Gestapo discovered a photo of the two with a party flag wrapped around themselves like a breech cloth.[287]

Such incidents, no doubt, contributed to the Nazis’ growing suspicion of the Mormons. A 1935 Gestapo report on “subversive activities” of religious organizations omitted mention of the Latter-day Saints.[288] Three years later, the Security Service (SD) labeled Mormons “enemies of the state.”[289] By late 1937 and early 1938, however, as Hitler was preparing for war and needed national support, the church struggle subsided.[290] This, in part, prevented the Nazis from attacking the Mormons more vigorously. At the same time, not wanting to antagonize the United States unnecessarily, especially while high LDS dignitaries from Utah, including J. Reuben Clark and Heber J. Grant, were touring Germany, the Hitler regime “did not look at [the Mormons] as a very serious problem.”[291]

The Mormons and the German media

One of the more controversial events concerning the Mormons and the regime centered on the media. Ever since the founding of Mormonism, Latter-day Saints faced unflattering accounts in the press at home and abroad. During the Nazi era, however, they experienced both positive and negative media coverage.[292]

Mormons, too, appreciated the media and utilized it in Europe to spread their message[293] and rebut false accounts of Mormonism in local newspapers.[294] It was this activity that led to the appearance of a controversial article in the Völkischer Beobachter in the spring of 1939.

In November, 1938, the Nazis unleashed Kristallnacht, their most brutal attack on the Jews up to that time. In response to American criticism the Völkischer Beobachter published an article entitled, “The State within a State: An American Parallel to the Jewish Question in Germany.”[295] The article, addressed to “fair-minded Americans” compared Nazi treatment of the Jews to the official handling of the “Mormon question” in Missouri and Illinois during the nineteenth century. Both Mormons and the Jews, the writer claimed, were enemies of mankind.[296]

The article outraged Alfred Rees who was president of the newly formed East German mission.[297] Rees, who believed that his purpose was to work with government officials, had been making contacts with Nazi organizations since he arrived in Berlin in 1937 including “a certain influential agency,” most likely the Propaganda Ministry.[298] He, in fact, believed that he had struck a “secret deal” with the Ministry in which the press would refrain from publishing unfavorable articles about the Latter-day Saints.[299] In return, Rees agreed to write “positive” articles about Germany for the American press.[300] Although Rees was convinced that he had bested the Propaganda Ministry, he did not realize that Goebbel’s Ministry had been making similar quid pro quo agreements with other denominations.[301] Furthermore, on 19 April 1939 Rees published an article on Mormonism in the Völkischer Beobachter.

Rees, in his article entitled, “In the Land of the Mormons,” favorably compared Mormonism and Nazism and emphasized doctrinal similarities. He also suggested that common experience gave Mormonism a unique understanding of the “new Germany,” and its grievances. Rees asserted “to a student of Mormonism, recent developments in Germany present a most impressive study.” He mentioned J. Reuben Clark, no doubt, reminding the Nazis of Clark’s efforts to relieve the financial situation in Germany as president of the Foreign Bondholders’ Association. Rees concluded that Mormons exhibited the “application of the German ideal: Community welfare before personal welfare,” an allusion to Point 24 of the Nazi Party program of putting “common interests before self-interest.”[302]

Rees believed that the article would help the Mormon cause and even had it published in pamphlet form for missionary use.[303] Douglas Wood of the West German mission, however, opposed the article and objected to Rees’ “friendly relationship” with the Nazis.[304] Wood refused to distribute the tract in his arguing that it linked Mormonism too closely to National Socialism.[305] Ultimately, it was Nazis who restricted distribution of the tract because the swastika on the front cover implied Party sanction of an American denomination.[306]

While Rees intended to spread the Mormon message and to provide safety for German Mormons[307] he underestimated the ruthlessness of the Nazis and overestimated his ability to deal with them.[308] Rees, rather than help the Mormon cause with the publication of his article, unwittingly tied his religion to the pagan cult of National Socialism.

Evacuation of the missionaries

After the German annexation of Austria in 1938, the diplomatic situation in Europe began to deteriorate precipitously. That summer, J. Reuben Clark, visiting Berlin, met with several European mission presidents[309] and began drafting contingency plans to evacuate missionaries from Germany in the event of war. Commenting on the irony, Douglas Wood, who had just begun his tenure as West German mission president, stated, “We were just going to our assignment and we were all pepped-up to get excited about starting our mission and here we were trying to find ways to get out.”[310]

By the end of the summer, war seemed probable as Hitler demanded the annexation of the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. On 13 September, Clark, who had returned to the United States and had been following the Sudeten crisis, telegraphed Rees and ordered the evacuation of the American missionaries to neutral countries – Denmark, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.[311] The next day, American missionaries in both German missions departed turning over Church leadership entirely to native Germans.[312] Presidents Rees and Wood even appointed “acting mission presidents” to oversee the missions in their absence.[313] For the first time since the Great War, there was no American leadership among the Mormons in Germany.

On 30 September, the Munich Accord resolved the Sudeten conflict and within two weeks, the American Mormons returned. Much to their surprise, problems had developed within the German Church. Mission records state that “many details had to be straightened out.”[314] Mission officials found that several newly appointed branch presidents took tithing donations as “payment” for services rendered. They also discovered cases where individuals not ordained to the Mormon priesthood performed “priesthood functions.”[315] Concerned about the prospects of war and another evacuation, American ecclesiastical officials spent the next ten months preparing lessons and manuals, and preparing native Germans to take over leadership duties.[316]

By 1939, fear and foreboding resurfaced as Hitler threatened Poland. As the war clouds grew, German Mormons, American missionaries and various leaders felt a sense of urgency in their work. Although missionaries redoubled their proselyting efforts[317] their message fell on deaf ears as national issues overwhelmed what they had to say. As interest in the Mormon message fell, mission leaders accelerated efforts to assemble lesson and training manuals for German Mormons to take control of Church affairs.[318] In the late spring, the West German mission held a mission-wide conference in Frankfurt am Main to strengthen the flock.[319] At the conference there was a feeling of foreboding and concern about the future.[320]

In Salt Lake City, J. Reuben Clark intensely monitored events in Europe.[321] On 21 July, at Clark’s suggestion, the First Presidency suspended sending missionaries to Germany for fear that if war did break out the Nazis might inter the missionaries in concentration camps.[322] Furthermore, they dispatched Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith to Europe to assess the situation firsthand.[323] As tensions between Germany and Poland intensified during August, many German Mormons expected another withdrawal of the American missionaries. The missionary force itself felt unsure of its future status in the Reich. Richard Poll described the situation:

The people here are doing their best to give us missionaries that old “powder keg’ feeling. It was sorta funny, going to Relief Society Thursday & having the sisters register surprise that we hadn’t left the country already. Something is certainly in the     air. By the time you receive this, though, the Danzig situation should be settled; so don’t worry. My hunch is that Poland will back down, and that I’ll be here for a long siege yet. If not – I’d kinda hate to finish my mission in Ardmore, Oklahoma, but worse things could happen. [324]

The answer came on 24 August 1939 when the First Presidency, having consulted with the State Department and fearing the safety of the American missionaries, ordered another evacuation.[325] Clark sent instructions for the missionaries to “proceed to neutral countries to await return to [the] United States.”[326] The order came as mobilization of the German armed forces was in full swing. Those in the East German mission successfully fled to Denmark without incident. The West German mission contingent, however, faced greater difficulties.[327] Despite official assurances to President Wood from The Hague, the Dutch government soon closed its borders with Germany, stranding many American missionaries on the German side. After enduring many difficulties, including insufficient funds and problems securing transportation on non-military trains, the last of the American missionaries from the West German mission entered Denmark early on 29 August.[328] Upon their arrival in neutral countries, Church leaders instructed the missionaries “not to discuss their experiences in order to protect missionaries and members in other countries” who had not been evacuated.[329]

On 1 September 1939, Hitler invaded Poland, triggering the Second World War. During the next two months, the Mormon Church evacuated its American missionaries and personnel from continental Europe. After many years of American guidance it was up to the Germans Mormons to hold the denomination together in Hitler’s Reich.

The new LDS leadership in the Reich

The evacuation of American missionaries in August 1939 necessitated entrusting Church leadership to native Germans. Since World War I, American mission leaders had been turning more leadership responsibility over to native Germans, and while many larger branches and some districts were led by locals, as late as 1938, a number of congregations still relied on the American missionaries.[330] The 1938 evacuation had reinforced in the minds of Church leaders the urgency of preparing Germans for leadership positions.[331] In both German missions,[332] LDS leaders identified the most devout and capable individuals to assume leadership duties in the event of war.[333]

During the 1939 evacuation, branch, district and even mission presidencies were turned over to the locals. In the West German mission, Friedrich Biehl was chosen as “acting mission president” while Herbert Klopfer was appointed to preside over the East German mission.[334]

Most of the newly appointed leaders took their positions seriously. Commenting on the leadership change in a conference address in 1940, European mission president, Thomas E. McKay, reassured the Church that the German Mormons were in capable hands.[335] Although the new German church leaders were devoted to their duties, many lacked experience in ecclesiastical administrative matters.[336] Even McKay, who had publicly praised them, had his reservations. Shortly after the outbreak of hostilities, while still in Europe, McKay sent a circular letter to the German branches encouraging the leaders and individuals to follow the prescribed program of the Church.[337] After contact with the mother Church in the United States was lost completely in 1941, these leaders were left alone to guide the denomination through the Second World War.

”Normalcy”

The first priority of these new LDS officials was to ensure the continued function of the Church. From 1939 until 1941, worship meetings and conferences were held regularly; and as with most other denominations,[338] Mormon congregations reported increased attendance.[339] Mormons also observed special religious commemorations such as the 110th anniversary of the founding of their faith.[340] By utilizing a handful of “local missionaries,”[341] German Mormons carried out successful proselyting activities during the war as well.[342] During the first eight months of 1940, fifty-five individuals converted to Mormonism in the East German mission.[343] Throughout the war, there were on average sixty conversions per year in that mission alone.[344] Encouraged by their successes, ecclesiastical leaders in Germany sent enthusiastic reports to Salt Lake City – reports that pleased and reassured the Mormon hierarchy.[345]

However, German Mormons soon faced the realities of the war. When hostilities broke out, many Latter-day Saints were called to arms. By the spring of 1940, over six hundred Mormons were in uniform; seven had already died for the fatherland.[346] These numbers continued to climb throughout the war, and the results were immediately obvious. Friedrich Biehl presided over the West German mission until early 1940 when he was drafted. Christian Heck succeeded Biehl until he too left to serve in the Wehrmacht. Both Biehl and Heck eventually lost their lives on the Eastern Front.[347] From 1942 on, pro-Nazi Anton Huck led the West German mission. Conditions were similar in the East German mission. Herbert Klopfer entered military service soon after the outbreak of hostilities. During the first couple of years of the war, Klopfer’s military assignment kept him close to Berlin where he conducted mission affairs both through his wife and through his counselors, Richard Ranglack and Paul Langheinrich, via correspondence and telephone.[348] However, in 1943, Klopfer was transferred away from Berlin and eventually died on the Eastern front in the closing weeks of the war.[349] The loss of leadership at all levels severely disrupted the Mormon community, and resulted in the elevation of individuals with relatively little experience in Mormon administration to positions of great responsibility.

Attitudes of German Mormons

Although most German Mormons were apolitical, when war broke out in 1939 they served in the Wehrmacht because they believed it was their religious duty to defend their homeland.[350] They also believed that it was their responsibility to support their government as enjoined by the Twelfth Article of Faith. Like most Germans, the LDS community was not enthusiastic about the conflict. Nevertheless, as Douglas Tobler and Alan Keele state, German Mormons “in their continued naivete and accommodating mindset” supported “a patriotic effort.”[351] Mormons, such as Erna and Herbert Klopfer and Johanna Berger of the East German mission office, expressed their patriotism in letters to Church headquarters in America in which they related how LDS men were loyally and religiously serving the country and their belief that God was on their side.[352]

There were some, however, who went beyond national loyalty and became actively involved in Nazi politics. In the West German mission, individuals in leadership positions, including members of the mission presidency, expressed sympathy for National Socialism or became Party members.[353] As one Mormon wrote after the war,

some of the presiding brethren […] were 100 percent Nazis and tried to preach national socialism instead of the Gospel of Jesus Christ […] The Saints were asked to pray for the “Fuerher” [sic] in their meetings and in their homes and regard him as a divinely called man, who had to prepare the world for the United Order. A lot of foolish things must have been said by these brethren and the people did not always know where the Church stood in this matter. Many were under the impression that we as a Church were in favor of Nazism. Attempts were made to harmonize Hitlerism with Church doctrines, even to prove that the Nazi party was organized after the pattern of our Church.[354]

Although most Mormons professed national loyalty and support for Hitler’s war, a small group had second thoughts and believed that the war was futile.[355] Alfred Schultz remarked in his journal:

[I]n June we were told that we were in war with Russia. This made me very sad, causing a certain foreboding and anguish which cannot be described. Although our troops advance speedily, I cannot be very enthused about the victories […] The Destroying Angels had been sent out and none can hold back. We are longing for peace and are praying that it will come soon, for the war has lasted too long already and the people are getting tired of it. Many casualties on both sides.[356]

Klaus J. Hansen recalls his father’s attitude about the war:

[i]t came as a profound shock when my father, home on furlough from the military […] (in 1944), gathered us together, closed the door, and launched into a frank     discussion on the fate of Germany.

The war was lost, he said, or in any case had better be, for it was an unjust war, and had been so from the beginning.[357]

Others understood the evil nature of Nazism and the negative consequences a German victory would have on religion in general and Mormonism in particular. As Tobler and Keele write, “[Mormons] began to see through the pervasive Nazi propaganda. Rosa Böhringer, Johnannes Kindt, Walter Krause and President Willy Deters of Bremen were among the Saints who either overtly opposed the regime or else dragged their feet while praying for German defeat in the war and the regime’s early demise.”[358] Some Latter-day Saints became outspoken in their criticism of the regime.

The Helmuth Hübener group

One of the most significant events experienced by the Latter-day Saints in the Third Reich was both tragic and controversial. This was the case of the Helmuth Hübener group.[359]

In 1941, Helmuth Hübener, an intelligent sixteen-year-old from the Hamburg-St. Georg branch, began listening to BBC broadcasts on shortwave radio.[360] Convinced that the British propaganda was accurate,[361] Hübener and two friends from his branch, Karl-Heinz Schnibbe and Rudi Wobbe organized a resistance group.[362] All three teens had been turned off by Nazi anti-Semitism and brutality.[363] Moreover, they were concerned about the growing influence of the National Socialists in their own branch as the branch president, Arthur Zander, and his first counselor were both members of the Nazi Party.[364] Helmuth, using a branch typewriter and mimeograph machine,[365] composed a series of leaflets which he and his comrades disseminated around Hamburg.

Hübener and his friends eluded the Gestapo for several months. However, when he tried to expand his resistance activities, Helmuth was denounced by a co-worker and was arrested on 5 February 1942. Soon thereafter, Schnibbe and Wobbe were apprehended as well. Immediately, Zander excommunicated Hübener from the Church for being a traitor who had violated Mormon doctrine enshrined in the Twelfth Article of Faith. Mission records indicate that Hübener was expelled for “listening and spreading news of foreign broadcasts.”[366] Zander also claimed that Hübener had jeopardized the Hamburg Mormon community. Therefore, the Nazi branch president resorted to excommunication to demonstrate his loyalty to the Party as well as to distance himself, his congregation and the whole LDS community from Hübener’s actions. After the war, Hübener’s membership was formally reinstated by the First Presidency of the Church.[367]

In August 1942, the Hübener group went on trial before the infamous Volksgerichtshof (People’s Court) in Berlin. The court sentenced Wobbe to ten years and Schnibbe to five years in prison.[368] The judges were not as lenient with Hübener. They sentenced him to death for listening to enemy broadcasts.[369] On 27 October 1942, Helmuth Hübener was beheaded at the Plötzensee prison in Berlin.

The Gestapo, suspicious of Church complicity and adult involvement in the Hübener affair, launched a thorough investigation of the LDS community in Hamburg as well as mission headquarters in Frankfurt. The secret police interrogated several prominent Hamburg Mormons including district president Otto Berndt but concluded that Hübener had acted on his own.[370] Had the authorities discovered anything incriminating that linked Berndt to the Hübener group, it no doubt would have led to full-scale persecution of Mormons in Hamburg, and perhaps throughout Germany.[371]

Nazi policy at the time of Hübener’s arrest was to defer religious persecution until after the war. Prosecutors during Hübener’s trial made little mention of the trio’s religious affiliation,[372] except to state that the accused were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[373] The lack of attention paid to Hübener’s religion did not go unnoticed by officers of the Hitler Youth who suggested that the People’s Court look into possible connections between the Church and Hübener’s crimes.[374] Obviously, inspectors could have investigated further, but instead seemed content to let the issue rest for the time being.

A more significant indicator of the regime’s policy on religion and its connection with the Hübener case occurred during the Gestapo interrogation of Otto Berndt. When finally released, Berndt was warned that after the war and the elimination of the Jews, the Mormons were to be done away with.[375] Similar threats were made to other religious leaders at the time including Bishop Galen of Münster.[376] Officials were willing to ignore the question of religion until after the war.

The Hübener case presented a conundrum for the Mormon Church and its accommodation policy with secular governments.[377] Many German Mormons at the time of his arrest believed that Hübener was a “heretic” because “he had violated the Twelfth Article of Faith.”[378] To conclude otherwise would have raised troubling questions regarding the accommodation policy and trying to co-exist and maintain amicable relations with the Nazi regime as emphasized by American leaders before the war. Did the German Mormons compromise? Had other Latter-day Saints emulated Hübener and defied the regime, would they have jeopardized the whole LDS community? Otto Berndt confided to Schnibbe later that had he known what Hübener was doing, he would have joined the group.[379] However, Berndt understood the dilemma German Mormons faced. When a 1969 article praising Hübener appeared in The Improvement Era, (one of the rare times Mormon literature even mentioned Hübener),[380] Berndt, responded in a scathing editorial letter:

That which Brother Huebener [sic] […] did […] was very commendable, but it was not inspired by the Church. As I recall, the Church, represented by the missionaries and the mission presidents, which are the voices of the First Presidency, has taught us to be subject to the laws of the land. If you try to make a hero out of Helmuth Huebener, how do you classify those who did follow the laws of the land? Are they cowards?[381]

War conditions and Mormonism after 1941

The years 1942 to 1945 brought unimaginable hardships to Germans as civilians were killed and cities destroyed by Allied bombing while more and more men were sent to the fronts. This period, in particular, was the most challenging faced by Mormons during the entire Third Reich.

Soon after the outbreak of hostilities, Allied air forces began bombing German cities, bringing the war to the civilian population. By 1945, over 600,000 civilians had been killed, millions left homeless, Mormons included. Most LDS congregations lost members in air raids. Paul Müller of Karlsruhe died in an air raid shelter in 1940, while Heinrich and Maria Dröscher and Margaretha Meier of Bielefeld perished during a bombing.[382] After the intense bombing of Hamburg in 1943, the St. Georg branch reported twenty-eight congregational members had died and 90 percent of the branch had lost their homes.[383] The story was repeated across Germany.[384] By 1945, 85 percent of Mormons were homeless[385] forcing many to find alternative quarters or leave the cities altogether, dispersing the LDS community throughout the Reich.[386] The bombings also destroyed many Mormon meeting halls,[387] as well as the East German mission office.[388]

It was not uncommon for air raids to disrupt worship services. In 1941, for example, the Bremen district was unable to hold conference because air attacks were “constantly keeping the population of the city of Bremen in tension.”[389] This was not the last time Bremen was unable to hold conferences due to the bombings.[390] Many branches experienced similar disruptions. In 1942, air raids interrupted Sunday services in the Wilhelmshaven branch twice in one day.[391] In most branches, “[i]t became customary during every meeting for a member of each branch presidency to listen to the radio for information on coming air raids.”[392]

A critical issue faced by most churches in the Reich was the conscription of clergymen into the armed forces.[393] As noted, many LDS leaders were called to arms which nearly paralyzed the Church. In December 1941, one district president complained that it was difficult to hold conferences because “there were only a few who could work, for many had been called into the military service.”[394] However, in 1943 the army High Command ceased inducting Protestant “officiating clergymen.” Such protections were extended to other denominations including the Mormons.[395]

With the men being drafted, the mounting civilian deaths and the evacuation of women and children from the cities[396] attendance at Mormon worship services fell.[397] By 1944, most branches consisted of “children, young mothers, and older couples. Nearly all of the young and middle-aged men of the branch who had not been killed in the war remained in the German army or in POW camps.”[398] Due to the circumstances, some branches functioned on a limited basis or altered their meeting schedules. For example, the Bielefeld branch held only one meeting on Sundays at 4:00 pm to allow people to return to their homes before air raids began.[399] It was not uncommon for several congregations to combine either.[400] After the bombing of Dresden in 1945 and the destruction of the Altstadt branch facilities, the displaced congregation met with the Neustadt branch.[401] A more common practice was for branch presidents to conduct meetings with the few members still remaining in individuals’ homes.[402] In other areas, Mormon leaders simply dissolved congregations, some of which had been large such as Stettin, Breslau and Königsberg, because there was no one left in the branch.[403] One branch president summed up the situation in 1943:

The conditions in the branches are becoming increasingly more difficult. The lack of     food is more and more noticeable. The constant air-raids make the people nervous and irritable. There are only the real faithful Saints coming to the meetings now. However,     these are in sufficient numbers to carry on the work.[404]

During the war, both Protestants and Catholics began efforts to aid their needy countrymen[405] and Mormons followed suit. In 1943, the Relief Society, organized an assistance program (Hilfswerk) in which Latter-day Saints donated clothing, food and furniture for those in need and stored them in five warehouses throughout Germany.[406] Branches and districts also set up local relief programs.[407] Although most of these warehouses were bombed or captured by invading armies, they nevertheless provided for the needs of destitute Mormons during the war and served as the foundation for post-war relief measures.[408]

Throughout the war, Mormons patriotically served in the Wehrmacht. Their experience in the military varied greatly. Herbert Klopfer, stationed outside of Berlin, held a clerical position in his military unit until 1943, which enabled him to conduct mission affairs out of his office. Although Klopfer enjoyed this privilege,[409] it was an isolated case and he was often monitored and questioned by the Gestapo about his religious beliefs and activities.[410] Most Mormons in the Wehrmacht reported general ridicule endured by young religious people; others faced outright harassment.[411] John Dahl was denied promotion after revealing that he had been a Mormon missionary because his commanders feared that with his ties to an American religion, he could be a spy.[412] It should also be noted that there were those who received regular promotions and honors throughout the war.[413] This indicates that in the military unit officers rather than the Wehrmacht itself determined the degree of harassment.

On the home front, Mormons also faced harassment because of their ties to an “American” religion. Once, during an air raid, an LDS woman was accused by her neighbors of having allowed missionaries to spy before the war and who now were bombing them.[414] Such remarks, though, were made by those who themselves were under great stress. In other cases the harassment on the home front was real. One historian observes that “[a] few German saints were released from their Church assignments at this time because of the pressure applied by the Nazi party, which threatened to take their jobs from them if they continued to officiate in the Church.”[415] Alfred Schulz, for example, revealed that his son was unable to obtain a teaching position because of his Mormon membership, indicating the capricious nature of the local officials.[416]

The spiritual dimensions

Throughout the war years, Mormon leaders had the daunting task of maintaining the integrity of their doctrines and practices. Some inexperienced Church officials, isolated from the United States, initiated unauthorized rituals and procedures in worship services, but these changes were not significant. On the other hand, they made few, if any, doctrinal changes.[417] One should not assume that the Church remained completely insulated from the political atmosphere of the Reich. Some branches, such as Strasbourg, struggled to resist Nazi influence,[418] while others, like the St. Georg, were presided over by Party members who tried to preach National Socialist ideology to their congregations.

The war itself raised questions in the minds of German Mormons about the morality of combat. Although Mormon doctrine condemns warfare except in self-defense and as a last resort, Latter-day Saints are not pacifists.[419] There were individuals within the Latter-day Saint community, such as Erich Kramer, commandant of the General Pape Street jail, who saw no contradictions between theology and armed conflict.[420] On the other hand, numerous Mormons struggled with a moral dilemma. Many Mormons served in Hitler’s armies because they had been taught to support the “powers that be.”[421] Others realized that to object to military service would endanger the whole LDS community.[422] While serving under arms, many Mormons endeavored to avoid immoral deeds. One LDS mother counseled her son to refuse any order that would require him to commit a “grievous sin” even at the cost of his life.[423] Apparently such concerns were common as many Latter-day Saint men sought assignments in which they would not have to take another’s life. Klaus Hansen recalls that when his father was drafted he requested to be assigned as a medic.[424] Likewise, Karl-Heinz Schnibbe of the Hübener group found a silver lining in his imprisonment in that he did not have to serve in a military capacity where he would have had to take another’s life.[425] Unfortunately, other Latter-day Saints found themselves on the front line.

The issue of the Holocaust also raises moral questions. Mormons, along with their fellow countrymen, witnessed the persecution of Jews during the pre-war years. The extent to which German Mormons knew about the slaughter of the Jews after 1941 varied from case to case. Latter-day Saints who fought on the eastern front heard accounts of the atrocities early on.[426] One Mormon actually helped construct Auschwitz; he later suffered a mental breakdown.[427] Others serving in different theatres of war only heard of the Holocaust at the end of the conflict. [428] Some dismissed the rumors of the Holocaust as enemy lies.[429] Then there were those under Nazi influence who believed that Hitler was rounding up the Jews to send them to Palestine, thus bringing about the “gathering of Israel” as predicted in the Bible and by Mormon leaders.[430]

As with other small religious denominations in the Third Reich, such as the Methodists, Latter-day Saints kept quiet about the plight of the Jews until the details of the Holocaust became known.[431] Given their philosemitic traditions, this raises disturbing questions. What did German Mormons know about the condition of the Jews? Should they have seen the Holocaust coming? Were they afraid? What could they have done to aid their “brethren?”[432]

Conclusion

When the war ended in 1945, contact between German Mormons and Church headquarters was once again re-established through LDS soldiers in the American army. During the war years, the LDS community had suffered staggering losses both materially and spiritually. Yet, it also had managed to avoid destruction. Most meeting facilities as well as the East German mission office lay in ruins. Many Church members had lost their homes and possessions – a number were refugees. Of the more than 14,000 German Mormons over 600 soldiers and civilians had died, or five percent of the LDS population in the Reich.[433] Among the dead were mission, district and branch leaders.[434] In the years to come, the LDS Church in Germany needed and received great assistance from the USA to aid the needy and reorganize church structures. Nevertheless, in spite of Hitler’s reign of terror and war, Mormonism in Germany had survived for five and a half years virtually on its own – though not without difficulty.

ONE-HUNDRED YEARS OF SOLITUDE: MORMONISM IN ITALY, 1867–1964

ERIC R. DURSTELER[435]

In the second wave of missionary work that began in 1850 following the Mormon exodus to Utah, Italy was one of the first non-English speaking countries to receive missionaries. Led initially by the apostle Lorenzo Snow and Giuseppe Taranto (anglicized as Joseph Toronto), the first Italian convert, missionaries toiled in the Waldensian valleys of the northwestern Piedmont region sporadically over the next seventeen years. They found very limited success: the Italian mission produced under 200 baptisms, an average of approximately 11–12 per year, though the bulk occurred in the first few years of the mission. Of these converts, 73 emmigrated to Utah between 1850 and 1861, and an equal number were excommunicated, for reasons ranging from apostasy, negligence, rebellion, immorality, absurdity, to criticism, nonchalance, cowardice, lying, and fear of the world.[436] Already in 1861 the Millennial Star reported that “the work in Italy […] has been at a standstill for a long time.” By 1863 there were only 13 Mormons in all of Italy, and in 1867, when the mission was definitively closed, their numbers had dwindled to six.[437] Save for several brief forays of individual missionaries, Italy was overlooked for almost a century; for the LDS church in Italy, these were a hundred years of solitude.

On the surface it is quite surprising that Mormonism should have disappeared from the Italian scene so quickly and completely. The Mormons were among the very first to send missionaries to proselytize in Italy following the establishment of the constitution, known as the Statuto, accepted by the House of Savoy in 1848, which attempted, among other things, to curb the privileged position that Roman Catholicism enjoyed in Piedmont.[438] This significant event marked a first step toward a more open and even tolerant religious atmosphere and a religious pluralism. It would seem that the Mormons would have been ideally situated to take advantage of this situation, and yet their missionaries were withdrawn in 1867, “too early to reap any significant benefit” from the evolving religious atmosphere and the strongly anti-clerical political environment which characterized Italy from unification in 1860 until the Lateran Accords of 1929, “when the growth of non-Catholic churches in Italy stalled until after World War II.” During this seventy year period numerous Protestant denominations established permanent missions in Italy, and experienced significant growth.[439] The Mormons’ failure to maintain an active presence in Italy, and their belated return, are central to explaining their relative lack of success, compared to other denominations, in more recent decades.[440]

Traditionally, the explanations given for the Mormon departure and delayed return have centered on factors associated primarily with the domestic situation in Italy.[441] A combination of economic hardship, cultural disinclination, political and especially religious opposition from the Roman Catholic Church, all conspired to prevent Mormon missionaries from finding much success initially, and from returning subsequently. The roots of this view, which has become axiomatic, were derived from the attitudes of the first missionaries to Italy, who explained, and perhaps attempted to justify, their relative lack of success by pointing to Italian cultural attitudes and the political environment. As for the factors which permitted the Mormons to return, according to this interpretation, it was again internal Italian developments, particularly World War II and Vatican II, which opened up previously closed doors by loosening the grip of Roman Catholicism over the peninsula. While these certainly were among the factors that influenced the decision to abandon Italy, it seems clear that the absence of the LDS church from 1867 to 1964 was much less a product of circumstances in Italy, and more a result of attitudes and historical events in the heartland of Mormonism.[442]

There is ample evidence that had the Mormons wished to remain in Italy, or to return, they would have been able to do so, which undercuts the assertion that the country was closed to non-Catholic religious groups. The experience of the first Mormon missionaries to Italy clearly belies this; beyond this we have the evidence of numerous other Protestant sects who actively proselytized among the Italians in the period during, especially in the decades after the Mormons’ departure. Indeed, save the Waldensians, all the major Protestant congregations present in Italy were established in the period after 1850.[443]

Just as the Mormons were encouraged by mid-nineteenth century political developments in Italy, so too many Protestant leaders and influential figures in Great Britain and the United States followed with “lively interest” the events of the Risorgimento.[444] In the years leading up to and following the 1860 unification, the Kingdom of Italy appeared to many Protestant sects as “an open field, full of promise.” As one British Methodist official reported, Italy was “already moving toward a religious revitalization” that paralleled the political events of the Risorgimento.[445] This hope in an Italian religious revival was rooted in the controversies surrounding Italy’s unification, one of the thorniest of which was religion. Prime Minister Camillo Cavour famously declared the new kingdom’s politico-religious formula as “a free church in a free state.” Indeed, the first article of the new Italian constitution addressed the question of religion: it acknowledged the unique position of the Roman Catholic Church within Italian society, but also sought to limit its power and to protect the rights of religious minorities.[446]

This attempt to define and circumscribe the power of the Catholic Church was a product of a long Italian “tradition of anti-clericalism,” which was widely embraced by many of the often only nominally Catholic leaders of unification. This latent suspicion of the Rome was accentuated by the events of the Risorgimento in which the papacy strongly opposed Cavour and other liberals’ secularizing efforts. As a result, the Church came increasingly to be seen “as the enemy not only of the new state, but also modernity itself,” which led many Italians to question their identity as Catholics.[447] Indeed, post-Risorgimento Italy came effectively to be divided into two camps, the liberal and the Roman Catholic. Each side “had its own organization, newspapers and banks,” and their rivalry was often violent: when Pius IX died in 1878, liberals attempted to halt the funeral procession, and to push his casket into the Tiber. Ironically, because of this church/state conflict, in some ways non-Catholic sects in unified Italy enjoyed more liberty of action than did the majority religion.[448]

This growing disjuncture between liberal Italy and Rome was most clearly manifest in Pius IX’s famous 1864 encyclical, Quanta cura and its accompanying Syllabus of Errors, which emphatically stated the conservative and reactionary position of the papacy against what it termed “the principal errors of the day.” These included pantheism, rationalism, naturalism, socialism, communism, liberalism – in short a laundry list of the most influential developments of the nineteenth century.[449] Many Catholics perceived the papacy’s entrenched conservatism and opposition to a unified Italy as a “tragic blunder,” indeed the Church came to be perceived as the principal obstacle to the new state’s consolidation. As a result, the kingdom’s officials implemented numerous measures directed solely at reducing ecclesiastical power. Church property was confiscated, monasteries and convents were closed, secular public schools weakened its monopoly on education, clergy lost their exemption from military conscription, access to military academies and other prestigious positions in society was opened to non-Catholics, and marriages by priests ceased to be recognized by the state. The relationship between church and state in Italy, the so-called “Roman Question,” would haunt the new nation throughout its formative years, and only be resolved by Benito Mussolini in 1929 with the Lateran Accords.[450]

Before the fascist agreement with the Holy See that blocked almost all proselytizing, however, the conflict between the liberal Italy of the Risorgimento and the papacy created an environment which permitted non-Catholic religious groups to evangelize openly. Indeed, after 1860, Italy became a veritable battleground as competing Protestant sects vied to save its soul. The first to arrive were the Wesleyans in 1861, over a decade after the Mormons, and they were followed over the next decade by the English Baptists, the Adventists, the American Baptists, and the Methodists.[451] The end of papal temporal powers in the fall of 1870 had a catalytic effect that led many Protestants to think the papacy’s “spiritual domain” would soon also collapse. Indeed, within several weeks the United States’ Methodist Episcopal Church sent missionaries to Italy “to contribute to the spiritual transformation of the country,” and they were soon followed by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Salvation Army.[452] Even the RLDS church became involved in 1873 when John Avondet spent two years among the Waldensians, with limited success.[453] Foreign Protestants were joined by the Waldensians, who began themselves to evangelize actively throughout the kingdom in the same decades in which the Mormons were retreating.[454]

While the hoped for religious reformation never materialized, these evangelizing efforts produced significant fruits, at least in comparison to the earlier LDS effort. By 1883 the Wesleyans counted 1451 members, and in 1881 after only eight years of work the Methodists numbered over 1400 members among adults and children. By 1906 the Methodists numbered 2689 adult members, and had an established ecclesiastical structure, including pastors and schools, in place throughout Italy. Other new religious denominations appeared in this era: Pentecostalism was introduced by returning Italian immigrants who had converted in the Americas, and by 1929, there were congregations in 149 localities throughout Italy.[455]

Contemporary census figures indicate a significant increase in the number of Italians describing themselves as Protestants: they numbered 32,684 in 1861, 58,651 in 1871, and by 1911 123,253 Italian’s self-identified as Protestant. Of course these numbers were insignificant within the broader demographic context: in 1871 Italy’s population numbered 26.8 million, and by 1901 it had risen to 32.5 million, despite massive emigration.[456] Thus, though Protestant numbers quadrupled between 1861 and 1911, they represented under a quarter of one percent of the total population, which remained predominantly and persistently Catholic.

As this overview suggests, the period following the unification was a dynamic time in the religious history of Italy. A number of sects without historical roots in Italy were able to make modest inroads into the peninsula after 1850, including Wesleyans, Pentecostals, and Methodists. This in turn points to the need to reconsider the traditional Mormon explanation for the closing of the mission in Italy, namely that the field was not ripe for the harvest.

There is, to be sure, some truth to this traditional explanation, however. Although no laws prevented their return, there were still strong cultural and social barriers which made missionary work in Italy extremely difficult, and these certainly influenced Mormon hesitation. While Protestants and Mormons could generally work freely and legally in Italy, there was powerful cultural opposition, and occasionally outright violence which made it difficult and even dangerous to try to do so. The arrival of Protestant missionaries in a new town was often met by “fanatical crowds” who abused the evangelists verbally and even physically. Local police often turned a blind eye, or even arrested the victims for disturbing the peace. Investigators and converts faced tremendous social pressures, and “risked reprisals,” including the loss of their employment. In 1866, this opposition turned deadly in the so-called “Massacre of Barletta,” in which a violent crowd, allegedly incited by local Catholic clergy, lynched several Protestants.[457]

Another factor that must be considered in any comparison of LDS and Protestant missions, is the political and legal persecution and marginalization the Mormons experienced in their own homeland. Throughout much of its first century, the Mormon Church was specifically targeted for discriminatory treatment by the United States government. In 1879 President Rutherford B. Hayes and his Secretary of State, William M. Evarts, became convinced that Mormon immigrants represented “potential violators” of anti-polygamy laws, and thus ordered American ambassadors in Europe to seek the aid of local officials “in stopping any further Mormon departures to the United States.”[458] In the same year, the American charge d’affaires in Rome, George W. Wurts, met with the Italian prime minister, Benedetto Cairoli to discuss the “Mormon problem,” and he noted (apparently unaware of the brief mission two decades earlier) that there was no need to fear a “Mormon crusade in Italy where as yet Mormonism is unknown.” Cairoli responded that although Mormonism was not present in his country, “all civilized Christian powers should cooperate to terminate the existence of a sect whose tenets are contrary to the recognized laws of morality and decency.”[459] In contrast, the more successful Protestant sects enjoyed the strong support and protection of their governments.

In the end, however, the evidence seems unequivocal: Italy after the unification, at least until the fascist era, was a religious open ground, worked with success by numerous religious groups both native and imported. There was no insurmountable legal or cultural impediment to the Mormons remaining or returning to work Italy. While factors in the new Kingdom of Italy certainly played a role in the tardy Mormon return, to fully understand this decision it is necessary to look across the Atlantic, to the heartland of Mormonism.

There is no question that events both in Utah and beyond played a significant role in the decisions about where to allocate limited missionary resources. After a flurry of missionary activity in the middle of the nineteenth century, the LDS Church entered into an extremely difficult period in its young history marked by limited resources and significant external challenges. Though the commitment to taking the message of the restored gospel to the world did not waver, these challenges had a substantial impact on missionary work world-wide, which ebbed and flowed according to local, national, and international events.

The initial slowdown in the Italian mission in the later 1850s was part of a general retreat from missionary work due to the so-called Utah War of 1857.  In response to the threat from the federal troops sent to Utah under the command of Colonel Albert Sidney Johnston, President Brigham Young recalled settlers from outlying settlements as well as most missionaries from all over the world to return and defend Zion. This not surprisingly resulted in a “swift decline” in missionary work.[460] The Mormons’ challenges did not subside following the resolution of the confrontation with the federal government, indeed things went from bad to worse. The decade following Brigham Young’s 1877 death was one of the most challenging in Mormon history. The issue of polygamy finally came to a head, and a series of federal court decisions and laws proved severe threats to the church’s legal and financial situation, and indeed to its very survival. The most serious of these was the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887, which allowed for the confiscation of most LDS church properties. While the 1890 Manifesto promulgated by LDS President Wilford Woodruff ended the practice of polygamy and some of the political pressure, in the subsequent decade the church experienced extreme financial difficulty, accentuated by a national economic depression. This severely impacted tithing receipts, and by 1898 the church was $2.3 million in debt.[461]

The impact of these events on Mormon missionary efforts was profound, but also complex. Missionary numbers initially declined as a result of the Utah War, for example, only to experience a revival after 1860. The number of missionaries sent out between 1865 and 1869 increased to 417, almost double the 222 who had departed the previous four years. A majority of these missionaries were directed to European countries. Missionary numbers continued to follow an upward trajectory: more than 2,300 served in the turbulent 1880s, and in the following decade, despite the near bankruptcy of the church, over 6,000 missionaries were called to labor. Overall, the missionary force “doubled by 1880 and doubled again to nearly 2,000 missionaries by the early 1890s.”[462] In fact, one of the primary causes for the church’s financial troubles near the turn of the century was its ongoing investment in missionary work. As these financial difficulties receded in the early twentieth century, missionary numbers increased. In the years preceding World War I, an average of 900 missionaries were called annually. And while the war dramatically reduced missionary activity, especially in Europe, with the end of hostilities missionary numbers quickly returned to pre-war levels.[463]

As these statistics suggest, despite the serious problems the Mormon church faced from 1858 to 1900, and notwithstanding broader national and international circumstances, its leaders remained committed to expanding missionary work. In 1860, for example, three apostles were called to preside over the European mission, initiating a new wave of conversion and immigration. A decade later, Brigham Young instructed Lorenzo Snow, who was traveling through Europe and the Mediterranean (including Italy), to “observe closely what openings now exist, or where they may be effected, for the introduction of the Gospel.”[464] Around 1900 Mormon leaders proposed opening missions “in those areas where the gospel was not being preached,” and in 1901 Brigham Young, Jr. declared “The eyes of the Twelve have been roaming over the habitable globe, and they have looked upon Turkey, Austria, Russia, and especially South America.”[465]

The ongoing evangelical commitment is evident in the geography of Mormon missionary work. In the first heady years of the church’s international missionary effort, missionaries labored throughout Europe, in the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii), “Australia, Chile, India, Burma, Malta, Germany, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, New Zealand, South Africa, Siam (Thailand).” The pace slowed somewhat in the last decades of the nineteenth century, but between 1888 and 1900, eleven new missions were opened, and ambitious attempts were made to proselytize in Turkey, Palestine, Austria-Hungary, Mexico, Russia, Samoa, and Tonga.[466] As part of now church president Lorenzo Snow’s renewed stress on the worldwide missionary effort, in 1901 Heber J. Grant opened the twentieth foreign mission, Japan, though it was soon closed because of “almost negligible results.”[467]

The next significant wave of mission openings followed World War I. The French Mission was reopened a second time in 1923, the German-Austrian and South American Missions in 1925, the Czechoslovakian Mission opened in 1929, and the Japanese Mission was reopened in 1937. By 1930 there were 29,000 Saints throughout Europe, and despite political problems, the Mexican mission doubled in size to 4700 members. Over the next ten years “eight new missions were opened in Europe and the United States,” and the Book of Mormon was translated into Czech, Armenian, Portuguese, and Hungarian. The work proceeded so well that a number of international missions were divided. At the outbreak of World War II in 1939, 697 missionaries were serving in Europe.[468]

The growth in missionaries and missions as well as the commitment to opening new areas suggest that the LDS church in the last half of the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries was not in a retrenchment mode, on the contrary, the dedication to proselytism was a constant, despite numerous political and economic troubles that plagued the church. The decision not to return to Italy then was not a product of insufficient missionary commitment or resources, rather the decision was more a result of the failure of the first mission combined with cultural attitudes towards Italy, Italians and Roman Catholicism that were common among Mormons, and Americans, in the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries.

Though a few LDS Italian converts immigrated to Utah and became influential members of the community, the overall experience of the first missionaries to Italy was in the end a disappointment. Other, even less successful missionary efforts in predominantly Roman Catholic lands, such as Parley P. Pratt’s mission to South America in the early 1850s, and recurring efforts in Mexico and Chile, served to reinforce the negative views of Catholic Italy.[469] This specter loomed over Italy, and was only dispersed in the post-1945 period when a variety of circumstances led to fundamental changes in Mormon attitudes to Roman Catholicism and to Italians.

While the first missionaries set off for Italy with high hopes of success – hoping perhaps to replicate what had happened in Great Britain a decade previous – in relatively short order these dreams were tempered by the formidable reality of their task. Already in the early days of the mission, there was a sense that Italy presented a particular challenge: Lorenzo Snow observed, the “Italian states are well known as being the most hostile upon earth to introduction of religious truth.” Snow seems also to have sensed that success in Italy would have to be measured by a metric that differed from other mission fields:

It is not our expectation to convert all these Catholic nations, […] we feel that there are a few among them who will appreciate the sacrifices we make in their behalf; and giving heed to the call, will come forth fulfilling the words of the holy Prophets, that a remnant shall come to Zion, gathered “from every nation, kindred tongue and people.’[470]

By the time Snow departed from Italy in January 1851, the seeds of disillusionment had already begun to sprout. He wrote to Orson Hyde of his frustrations, as well as his lingering hopes for the work there:

After a residence of seven months in Italy, I am about to bid it farewell […] I might long linger to gaze upon these realms of loveliness. One might travel far over the earth before he finds a fairer clime. […] But the remembrance of the moral scenery amid which I have been moving will be more imperishably engraven on my spirit than all the brightness of the firmament, or the verdure of prairies enameled with ten thousand flowers. Amid the loveliness of nature, I found the soul of man like a wilderness. From the palace of the king to the lone cottage on the mountains, all was shrouded in spiritual darkness. […] Every man holds a creed which has been transmitted from sire to son for a thousand years, whether he be Protestant or Catholic; and often he will lay his hand on his heart, and swear by the faith of his forefather, that he will live and die as they have lived and died.[471]

Snow was not alone in this assessment of Italy. The letters of other missionaries published in the Mormon Millennial Star increasingly suggest their dismay at the limited results of their difficult labors.[472] Jabez Woodard, who accompanied Lorenzo Snow to Italy in 1850 and replaced him as head of the mission in 1852, wrote

We cannot proceed here with public preaching, as in England and America. I have been twice summoned before the magistrates for having given religious instructions to persons in my own room. […] as the police have refused to legalize my passport, it will be necessary for me to obtain a signature on the French frontier, […] but to be compelled to change residence in that manner, is one of the many vexations to which we are subjected in those countries where freedom is yet only a name.[473]

When Woodard reported the results of his mission in 1854 in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, Brigham Young responded that the Waldensians were “like the brute; they are not to blame for their superstition, and they are not the people to readily receive the Gospel.”[474]

The creeping disillusionment of the first elders in Italy was in full bloom by the time the last missionaries were removed from the valleys. One of these, Guglielmo Giosue Rossetti Sangiovanni, left southern Utah and labored alone in Italy in 1865, where he suffered unhappily the poor living conditions, the smallness of the local branch of the church, his own homesickness, and the indifference of the people.[475] He wrote:

I also find that it is the same now as in the days of the Savior. Wherever the Gospel was rejected in the days of Jesus, it is rejected now, thus the Scriptures teach us that the Gospel was preached in Italy, and rejected. Therefore the children of those people are still withering under the curse entailed upon them through their Fathers [sic] rejecting the truth, so that no firm flesh remains for the Gospel to rest upon. Man proposes, but God disposes, we can preach the gospel as we may be inspired by the Almighty but we cant make the people receive it.[476]

A few months later, when Sangiovanni was transferred from Italy to Geneva, he enthused,

It is with great pleasure that I again take my pen to address you. Italy is given up for the present. I left there the morning of the 22 bidding farewell to the “garden of the world,” hoping never again to be under the necessity of going there to preach the Gospel. In the language of Paul, “I have fought a good fight I have finished my course (i.e. in Italy) and have kept the faith.”[477]

Implicit in the observations of Snow, Sangiovanni, and other missionaries was an attitude which was widely held among mid-nineteenth century Saints. In the early church, Mormons were possessed of a strong sense of millenarianism: they believed that theirs were literally the “latter days.” This had a profound impact on missionary work. Missionaries were sent throughout the world to invite all to gather to Zion and to warn of the imminent “great and dreadful day of the Lord.” The expectation was that the few elect in all lands would heed the message, but the majority would reject it, and thus be destroyed at the coming of Christ.[478] Closely associated with this millenarianism, was the doctrine of gathering and the creation of a new Zion in the wilds of the American west.[479] Among many missionaries and leaders then, the difficulties of the first Italian mission, combined with beliefs regarding the limited number of God’s elect in the world, contributed to a view that Italy harbored only a few chosen souls. These had been identified and had gathered to Zion, and therefore there was probably not a need to expend precious, limited missionary resources on its barren spiritual landscape.

Mormon views of Italy were certainly not unique. Protestant missionaries, such as Seventh Day Adventist leader Ellen White, arrived at a similar conclusion: “This field is not an easy one in which to labor, nor is it one which will show immediate results.” Even the great French poet Lamartine characterized Italy “as the land of the dead, culturally, politically, and spiritually.”[480] Similar views also existed among the handful of Italian Saints who immigrated to Utah. One of the original converts, Marie M. Cardon Guild described the difficult situation that missionaries faced in Italy:

it seemed that the prejudice against the Latter day Saints was racing throughout the Country Especially among the Papists, and in fact among the majority of the Waldensee people were also ready To drive the elders out of the Country.[481]

These initial impressions, born of more than a decade of difficult labor, became the default Mormon view. When John Henry Smith presided over the European Mission later in the century, he went to Italy “in the hope that I might see some chance of making an opening in that country.” He wrote of this experience,

I regard Italy as in such a condition that there are but few chances at the present time for any opening to be made. The Italians are bound up in the religious faith that they have been reared in, or they are infidel almost entirely. I noticed in my attendance at the churches, that they are usually well filled with priests and beggars, and that few, comparatively speaking, of the well-to-do classes, or the middle classes, were paying any attention whatever to religious observance.[482]

As Smith’s quote suggests, the character of the Mormon reaction to their labors in Italy was rooted in both their direct experience in proselytizing in the country, but also in their views of Italy, Italians, and Roman Catholicism. These cultural attitudes are crucial to understanding the long reluctance of Mormon leaders to reopen the Italian mission. They were not unique to Mormons, indeed they grew out of common perceptions generally held among nineteenth century Protestant Americans, who tended to view Italy and Italians with a complex combination of admiration and disdain, pity and awe.

Nineteenth-century Americans entertained two seemingly contradictory images of Italy: “the ‘romantic’ and the ‘nativist.’” The romantic picture was a product of travelers and writers who looked upon Italy as the conservatory of all the cultural values of the old world: creative spontaneity, artistic sensibility, moral idealism, and worldly experience. It represented to American travelers a “quasi-sacred ground of art,” where they could “cultivate aesthetic consciousness.”[483] As Henry James, who lived in Italy for a time, wrote, “We go to Italy, to gaze upon certain of the highest achievements of human power,” which illustrate

to the imagination the maximum of man’s creative force. […] So wide is the interval between the great Italian monuments and the works of the colder genius of neighboring nations, that we find ourselves willing to look upon the former as the ideal and perfection of human effort, and to invest the country of their birth with a sort of half-sacred character.[484]

The striking flip-side of this idealized Italy was the nativist picture. As more and more American tourists were traveling in Italy, large numbers of Italians were beginning to immigrate to America. In 1880 there were about 44,000 Italians in the United States, but by the first years of the twentieth-century Italians represented one-fourth of all immigrants, and in a span of forty years, they went from a marginal minority to the most visible immigrant group in the country. The Italy that most Americans encountered was not the lofty land of James, rather it was personified by the

young, robust, male, swarthy and emotional, frequently unlettered and unskilled, who worked in lowly jobs, usually as a day laborer, and lived in a ethnic ghetto. He seemed to many a mere bird of passage determined to return to Italy. […] He quickly acquired the reputation of a sojourner with no sense of commitment to his host country.

Italians were perceived as being racially inferior: they were “the dark or swarthy one, […] the untidy, non-self-improving one, natural resident of the slum and natural doer of the most unskilled labor, […] the organized murderer, and     thus […] a ’cause’ of violence in the world at large.”[485]

American views of Italy and Italians were schizophrenic, a complex combination of admiration for the seed-bed of great civilizations, combined with disdain for the people “who had clearly become decadent, and therefore not worthy descendants of their illustrious and proud ancestors.” Americans admired Italy’s cultural treasures, revered ancient Rome, “but detested the Italy of their time,” which they perceived as “dominated by the Papacy.” Italy was, as Mark Twain quipped, a “vast museum of magnificence and misery.”[486] James adored Italy’s “special beauty,” but he despised Italians, especially immigrants, whom he found physically and morally unclean. The novelist Henry Blake Fuller admired Italy’s “high culture” but disdained “its social and moral decadence.” Most American travelers returned home awed by Italy, but disturbed, even disgusted, by Italians. As John Diggins argues,

There were really two Italys in the American mind. One was conceptual, the other     existential; one a diffuse image of some hopeful ideal, a humanistic fantasy born of the frustration of all that seemed to be lacking in America; the other, a concrete and particular Italy discovered by direct experience, a corporeal reality of unabashed decadence and pungent confusions, a country whose people were suffocating under the     dust and dirt of their tragic history.[487]

These views permeated Protestant American society, and informed Mormon views as well. Like their fellow citizens, Mormon travelers were drawn to Italy, yet the country they experienced alternately fascinated and repulsed them. Against the backdrop of monumental beauty, to Mormons the Italians themselves “presented a sorry spectacle” of indolence, deceitfulness, squalor, and immorality.[488] When Brigham Young, Jr. traveled to Italy in 1863, he was scandalized. In Bologna he noted

I did not like this place at all. They show their vices a little too plain. As soon as we     had arrived and fairly got the dust off from us, several ladies dressed in white presented themselves for us to pick from. They waited long and patiently but were disappointed at last. Such things as these make me disgusted with society as it exists at the present time, and long more earnestly for the society of virtuous men and women, which are only to be found as a community in my own loved home.

This was not an isolated incident, and in the end the son of the great LDS leader concluded that “if the soldiers, whores, and beggars were taken out of Italy, it would be without inhabitants except those who, like ourselves are merely transient residents.”[489] Young returned to serve as European mission president in 1864 and his views of Italy certainly influenced his decisions on where to allocate missionary resources.

Most Mormon travelers subscribed to the “admire Italy, despise the Italians” model. In 1890, William Bowker Preston, son of the presiding bishop of the church, traveled through Italy while returning from his mission. With his trusty Baedaker in hand, he immersed himself in the sights he had imagined since his youth. On his arrival in the capital, he rhapsodized, “at last the dream of my life is realized. I am in Rome.” Amid enthusiastic descriptions of the sights that filled dozens of pages in his journal, however, Preston also commented on the state of Italy and the Italians of his day: if one “will go to Italy, why he must put up with Italy and the Italian, and what Italy and the Italians are.” He was scandalized by the Italian women:

women – pardon me – dare I use that appellation? – lounge around the doorways in negligée [sic], not to put it stronger, and stare at one with unpardonable audacity as he     passes along – but bless my soul! Some of them are pretty – but I dare say as wicked as     they are handsome.

He found Italians violent and driven by their passions, and more superstitious than religious: “I never saw so much worshipping [sic] in all my life where it apparently did so little good. For I believe the more they worship (?) the farther they remove themselves from God.” In summary, Preston wrote, “I hope I’m not doing the poor Italians any wrong when I term them lazy, murderous and gossiping. I wouldn’t injure them for the world for they spring from that wonderful people who once ruled the world; and they were praiseworthy were they not?”[490]

In 1884, Ellen B. Ferguson – a physician, a feminist, “great traveler,” and one of the most influential women in the Utah territory – toured Italy.[491]  In an essay in an LDS journal she wrote of passing from Switzerland to Italy, which seemed to her and her companions as if they “were on the boundary line between two worlds – the region of eternal snow and the region of perpetual summer.” She wrote,

We began to descend gradually by zigzag roads, […] into warmer weather, calmer air and softer scenery, until there lay before us, glittering in the dazzling midday sun, the blue expanse of Lake Como, the most beautiful of the Italian lakes. Could one live on the sense of beauty alone, the most artistic temperament, and the most vivid imagination might be filled to satiety with the exquisite loveliness of an Italian landscape. […] The atmosphere is redolent with perfume, and one’s whole being is pervaded by a delicious languor, the dolce far niente, which might make it a paradise, if life were to be dreamed away. But although this sweet climate, with its wealth of sunlight and balmy airs, may enchant the traveler for awhile and make him wish at times that his whole life might be passed among such scenes, it exercises a most enervating influence on those who are born to its enjoyment. It relaxes mental and physical energy, and disposes body and mind to dreamy inactivity. The Italians as a race are indolent and effeminate. Ignorance, love of pleasure and superstition are their prominent characteristics. Of the moral dignity of man, they have but little conception. The soil, so prodigally fertile, produces, with but little labor all that is necessary for their support. The state of morals is lower than in any other country of Europe; what little virtue exists is found among the peasants. In the cities splendid churches and dirty miserable hovels stand side by side, while the luxurious palaces and grounds of the rich noblemen form a still greater contrast to the poverty of the people. This moral miasma hangs like a dark pall over the social condition of Italy, awakening sympathy for her fallen and degraded position among citizens of freer lands.[492]

In the same vein, from 1870 on almost the only mention of Italy in official LDS publications was of the political disorders of the peninsula, and of Italian anarchists and socialists and their involvement in several high profile assassinations.[493] The president of the Swiss German Mission, Hyrum Valentine, visited Italy in 1912, and was infuriated by the dishonesty of the Italians. He wrote,

those leechers lie around like a pack of wolves and when a stranger alights from the train or boat, they hound him until refuge is found in one of their “Rendivoo’ where they leech you mercilessly. These wolves now retreat to their lair and recuperate for the next victim.[494]

These highly critical views were occasionally tempered by more nuanced responses. When Sylvester Cannon reported on his term as mission president in the Netherlands, he wrote of a trip to Italy which had challenged some of his presuppositions:

I was agreeably disappointed in the condition of that people. From the idea we obtain here at home, from seeing the Italians who are in our midst, we are apt to gain an     entirely wrong view of the Italians as a people. They are fine people, a people of intelligence, a people of hospitality and kindness in every respect.[495]

An observer in 1941 expressed admiration for Italy’s historical contributions: “as a world power, the Italian state made few contributions in modern history.” Its real importance was in the Renaissance when “as individuals, the Italians […] contributed stores of the world’s greatest art, literature, and music.” Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Dante, Galileo and Verdi, all “left the world a richness of cultural contributions that placed the Italians with the Greeks as the cultural creators for mankind.”[496] Like their American counterparts, then, Mormon’s views of Italy and Italians were the same schizophrenic combination of admiration for their historical accomplishments, and disdain for the decadent people they had become.

Lurking beneath their attitudes toward Italian culture and character, the issue of religion played a key role in Mormon decisions regarding the potential of proselytizing in Italy. Among nineteenth century Americans, Italy’s wretchedness was a direct product of the deadening hand of the Roman Catholic Church, which was seen as “the great burden of Italian history.”[497] Mormons shared this view, but also accentuated it with their own specific beliefs, particularly concerning the doctrine of apostasy.

There was, of course, a long history of American ambivalence, and more often open hostility to Catholics, both to those in their own midst, as well as toward the institution of the papacy in Rome.[498] Indeed, Arthur Schlesinger observed (with some exaggeration) that anti-Catholicism was “the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people.”[499] Anti-Catholicism included both religious and political sentiments, and was widespread in the nineteenth and well into the twentieth centuries. These views were a complex combination of historical sentiments that Americans inherited and perpetuated from their English Protestant ancestors, and their direct experiences in dealing with large numbers of Catholic Irish and Italian immigrants.[500] Mark Twain’s statement “I have been educated to enmity toward every thing that is Catholic, and sometimes, in consequence of this, I find it much easier to discover Catholic faults than Catholic merits” was a mild response in comparison with the vituperative river of criticism that flooded Protestant America.[501]

Despite the fact the nineteenth century Protestant writers “often attacked Catholics and Mormons using surprisingly similar arguments” and visual caricatures, Latter-day Saints shared many of the common prejudices of American society toward Catholicism.[502] Almost all early Mormon converts came from Protestant backgrounds, and as a result they carried with them a certain cultural baggage that informed their perceptions of the world and other religions. Their views of Roman Catholicism derived from beliefs inherited from the Reformation rhetoric of the broader Protestant community in which they were raised, which they transported with them into Mormonism.[503] To be sure, most did not embrace the most extreme, virulently anti-Catholic attitudes which infected nineteenth-century American society. Leaders like Joseph F. Smith preached “let us treat with candor the religious sentiments of all men, no matter if they differ from ours, or appear to us absurd and foolish. Those who hold them may be as sincere as we are in their convictions,”[504] and Mormons in Utah got on much better with the state’s Catholics than its Protestants.[505] Rather, Mormon bias against Catholicism was more theological in nature, based on a belief that Catholics were less inclined spiritually to embrace the Mormon message than were more spiritually pliant Protestants. Mormons believed that Protestant northern Europe contained a higher percentage of the lost tribes of Israel, who were considered more susceptible to accepting the restored Mormon gospel.[506]

At the core of Mormon attitudes toward Catholicism, and by extension to Italians, was their unique doctrine of apostasy. The idea of a universal apostasy, termed “The Great Apostasy” by Mormons, is one of the linchpins of the faith. It refers to the “falling away” from Christ’s original church and its teachings in the centuries immediately following his crucifixion. The apostasy was the necessary precursor to the entire Mormon experience: without it, there would have been no need for Joseph Smith or the Restoration. Indeed, one of the chief revelations of Smith’s foundational First Vision was the notion that Christ’s church had been lost from the earth and that the existing sects “were all wrong; […] [and] all their creeds were an abomination.”[507]

For early Mormons, Roman Catholicism held a privileged place in their apostasy narrative, and “represented a unique evil.”[508] It was the Mother of Harlots, the Whore of Babylon, or as the Book of Mormon termed it, the “great and abominable church,” which until at least the middle decades of the twentieth century, was widely equated specifically with Roman Catholicism.[509] As one early publication explained, the Catholic Church was the “Mother Church,” which was “so corrupt, and so far apostatized from the Church [of Christ], that a reformation was not only needed, but absolutely necessary.”[510] Mormons did not limit error just to Catholics, the Protestant children of the “Mother Church” were also misguided: Joseph Smith made this clear when he stated, “the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it?”[511]

These views clearly inhabited the cultural mindset of Mormon missionaries and travelers as they entered into Catholic lands. As he set out on his mission to “dark and benighted Italy,” Lorenzo Snow declaimed,

To the land where the “Mother of harlots’ claimed the right “above all that was called God,’ and ruled with a rod of iron, where, under her scathing hand, not long since the “bloody inquisition’ sent terror into the springs and fountains of life! How formidable     the mission! How character-proving the situation!

Regarding the Italians, he wrote:

My heart is pained to see their follies and wickedness-their gross darkness and superstition. […] They are clothed with darkness as with a garment […] They do wickedly all the day long, and are guilty of many abominations. They have turned their     backs upon Thee, though they kneel before the image of Thy Son, and decorate temples to Thy worship.[512]

His sister, Eliza R. Snow, the leader of the Mormon women’s association, attended a mass in Milan, and commented “I can see no hope for millions of people under the training of the “Mother of Harlots,’ and the influence of priestcraft, but through the ordinances of the dead,” referring to the Mormon practice of performing vicarious ordinances for the deceased in their temples.[513]

Another Italian missionary, Samuel Francis recorded similar views: “I had heard many times of the inquisition, and secret murders, and other diabolical means the Catholics made use of against those who opposed the Catholic faith.”[514] In similar fashion, following a visit to Italy, the president of the European Mission, John Widtsoe, remarked

The spiritual condition of Italy is deplorable. The Catholic Church dominates the country. Its methods are plain. It keeps the people in ignorance, appeals to their superstitious fears, feeds them with pomp and show, and thrills them with make-    believe miracles. Its sexless priests are everywhere. […] The membership may be honest enough, but the leadership are plain cheats, or of little intelligence.[515]

In Rome he reported looking “at the wonders of the city, made ugly by the evil that is centered there […] [in] the heart of Catholicism.”[516]

Such views were not limited to Italy: Moses Thatcher commented on Catholic Mexico “Whatever may have been the condition of the Indian races occupying Mexico at the time of the conquest; we know that the thralldom of their bondage has, under the Catholic rule, been fearful since.”[517] Similarly, following his 1867 visit to a Catholic Swiss canton, Karl G. Maeser noted

the countless arrangements of devotion at the road sides, and at all crossings of the     streets, where crosses, little temples, &c., showed us that their faith in Christ had degenerated into the plainest idolatry, without sense or reason. There will be a poor show here, probably for a long time to come, for the light of truth.[518]

And a 1929 article in a Mormon youth publication commented “it is in the Catholic world that dictatorship mostly flourishes […] [in] Italy, Spain, Poland.” The reason was clear:

Catholicism builds on [coercion]. Its adherents are not free. They are taught to cease thinking for themselves and to look to some man, or some men, as their mediators between God and themselves, and there can be no doubt that this mental condition is     favorable to political and military dictatorship.[519]

Some LDS leaders attributed meager Italian interest in the Mormon gospel to racial factors.[520] In 1936, Reinhold Stoof, the former president of the South American Mission reported that the majority of converts in Argentina were Italians and Spaniards.

There may be some who think that the ideal field of labor in which to find the scattered blood of Israel is the northern countries. For them it may be a consolation to know that a few centuries after Christ’s birth tribes from the north invaded Spain and Italy, and it may be that their remnants are the ones who today follow the voice of the Good Shepherd.[521]

Stephen L Richards spoke a decade later of Argentina’s cultural diversity where “many nationalities were represented, with a preponderance of the brunette people from Spain, Italy; and the Mediterranean countries.” He wondered “how susceptible these people” would be to embracing the gospel, and what his experience might suggest about the possibility of taking the message to “Spain, Italy, Portugal, and adjacent countries. […] I thought I could see in the disposition, customs and practices of these South Americans some of the reasons which have impeded gospel work among them.”[522]

Doubts about Catholic susceptibility to Mormonism are clearly evident in the geography of early missionary efforts. In the decades after the church was organized in 1830, the majority of the regions opened to missionary work were Protestant or possessed a Protestant majority - Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, South Africa, Switzerland, and Germany. In England, converts came almost entirely from Protestant sects; a study of a sample of 298 converts, reveals 58 were formerly members of the Church of England, 70 Methodist, 31 Baptists, and only two were Roman Catholic.[523] Even in the few instances in which predominantly Catholic countries were opened, the missionary effort was limited almost entirely to Protestants. For example, on Malta missionaries baptized 58 people: all but four were British, and thus likely Protestant.[524] Converts in Paris, Le Havre and Boulogne-Sur-Mer were almost entirely foreign-born Protestants, usually English or Swiss. In 1867 when Franklin D. Richards visited the tiny branch in Paris, he reported that there was not a single French man or woman among them.[525] In Mexico too, the majority of the converts from the first missionary attempts from 1874 to 1889 were Protestants. This pattern persisted into the twentieth century: the first converts in South America in 1925, were six German-speakers.[526] Leonard Arrington attributes this to the fact that missionaries, who did not know the languages of the people they encountered, “worked primarily with British residents in these countries.”[527] Of course, in the case of Italy, from the beginning, the missionaries thought that its minuscule Protestant population would be their most likely source of success. Lorenzo Snow believed the Waldensians were “like the rose in the wilderness” and that they, not the vast Catholic majority, represented the most likely potential converts. He hoped that once a beachhead was established, that the Waldensians would then become the means for taking the gospel to some portion of the Catholic population.[528] In general, however, during the church’s first century, Mormon leaders “regarded the world’s Catholic countries with frustration” because of the minimal success encountered in their few attempts to evangelize Catholics.[529]

As this overview suggests, when seeking to understand the reasons for the century of Mormon retreat from Italy following some initial proselytizing successes in the 1850s, the explanation must be sought in Utah rather than in Italy. There was no legal impediment that would have prohibited a Mormon return, at least not until the 1929 Lateran Accords, indeed numerous other Protestant sects established toeholds in Italy in the decades after the Mormon departure. The determination to disengage was much more a result of events in Utah such as the Utah War, the polygamy controversy, and serious financial turmoil. Even more, the decision was a byproduct of cultural attitudes among the leadership and body of the saints. While the Mormon Church remained committed to missionary work, there were deep-seated prejudices against Italians and Roman Catholicism that informed Mormon views, and these functioned as a brake on any plans of returning to the peninsula. Despite being highly marginalized themselves within broader American society, Mormon views of Italians and Roman Catholicism were in many ways identical to those of their Protestant fellow citizens. Mormons, like many of their fellow Americans, saw Italians as degenerate, irresponsible, and unworthy heirs of their great Roman and Renaissance forbearers. In addition, the Mormon position was informed by their attitudes towards Roman Catholicism: Mormons believed that Catholics were not susceptible to their message, and the limited success of the first, brief attempt to evangelize Italy in the 1850s, combined with failures in other Catholic countries seemed to clearly bear this out. While all Christians were apostate, for Mormons, Catholics were particularly benighted, and highly unlikely to accept their message. The deeply rooted cultural attitudes towards Italians and Catholics ensured that for an entire century there would be no Mormon presence in Italy, until 1964 when changing attitudes towards missionary work in the post-war LDS leadership made the specter of taking their message to Italy once again viable.

GATHERING THE EUROPEAN SAINTS TO AMERICA IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

FRED E. WOODS

In the fall of 1830, during the second conference of what would later be known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,[530] Joseph Smith, the Mormon founder, received the following revelation which would later impact immigration of European converts to America:

And ye are called to bring to pass the gathering of mine elect; for mine elect hear my voice and harden not their hearts. Wherefore the decree hath gone forth from the Father that they shall be gathered in unto one place upon the face of this land, to prepare their hearts and be prepared in all things against the day when tribulation and desolation are     sent forth upon the wicked.[531]

The Mormon call to gather was not a new concept to a covenant people. “The gathering of the people of God has been a subject of great importance in all ages of the world,” the LDS British periodical The Latter-day Saints Millennial Star declared a decade later.[532] Soon thereafter, the Millennial Star added, “The spirit of emigration [the gathering] has actuated the children of men from the time our first parents were expelled from the garden until now.”[533]

The latter-day gathering came largely as a result of the doctrine preached by the founding Mormon Prophet who ingrained in the Latter-day Saints a desire to gather with the people of God. Joseph Smith once asked rhetorically, “What was the object of gathering the Jews, or the people of God in any age of the world?” He continued, “The main object was to build unto the Lord a house whereby He could reveal unto his people the ordinances of His house and the glories of his kingdom, and teach the people the way of salvation.”[534]

During much of the first decade of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, the call to gather did not extend beyond the boundaries of North America, and Church members did not enter into temple covenants until the construction of the Kirtland Temple. Furthermore, foreign proselytizing did not commence until the necessary priesthood keys were restored to the earth, on 3 April 1836, just one week after the dedication of the Kirtland Temple.[535] In this sacred edifice, Latter-day Saints believe the ancient prophet Moses appeared and restored to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, the second elder of the Church, “the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth” (Doctrine and Covenants 110:11).[536]

The restoration of such priesthood keys was the culmination of a rich Pentecostal season in Kirtland (January–April 1836), soon followed by a period of apostasy precipitated by the crisis of the Kirtland Safety Society, an anti-banking company. Unfortunately, several church members began borrowing money from the Society to purchase land, only to sell it quickly to fellow Church members for profit.[537] These disturbing events combined led many Latter-day Saints to apostatize.[538] Many members were left spiritually weak and ailing.

A call to gather the British Saints

An infusion of fresh new converts, not yet soured on the rancid greed and human failings of straying members, was needed to heal the ailing Church.[539] In the Kirtland Temple on 4 June 1837, Joseph Smith approached one of his trusted associates, Apostle Heber C. Kimball, and confided in him, “Brother Heber, the Spirit of the Lord has whispered to me: “Let my servant Heber go to England and proclaim my Gospel, and open the door of salvation to that nation.’”[540] A short time later, Elder Kimball, with fellow Apostle Orson Hyde, prepared to lead a small group of missionaries across the Atlantic to England to gather converts from afar.[541] The members of this group included Willard Richards, Joseph Fielding, Isaac Russell, John Snyder and John Goodson. Before their departure, Joseph warned Heber “to remain silent concerning the gathering […] until such time as the work was fully established, and it should be clearly made manifest by the Spirit to do otherwise.”[542]

During the space of just nine months, these early missionaries to the British Isles brought more than fifteen hundred converts into the fold and organized many branches. At the conclusion of this nine-month period, Apostles Kimball and Hyde returned to America, while Fielding and Richards and English convert William Clayton served in an interim British Mission presidency.[543] This initial success was bolstered less than two years later when eight members of the Twelve embarked on another mission to Great Britain (January 1840–April 1841). Their call was to expand the missionary work and to revive the lethargic spirit that had crept in among some of the British converts.[544]

The Twelve found great success and by the spring of 1840, the desired foothold had been secured. Following a motion to allow these foreign converts to emmigrate,[545] the British Saints began their gathering to Nauvoo with the launching of the sailing vessel Britannia, 6 June 1840. This “Mayflower” company consisted of 41 Saints, led by British convert John Moon.[546] This was the beginning of nearly 5,000 British Saints who gathered to Nauvoo between June 1840 and January 1846 on thirty-four voyages chartered by the Church. By the time the Saints began their forced exile from Nauvoo (4 February 1846), over one-fourth of the city was made up of British converts.[547]

A call to build the Nauvoo Temple

The call to build the Nauvoo temple seems to have been a great stimulus for these converts from afar to gather to Nauvoo. Just two months after the first British proselytes left Liverpool to gather to Nauvoo, the First Presidency issued an official call to erect the temple:

Believing the time has now come, when it is necessary to erect a house of prayer, a house of order, a house for the worship of our God, where the ordinances can be attended to agreeably to His divine will, in this region of country – to accomplish which, considerable exertion must be made, and means will be required – and as the work must be hastened in righteousness, it behooves the Saints to weigh the importance of these things, in their minds, in all their bearings and then take such steps as are necessary to carry them into operation.[548]

Just a few months later, 19 January 1841, the Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph a scriptural mandate that augmented the initial call to build the Nauvoo Temple: “And again, verily I say unto you, let all my saints come from afar […] and build a house to my name, for the Most High to dwell therein (Doctrine and Covenants 124:25–27).

LDS emigration aid in Liverpool

British converts were also influenced by the excellent organization and dependability of their Church leaders both at Liverpool and in Nauvoo. Not only did the Millennial Star (published from Liverpool) provide useful instructions to departing LDS emigrants, but it also provided dates when various trans-Atlantic voyages would depart. In addition, an emigration agent was selected by Church leaders to carry out arrangements at Liverpool. As early as April 1841, an “Epistle of the Twelve” was published in the Millennial Star regarding the appointment and advantages of having an LDS agent.

We have found that there are so many “pick pockets,” and so many that will take every possible advantage of strangers, in Liverpool, that we have appointed Elder Amos Fielding, as agent of the church to superintend the fitting out of Saints from Liverpool to America. Whatever information the Saints may want about the preparations of the voyage, they are advised to call on Elder Fielding at Liverpool, as their first movement, when they arrive there as emigrants. There are some brethren who have felt themselves competent to do their own business in these matters, and rather despising the counsel of their friends, have been robbed and cheated out of nearly all they had. A word of caution to the wise is sufficient. It is also a great saving to go in companies, instead of going individually. First, a company can charter a vessel, so as to make the passage much cheaper than otherwise. Secondly, provisions can be purchased at wholesale for a company much cheaper than otherwise. Thirdly, this will avoid bad company on the passage. Fourthly, when a company arrives in New Orleans they can charter a steam-boat so as to reduce the passage near one-half. The measure will save some hundreds of pounds on each ship load. Fifthly, a man of experience can go as leader of each company, who will know how to avoid rogues and knaves.”[549]

Up the Mississippi & the Nauvoo reception

Such counsel aided thousands of British converts who soon reached the shores of North America in the 1840s. With the exception of a few early voyages which landed in New York or Quebec, the remaining voyages destined for Nauvoo, all of which were launched from Liverpool, disembarked at New Orleans.[550] Apparently the decision to use this southern U.S. port (commencing in December 1840), rather than New York or Quebec, came as a result of a letter Joseph sent to the Twelve in England, October of 1840. In it he mentioned, “I think that those who came here this fall did not take the best possible route, or the least expensive.”[551] Six months later the Millennial Star reported an “Epistle of the Twelve,” wherein counsel was given regarding when and how British converts should immigrate to Nauvoo: “It is much cheaper going by New Orleans than by New York. But it will never do for emigrants to go by New Orleans in the summer on account of the heat and sickness of the climate. It is, therefore, advisable for the Saints to emmigrate in autumn, winter, or spring.”[552]

This route up the Mississippi proved not only cheaper; it also allowed the Prophet Joseph to be aware when groups of British converts were coming up river from St. Louis. Here on the banks of the Mississippi, Joseph met the foreign Saints who had gathered to receive instruction from their prophet and to help build the temple and receive their endowment. A number of accounts demonstrate how the prophet Joseph led the way in welcoming the eager converts who had come from afar.

For example, in a letter to the Millennial Star, Heber C. Kimball described the reception the Twelve and over a hundred immigrating Saints received the summer of 1841: “We landed in Nauvoo on the 1st of July, and when we struck the dock I think there was about three hundred Saints there to meet us, and a greater manifestation of love and gladness I never saw before. President Smith was the first one that caught us by the hand.”[553]

As new converts to a religion which claimed to be a restoration of God’s ancient covenant church, complete with apostles and prophets, the thrill of being greeted by the Prophet Joseph Smith must have been overwhelming. Robert Crookston testified,

As we approached the landing place to our great joy we saw the Prophet Joseph Smith there to welcome his people who had come so far. We were all so glad to see him and set our feet upon the promised land so to speak. It was the most thrilling experience of my life for I know that he was a Prophet of the Lord.[554]

The Prophet himself described what it was like for him to greet a boatload of Saints who had crossed the Atlantic on the Emerald and come up river on the Church-owned steamboat, the Maid of Iowa:[555]

About five p.m., the steamer Maid of Iowa, hauled up at the Nauvoo House landing, and discharged about two hundred Saints. […] I was present at the landing and the first on board the steamer, when I met Sister Mary Ann Pratt (who had been in England with Brother Parley,) and her little daughter only three or four days old. I could not     refrain from shedding tears. So many of my friends and acquaintances arriving in one day kept me very busy receiving their congratulation and answering their questions. I     was rejoiced to meet them in such good health and fine spirits; for they were equal to any that had ever come to Nauvoo.[556]

The Maid of Iowa also ferried up the Mississippi other Saints who had crossed the Atlantic on the Fanny in 1844. When this group of British converts reached the shores of Nauvoo, many also recorded their endearing first encounters with the Prophet Joseph Smith. William Adams recalled the exquisite joy of being greeted by Joseph and Hyrum Smith along with two hundred Nauvoo Saints.[557] Priscilla Staines, another passenger, felt that notwithstanding the masses who had assembled to greet the incoming Saints, she would be able to recognize the Prophet Joseph Smith. She remembered: “I felt impressed by the spirit that I should know him. As we neared the pier the prophet was standing among the crowd. At the moment, however I recognized him according to the impression and pointed him out.”[558] Thomas Steed said he recognized the prophet by his “noble expression”: “the Prophet Joseph was at the pier. At first glance I could tell it was him. […] He came on board to shake hands and welcome us by many encouraging words, and express his thankfulness that we had arrived in safety.” The absence of published photographs of the Prophet available to these converts makes these experiences all the more significant. British convert Christopher Layton remembered this day as a day of rejoicing: “There stood our Prophet on the banks of the river to welcome us! As he heartily grasped our hands, the fervently spoken words “God bless you’ sank deep into our hearts, giving us a feeling of peace such as we had never known before.”[559]

After being torn from kindred and homeland, having sailed thousands of watery miles, British Saints saw the Prophet for the first time. There he stood, before their faces, the noble embodiment of their faith. The Spirit bore witness to his holy calling as God’s prophet and seer to all the world. Joseph Smith succored these weary Saints and greeted them with the warmest possible affections. Their faith now strengthened and the desire of their hearts realized, they were now ready to meet the challenges that would confront them as they began to build Zion in a new land. The same prophet who first issued the call to gather was he who stood to welcome the Lord’s chosen people who had crossed the awesome Atlantic to erect a temple of the Lord and to receive the sacred endowment. With this divine power, the Saints not only had strength to establish another Zion, they were also equipped to obtain a far greater land of promise.

Gathering to the Great Basin

However, before the Saints would arrive in their eternal heavenly abode, they would yet meet with further obstacles, which included an untimely exodus from Nauvoo in the chilly winter of 1846. This forced exodus resulted in thousands of Latter-day Saints being strung out across a modern day Mesopotamia from the Mississippi River to the Missouri River. The following year the Mormon pioneers would make their new home in the Great Basin desert and establish a new Church headquarters in Salt Lake City.

By 1849, Salt Lake City would blossom as the rose and much of the needed economic fertilizer came from the gold rush which brought thousands of 49ers through the Mormon Mecca and produced an economic windfall.[560] Some of the funds were used to launch international missions, one of which was the Scandinavian mission, headquartered in Copenhagen in 1850. By 1852, Scandinavian converts began to make their way to their new Zion in the West and by the close of the 19th century, only the British immigrants eclipsed the number of Scandinavians who immigrated to Utah.[561]

Most of these European converts would enter the eastern coast of America, rather than traveling up the southern route on the Mississippi. During the years of Brigham Young’s administration as Church president (1847-1877), the successor of Joseph Smith, he oversaw the decisions regarding migration routes by sail, rail and trail. For example, due to serious health risks, the Mississippi River route came under scrutiny. Therefore, President Young re-routed the European converts through select eastern ports instead of New Orleans which had been the principal port the Saints had used from 1841-1854. In a letter to Liverpool dated 2 August 1854, Brigham directed Church leader, Franklin D. Richards, as follows: “You are aware of the sickness liable to assail our unacclimated brethren on the Mississippi river, hence I wish you to ship no more to New Orleans, but ship to Philadelphia, Boston, and New York, giving preference in the order named.”[562] Within a short time, New York became the primary port of disembarkation for the Mormon European converts inasmuch as it could boast of a new immigration center known as Castle Garden, which was erected in 1855. Before Castle Garden closed her doors in the late nineteenth century, over 65,000 Latter-day Saints would pass through her portals.[563]

Scandinavian gathering

Emphasis on the gathering was continued in Utah with the same amount of energy it had been given in Nauvoo. For example, in 1852, when LDS Scandinavians began to immigrate to Utah, the First Presidency declared to the Saints abroad, “It is time for them to gather, without delay, to Zion.”[564]

It is estimated that over 90,000 Latter-day Saints made the trans-Atlantic journey during the nineteenth century. These ocean crossings have been described extensively by both contemporary commentators and Mormon historians alike. Yet the journey from Liverpool to America was but one segment in the much longer process of gathering of thousands of Scandinavian Mormons who transmigrated to Utah during this period.

William Mulder revealed that most of the Scandinavian converts were Danish. He noted, “Of the 46,497 converts which Scandinavia yielded between 1850 and 1905, 50 percent were Danish, slightly less than 36 percent were Swedish, and not quite 14 percent were Norwegian. Of the 22,653 of these “members of record’ who emmigrated, 56 percent were Danish, a little over 32 percent were Swedish, 11 percent were Norwegian, and a [small] fraction Icelandic.”[565]

Between 1852 and 1894, nearly two hundred vessels carrying Latter-day Saints left Scandinavia bound for Hull, an important port on the east coast of England.[566] The emigrants then made the overland railway crossing from Hull to Liverpool, where the headquarters of the British and European Missions were situated.[567] Only once they had completed the journey to Liverpool, could the trans-Atlantic crossing commence. Unlike the British emigrants from Liverpool, no Scandinavian convert would travel a direct course to America, but instead made a “series of journeys,” first to Copenhagen and then Liverpool.[568] As Mulder explained:

Going to America involved a whole series of journeys. The proselytes first had to make their way to Copenhagen, [the] main assembly point.[569] Unless they lived on Zealand itself, which meant crossing the straits from Jutland or one of the Danish islands, and the Sound from Sweden – short laps but adventurous to many who were seeing the face of the country for the first time. From Copenhagen they took a steamer to Kiel or Lubeck on the German portion of the peninsula, continuing by rail to Altona, within walking distance of Hamburg, or Gluckstad, a little farther down the Elbe. Except for the years 1862, 1865, and 1866, when parties went directly from Hamburg to America, the emigrants moved straight across the North Sea to Grimsby or Hull and entrained for Liverpool along with whatever Norwegian Saints had come directly from Christiania or Stavanger.[570]

European Mormon Transmigration through Hull

The first large group of nearly three hundred LDS Scandinavian converts, along with some twenty-four thousand who followed between 1852 and 1894, represent only a small fraction of the many Europeans who migrated to America. Between 1836 and 1914, an estimated thirty million Europeans immigrated to the United States.[571]

The primary reason so many Europeans traversed the Humber-to-Mersey route (especially via Hull) was because British ship-owners, and later railway companies, developed an effective system of organization for transmigrant shipping. As the steamships replaced sailing vessels, trade agreements between steamship companies and rail operators became stronger, led by the Wilson Line of Hull the North Eastern Railway and (later) the Guion Line of Liverpool. Trade agreements between shipping and railway operators were essential because they enabled the British operators to undercut the price of direct migration. Cheap, safe and reliable travel encouraged millions of Europeans to travel via Britain.

The success of its passenger operations were based upon its ability to supply Liverpool shipping operators with the large numbers of third-class passengers needed to fill the large steam-powered vessels that ferried passengers across the North Atlantic. Though Morris & Co. only chartered sailing vessels to transport Saints on the Atlantic crossing, they were able to use the steamers of the Wilson Line on the North Sea crossing – reducing the effects that direct emigration (on sailing vessels) for the entire journey from Denmark to America would have caused. But in 1867, Morris & Co. lost the “Mormon Contract” to transport Saints to Zion when the Guion Line began transporting Saints across the North Atlantic on steamships instead of sailing vessels. After three sailing vessels of LDS immigrants were sent the following year, an agreement was made between the Church and the Guion Line to transport the remaining Mormon migrants for the remainder of the year.[572]

The Guion Line’s steamships drastically reduced the time involved in gathering to Zion. Although the Mormons contracted solely with the Guion Line for the transport of all their European converts, the Liverpool based company then subcontracted the Wilson Line to carry the European converts across the North Sea to Hull, as it had successfully done for Morris & Co. and thousands of non-LDS passengers. After the Church signed a new emigrant contract with Guion in 1869, Mormon converts traveled on a Wilson Line steamer to Hull, journeyed across England to Liverpool by the North Eastern Railway’s trains, before they were allocated a berth on a steamship of the Guion Line for their trans-Atlantic passage. This integrated service utilized the successful operations of large-scale transport companies on chartered (not scheduled) services, and demonstrated how organized groups could form equally successful partnerships that were beneficial to all parties concerned.

On 13 May 1869, Mr. George Ramsden, agent of the Guion Line, met with British Mission president Albert Carrington in Liverpool, to arrange trans-Atlantic transport for a company of Mormon converts aboard the Minnesota.[573] According to their plan, the Saints boarded the Minnesota in Liverpool on 1 June 1869. The “British Mission Manuscript History” records, “On their arrival on board they were provided with tea, and everything was done by the manager, Mr. G. Ramsden, for the comfort of the Saints. They had the best part of the steamer entirely for themselves and could use the aft part of the ship in common with the cabin passengers.”[574]

The successful partnership lasted for a quarter of a century. The relationship of Guion agent George Ramsden with the Mormons was extraordinary. In praise of the trust he enjoyed with the Saints, British Mission President Anthon H. Lund pointed out that Ramsden worked for decades with the Church without a written contract.[575] The sea-going Saints not only received trustworthy service, but the successful conversion from sail to steam on the journey westward significantly reduced the time needed to travel to America, ensuring that the Wilson and Guion Lines each profited from their roles as the carriers of LDS Church members to Zion.[576]

For their part, the Wilson Line provided a standard of steamer that surpassed most of their North Sea rivals.[577] The Guion Line, for its agreed responsibilities, hired the services of Charles Maples, a Hull-based emigration agent who met the migrants on arrival in port and escorted them safely to the railway station.[578] Maples, like his counterparts at Liverpool, was noted by LDS transmigrants for the help he provided in assisting the foreign converts en route to Liverpool.[579] Organized groups such as the Mormons were able to gain a reduction in price by purchasing their tickets in bulk. Booking with experienced agents and trusted shipping operators ensured that the standard of service provided was high – yet the costs were kept to a minimum.[580]

Not only did the Saints receive a good standard of service from these shipping lines, but they were also assisted by their fellow Saints en route. LDS Scandinavian migrant Peter O. Hansen noted on arrival at Hull in 1855 that the company he traveled with was “very kindly greeted by the Hull Saints.”[581] Four years later, another Mormon migrant wrote: “At the landing place, 18 brethren and sisters picked us up, who accompanied us to our inn where they entertained us greatly with their song.”[582]

Notwithstanding such transmigrant service enroute via Hull and excellent emigration service in Liverpool and across the Atlantic by both Church officials and seasoned agents, some Scandinavians later found additional obstacles crossing the American plains. Such challenges which delayed them and of which they found most difficult, came when they attempted to yoke oxen: One author noted, “Some of the Scandinavians, disliking the American way of driving oxen in yokes, hitched up the beasts of burden in regular Danish fashion. But they had forgotten one little thing - that the oxen were American . . . It was decided that it would be easier for the emigrants to learn American ways than it would be for the oxen to learn the Danish harness.”[583]

Economic challenges and opportunities

Many Europeans from Scandinavia and Great Britain faced more serious delays which kept them from reaching Zion in a timely fashion. Economics was the primary challenge and difficulty for many proselytes seeking to gather resources for themselves and their families. This problem was partially resolved by the abundance of resources brought to the Salt Lake Valley by Argonauts heading West during the gold rush years. These over landers who passed through Salt Lake City brought a certain degree of wealth to the Valley.[584] As noted above, such a windfall provided means for missionary work to be opened up in more areas of Europe. It also allowed resources for the launching of the Perpetual Emigrating Fund which helped provide a way for the poor to be financially assisted in their journey to Zion. This revolving fund, generally called the PEF, was launched in 1849 and continued until 1887. It provided assistance for thousands of Saints who gathered to Utah Territory during the 19th century. This fund was called “perpetual” because it was established with the idea of allowing immigrants to have a temporary loan which was to be paid back to the PEF as soon as possible once the LDS migrants reached Utah.[585] Such paybacks took years to repay and some never met their obligations. However, most did and many were employed doing public works in Salt Lake City.[586]

Conclusion

Although the journey to Zion consisted of many migrant miles for the European converts, many later testified that it was well worth the sail, rail, trail journey. An abundance of first person accounts would attest that notwithstanding the journey was expensive, it was priceless and well worth the labor to reach a promised land they had longed for. Here, most were greeted by family and friends who helped them to assimilate into their desert haven in the West.[587]

DIVERGENT PATHS: EXPRESSIONS OF THE LATTER DAY SAINT MOVEMENT IN EUROPE

STEVEN L. SHIELDS

Joseph Smith, Jr. sent the first representatives of his fledgling denomination to Britain in 1837. Over the next several years the missionary effort produced thousands of converts, many of whom immigrated to the United States. Later missionary efforts were launched more broadly in Europe.[588]

When the founding prophet was killed in 1844 in Illinois, his untimely death caused the denomination to fragment into several competing factions. During an almost twenty-year long fragmentation period, the many competing church organizations each claimed to be the sole, authoritative, unbroken continuation of the original. Various successor leaders contended for converts at home and abroad. Missionary efforts focused mainly on persuading existing members to accept a particular leader’s claim of legitimacy.[589] There was no longer a single “original church.” Claims to succession are but matters of faith, not historical objectivity.

When the fragmentation normalized by the mid-1860s, there remained six viable expressions of the original church.[590] Each leader and each denomination, in its own way, has tried to be faithful to its best understanding of the work of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Restoration. Collectively, but not individually, these represent the “original church.” Differences between what was taking place in Nauvoo – much of it behind closed doors – and what was known in the many congregations and among the membership of the original church outside of Nauvoo and throughout the rest of the United States have not been adequately studied.[591]

The six historical “parent” expressions of the original church continue today. All other expressions of the Latter Day Saint movement trace their heritage to one or more of these six.[592] These six denominations and their key founding leaders are:

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[593] (Brigham Young),

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints[594] (James J. Strang),

Church of Jesus Christ[595] (Alpheus Cutler),

Community of Christ[596] (Joseph Smith III),

Church of Christ-Temple Lot[597] (Granville Hedrick),

Church of Jesus Christ[598] (William Bickerton).

During the latter part of the nineteenth century, the denominations led by Young, Smith, and Strang each conducted missionary efforts in Europe.[599] Alpheus Cutler’s denomination does not proselytize, instead believes that God will lead people to the church as fitting.[600] Hedrick’s denomination called its first missionary to Britain in 1928;[601] Bickerton’s denomination set up its first European congregation in Italy following Second World War.[602]

The earliest known “divergent expression” of the Latter Day Saint movement in Europe was a short-lived effort by Isaac Russell during the years of the original church. Russell, an English convert to the church, tried to gain support from church members around the town of Alston, England, where he had recently completed a successful mission. During the winter of 1838-1839, when members of the church were expelled from the state of Missouri in the United States, Russell and a few others elected to stay, rejecting Joseph Smith’s leadership. He wrote to England, tell people there that he had received a revelation, and that he and his followers were to take the church “into the wilderness” and preach to the Lamanites. He hoped that those he baptized at Alston would recognize him as a new prophetic leader. There is little more information about Russell’s efforts besides his letter to the Saints at Alston, dated 30 January 1839 from Far West, Missouri.[603]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Brigham Young)

The missionary efforts of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Brigham Young) will be considered in other chapters of this book. However, there are several organizations that have a heritage in that denomination who have engaged in missions in Europe. Of those, the most significant was done by the Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times.[604] This denomination was organized by Joel F. LeBaron in 1955, and was based in a theological perspective that is called “Fundamentalist Mormonism.”[605] LeBaron’s father was a member of a group of pioneers who were sent to Mexico in the late 1800s by Wilford Woodruff, then-president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were charged to continue the practice of plural marriage.

Joel F. LeBaron claimed that his priesthood authority was passed to him direct from Joseph Smith, Junior, to Benjamin F. Johnson, and then LeBaron’s father, Alma Dayer LeBaron. This priesthood authority was dormant until God reportedly commanded Joel to organize a new church. LeBaron taught that this was the highest priesthood office, and called it the “First Grand Head.”[606]

The missionary effort of this new organization in Europe was in 1958 in France. However, the work was not done by an official representative of the church. Rather, conversions took place among missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One of the missionaries, having become familiar with and most likely converted to LeBaron’s teachings before arriving in France, shared those ideas with other missionaries. Several missionaries became converted to LeBaron’s teachings and were sent home to the United States, cutting their missions short. They were baptized into LeBaron’s church. Six members of LeBaron’s first quorum of twelve apostles were from this group of former missionaries in France. However, besides the missionaries, there were no other members in France.[607]

During the 1960s leadership disputes arose among LeBaron’s followers resulting in Joel F. LeBaron’s assassination in 1972. Since then his church organization dwindled and became factionalized. Most of the early followers from the France mission left the church during that time. No further European missionary efforts were undertaken.[608]

Jorge Mora and others organized the Church of Jesus Christ at Sabadell, Spain around 1981, following Mora’s excommunication from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mora and his followers developed a theology that blended beliefs of their former church and those of Community of Christ. They promoted the Book of Mormon and Bible as scriptures, as well as the Doctrine and Covenants (Community of Christ edition). Missionaries from Community of Christ had meetings with this group in 1983, but Mora’s teaching that humans are devils until baptism were found to be incompatible. Whether Mora’s church continues as an independent organization is not known.[609]

Influence of the Apostolic United Brethren, a “Fundamentalist Mormon” organization based in Utah, brought about a couple of small groups in England, although missionaries were not sent to proselytize. The Apostolic United Brethren claims several thousand members, mostly in the United States, whose heritage was with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[610]

The first group emerged about 1985, under the leadership of Alan and Marian Munn in Bristol, England. Members were mostly from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Although they believed in early teachings, such as Adam being God the Father, the Munns stated that polygamy was not practiced. They claimed the right of believing the early teachings, despite being out of step with the current thinking of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They promoted individual responsibility as a key factor in the gospel of Jesus Christ. What became of the group is not known.[611]

Another group of fundamentalist-leaning members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the United Kingdom began publishing a journal called Truth Seeker in October 1991. The name of the publication was changed to Messenger of the Fullness of the Gospel in 1997. The first two editors were a bishop in Birmingham and an elder’s quorum president from Solihull. Publication later moved to Leeds, and then Bristol and in 2002 to the United States. Nathan Taylor, now in Utah, is one of the founders of the periodical. Early in its history the publication was supported by Owen Allred, then leader of the Apostolic United Brethren, but the editors have declared full personal responsibility for the content of the publication and its independence.[612]

Christopher C. Warren, a former member of both The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Community of Christ, organized a new church at Oxford, England in 1986. After several transitions and name changes, the organization is known as Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon, but includes several specialized ministries, fellowships, and priesthood orders. Headquarters was moved to Norway in 1988 and to Sweden in 1998, where it currently is located.[613]

During the 1990s, the Warren and his followers gradually discarded the movement’s Latter Day Saint roots, and now claim to be a new apostolic Christian tradition. In the earliest years of the movement, Warren taught that two latter-day apostasies were foretold. With the death of Joseph Smith, the original church was rejected and Brigham Young introduced heresies into the church. Community of Christ was believed to have originally taught the truth, but since 1958 shifted into apostasy. This teaching is no longer relevant to the church’s understanding of its mission.

Warren has proclaimed more than 600 revelations, many of which have been published. These revelations are said to apply only to those who become members of the movement.[614] The scriptures used by the church include the Bible (Protestant Canon) with some parts of the Apocrypha as a secondary canon; as well as several writings of the early church fathers (first and second centuries C.E.), as well as several Pseudepigraphic books from the Old Testament era. The church declares the infallibility of the Protestant canon, in its original autographs, but prefers to use Messianic translations such as the Hebraic Roots Version (HRV) or Institute for Scripture Research Version (ISRV).

Women are ordained to the ministry, but in their own priesthood orders separate from males. The church believes the “lost 10 tribes” are not lost, but mingled with nations mainly in northern Europe. “British Israel” claims are rejected. The church declares heterosexual marriage the only accepted Biblical form of marriage, and affirms pacifism as a way of life.[615]

The Restoration Fellowship in Jesus Christ was organized at San Diego, California in 1990, comprised mostly of LGBT members and former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The church was successful in setting up at least two congregations in Europe – one in Britain and one in the Netherlands. This new denomination looked to the scriptures of the Latter Day Saint movement as foundations. But they developed a unique version of the Doctrine and Covenants that included documents from the two editions of that book published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Community of Christ, as well revelations reported by their own spiritual leaders.

The church adopted a form of temple rituals, and set up a temple room at their meeting place in California in which they performed endowment ceremonies. Plans were made for building a dedicated facility for endowments and baptisms for the dead. Members believed that “God” included both the Father and the Mother, as Heavenly Parents. Priesthood was not restricted by race, gender, or sexual orientation.

The church kept an Internet presence for several years, but by early 2008, the church websites had been deactivated, and no new contact information for the church has been discovered.[616]

Born and raised in England as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Matthew Philip Gill of Hilton, Derbyshire, England, claims he was ordained as prophetic successor to Joseph Smith, Junior on 11 July 2006 by the angel Raphael. Gill was not quite 28 years old. He, and several others including his parents, organized the Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ. This new organization claims to be “a continuation of the original organization brought forth through the Prophet Joseph Smith Junior and formally organized on 6 April 1830.”[617]

As a 12-year old, Gill says he read the Book of Mormon, and while praying about that book was visited by the angel Moroni. He reported that Moroni showed him the plates from which Joseph Smith, Junior is said to have translated the book.[618] Gill reports that in 2005 he had his first visit from Raphael, and afterwards was given an ancient record to translate. This book was published in 2007 as “The Book of Jeraneck.”[619] The book tells the story of a purported group of people who, like the Jaredites of the Book of Mormon story, were at the tower of Babel, but also did not have their language confused. This group of people was said to have been sent to the north and settled in what is now Britain, while the Jaredites are said to have settled in the Western hemisphere. Jeraneck is reportedly the last prophet of the people group in Britain, and Stonehenge is purportedly the site of their temple at which the final battles took place that ended their civilization.[620]

Regular meetings of the church are broadcast on the Internet. Church membership is reported to be fewer than 100.[621] Members are mostly in England and the United States. The Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ publishes the collected revelations of Gill and other church leaders in the “Book of Prophecies and Revelations.”[622] Other books of scripture accepted by the church include the Inspired Version of the Bible,[623] Book of Mormon, and the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.[624]

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (James J. Strang)

The first and perhaps only missionary effort in Europe by James J. Strang’s Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was launched in 1846, following a conference of that denomination at Kirtland, Ohio in August 1846.[625] At that conference Lester (sometimes spelled “Leicester”) Brooks was ordained an apostle, and was appointed to go to England. Brooks was to be accompanied by Moses Smith, another apostle. Martin Harris (one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon) and Hazen Aldrich, both of whom were high priests in Strang’s church, were also appointed to the mission. The group arrived in England in October 1846.[626] The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star for 15 November 1846 reports,

“Leicester Brooks. This celebrated Strangite Apostle has just arrived in England to do the work of his master. […] He has come here (as a Strangite Apostle) to preach purity, reformation, and good things to the Saints in England.” The report reminded readers that Brooks was an elder in the original church, but reportedly had worked with a land speculator in Ohio who defrauded early church members as they left the Kirtland area for Illinois in the late 1830s.[627]

The Star was even more critical of Martin Harris. “One of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, yielded to the spirit and temptation of the Devil a number of years ago – turned against Joseph Smith and became his bitter enemy […] We understand that he is appointed a mission to this country, but we do not feel to warn the Saints against him, for his own unbridled tongue will soon show out specimens of folly enough to give any person a true index to the character of the man”[628]

The Star then warned its readers, “Let all the Saints beware that they keep in their own bosoms the spirit of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Give no place to the Devil, nor to those who have gone out from us, that it might be made manifest that they are not of us. Receive them not into your houses, neither bid them God speed, lest you be partakers of their evil deeds”[629]

The mission was not successful and the trip was cut short. Harris returned to Kirtland by the end of the year. During Strang’s lifetime no other European missionary effort by the denomination is known. With Strang’s death in 1856, the membership scattered and the denomination all but came to an end. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints today has fewer than 200 members consisting of several scattered believers and a few small groups. One community is located at Artesia, New Mexico and another in Burlington, Wisconsin. [630]

In 1963, following correspondence with church leaders, R. Alexandre Caffiaux[631] from Lille, France, arrived at the community in Wisconsin. He was baptized and ordained to the priesthood. On his return to France, he claimed the voice of God came to him telling him that he was Strang’s successor and the prophet of the church. Caffiaux went to Iran early in 1964, and reported that on 22 January the angel Raphael appeared to him, and ordained him “with the majesty of the First Presidency of the High Priesthood of Melchisedec.”

Caffiaux sought a general conference of the church, but leaders in the United States decided a ruling council would instead meet with him instead on 4 and 5 July 1964. Some members of the church in the United States supported him, while some were undecided.

Caffiaux called his own general conference in Europe on 21 and 22 May 1966, where members there reportedly voted unanimously to uphold him as “prophet and king.” In a 6 December 1967 revelation, Caffiaux declared those in the church who did not support his claims to be unfaithful. He proceeded to organize in France under the name Saint Eglise de Jésus-Christ (Holy Church of Jesus Christ). His home in Lille was declared to be the church headquarters and meetinghouse for the congregation there, but except Caffiaux’s family members, no other European membership is known.

For a time Caffiaux wrote to his supporters in the United States, mostly through letters written by his son Roger, since Caffiaux himself spoke no English. However, even this contact was increasingly sporadic, until it ended altogether. Finally, in 1978, a general conference of the church in the United States declared Caffiaux’s 1963 priesthood ordination invalid, and rejected his claims. The conference further resolved that anyone accepting membership in the French church were not members of the church in the United States.[632]

Community of Christ (Joseph Smith III)

In the aftermath of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s death, many of the scattered congregations of the original church in the Midwestern United States continued autonomously despite the absence of a central leader. Some of the members at first accepted the leadership of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but finally rejected the leadership claims of Brigham Young. Others accepted James J. Strang’s claims, but renounced that affiliation when Strang’s plural marriages became public.

Finally the leaders of several of those congregations came together in a loose coalition. This group called a general conference in 1852, and thus was born the “new organization” of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now Community of Christ). In 1860 the Prophet Joseph Smith’s son, Joseph Smith III, having previously been courted by emissaries from Brigham Young and other leaders, accepted leadership of the “new organization.” He testified that he made his decision “by the influence of the Spirit.”[633]

Today, Community of Christ has members in more than a dozen European nations. Church leadership and missionary work is carried out mainly by indigenous church members. The British Isles is home to the largest European membership (more than 1300), followed by Germany (about 400) and the Netherlands (more than 300). Other nations where the denomination has congregations or members include Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Hungary, Norway, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, and Ukraine.[634] Unfortunately, the few available historical studies of Community of Christ in Europe consist mainly of unpublished graduate papers.[635]

The content of the message taken from the United States to Europe in the earliest years condemned Brigham Young and his promotion of polygamy and other teachings, and argued that succession in the presidency of the church and the prophetic office rightfully belonged to Joseph Smith III. John L. Bear reported to Community of Christ leadership in 1873 his efforts of translating and printing a series of tracts dealing with those topical issues.[636] Of course, this is no longer the message of Community of Christ, which has moved completely away from the polemical arguments of the past.

Charles Derry, the first missionary to Europe, returned to his English homeland early in 1863. Derry had left the British Isles for Utah just nine years earlier, but on arriving in Utah reported his disappointment when he learned of plural marriage. He eventually made his way back to Nebraska where he united with Community of Christ.[637]

Derry was commissioned by the conference of the church in October 1862, and left for England in December of that year. He was joined by other missionaries later in 1863. By the end of 1863 six branches had been set up in England and Wales, and several members of the priesthood were ordained. Reports from the first two years of missionary work in the British Isles were encouraging, and set the stage for the future. The congregations in England and Wales have produced several apostles and members of the First Presidency of Community of Christ from the middle of the 19th century into the 21st century.[638]

The first missionary to the Netherlands was Elki Jasper, appointed in 1869, at the April conference of the church. Jasper left the United States for Europe shortly after the conference, but by November of the same year had given up and returned home. Financial difficulties were cited as his reason for returning, although he reported the baptisms of several families. Missionaries did not return to the Netherlands until 1922. Community of Christ was officially organized in the Netherlands in 1924 when a congregation at Rotterdam was formally organized by vote of the members. [639]

Frederick Ursenbach was the first Community of Christ member in Switzerland. Ursenbach had immigrated to Utah, but was disappointed and united with Community of Christ in 1864 and was ordained a high priest while still in the United States. He returned to his homeland where he engaged in business. On his own he produced and gave out a tract called “The Gospel.” Finally, in 1872, John Avondet, a native of Pinerolo, Italy, was sent to Switzerland, France, and Italy as a missionary for the church. He met with Ursenbach at Lausanne, and also preached the gospel in his hometown in Italy, where several people were baptized. Another missionary, John L. Bear, was sent to Switzerland in 1873, and he reportedly baptized several at Zurich.[640]

The challenges to the work on the Continent were summed up in a report to church leaders by Elder J. S. Patterson in 1873. He wrote, “Late advices from Brn. Avondet and Bear, in Italy and Switzerland, show that they are untiring in their efforts, and are making slow, but sure progress on the enemy’s works; but they are battling single-handed against heavy odds, and without the necessary ammunition (i.e., the printed words).”[641]

Community of Christ’s efforts in France, despite John Avondet’s 1872 assignment, did not begin in earnest until 1974 when Jean-Christophe Bouissou performed the first baptism there. Bouissou was raised in Paris and after the end of the Second World War he served in the French navy. In 1959, he went to Tahiti as a tourist. During his stay he met and married his wife. Bouissou’s wife was born and raised in Community of Christ in French Polynesia. Her family has been members there for more than a century. Bouissou settled in Tahiti and converted to Community of Christ.

In 1976 Bouissou moved his family to Paris, and organized a congregation of Community of Christ there. After several years in France, Bouissou moved to the International Headquarters of Community of Christ in Independence, Missouri, where he set up a French-language translation department for the denomination before finally returning to Tahiti.[642]

Thierry Schmidt served in the French military, and while on assignment in Tahiti he met and married a Tahitian woman who was a Community of Christ member. On completion of his military service they returned to Brest where Schmidt was baptized and organized a congregation of Community of Christ there. In addition to missionary work in France, Schmidt did missionary work in Switzerland also where he helped to set up congregations among Haitian immigrants at Lausanne and Geneva.[643]

The Scandinavian mission of Community of Christ was long seen as one of the most important of the missions in Europe, yet was the least productive in new members. The first two missionaries arrived in Copenhagen in 1875. Magnus Fyrando was a native of Sweden and Hans N. Hansen was a native of Denmark.[644] Converts were baptized in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, but most immigrated to the United States.

In modern times, Community of Christ has extended missionary work from its bases in Western Europe to Bulgaria, Hungary, Russia, and Ukraine. The first Hungarian church member was baptized in 1992. Apostle Lawrence W. Tyree performed the first baptism in Russia in 1995. There are congregations in six cities in Russia. Work in Ukraine began in 1998 when two missionaries, Kerstin Jeske and Michael Menzel, both from Germany, made the first visit with a contact in that nation. There are five congregations in Ukraine. Missionary work and church leadership is done by local priesthood members.[645]

Church of Christ (Temple Lot) (Granville Hedrick)

Several congregations of the original church in central Illinois continued locally following the death of Joseph Smith. In 1857 two of the leaders, Granville Hedrick and Jedediah Owens, went to a conference in Wisconsin of the “new organization” (later to become Community of Christ) to examine the viewpoints of that emerging denomination. Hedrick was ordained as a high priest in the original church.

Deciding that “lineal priesthood” was not a correct doctrine, Hedrick and the others continued independently for several more years. Their congregations met in conferences, holding to the idea that they were a “remnant of the original church.” Their hope was they could be a nucleus to regather the scattered “saints.”[646]

In November 1862, John E. Page, a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles in the original church, formally united with this group. In May 1863, following a sustaining vote of the membership, John E. Page ordained Granville Hedrick, David Judy, Jedediah Owen, and Adna C. Haldeman as apostles in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. At a conference in July 1863, Hedrick was proposed to be President of the High Priesthood. The apostles and other members of the priesthood then ordained Hedrick to the office of “first Presidency of the church, to preside over the high priesthood, and to be a prophet, seer, revelator, and translator to the church.”[647]

A series of revelations reported by Granville Hedrick led the church to prepare a return to Missouri. The first group arrived in 1867, being the first Latter Day Saints to return since the expulsion in 1838. They soon began buying the first lots of the church’s current 2.5 acre tract, part of the original 63 acres bought by Edward Partridge in 1831.[648]

Over time, the denomination reverted to the original name as in 1830. The parenthetical “Temple Lot” is not officially part of the name, but a way to designate this denomination from the many other churches using “Church of Christ.” The denomination also distanced itself from later revelations of Joseph Smith, Jr., opting for parts of the Book of Commandments instead of the Doctrine and Covenants, and giving preference to the fifteen that were given by means of the seer stone.[649] Eventually the church dispensed with a first presidency, and determined the quorum of apostles – with no single person appointed as “prophet” – was the proper scripturally based church leadership model.

The Church of Christ (Temple Lot) remained a small denomination, with no more than 200 members, into the 1920s. However, a leadership crisis in Community of Christ in the mid-1920s saw as many as 2,000 members of that denomination move their membership to the Church of Christ (Temple Lot). A 1918 agreement between the two denominations allowed transfers of membership without rebaptism, if the person had been baptized by someone who had been ordained by “servants of God, called during the ministry of Joseph Smith.”[650]

With the huge influx of members, Church of Christ (Temple Lot) gained not only the momentum, but willing priesthood members to fill dormant offices in the church. Requests for membership transfer came from Wales, England, Scotland, Netherlands, and Germany. In 1926 a quorum of apostles was called and ordained for the first time in more than fifty years.[651] Of the seven men chosen, six of them were transfers from Community of Christ. One of these newly ordained apostles and former Community of Christ member, Samuel Wood, was called as the first Church of Christ (Temple Lot) missionary to Europe at the April 1928 conference of the church.[652]

The church paper, Zion’s Advocate, reported, “Apostle Samuel Wood will be the very first from the Church of Christ to take a foreign mission. But we sincely (sic] hope he will not be the last one. We hear there are many in England, Wales and Holland, who are hungering for the “Old Paths, where is the good way," and Brother Wood goes to point out the way.”[653]

Wood’s main success in his mission was with Earnest John Trapp of Gloucester, England. Trapp had been a Community of Christ member, but was received into the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) in the priesthood office of elder by Wood. Wood organized a branch of the church on 8 December 1929, at Gloucester, with Trapp as pastor.

While Wood was in the British Isles, Otto Fetting (another of the apostles) announced the twelfth in a series of messages reportedly brought to Fetting by John the Baptist. In this message, the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) was commanded to rebaptize everyone who had been received as members through transfer. All but two of the apostles rejected this message. Wood was among them. The church at Gloucester unanimously rejected Fetting’s message and appointed Wood to represent them at the April 1930 conference. The Church of Christ (Temple Lot) finally repudiated all the messages reported by Fetting.[654]

Sides were quickly drawn at the April 1930 conference of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot). Those who agreed with Fetting – although claiming to be the original Temple Lot church – separated themselves from the others. Fetting and about 1,000 others set up a new church paper and a new church organization called Church of Christ. Before his death in 1933, Fetting reported thirty messages.[655]

When the Temple Lot church met in its regular conference in April 1930, three men were presented to fill vacancies in the apostolic quorum. E. J. Trapp was one of these three. The conference directed that Wood be reassigned to the European mission, with the specific duty of ordaining Trapp to the apostleship. During this second mission to England in the spring of 1930, Wood began teaching his views on the nature of God, declaring there was but one God, and not several persons in a Godhead. E. J. Trapp and many in Gloucester agreed with this doctrine, but those at church headquarters considered it a heresy. A special conference of the apostles was called, and Wood and Trapp were stripped of their offices and removed from the twelve apostles. Wood was also disfellowshipped from the church. Trapp left voluntarily, but continued to lead a separate Church of Christ at Gloucester for a few years.[656]

At the 1935 conference of the church, Apostle B. C. Flint was appointed to the mission in the British Isles, where he tried to heal the 1930 breach at Gloucester. A few baptisms were reported. Since then, missionary efforts of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) were mainly focused in the Americas. In more recent decades, groups in Africa and the Philippines have joined the church, bringing denominational membership to about 8,000, with a few scattered members in Great Britain and Europe.[657]

The Church of Christ formed under the leadership of Otto Fetting in 1930 sent its first missionary to Europe in 1931.[658] Thomas B. Nerren was directed to go to England, Wales, and Germany and baptize several people who had formerly been associated with either Community of Christ or Church of Christ (Temple Lot). Nerren reported that several were baptized in England, and he organized a congregation there.[659]

About a year later, W. P. Buckley was sent to Wales as a missionary. He stayed about one year and baptized several people into the Church of Christ there. Most of the members gained from this early missionary thrust were lost because of death or during the Second World War. In 1978 the church paper reported there were still a few members in Finland, Germany and the Netherlands, but no mention has been made since then.[660]

Over the years disunity has plagued Fetting’s movement, increasing in intensity since his death in 1933. Two other churches, each claiming to be the “original” church set up through Fetting’s work, have been actively conducting missionary work in Europe, as their membership and financial bases have allowed. One organization, the Church of Christ (Restored), which became separated from the other Fetting followers about 1936, claims a few members in Wales, Germany, and Holland.[661]

Another denomination, the Church of Christ with the Elijah Message, formed in 1943-1944 when a split emerged among Fetting’s followers over messages reported by a young elder in the church, Wilhelm (William) August Draves. By the time he died in 1994, Draves reported the receipt of 80 messages from John the Baptist.[662]

The church listed a priesthood member, Otto A. Leers, of Hamburg, Germany in the March 1950 issue of the Voice of Peace. The facts of Leers’ membership have unfortunately been lost to history.[663] The church paper mentioned missions in Britain and Germany in 1955, but with no further details.[664]

In 1967, W. A. Draves reported the receipt of a message from John the Baptist, that says, in part, “Let [R. David] Temple carry on in Germany and help in the work there.”[665] A report of a baptism in Germany by Temple was published in March 1968.[666] Other messages reported by Draves list people in Germany to be ordained to the priesthood, including a September 1968 calling for Martin Huonker of Germany to be ordained as an apostle.[667]

Apostle L. M. Thornton went to France in 1983 where he baptized Alfred Beyeler and ordained him as an apostle.[668] A message in 1990 listed the names of several men to be ordained in the Netherlands, Poland, and Austria.[669] More recent efforts in Europe, in the mid-1990s, have resulted in establishing congregations in England, Holland, and Belgium.

Much of the recent work in Europe has been done by Elisha Hakizumwani, a refugee from the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Hakizumwani, a Church of Christ with the Elijah Message member and pastor in Rwanda, was imprisoned and tortured during the genocide. A friendly Catholic priest bribed the prison guards and bought an airplane ticket to Amsterdam for Hakizumwani, where he works for a specialty paper company and preaches the gospel in his free time.[670]

The Church of Jesus Christ (William Bickerton)

William Bickerton, who had been a leader in Sidney Rigdon’s first church organization, formed a new church organization in Pennsylvania by 1862. The first Rigdon organization had fallen apart by late 1846, and his second church organization was not set up formally until 1863.[671] Although never a member of the original church, Bickerton nonetheless was faithful to his understanding of the Restoration and the work of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He was well schooled in the doctrine of the church by Rigdon, and also during his brief affiliation with Brigham Young’s organization.[672]

The first missionary in Europe for the Church of Jesus Christ was Dominic Todaro, who returned to his homeland of Italy in 1947 and baptized his mother and six other people.[673] In 1948, Natale Sumaro was ordained an elder, and sent to Italy, where he also had family members to whom he wished to share his testimony. Forty-nine baptisms were reported, and several men were ordained elders by Sumaro. The work continued, and on 11 March 1957 the Church of Jesus Christ was incorporated in Italy. [674] A hymnal was prepared, in Italian, and the church also translated the Book of Mormon into Italian, and published the first edition in 1958. Members in Italy reportedly “began to have experiences to authenticate its veracity.”[675]

The missionary work was not without challenge in the strongly Roman Catholic nation. Dominic Todaro, who was working in the far south of Italy in Villa San Giuseppe, ran afoul of the local priest and the police; many of the villagers supported Todaro and threatened to leave the Catholic Church. Word went out, however, that those who became “Protestant” might lose their employment.[676]

The church’s Italian history is filled with stories of courage against persecution, experiences of reconciliation among families, miraculous healings, and divine protection. Over the years, several missionaries from the United States have served in Italy. In 2001, the Church of Jesus Christ reported an Italian membership of 31, with 3 missions, 4 elders, and 2 evangelists. There are also members in Great Britain, Germany, and Poland. The church also has congregations in Africa, the Caribbean, Central and South America, and in Asia.[677]

CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES

MORMON EUROPEANS OR EUROPEAN MORMONS? AN ”AFRO-EUROPEAN” VIEW ON RELIGIOUS COLONIZATION

WALTER E. A. VAN BEEK[678]

Introduction

Mormon history is part of the colonization history of the American West, and the LDS church, as a major player in that process, still bears a colonization imprint in many ways. The colonizing days are over now, and the Church is part of a major political presence in the world, no longer the colonized, but rather the colonizer. In this article I argue that the Utah-based modern Church, in relation to its membership abroad, has replicated the colonization process to which it was once subjected.[679] In order to elucidate this point I will sketch colonization processes experienced in 19th-century Deseret and compare them with the colonization processes now apparent in the modern Church. This will be done from two outside perspectives: first that of an anthropologist who has dealt most of his life with African local cultures–cum–religions that have been subjected to clear and well-described colonization pressures, in order to show similarities between the situation of African groups and that of Mormon settlement in Deseret; second, for discussion of the internal colonization within the Church, I write from the perspective of a European Mormon who for almost the same length of time has been an active member of the LDS church in the Netherlands.

First I give a short description of the history of the LDS church, slightly tongue-in-cheek and in the ethnographical present, the way the LDS “tribe” around the 1860s in the territory of Deseret would have been described by anthropologists used to an African situation.[680] (Only a somewhat outdated anthropologist would use the term “tribe” these days – it is considered anathema now – but for our narrative it is indispensable.)[681] Then I proceed with a European LDS view of the relationship with the “Domestic Church,” and finally try to assess some basic identity features of Mormons in Europe under the question: Mormon European or European Mormons?

The “tribe” of Deseret

The Deseret tribe inhabits a remote hinterland of the continent, occupying a large territory with fuzzy boundaries, united by its one important ritual center. The people are bound to the land by a mythical charter using ancient images such as “the everlasting mountains,” a new Jordan River with another Dead Sea, and the “people of Israel.” Effectively they see themselves as a chosen people who fled from an oppressing government to an unpolluted land. The Promised Land is considered to have been prepared by deity. They view themselves as a replica of a mythical tribe that once, on another continent but in similar surroundings, possessed such a land. The area was considered to have been empty, despite the presence of a small remnant of an old population. These remnant people (in African situations often considered half-mythical creatures) enjoy a special status in the founding myths of Deseret. They represent a positive presence not as such, but only as remnants of history. As remnants they were watched with some fear and apprehension, tolerated and marginalized.[682] The Deseret tribe tends to accentuate its distinctiveness from its own earlier cultural origins in a large neighboring territory; but it still retains more of the earlier culture and religion than the people of the tribe suppose.[683]

The tribe of Deseret is kin-based, as is any tribe. As people flee from their recruitment area to the relative safety of the new mountain homeland (a very common situation in Africa too) they cannot at first participate in a structure of consanguine relations. A myth (the “blood of Ephraim”) offering fictive kinship is called upon to explain how all those who heeded the call and gathered from the recesses of the world in fact belong to one of the tribes of the Israelite diaspora.[684] This mythical kinship is linked with a quest for the tribal homeland, making immigration a permanent feature of tribal self-definition. Of course in due time, fictive kinship evolves into real kinship, for the tribe has a very strong tendency towards marriage within the group (endogamy). As in any tribe, marriage is an important concern for the elders: women form a very important asset, and procuring progeny (the more the better) is a focal point of the religion. Apparently, much of the appeal of polygyny is due to this desire.

Polygyny forms one of the most obvious parallels with Africa, as throughout that continent polygyny is the rule. However, Deseret polygyny is based upon an explicit myth (“revelation”) and is one of the most contested – and therefore cherished – issues of the tribe. Polygyny in the Deseret tribe is as deeply engrained in religious life as African polygyny is in social life.[685] In Deseret the ecclesiastical elders dominate the marriage market. They happen to have an extra inducement to marry more, and usually the means at their disposal to do so. In consequence, “plural wives” tend to be considerably younger than their husbands, in Deseret as in Africa.[686] The tribe follows peculiar drinking taboos[687], and they manifest other unique customs too. The tribe routinely excludes non-members (and even non-conforming members) from the rituals in their temples, stating that outsider presence would spoil the ritual and pollute the shrine (a quite common view in African religions, too).

A standard amount of ethnocentric bias can be recognized in the tribe. They call themselves “the elect,” “saints” or “God’s people,” and thus draw a clear boundary between themselves and others, for whom counter-names are employed, such as “the world,” or “gentiles”, sometimes “the sectarians.” Still, these out-groups are not considered evil per se, as they contain actual kinsmen and potential tribe members. So out-group relations are, on the whole, on a double footing: the difference between the tribal society and the outer world is stressed, yet the larger society is defined as a recruitment area. As far as routine life experiences are concerned, people beyond the tribal border cannot be trusted.

People tend to restrict their social encounters to tribesmen. With them they share the same language, values and social (including authority) structure. Consequently, they rely on them for help and support, the extended kin group being important in this respect. As is usual among tribes, they have a more complex folk sociological model in which they differentiate between kindred tribes containing potential kinsmen and tribes to which no kinship can be traced; in short, they are neither color blind nor ignorant of ethnic labeling.[688]

Authority is strongly centralized in the tribe, as usual without a de facto separation between religious authority and political power. The paramount chief, who has more wives than most tribesmen (he is more like a Trobriand chief, in fact – one of the great classical cases in anthropology) enjoys tremendous popular respect, though on a basis of affective kinship rather than in a specifically “political” sense. He may be affectionately called “Brother,” though usually the formal title of the chieftainship, “President,” applies. In daily life he distinguishes himself as little as many African chiefs do, wearing about the same outfit as any of his people. People listen with respect, and when he sends people off to distant places to enlarge the tribal territory, normally they go unquestioningly. Few material symbols of kingship are used. In ceremonial gatherings the overt symbols of power are practically absent, though the placement of the elders in ritual settings is highly significant: chiefs are seated higher than the commoners and always face them. The authority structure is reinforced in a semi-annual rite with all those attending raising their right arm in support of the chiefly leaders. Authority is in fact unchallenged. It is based upon an unquestioning acceptance of the legitimacy of the chief, who has a personal history of close association with the much mythologized founding hero, and with whom he is even said to have had a fleeting moment of supernatural identification.[689]

The chief’s appointed community and lineage elders try to follow his example. They lead their communities as undisputed authorities; in theory their authority is grounded just as directly in the supernatural world as is that of the great chief. In practice, however, they have to follow him in his general counsel and policies. They, like the chief, have their own business to tend, their fields to plow and their harvests to reap. In their tribal section leadership as well as in their utilitarian work, they tend to rely on kinsmen and in-laws. Leadership is not considered a full time occupation, though on the level of the chief and his counselors, in effect it is.

Religion, as in any well-organized tribe, is of prime importance for the unity of the tribe. The hierarchical structure is heavily imbued with ritual power, the political system even depending on the religious one. Tribal characteristics in the religion are found in, among other things, the territorial myth, the absence of full-time religious specialists, ritual clothing, patriarchal blessings as divination, a sacred initiation at the start of adulthood for boys, and girls’ initiation into the tribal secrets at the age of marriage.[690] African tribal religion usually is rooted in its geography: sacred places, holy mountains, shrines along the footpaths of the ancestors. These religions often do not travel well, though individual cults may.[691] Deseret religion has its holy grounds as well. The main messianic message is couched in territorial terms: the tribe has a gathering place for eschatological times. Its relations with the neighboring tribes are often stated in terms of this messianic territoriality. Characteristically, for any tribe, the future holiness of a territory links to pre-historic elements: gathering places of ancestors, highpoints of the tribe’s specific history, and spots significant to the founding hero. As with any tribe, the landscape of Deseret is part of sacred history and future eschatology. As with any African tribe, magic is a basic element of the religion, both in its grounding myths and in everyday life, as tales of miracles and healing testify.[692]

This only partially tongue-in-cheek description of a few aspects of early Deseret Mormonism –  maybe an exercise in what Nibley called “the art of telling tales about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young”[693] – shows how apt our depiction of the Mormons of the mid-nineteenth century as a tribal group is, that is, as a group of people bound together by fictive and real kinship ties and a mythical charter, occupying a definite territory to which they are ideologically bound, their group life facilitated by sharing culture and speaking a common language, and unified by a comprehensive power structure. Of course, there are differences. A crucial one is the claim to universality and exclusiveness by Deseret religion. Traditional religions, be they African or other, have no claims on unique truth, nor on universal application or exclusive authority. Such a pretension is far removed from the everyday practicality of local religions.[694] Claims of universality and exclusivity belong in the Christian/Moslem sphere[695] not in the tolerant and easy-going traditional religions of Africa and elsewhere. It is this feature, however, that will transform the colonized Deseret people, however, into the religious colonizer of the rest of the world.

From “tribe” to American colony: The domestication of Deseret within the USA

The usual historical way that African groups entered into the wider world was through a colonization process, conquering and defining as part of a colonial empire, often British, French, but sometimes Portuguese or Dutch. In any case, the inclusion into a colonial state transformed the African groups, in fact “domesticating” them into citizens of a larger empire. This domestication entailed the installation of markets (for imperial produce), the extraction of minerals and primary products (for imperial use), the establishment of education, health services and a new religion, plus the occasional conscription for imperial wars. For Deseret Mormons quite a similar process can be noted.

For the tribe of Deseret, domestication came quickly. This first transformation, usually dubbed the “Americanization” of the LDS church, started at the end of the nineteenth century, though many processes had been set in motion much earlier.[696] The abolition of plural marriage, for example, was, in a sense, welcome in many Church circles.[697] This transformation was not completed until well after World War I, so it cannot truly be called revolutionary. Still, it occurred rather swiftly and smoothly, the adaptation by Mormon society progressing along natural lines, even with its peculiar contradictions.[698] Of course, this transformation was in large part an aspect of the industrialization of Utah, yet integration of the changes has been remarkable. Now let us see what changes this transformation has wrought in the “tribal” characteristics of the people of Deseret, who in my story now become the “Domestic Church.”

The Domestic Mormons no longer occupied a distinct territory, though there still was a recognized Mormon core area or corridor in the American West.[699] A latent ideology of gathering was still held, however, and people still tended to settle in the core area, although lack of economic opportunity there resulted in a near balance between immigration and emigration as early as the 1920s.[700] In the face of economic realities (lack of arable land, obstacles to dramatic industrialization, etc.), in the last three-quarters of a century leaders of the Domestic Church have had to move away from the nineteenth-century ideology of the territory and of gathering in Zion.[701] The external holy place outside the tribal boundary (Missouri-as-Zion) decreased in ritual importance, and statements of the founder about the larger definition of Zion (America-as-Zion, read USA-as-Zion) were stressed.[702]

Kinship was less frequently mentioned as a basis for either association or gathering, and functional interrelationships of roles became more important than common descent. The former marriage system changed beyond recognition. Polygyny as the cultural ideal became contrary to group norms after a prolonged and bitter fight with the colonizing society, although it lingered on in a vague theological sense. The Domestic Church, the colony, no longer distinguished itself from mainstream America in many respects, save by a general conservative stance, trailing slightly behind the changes in the society at large (but then, from a European viewpoint, American denominations are very conservative indeed). Genealogy, on the other hand, continues as a serious, though rather esoteric, interest.

Characteristic of domestication was the changing position of women. Traditional societies, even if they relegate women to a seemingly lower social status, in fact leave women considerable leeway in fulfilling their own goals and objectives. Inclusion into a larger society often puts this freedom at risk. The same process happened in the Domestic Church. Women’s influence in official matters has always been marginal. But, as elsewhere, their influence was maximal in times when the structure of society was weakest:[703] the laying on of hands by women, the vigils for dying sisters and the women poets writing the hymns of Zion came to an end when the hierarchical structure of Domestic Mormon society reasserted itself.[704] This organizational marginalization of women has been clear in the “Correlation” movement inside LDS church government:[705] in this internal colonizing project the women’s organization lost its periodical, its margin of autonomy and - in part - even its building. With “correlation,” domestication was completed: the Domestic Church was an American colony, and the prophetic aspects gave way to managerial skills.[706]

African groups often used to decry their own backwardness, yearning for modernization as a way to respectability.[707] Americanization, as the domestication of Deseret is usually called, resulted in a similar search for respectability by the Domestic Church. The link between Mormons and American culture always was strong and grew even stronger.[708] In fields that have no direct bearing on its fundamental message, such as sports and athletics, the Church proudly advertised the achievements of its members, following the American appreciation of competitive sports and national media exposure; a sports hero who competes on Saturdays is considered a good role model and might be called to speak in General Conference. Though not uncritical of present day American life,[709] Mormon society enthusiastically embraced those elements that led to acceptance of Mormons as respectable Americans, if not the respectable Americans.

“Tribal” self-sufficiency had to go in this transformation. The territory of Deseret had become the much smaller state of Utah (and environs), and the colony was increasingly drawn into a larger world. At first the old Deseret furnished the American metropolis raw materials (e.g. through mining companies) and uninhabited expanse (for military exercise grounds and nuclear testing grounds); in this the new Utah showed itself a colony of the USA, with a definite dependency on the metropolis on either coast of the United States.[710] As development continued the Domestic Church (albeit reluctantly) settled into its function as a part of a larger machine.[711] Though the general implications of this growing dependency were hardly seen as a problem, a marginal tendency to fight dependency remained: self-help and self-reliance were highly valued, community orientation applauded and welfare programs were developed to heighten individual and local church self-sufficiency. The ideal of a self-reliant, autonomous community or society continued to live on in modified fashion as family independence.[712]

From colony to colonizer

In the 1960s most African countries became independent, and the situation of the local groups changed to some extent. The “tribal” labels imposed by the colonizer were not removed, and relations with the former empire became very ambivalent.[713] On the one hand, the newly independent states tried to put as much political distance between themselves and the colonizer as possible, but on the other hand, they remained highly dependent on their former overlords; in economy, education, technology, health, and in almost any other sector, they had to rely on expertise, help, and financial aid from the North. So what emerged from the colonial states were not independent entities, but neo-colonial states, in name independent, but de facto satellites of the old imperial center. In anthropology this situation has been expressed in the dependencia model, developed primarily to characterize the relationship between the United States and Latin America.[714] In this model the “metropolis” creates “satellites” through inequalities in political power and economic exchange. The metropolis is not only is enriched by this relation, but also keeps satellites subdued; the process has been called the “development of under-development.” This relation holds for Africa vis à vis Europe: African countries, with the exception of South Africa, can be considered neo-colonies or satellites of the European metropolis, and the political unification of Europe has even stipulated this relationship: for example, most French speaking African countries use a currency that is directly dependent upon the Euro.

Here our narrative makes the promised turn. The Mormons, who had been a more or less “tribal” society, at the start of the twentieth century turned into an American colony, and then gradually gained their own power. The Domestic Church had become part of the metropolis, and – by virtue of its own ideology – even became colonizer: the rest of the world, the mission field, was colonized now, in a curious reversal of history. So here our narrative switches from the relationship between the Church and the USA toward the relationship within the Church between metropolis and periphery, or between what Quinn calls the Headquarters Culture and International Church.[715] The reason to link the two relationships is obvious: the same processes that shaped Deseret and the Domestic Church are now impinging upon the Church Abroad. With international expansion, the notion of “Domestic Church’ changes from a “domesticated American church’ into “homeland headquarters’ versus the international periphery.

The mission field had always been the feeding ground for the growth of Deseret, the Utah-based church growing from both its own dynamics and input from various mission fields. After domestication, the outer world no longer was a recruiting ground for new homeland inhabitants, as immigration gradually slowed. Colonial units away from the Mormon core area were established in most regions where formerly the new tribesmen had been recruited. The main characteristic of these units has been their dependence on the Domestic Church, in ideology, leadership, mission personnel and finances. The relation is characterized by a clear hierarchy between colonizer and colonized, uncritical adoption of the colonizer’s culture, view of the colony as an area to be developed, inequality in financial and personnel exchange, unequal distribution of relevant knowledge, etc. These colonial wards and branches were explicitly seen to represent a stage in a process of growth, a transition toward greater autonomy, but not independence – following the model of the erstwhile African colonies.

This colonial relationship came under tension in the period of rapid expansion between World War II and 1980. Spectacular growth set in, presenting new challenges to domestic Mormonism, both in terms of control and theology.[716] Any African colonial system has a dual society, with in fact a two-tiered system: the colonizer and colonized are different but the colonized have to be as equal as possible among themselves. A colony is a foreign territory ruled by law, which should apply to all subjects equally, at least to all subjects within the colony. Thus the colonizing Domestic Church, now a metropolis creating satellites, had to undo all internal differences between the people it ruled over. But here was a problem. Basing itself upon a fully tribal myth of disbursed Israeli tribes, the old Deseret theology had compared missionizing to the calling home of dispersed kinsmen, especially from the tribe of Ephraim. However the Church grew rapidly in Latin America, Asia and Africa, areas where descent and kinship through ancient Israel was not particularly obvious or explicable. The notion of Latter-Day Saints as constituting descendants of Ephraim had to be de-emphasized, which, in fact, happened.[717] Even more important was the change towards color blindness, a development which needed a full-blown revelation in order to undo an informal myth that had hardened into popular doctrine.[718]

Growth into a large church also raised other doctrinal problems. A focus on the elect, hunted from among the masses of the unrepentant, has been part of the Mormon heritage. The paths to Zion are repeatedly defined as narrow and steep, trodden by but few. The notion that all people could, but will not, be saved because of their love for worldly things is central doctrine.[719] Mormonism has always tried to avoid the choice between “a church of the elect” and “a church for all people” by claiming to gather the kindred elect from the Diaspora.[720] With growth in membership and recruitment area, the notion of “elect” has been redefined in a similar way as the notion of “gathering.”

Any colonizing project also changes the colonizer profoundly. The Netherlands has in the past colonized what is now Indonesia, just as England and France have colonized most of Africa. These European countries cannot be understood apart from the influence their colonies exerted upon them: the colonization project changes everyone involved. The same happened within Mormon history, as exemplified in some theological concepts. The idea of gathering in Zion formerly, implicitly as well as explicitly, meant immigration to the core region of Deseret; now Zion was stressed as a ubiquitous presence, a tree to be planted deeply in foreign soils. The stakes of Zion (Deseret at first had been but a single stake) were the new gathering nodes. Thus territory had been rendered abstract; formerly Zion was a particular place in America, now it can be anywhere. The spiritualization of goals, well known in expanding African churches, has occurred for Mormonism too: from a specific place, Zion has been spiritualized into the “pure of heart” (though the roots of this definition had been laid even before the Deseret period).[721] Of course, there still is a notion of a central stake: the Missouri ideology lingers vaguely on but has become latent.

A correspondingly gradual decrease in the immediacy of eschatological expectations has set in. This is less clear than the territorial change, but can be gleaned from various sources. One indication is that in patriarchal blessings around World War II, one frequently heard the phrase “marching up to Zion,” whereas in present blessings this rarely seems to be said (at least in the Dutch stakes). The eschatological climax has been postponed a bit, and even the arrival of the third millennium A.D. could not fire popular Mormon imagination in this direction.[722]

The Mormon periphery: The satellite and its metropolis

Relations between the Domestic Church and the Church Abroad changed during the years of expansion, from 1980 onwards. The colonial churches have increased in numbers and leadership potential, though by varying rates in different areas. Where strong enough, they have developed into units equivalent to those in the core area in the abilities of their local leaders and in their financial self-support. Still, policy is made at the Domestic Church, and the top leadership generally comes from the core region. Decisions on leadership beyond the local level, on building and missionary policies and on stake formation, are also made there. So, the former colony has developed into a satellite, and the former colonizer has changed into a metropolis. Financial and political control of the metropolis over the satellites not only have been retained but the lines of command have been strengthened at regular intervals. Administrative centralization has countered the centrifugal forces of expansion. One example is the metropolis’s ambivalent relationship toward the internet. At first, the central Church strongly discouraged private or regional websites, as everything had to be centralized (and controlled) from Utah. When this no longer proved possible, strong directives enabled a limited number of strictly supervised local and regional websites to flourish.

Expansion means internal growth too. The administrative apparatus has mushroomed; what used to be a tribal council now is a multinational board of directors.[723] Still, this professionalization of the apparatus is strictly administrative and, in line with fundamental policy, has not resulted in the emergence of a class of theologians.[724] Specialists of many extractions populate the administrative offices of the Church. Whole careers have sprung up, wholly within the Church but apart from any ecclesiastical work, though some of the top leaders are recruited from these ranks. Consonant with this accent on administration, the personal charisma of the leaders, though occasionally still considerable, has followed the route Weber outlined with his concept of the “routinization of charisma.”[725] Charisma devolves from persons to positions, into a positional charisma that proves quite stable and adaptive.[726]

The satellite status implies that the status of the LDS church inside these countries is different from that in the core region. Whereas the Domestic Church is now the fifth largest American denomination, a major player in a major country, the situation of satellites is different. Abroad they are anomalies on the religious scene, often dubbed “sect,” and sociologically they are, discounting the derogatory association that goes with the term.[727] One can expect satellites to identify with those colonial models they know, usually older ones than are de rigueur in the metropolis. There seems to be some time lag in institutional and doctrinal developments between metropolis and satellite. For instance, in these satellite churches the expectation of a literal gathering seems to have lost less of its appeal than in the domestic stakes. In Europe, for example, members still expect a literal, massive gathering to the central United States - still marching up to Zion. Church programs aimed at self-reliance and self-help, like food storage, often are interpreted as preparations for the great exodus over the ocean; during the late 80’s the first item in food storage for Dutch members was the backpack, filled with enough food for the long march to Zion![728] Likewise, I have the impression that in the overseas areas, the ideals of self-sufficiency and autonomy are voiced much louder than in the United States. In Europe, for instance, some regions try to emulate mid-century conditions in Utah, for example by shying away from government relief for their needy numbers. This, despite the fact that the social welfare network is much stronger in Europe than in the USA, and storage in Europe has no function as a private insurance against joblessness, periods of illness or other post-modern calamities.

Inside the European periphery

Most colonial regimes in Africa had their anthropologists, sometimes in official “government anthropologist” positions. Their recording of the tribal ways were appreciated, and the records stimulated and wereoccasionally used in the mission civilizatrice of the empire. Despite knowledge of the other cultures, however, what was passed on to the colonies was the exact replica of the political system of the metropolis, with all of its implicit cultural values. The historian Basil Davidson even calls this the “curse of the nation state.”[729] Africa’s post-colonial development, with its plethora of political disasters, have taught a bitter lesson. Despite all of Europe’s insights on foreign culture, the simple fact that a post-colonial African state was not going to turn into a European replica was systematically overlooked.

Now the view from the Mormon satellites will replace the view from Africa, a second twist in our tale. The quest is to specify the relationship between satellite and metropolis. The dilemma in the title is clear: are the LDS church members in the satellites “European Mormons”?  Are they first and foremost in their own self-definitions “Mormon,” and secondly “European,” be it Dutch, English, French or Portuguese. Or are they “Mormon Europeans,” for whom their national (and by extension European) identity comes first, sharing the values and norms of their society before those of the LDS church? This question implies that the message of the LDS church, both in its voiced texts and in its organizational routines, has American overtones and is part of American culture, an aspect that has been amply demonstrated and commented upon in the literature.[730] Here I give just some examples of this hegemony by pointing out a few Americanisms in Mormon church culture.  I later go into detail on the question of where European culture is different from American, and do so in order to show why the appeal of the message is waning in Europe.

First, the hegemony of the metropolis. The literature points out hegemonic elements in some detail:[731] the fact that lesson materials are made in the Domestic Church, to be translated afterwards, is an indication of a general flow of information that goes only one way: from the center to the satellite church, and not vice-versa. This holds not only for the tiny Dutch speaking part, but also for the huge Spanish speaking portion of the Church. This is more than a matter of convenience; those who write (and publish) define! The hegemony even extends to the translation itself: according to all known international standards of translation, translation should originate within the goal-language, not in the source-language. While the LDS church does have translation departments in the various language areas, it retains a central translation office in the Domestic Church. From there, considerable control is exercised on the translation, even extending to which Bible translation is going to be the official one for the Church in various areas.

The recent Book of Mormon re-translation project into several European languages (Danish, German, Swedish, Dutch) provides an example. The effort was heavily supervised from Utah with full authorization from the highest levels. Ironically, the Dutch project was almost killed at one point because of criticism from a Dutch General Authority living in Utah,[732] and rescued only by compromise. The directives of the revision were explicit.[733] Since the project was about scripture, thus highly sensitive, the Church authorities wanted as literal a translation as possible within the confines of both languages. This of course is a possible and, in the case of scripture, comprehensible choice. But the corollary, the translation guideline, did not follow so obviously. For a large number of English words, in principle - if humanly possible, one and the same Dutch word was to have been used throughout the scripture. In this way the literal quality of the translation would be guaranteed, it was thought. Of course, any one-to-one translation is a linguistic impossibility. Not only does it fly in the face of acquired wisdom from centuries of translation, but it also negates fundamental differences in languages. Such an effort in translation is in fact linguistic nonsense for natural language texts, but it does illustrate the need the metropolis felt for control. Headquarters could check the translation in this manner, without knowing the language. Characteristically, the revision was made under close and continuous supervision by personnel from the translation office in the core area. A supervised session of the final proofreading of the Dutch text provided a rather curious illustration of the need for control. In one day, under watchful American eyes, a variety of native speakers who knew some English, performed the proof reading, not a professional job (the Dutch translation department later performed its own proper proof reading at its own initiative), but definitely under metropolitan control.

The presence of a corporate culture throughout the Church is another aspect of Domestic cultural hegemony. Job rotation, the insistence on efficient meetings and some interpersonal formalities vis-à-vis office holders, the style of reporting on stewardship and the deference to authority throughout are examples of this. Crucial is the separation of position and personality, a separation which does not fit well in many satellite cultures. The missionary organization is replete with corporate Americanisms: numerical goal setting, the almost strangling focus on baptisms, and of course the small power games between missionaries who vie for enviable positions of leadership inside the mission.

Another example is the separation between the genders: in Europe such a clear separation between male and female worlds is unthinkable and rejected. Couple orientation in Dutch culture is, for example, much more dominant over peer orientation than it is in the USA, so the Mormon separation of the sexes in church services is regarded as a strange American phenomenon. As one consequence, Dutch church leaders decided early on that youth camps would have to be mixed, a fact they carefully concealed from their American superiors. At a deeper level, the thin line between chastity (considered a Christian principle) and prudishness (observed in American public life, especially in LDS church) is in the eyes of the Europeans definitely and irrevocably crossed by the American core area in the direction of the prudish. An example is the recent directive that youngsters with actual sexual experiences in their past may not be called upon a mission. Here, prudishness seems to have conquered the notions of repentance and forgiveness. The importance of dress codes – even inside a university! – is a sign of institutional prudishness on the one hand, and of corporate culture on the other. Recently an apostle argued for white shirts in church on the basis of a color symbolism (white = pure) that not only is definitely Atlantic (white is the color for mourning in East Asia, and for fertility in Africa) and not universal at all, but also freezes an outdated clothing fashion that once was in vogue in corporate America.

An incidental example of Domestic cultural focus stems from the 1997 pioneer celebration. Its official guidelines, after broadly defining pioneers,[734] suggest a number of activities, each of them focusing  mainly on the Utah pioneers, as do the logo (featuring a handcart) and the theme (“Faith in Every Footstep”). The guidelines offer only one cultural translation, to an LDS branch with Cambodians who celebrated their first converts. Not in Cambodia, however, but in Utah and Massachusetts! Of course, the pioneers are extremely important in the formation of the Church and the USA. But not in other cultures. For one thing, the term “pioneer” does not have the same positive ring in many cultures, and “pioneer spirit” or “pioneer values” have no meaning in communally oriented cultures, let alone “pioneer recipes and meals.” More important, each country abroad has its own significant history, often much older than the recorded Deseret one. Each has its own role models, its cultural heroes, its liberators, its founding fathers (or mothers!). To call these “pioneers” is a misnomer. To try to mold these histories into a “pioneer” framework is not only slightly insulting, it also is a missed opportunity. Each of the colonies abroad could have been asked to select significant moments or events in its national history and invited to celebrate these as examples of piety, perseverance and faith. Synchronization (though, in fact why synchronize at all?) with the Utah celebration could have resulted in a cross cultural palette of Christian role models.[735]

Mormon European or European Mormon?

At stake is a crucial difference between metropolis and satellite. Inside the metropolis the Domestic Church is part of a larger, encompassing Mormon culture. Through its self-definition and by its manifold programs and policies, the Church aims at having a large place in the lives of its members; it is what in sociology is sometimes called a “greedy institution,” one claiming the whole life of the individual. As general authorities often point out: “What kind of true church would it be if it did not make large demands on its people.” On the other hand, these claims give the institution the task of filling the void it has created by separating converts from their old environment.[736] So the Church as a “greedy institution” encompassed all aspects of the individual's life. Mormonism never was simply a faith; it always was a “way of life.” This way of life could only be realized in a situation of gathering, where the Mormons could be a people and where being Mormon implied participation in that group’s culture. The old Deseret Church could become a greedy institution by virtue of its social inclusiveness. A saving grace has been the value placed on pragmatism. Mormons always have considered themselves a practical people and their religion a practical one. The practical bent of Mormon society prevented the greediness of the institution from being all-consuming. That pragmatism is highly visible in the history of that extreme form of institutional command over individual lives called the United Order, which was either a failed short-lived ideal or merely an opening phase of territorial colonization.[737] The people retreated from it as soon as its impracticalities became evident. With Americanization, this inclusive nature of the Church dwindled slowly. The life of Mormons became more secularized, consonant with the general American movement toward a more secular society.[738] But the Deseret period plus the subsequent period of Americanization involved a culture region with a Mormon dominance, were a Mormon (sub)culture could evolve, supporting both the implementation of the belief system plus people’s accommodation to it and to the mainstream American culture[739].

For church members in the satellite areas, however, the picture is different. In the official ideology the Church is defined as an institution that should direct the lives of its members. Satellite members support this claim and realize that their way of life should be markedly different from that of their non-Mormon countrymen. The Church Abroad, evidently, cannot fill the cultural functions demanded by this ideology as the minority situation precludes formation of a supporting Mormon culture, with guidelines for both living and bending the rules. The absence of a mediating Mormon culture creates the dilemma of a church that should be important in most aspects of its members’ lives, but does not have the means to serve as a “total way of life.” Members in minority situations always face the question of how one can, as a Mormon, be different from the “gentiles” without a fully organized, supportive Mormon culture. The result, in sociological terms, is called – however much one might deplore the negative connotations – a sect: a group with a built-in tension with the surrounding culture.[740]

So, for satellite members, the Mormon Americanisms are clear, but the differences of their own culture from that part of American culture that shines through in Mormonism are even more relevant. Let us now look at what this predicament means to Mormons in Europe, the oldest colony and the oldest satellite. But not the most successful satellite: European LDS membership is characterized by stagnating growth (little or no growth, even some receding numbers), with the majority of new converts not from the autochthonous population, but from immigrant minorities.[741] Despite the insistence on conversion of families – still the official mission policy – whole families that convert are extremely rare. The European Church is dominated by the second and third generation who descend from the autochthonous population, while a small margin of immigrant people keeps coming in and filtering out. The result is a small, inward looking denomination, largely invisible to the outside, in which leadership simply passes to successive generations of insiders[742]. What is the relation of this stagnant growth to the satellite situation? It is my thesis that the changing relation between metropolis and satellites, i.e. the USA and European countries, is at the heart of this predicament. As an example of a European country, I take the Netherlands, which not only is best known to me, but also has within Europe a certain guiding role in new developments, especially where general tolerance and certain personal freedoms are concerned.

Like all European countries, the Netherlands (“Holland’ for short) is a very secular country, much more so than American visitors realize in their visit to the “old country.” The issue is that Holland has turned secular in the last half century. Up until World War II, the Dutch social landscape was dominated by denominational competition: each major sector of the population had its own denomination, whether Roman Catholic or one of the manifold versions of the ever splitting Protestant churches, divided roughly by a North-South division. Each of these denominations had its own social world, a so-called “pillar,” consisting of an educational system, health services, social services and even a broadcasting system. The Socialist (not communist!) part of the population, dispersed throughout the country, had its own “pillar” as well. Someone who grew up within a – say Protestant - church joined a “school with the Bible,” played on a Protestant soccer club, went to a Protestant university, married a church woman, had children delivered in a Protestant hospital and monitored by a Protestant health service organization, listened to Protestant radio, voted the Protestant political party and eventually, in a Protestant old age home, died a pious death, buried by an undertaker from his or her own faith. The rest of Holland did the same in their respective pillars. This “pillarization” started at the turn of the twentieth century with a struggle for control of schools. Its heyday lasted half a century. After World War II, the pillar system crumbled with increasing speed in a process called “depillarization” that not only divided social and welfare services from denominations, but eroded the whole confessional basis of Dutch society.[743] Holland went from a fully religious society to, not a civil society with strong churches, but a civil society in which churches had lost their raison d’être. Of course, industrialization and continuing urbanization contributed to this trend as well, but the main church trend was a massive leave taking by members, a progressive drop in attendance. The role of the churches changed from a major structural element in society into a peripheral institution, figuring their main function in preservation of some elements of Calvinist culture plus providing a general conscience for the nation as a whole, albeit often through individual voices of warning. Throughout, the churches compete not with one another, but with non-church organizations, voluntary organizations, welfare organizations, pressure groups, etc. It has been argued that organizations such as Green Peace, Foster Parents (now “Plan International”), Amnesty International, and the Red Cross better represent the general Christian culture in the Netherlands than the remaining churches do. The fact that Holland routinely gives the highest percentage of GNP in the world (together with the Scandinavian countries, but culturally Holland is very close to Scandinavia) in development aid, is indicative. So, not only are the churches empty, but they have lost their main power to provide meaning to secular organizations. After decades of attendance losses, averaging 2% per year, the trend seems to have slowed somewhat, however. Sociologists of religion now dare to speak of a rock bottom of Dutch religiosity, embodied in small, isolated, but stable church communities, small islands in a secular sea.

Other European countries followed different pathways to secularization, resulting in effectively similar situations.[744] Belgium, predominantly Roman Catholic, never had strongly competing pillars, but here the church became heavily engaged in movements for social welfare and equity. There, the Roman clergy, also with the help of some charismatic personalities, became the country’s major voice of conscience, relegating other-wordly goals in favor of this-worldly objectives. Germany experienced a process more like Holland’s, though pillarization never was as fully expressed. Germany always had known secular civil society and non-confessional service organizations, but here the people’s retreat from religion meant simply declining church attendance, not leaving the church altogether (the Dutch option). People stay on as members of record, still paying church taxes, which are collected through the state tax system. In fact, most of Europe’s inter-church and ecumenical activities are financed by this Kirchensteuer from Germany, where religion has become a default option.

These varieties of secularization are quite different from the US situation. Of course, US state formation has been a thoroughly religious process, and civil society in the USA rests upon the denomination as the second of two foundations (the other is the school system). Churches operate in a denominational market, but choosing a denomination is a normal option. The default option in Germany is paying a church tax, in Holland joining a preservation project, in Belgium going to mass for the wedding and funeral, but in the USA one joins a denomination of one’s choice. The church (and school) networks form the main venues for the formation of sodalities and provide most of the educational and recreational programs. In Europe, all these functions have their own organizations, unconnected to the religious sphere.

The vast majority of Dutch and European culture is beyond the realm of religion, and anyone joining or being active in a church has to explain why. Colleagues, co-students, neighbors and family routinely suppose one is not affiliated with a church. As any membership needs constant explanation, membership in a small and curious group, such as the Mormon Church, demands double explanation. Explaining why one is religious is easier than explaining adherence to something often dubbed a “sect.” This change has been obvious from the 1970s onwards, when depillarization shook the foundations of Dutch society, changing the political landscape, health services, education and – yes – even broadcasting. It also coincided with a diminishing role for the Netherlands’ age-old Calvinist culture, with its Bible scholarship and general scriptural proficiency. The values remained, yet no longer as part of a church legacy, but rather more as general norms of a welfare-oriented society. In this society large differences in wealth were intolerable, and tolerance of cultural and social differences was the norm: an anti-hegemonic society with deeply embedded values of social justice and equity.

Though this culture is changing, moving towards the political right in its confrontation with another hegemonic ideology, Islam, these are the values Dutch Mormons are not only familiar with, but also deeply share. The base culture for LDS membership is Dutch social culture, with compassion for the less fortunate, tolerance toward different opinions and the notion that one not only has to cooperate but also to compromise in order to reach one’s goals. Political parties never rule alone, but always in coalitions, often through long and difficult negotiations. No one stands out, and no one has the right to hegemony, since consensus can always be reached through constant consultation. No longer is this a multi-confessional model, as in the past, rather it is now called a “polder” model (the Dutch term for a reclaimed low flatland), suggesting a consensus reached where everybody has all relevant information and decisions are taken together, shouldered by as large a majority as can be found – perhaps a rather “flat” compromise.

Permissive Dutch society bears the stigma of drugs and other vices for some outsiders (especially for the French and Americans), but most Dutch do not experience any drug problem at all, and the permissive soft drug policy finds massive support in Dutch society. This support exists among LDS members. The same holds for other social issues on which Holland is ahead of the European pack: the acceptance of homosexuality and same sex marriages, the regulation of abortion and the official regulation of careful practices for euthanasia. The Dutch sometimes are shocked to hear American evangelicals lash out against the “killer doctors” in Holland, and almost never recognize their own legislative models and medical practices from the hyped-up accusations from across the ocean. The dignity of life has precedence, in Dutch eyes, over the absolute number of days of life. The Domestic Church standpoint is much closer to the general American vision and finds little resonance in Holland, even among LDS church members. For instance, the acceptance of homosexuality as merely a different form of sexuality is pervasive, for LDS members as for other Dutch, and tales of American institutions (BYU is mentioned sometimes) that tried to “heal” this “affliction” by deprogramming are whispered about with some horror by Dutch members. Also, the general LDS church stance (one may be a homosexual but not practice it) is generally considered as less than brilliant, a blatant denial of the mounting evidence of sexuality’s genetic basis. As many Latter-day Saints subscribe to Dutch cultural norms and government policy on these issues, they tend to avoid discussion about them in church, since their collective stance would stand out against an LDS church policy they find awkward. One example: a few years ago, when a California drive against same sex marriages was supported by the Domestic Church, an apostle told European stake presidents to fight against legislation accepting same sex marriages in European countries. All stake presidents listened dutifully, and afterwards conveniently forgot the advice. First, that debate had already been completed years ago; America was running behind, a situation illustrating the satellite aspect of European stakes: no LDS voice was heard when those laws were passed in Europe. But more important, the stake presidents felt no reason at all to be against those laws; in fact, acceptance of same sex marriages takes so much wind out of these fruitless debates that homosexuality becomes much less of an issue, for church members as for others. Finally, any political opposition by the satellite churches against legitimizing same sex unions would be a public relations disaster for the Church in Europe; the general non-Mormon public would experience it as a “great leap backwards’. Evidently, this situation is quite different in America - or for that matter in Africa - which more closely resembles the general USA opposition against homosexuality. In TV debates in Europe the joking question whether “is America really a modern country?” is treated quite seriously.

The general European notion is that permissiveness diminishes the attraction of moral vices: one should not prohibit sinful behavior by law (and Europeans do have some powerful scriptural references in this regard – about forcing people to heaven). The deep European conviction is that alcohol prohibition stimulates drinking, prudishness generates teenage pregnancies, and the war on drugs produces addicts. A restricted society is the least efficient way to combat vice. European church members share these opinions, which run deeply against the American grain. A similar movement in European society concerns the changing definition of marriage. Formerly, civil marriages, followed by a church celebration, were the norm, but with the erosion of religion, the civil transaction also declined. The large majority of Dutch couples start their life living together without a formal agreement and gradually move into a more legal arrangement. One arrangement along the way is a cohabitation contract drawn up by a notary of state (a highly respected and legally protected function in Dutch society). These contracts have full legal status, including in tax matters. Dutch society has learned that there is more than one way to contract a marriage, each having its own legal status and social acceptance. Here again, the American Church definition of marriage (exclusively contracted at the civil registrar for in Holland the temple ceremony and other religious rituals do not count as legal) is at variance with Dutch culture, and consequently with the notions of Dutch LDS members. Most of them deplore this gap between America and Europe and see no compelling reason why people living in perfectly harmonious unions, solemnized by notaries[745], should be considered as living in sin.

For the Dutch Mormons this difference, as well as the others mentioned, is first and for all cultural, not a question of doctrine. They have the impression that the Dutch views as expounded here, could to for a large part be accommodated within the restored gospel without losing any essential teachings. Some members argue that the proscriptions, like that against homosexuality, have a shallow Old Testament basis, not reinforced in either the New Testament or the modern revelations, and that the LDS church could learn from other Christian churches in this respect. But as these issues are viewed as mainly cultural problems, in fact as “Americanisms’, most members have little tendency to engage in doctrinal discussions or debates on scriptural texts, as they feel that the existing body of doctrine could allow for more leeway in the social practices of Latter-Day Saints. But at the leadership level, some experiments to discuss, for instance, the definition of a marriage in meetings with General Authorities, were struck down quickly by the Domestic Church: as yet, there seems to be no room for a discussion on the definition of marriage. So, many members make some separation between doctrine and their evaluation of existent social practices, a cognitive compartmentalization that comes with the minority situation of a non-European orthodox church in a secularized environment[746].

In conclusion, the members in Europe are not European Mormons, but definitely Mormon Europeans. One last reason will be discussed below: the diminishing status of the USA, the colonizer.

The US connection: From asset to liability

In the 20th century the expansion of the Domestic Church coincided with the expansion of United States’ influence and power, a situation reminiscent of the growth of the first Christian Church together with the Roman Empire. In the latter case the empire provided the political and economic context for the spread of Christianity, but this relationship is more complicated in the Mormon case. Mormonism never was dominant in the USA, but the American political and security umbrella for the non-communist world furnished the LDS expansion a platform of political respectability, an economic role model as well as a material success story underlying the spiritual message. Especially viewing the specific role of America in LDS sacred history – a unique Mormon feature – this tied in well with a positive general evaluation of the USA.

After World War II the Mormons could bask in the sunshine of the successful pacifier (likewise, most colonizers in Africa started out as a pacification process as well as one of conquest) and compound their message with a framework of political success.

However, colonization process move ever faster, and likewise de-colonization dynamics. Any colonizer inevitably faces the loss of prestige and status among its colonies, satellites and other dependent entities: the status of France in West Africa, of Great Britain in East Africa and the Netherlands in Indonesia, have suffered severely because of their presence-in-power there: de-colonization comes with demystification of the former colonizing power and the colonizers fall from grace. France is quite unpopular in West Africa, the Netherlands likewise in Indonesia and the former French colony of Vietnam turned to the USA for protection. So, being a former colonizer is not an asset, it is rather a liability.

The LDS church is facing the same dilemma in many countries, especially those in Europe. Considering the fact that European Mormons are full members of their own native culture, the reputation of the USA in Europe is highly relevant, both for the membership and in explaining the lack of proselytizing success. The LDS church is inevitably, and in many ways correctly, seen as an American church, and outsiders fully perceive the metropolis–satellite situation. But the status of America has changed considerably over the past decades. After the two factors of secularization and adherence to national cultures, this is the third factor influencing membership in Europe. The Church is not only American in culture, but politically clearly pro-American as well, with patriotism considered a major virtue. It is this USA connection that in just a few decades has shifted from an asset to a liability. The Domestic Church has also become a major player in the American political and religious arena, while almost never being seen as criticizing American actions or issues. The sole remaining superpower after the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall, America views itself as the policeman of the world. Of course, the USA was instrumental in the liberation of Europe from the Nazi yoke, and of course most Europeans would rather have the USA patrolling the world than the former USSR. Yet one has to remember that gratitude is a fleeting feeling, a very brief emotion, one that cannot be cashed in on any longer.

Though few Europeans would prefer a different policeman, most would prefer none at all. Americans, though, prefer to be liked as a nice people, an assessment that most of the time is correct; but then they forget that power can be envied, emulated or admired, but never liked. A major power must flex its muscles from time to time in order to remain strong and be seen as such, and indeed, that is what the USA does. It has participated in, and recently even instigated, wars in other parts of the world and is now seen not as a peacekeeper but as a warlike nation[747]. In a recent survey in Holland among secondary school girls, George W. Bush came out as the major threat to world peace, just ahead of Osama Bin Laden. Now, the girls might have been mistaken or misinformed, but the sentiment is clear and pervasive. In viewing the American proclivity for war, in sensing first of all their idea that problems can be solved by war, Europeans with some historical memory reflect on the myriad wars made on their own continent, musing on how little effective change and progress all those wars brought. Three rules stand out in European history: colonial wars will always be lost (the Netherlands in Indonesia) wars of liberation will always be won by the population (Vietnam against the French and the Americans) winning the peace is more important than winning the war (the lesson Germany taught England after World War II, as the Western Allies failed to learn it after the first World War).

The European impression is that America is fighting a colonial war in Iraq, which might be turning into a liberation war and definitely risks losing the peace. Now this kind of problem is seldom discussed in LDS church circles, but the war is very unpopular with the general European public. Europe has seen enough its own such drive to recognize it in someone else and has no drive to empire left. Europeans are comfortable without being part of a world power; in fact when traveling abroad not being an American is much safer than being one. In the United Europe the notion of patriotism has lost much of its meaning, at least outside the soccer field. The flag of patriotism has been raised too often: “Patriotism,” a nineteenth century English politician (Dr Johnson) said, is “the last refuge of the scoundrel.” Talleyrand, the old French statesman philosopher, when musing about patriotism and high treason, said: “Treason? Just a matter of dates!” Also the USA not only is the only remaining superpower in the world, it is to a large extent the defining power of the world, attempting to define for the rest of world what is a “terrorist,”, a “fundamentalist”, what is “democracy” or “liberty”[748], and of course what are “weapons of mass destruction.” This, again, has eroded the credibility of the center of power.

Dutch church members of long standing have come to terms with this decline in American credibility, even though, for instance, the absence of LDS church warnings against war and in favor of peace were sorely missed with the American decision to wage war on Iraq. Only Dialogue and Sunstone featured some discussion,[749] but these are out of reach for most Dutch members. Yet for new members, the status of America and the uncritical acceptance of any American policy by the Domestic Church definitely is an added obstacle. Historically, through the “80s, the status of America was quite high, as the vanguard of liberty and democracy, eventual defender against the Soviet presence, and of course the liberator of old. But things changed with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991. The Soviet threat disappeared overnight and seemed to have been overestimated anyway. Europe was burdened with the colossal failure of a socialist Utopia, in fact the most dramatic failure of an ideological system the world has ever witnessed. Germany united again and is still paying the huge price attached to that patriotic ideal. The American role became unclear, as with one superpower gone the reason for the other evaporated. The liberator became the policeman, and the policeman then instigated colonial wars. It is during this period, the ’80s and the ‘90s, that the numbers of Dutch converts declined, only partly replaced by immigrant conversions as European societies became immigration societies. It is with these immigrants, often from Suriname, Africa and Asia, that the status of America is still high, and association with an American church still an asset. But for the native Dutch (and Germans, and French) Mormonism’s association with America has become a liability.

Thus, the USA in tandem with the Domestic Church made their position as metropolis very clear by defining Europe as a satellite, both in geopolitical terms and in church terms. The combination of factors at play – secularization, the continuing adherence to European culture and the diminishing status of the USA – may be viewed as a silent rebellion of the satellite against the metropolis, in which the rebels simply vote with their feet.[750]

MORMON STUDIES IN FRANCE: AN ACADEMIC TRADITION

CARTER CHARLES

My position as one of the actors of the study and research into Mormonism in France, for a little more than a decade now, makes me feel that I can provide an overview of what has been done so far, the challenges that had to be overcome, and some of those that still stand in the way, towards the establishment of a culture of Mormon studies in France. By that I mean a context in which the Church founded by Joseph Smith becomes a real research matter in the land of Durkheim, Tocqueville, and other great sociologists and thinkers; a context in which Mormonism is integrated into French academic initiatives and religious studies programs to be taught, intellectualized, and dissected beyond the obvious and traditional clichés.

Beginnings

The groundwork for the academic study of Mormonism in France was laid out in the course of 1930s and 1940s with George-Henri Bousquet’s works. His most significant piece in that area remains his Les Mormons (The Mormons), published in 1949 in the “Que sais-je?” collection at the Presses Universitaires de France, the publishing house used by accomplished French scholars. Bousquet was fluent in about ten languages and was very active in European and Middle Eastern academic circles. He wrote to have read about Mormonism in Eduard Meyer’s Ursprung un Geschichte der Mormonen (Origin and History of the Mormons), published in Berlin in 1911. He seemed to have laid the subject to rest for some two decades as he devoted his time to the study of Islamic law and culture, and to pursuing his prolific career as an economist at the University of Algiers.

The foreword to Les Mormons states that Bousquet really began studying Mormonism at Harvard before making a research trip to Salt Lake City in the summer of 1934 thanks to a grant he had obtained from the Rockefeller Foundation for the 1933-1934 period.[751] That field trip was immediately followed by three of articles in 1935 and 1936.[752] He became silent on the subject until Second World War and then resumed his study of Mormonism in Europe, just about three years before publishing Les Mormons. Most of his European research was done in Berlin and Amsterdam where he had established contact with local leaders and members. His works were published in France but he paradoxically never came into contact with the French “Saints”. He wrote to have heard about “a few hundred Saints in France but I do not know any personally.”[753] According to the Church’s French website, there were only 754 Latter-day Saints in all of France then.[754]

The publication venues that Bousquet used for his book and articles, the most-prized press in France and established academic journals, suggest that he wanted to introduce Mormonism to a large and diversified readership. The fact that his book was published in the “Que sais-je” collection is quite illustrative in that regard. It is a collection specifically made for the democratization of knowledge by brilliant scholars, any given subject being covered on 128 pages, without jargon. Not surprisingly, the book is a short paperback volume in which Bousquet gives a socio-historical overview of Mormonism from Joseph Smith to settlement in Utah, and in which he analyses the factors that contributed to the religious movement’s strength and hypothesizes on its future prospects. As one gathers from the book, it is the newness and vitality of the movement compared to Islam which seemed to have picked his interest. He observes that “What makes the prodigious sociological and historical interest of Mormonism is that it gives us to see, before our eyes so to speak, how a revealed religion is born and expands.” [755]

It is clear that Bousquet’s expertise on Islam and its prevalence in Muslim culture made it easier for him to research Mormonism and to try to understand the way it shapes the lives and behavior of those who adhere to it. That said, the Mormonism/Islam, Smith/Mohammed comparisons that he draws here and there do not necessarily turn the book into a comparative volume: they are not systematic and he does not pretend to make any empirical claim in that regard. What rather strikes you – and which deserves particular attention – in Les Mormons is the way the French scholar evolves in his approach of Mormonism, moving from scathing criticism in a language reminiscent of Mark Twain’s critique in Roughing It (1872) to objective analysis, even to adopting sometimes a defensive stand on the movement. He argues that the Book of Mormon “constitutes an indigestible hodgepodge, at best” with “endless and monotonous theological speeches,”[756] “continual biblical reminiscences” and “grotesque mistakes.”[757]  He further writes that early Mormons were people who “fanatically believed in [Smith’s] mission in order for his story to become meaningful” to them,[758] and others where he paints them as religious lunatics.[759] Yet, elsewhere, and sometimes on the same page, you find Bousquet arguing that “as far as Smith is concerned […] you do not understand anything to that character if you do not want to admit that all in all, he was of good faith: defending the contrary is the fact of a rigidly anti-religious mind.”[760] And Bousquet goes on to conclude on Smith and the Book of Mormon that:

It is then necessary to accept, and I do not object to it at all, that considering his milieu, Smith had remarkable intellectual capacities. To carry out such a task, you need to have thought [it out], to have a plan, to take notes. Smith does not seem to have done it. That is curious indeed, and even remarkable.[761]

Like most scholars and observers who have made it to the Mormon Vatican, Bousquet was impressed by “the peculiarities of Salt Lake City” compared to other American cities, to the point of realizing that “the revelations received by a Vermont farm-boy ultimately created a special civilization in the Rocky Mountains. What a strange thing is the formation of civilizations!” Indeed, for Bousquet, Mormonism had to be viewed on the same scale as Christianity and Islam, “not as a sect, but as a bold attempt at creating a world religion.”[762] It is particularly significant that that brilliant French scholar would observe some thirty years before what Rodney Stark would theorize in “The Rise of a New World Faith,”[763] and before Thomas O’Dea,[764] that Mormonism was a religion comparable to Islam in that it gives to witness the emergence and expansion of a new “world religion [/faith]”, and that sociologically, it was a new civilization in its own right.

There is no reason to doubt that Bousquet tried to treat Mormonism in an honest and fair way. Giving his personal opinion, although not always favorable, is part of that honest treatment. Moving on to a more personal note towards the conclusion of the book, he wrote that he felt honored and happy to be counted among the many “Gentiles” who set aside “silly calumnies” to give a very sincere testimony on behalf of “the Saints.”[765] This bold, Doniphan-like stand – that is, putting his reputation on the line for Mormons and Mormonism – is very rare coming from a French scholar. And that must be read with a few elements in mind: first, Bousquet published his Les Mormons at a time when French authorities were not as overly-preoccupied with “sectes” (cults)[766] and similar groups as they now are; secondly, he was not a “novice.” The fact that he was an accomplished scholar certainly explains why he could publish a book on Mormonism with a favorable approach at the Presses Universitaires de France.

Bousquet prefaced Les Mormons hoping that “circumstances” would allow him to produce a larger volume afterwards.[767] He must have had the material to do so, but his hope never materialized. As a consequence, Mormon studies in France became dormant for almost twenty years after 1949. However, the book seemed to have remained topical in terms of synthesis on Mormonism: it went through a new run in 1967, two years before health problems forced Bousquet to end his career at the University of Bordeaux. Still, his “most valued wish,” “that [his] little volume should fall […] within the hands of a young man [or a young woman] with a mind to sociology and inspire […] to further and deeper study of this fascinating story”[768] would come about before his death in the 1970s.

The First Torch Bearers

The 1970s saw the rebirth of Mormon Studies in France. At least four people from various academic fields, instead of “[one] young man with a mind to sociology,” tried to redeem French Mormon Studies, picking up from where Bousquet had left in 1949. In order of completion, the series began with Alain Gillette’s 1970 master’s thesis titled “Les Mormons, de la théocratie au groupe de pression (The Mormons: From Theocracy to Pressure Group)” at the Institut d’Études Politiques (School of Political Sciences) of Paris. It was subsequently published in 1985 under the title Les mormons: Théocrates du désert (The Mormons: Theocrats of the Wilderness).[769]

Researches on Mormonism have also been produced by Bernard Blandre who did his research at the School of Humanities at the University of Nancy about the same time as Gillette. His first work, another master’s thesis in 1971 – in history this time – was titled “La communauté mormone de Nancy (The Mormon Community of Nancy).” His main French sources of information then were Bousquet’s book and Léon Lemonnier’s novel Histoire du Far-West: Les Mormons (History of the Far West: The Mormons), published in 1948. He wrote in a personal email exchange to have discovered the Nancy group because the LDS missionaries had tried to convert him around the time he needed to find a research topic for his masters.[770] With the approval of his research supervisor, he went on to complete the first documented piece of research in France whose main focus was French Mormons. The work was well-received by his defense jury. Blandre has contributed a great deal to the field since then. He has produced several monographs, among which his oft-quoted and widely-circulated “Les recherches généalogiques des mormons (The Genealogical Research of the Mormons),” published in 1990.[771] His other contributions include “Melchisédech, des esséniens aux mormons (Melchisedeck: From the Essenes to the Mormons),” which came out of press in 1996. Last, but not least: Blandre’s initial research on Mormonism has led him to the study of religions in general, and to the creation of the AEIMR, an association and journal for the study and information on religious movements which has published papers on Mormonism by the French speaking Swiss scholar Jean-François Mayer.[772]

The next major actor in the field of Mormon Studies in France is Jacques Chouleur. His contribution, Le mormonisme: De la secte américaine à la religion universelle (Mormonism: From American Sect to World Religion) took French Mormon Studies to higher academic ground: it was the first PhD dissertation on the subject. The original version is located at the Université Paris-Sorbonne, where it was defended in 1978. Unfortunately, that significant work seems to have suffered the fate of most other French research on Mormonism: it has never been published. It is a significant piece that requires in depth analysis. Suffice it to say for now that Chouleur took on Bousquet’s 1949 challenge for further and deeper research on Mormonism, with emphasis on its evolution towards world religion status. He submits the following comparative opinion to explain the endurance of Mormonism:

Mormonism is a utopia, but it avoids the perils that beset utopian groups […] Almost all the utopian societies ended up collapsing […] The Amish are still around but they are sympathetic fossils […] I see two major explanations to this. First, the Mormons differ from the usual utopia in that they have no intention whatsoever to stop the clocks and burn calendars. Their model of society is not fossilized. It is dynamic. It is flexible […] The other reason to account for the success of the Mormon utopia, after their refusal of immobilization in time, is their refusal of immovability in space.[773]

Anyone familiar with the story of Mormonism will understand what Chouleur is referring to in addressing the movement’s refusal to be constrained locally. Whether Mormonism deserves the status of “world religion”, as he argues, is an issue that has been brought to the fore in academic circles by European scholar Davies J. Douglas. He considers that Mormonism is more a “global” rather than a “world religion” because it has not “broken [its] bond of origin and become encultured in [foreign] societies”.[774]

The question of Mormonism’s inculturation, that is, how this religion which took roots in America is appropriated by its non-American adherents naturally leads us to speak about Bernadette Rigal-Cellard, another key figure of Mormon Studies in France. She happens to have published a paper titled “Enculturation of Mormonism in France”. [775] After surveying a sample of French Latter-day Saints, she does in that paper “conclude to the acclimation of Mormonism to France, at least in the perception French LDS had of their Church.” She further argues in her conclusions that even if Mormon missionaries are vessels of Americanism, the LDS Church’s consideration of cultural differences had improved over the years, that it was “a far cry from the early policy […] that sought to impose its own standards on the whole world” because it had undertaken the conscious enterprise of removing from “its primary teachings all the characteristics that could be perceived as too weird or too American.”[776]

Rigal-Cellard rightly fits into the category of “pioneers of French Mormon studies”. As a specialist of North American religions, she stands out among French scholar who have Mormonism in their areas of expertise. Like Bernard Blandre, the story of how she became a specialist of religions is particularly interesting. Being from a little town in the South West of France, she had to move to Bordeaux in the 1960s to do Anglophone Studies. Mormon missionaries knocked on her student apartment door and presented her with a message whose Americanness resonated well with what she had been studying concerning the United States. “I did not convert to Mormonism” as she likes to say it, but her encounter with the missionaries and courses on religion at the University of California Santa Barbara marked her conversion to the study of minority religions. What stands out in her contribution to French Mormon Studies is probably the fact that besides publishing her research findings, she actually uses Mormonism as a teaching topic as I discovered when I first met her in 2001, the year I enrolled for a three-year degree in Anglophone Studies at the Université Michel de Montaigne in Bordeaux. She was then teaching an optional course on North American religions, among which Mormonism. It did not occur to me at that time that religion was a “studiable”, a “researchable” subject or that it could be a door into a country’s history and culture. Indeed, as a freshman, I had a very limited idea – even a short-sighted one, I dare say – of religion. To me, it was something you approach on a faith basis, with soteriological purposes. I consequently did not give the matter further thought until religion, and particularly Mormonism, as a subject of academic interest resurfaced when I had to choose courses for my third year into graduation. I discovered that Rigal-Cellard’s course on North American religions was still in the university’s undergraduate program on “New Religious Movements.” I readily enrolled in the course that second time. I wanted to see what it was like to teach religions and, above all, I wanted to hear what she had to say about the Mormons. And I was not disappointed.

Although Rigal-Cellard’s course was a survey of North American religions, I was satisfied with what I had learned about how the Mormon Church was deeply rooted in American religious tradition and how it yet differs from other American Churches. It was obvious that she knew what she was talking about. But what struck me the most was the teaching approach she used. The way she presented Mormonism led me to assume that she was actually a Mormon. I would discover some years later that I was not the first to assume that. Popular expectations had led others to suspect a partiality on her part towards Mormonism: at the defense of her master’s thesis Mormonism and American Society[777] in 1973 – her initial work on religion – the professors who sat on her defense panel also suspected that she was a Mormon. They did not understand why she did not “expose Mormonism”: “How could I dare not plainly denounce such imposture, such fraud? It was blatant that my presentation came from an insider” she reminisces in a paper.[778]

It turned out that Rigal-Cellard was no Mormon. What had led to believe she was one as early as 1973 was her pedagogy when dealing with the subject of religion: instead of being critical or apologetic, she tries to be simply informative. In retrospect, I realize that besides replacing Mormonism in its American context, what had struck me in her teaching was the fact that she did not give into the “cult/not cult” debate which has become a national sport in France when dealing with “new” or “minority” religion. Hers has always been a constant effort to keep personal views from interfering. The professors in her defense panel had made a Mormon out of her because of the newness of her approach and because she had studied a religious group which did not qualify for the same academic treatment as other subjects. Still, that did not dissuade her from doing further research on Mormonism. She has published a book solely devoted to Mormonism and her other contributions amount to the publication of many papers in French, either as book chapters or as articles in peer-reviewed, scholarly journals. [779]

Upholding the Tradition of Mormon Studies in France

Rightly does Rigal-Cellard title one of her presentations on Mormonism “On the road from Salt Lake to the conversion of French academia.” Her 1973 thesis on Mormonism is the starting point of an academic mission to convert to the study of religion. In spite of challenges, she managed to obtain the approval of the French higher education authorities for the creation of a graduate degree in religious studies, the first of such in Bordeaux. With regard to Mormonism, one might as well argue that she has brought fertilizer to the tradition initiated by Georges-Henri Bousquet in the 1930s: she has made “disciples”. One PhD dissertation and eight other theses have been completed in the universities of Bordeaux since hers. The dissertation, L’établissement et le développement du mormonisme dans l'ouest canadien de 1830 a nos jours (The Settlement and Development of Mormonism in the Canadian West from 1830 to Present-day [1983]), was authored by Patricia Harvard-Dubois in 1983. It would be followed by theses completed in the following order:

Table 1: Master’s theses completed in Bordeaux after 1973

The year 1998 marks the beginning of the involvement of Bordeaux Mormons in the academic study of their religion. Bernadette Rigal-Cellard was the research supervisor for five of the above theses, including my two contributions which have served as resource materials for conferences and publications.

Other developments of Mormon Studies in France include CESNUR’s international conference hosted by Rigal-Cellard in 2007. She had enough paper proposals on Mormonism to put together a special panel. I then presented a paper on “The Cultural Conversion of LDS Missionaries” based on observations and research I had made in France and in Haiti which is now part of a volume on religion and globalization that she edited. That 2007 panel was the set off for several other “firsts” in the study of Mormonism in France. It triggered the dynamic for the study workshop on Mormonism under the auspices of the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (EPHE) of the Sorbonne University and the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), in Paris. That first academic event solely devoted to Mormonism, which focused on the topicality of Mormon Studies in France. It provided the various French scholars with the opportunity to confront and discuss their findings. The workshop concluded with an invitation from Rigal-Cellard for a larger event, an international conference titled “Mormonism, State and Society” which I joined her in organizing in 2009. The proceedings have not been published yet; but, a thorough synthesis has been published in Transatlantica,[780] an online journal largely read by French American Studies specialists.

As may have been gathered so far, Bordeaux represents a large share of the pie of Mormon Studies in France. But, this survey would not be complete without some information on developments elsewhere in France. In chronological order, the list includes the following:

Table 2: Master’s theses completed in French universities (excluding Bordeaux)

In 2005, Flora Furlan authored the article “L’expansion international des Mormons (The International Expansion of the Mormons)” published in the review of the Institut Pierre Renouvin, a major research center on international relations at the Panthéon-Sorbonne University.[781] As for Vanel and Euvrard, they have presented their research findings in various academic conferences and have published a number of articles.[782]

The corpus of contribution to French Mormon studies that have been completed, defended, registered and duly reported by French universities closes with six Ph.D. dissertations.

Table 3: Ph.D. dissertations completed after 2000 in French universities

Sophie-Hélène Trigeaud’s work has been adapted and published in 2013 as Devenir mormon: La fabrication communautaire de l’individu (Becoming A Mormon: Community Life and the Making of the Individual).[783] It is a monumental work in the social study of Mormonism in which she scrutinizes Mormon life from cradle to grave, so to speak, focusing on how, from Primary, Young Men/Young Women, Young Single Adults (she was granted special permission to study the LDS population at BYU), Single Adults and family, temple rituals and man’s destiny in order to understand and explain the process by which one becomes a Mormon socially and spiritually. Trigeaud, who is a Catholic and holds degrees in philosophy, anthropology and sociology, combines in a rigorous way[784] her academic training to produce a work that is second to none in the social study of Mormonism in French academia but that is certainly not limited to France or Europe. She has since shifted her interest to other religious groups but her work is something scholars of Mormonism who do not speak French should be able to have access to.

Pierre Vendassi was a Chinese-speaking LDS missionary in Switzerland. His title does not make any direct reference to Mormonism but his work is part of comparative investigation on how present-day Western Churches, including Mormonism, are expanding into China. Like Trigeaud, his work was praised by the scholars who sat in jury to evaluate it and recommended publication.[785]

The corpus of French research on Mormonism is far from being as large as can be found in any one university in Utah. In fact, it would be unrealistic to even think that there can be so much research in France. But one thing this corpus tells us is that there is a solid, long tradition of Mormon Studies in France. I had no idea that there were so many theses and dissertations on Mormonism in French universities before running specific queries in the online catalog of every university library in France, the now inexistent FCT, “Fichier Central des Thèses” (National Dissertation Database) – the national catalog which registers dissertation projects – and SUDOC,[786] the other national digital library which registers dissertations that have been defended.

I have tried to be as comprehensive as possible in putting this survey together. But, it is not impossible to find in the future that a thesis or two had been left out because some student forgot to deposit a copy of at his or her university library. If that were to happen, it would only confirm the potential for growth in the field of Mormon Studies in France. When you take the corpus decade by decade from 1978 to date, you can see that there is more and more material produced, especially a good number of dissertations. And more could have been produced had been no significant hurdles to the establishment of a French culture of Mormon Studies.

Obstacles: how do we keep on moving forward?

As it is often the case in other research fields, not every French person who has begun researching Mormonism has been able to even make it before a defense panel. Queries in the FCT catalog showed that the following four dissertation projects that never been completed:

Table 4: Uncompleted doctoral dissertation projects on Mormonism

The titles of these never-completed dissertations let us suppose that they would have been great contributions had they been carried out to conclusion. I tried to contact the Ph.D. candidates who registered them but my efforts would have been unsuccessful were it not for correspondence with Fabrice Cellier in 2007, shortly after he had created the website www.mormonisme.com. The goal of that website was for him to make unbiased information on Mormonism readily available to French speaking people.[787] The idea of a website proved to be an efficient and self-fulfilling way for him to publicize his research. The website was becoming such an academic reference on Mormonism on the Francophone Internet[788] that Cellier even envisaged a non-academic development page, making SDJ (LDS) brands (t-shirts, hats, bags, etc.) available for sale to French Mormons who wanted to be identified as such. His SDJ e-store was still operating as of September 2011.[789] However, personal and academic problems unfortunately forced him to give up on his PhD in 2009; and to let his mormonisme.com pass on to public domain.[790]

Mormonism as a research subject may not necessarily be the cause behind every uncompleted thesis and dissertation but studying Mormonism is not without professional and career risks. For those whose research has received the much-coveted seal of “academic approval” from a defense panel, the main risk is probably that of being marginalized. As mentioned earlier, Georges-Henri Bousquet had nothing to lose to study, write and openly stand with the “Saints” because his academic credibility had been established before, and because people had no reason to be suspicious of cult invasion. Things are different nowadays. In 2007, the president of the Université Michel de Montaigne had to make it clear that he supported Bernadette Rigal-Cellard who was battling the local media and local anti-cult representatives because she was hosting CESNUR’s conference on minority religions at a public university.

Those who opposed the organization of the conference did so mainly on the ground that it was not the business of a public institution to host and fund a conference on groups like Mormonism which they consider as cults. Much has been done on Mormonism but funding remains central in the future of Mormon studies in France.  Even research for dissertations on French Mormons can become financially challenging for Ph.D. candidates who need to travel to the United States at some point during their research. The originality and quality of their research will largely depend on whether they use a comparative approach or not. And, should that requirement be met, doctoral students and new doctors could sometimes find it difficult to publicize their work by attending academic conferences because those events which can lead to publication sometimes have high subscription fees, and some may even require travelling abroad. This problem may evolve into a vicious circle since the chances of being hired in a university depend on the quality of one’s research and the number of publications.

Financial obstacles however should not leave with the impression of a bleak future for Mormon studies in France. But the future is not only made of challenges. It is also made of a growing demand for more information on Mormonism. I have been seeing interest in Mormonism in different contexts and venues such as the Internet as I have been blogging and researching how Francophone Mormons engage in dialogues with non-Mormons. I have seen that interest in question-and-answer sessions and informal discussions during and after conferences, in invitations from institutions and individuals to give conferences write papers, including a book, on famous Mormons running for office in the United States or on the origin and evolution of the religion. I have seen interest in Mormonism as more and more journalists contact me for information; and so on. This continued interest in Mormonism will necessarily imply some more efforts on the part of French Mormons who may have grown uneasy of being an object of scrutiny.

Conclusion

We come to the conclusion of this paper with two time periods in mind, 1934 – the year the first French scholar set foot in Utah, and 2014 – the year the last doctoral dissertation dealing with Mormonism was defended in a French university. What we have within that time frame of eighty years is a total of twenty-eight reported academic works on Mormonism in French universities, representing an average of more than two theses or dissertations every year since 1934. As mentioned above, there have been gaps, long periods when the research became dormant because of obstacles. But, the overall steadiness of French research on Mormonism over the years cannot be ignored.

Last but not least, I have tried to be as comprehensive as possible in putting this overview together. But, it is not impossible to find in the future that a thesis or two had been left out because some student forgot to deposit a copy of it at his or her university library. If that were to happen, it would only confirm the steadiness and potential for further quality research on Mormonism in France which needs to be facilitated.

INCULTURATION OF MORMONISM IN FRANCE[791]

BERNADETTE RIGAL-CELLARD

The project to analyze the inculturation of Mormonism in France came out of a particular circumstance, a public lecture on the Church I gave at the University of Bordeaux. About fifteen LDS had mingled with the general public, ready to pounce on me at the slightest error or criticism. When I finished my talk, they congratulated me for my objectivity and my good knowledge of Mormonism but they complained that I had only spoken about American LDS, and had ignored the French saints. I replied I was a professor specialized in the study of American religions and indeed did not know their community but would appreciate it if they allowed me to meet with them. At that time, my research center at the University of Bordeaux ran a program on “Transatlantic myths and realities.” We studied cultural, social and political exchanges between both sides of the Atlantic world, and I had launched a program that focused on how religious groups adapted to the transatlantic passage. We looked at the diasporas of European and African religions that settled in the Americas, and the reverse migration of religious groups or movements leaving the Americas to evangelize the Old World (Europe and Africa), in order to address the metamorphoses religions undergo when challenged by a new environment. We tried to determine how their chances of survival and growth depended on the strategy they chose in a foreign culture. How do religions in general adapt to their field of mission that do not share the same history nor the same social values? Because of the local LDS’s reaction, I decided to analyze how as members of an American born and led religious movement French LDS interacted with French society at large.

The notorious success of Mormonism outside its birthplace raises the questions of how it manages to export its cultural characteristics and how these are perceived by a non-American audience. My hypothesis was that since it was profoundly marked by American history and culture, either it had toned down some of its identity markers in order to be accepted here, or its French members had a special feeling for the United States that would support their leap of faith. I was somehow wondering how Europeans could convert to a religion I had myself found so typically American when I was approached by missionaries in the late sixties.

Thus, analyzing how French Mormons viewed their Church would definitely give us some clues on the process of inculturation of religions in a foreign context. Do people convert to Mormonism in France because they are attracted to its American character or because of other factors? And first, do they perceive its American character? The issue of conversion in France is particularly interesting since it took longer for the LDS Church to gain converts here than in other European countries (mostly Protestant ones). Could such resistance be due to the well-known love and hate relations the French entertain vis-à-vis the Americans? Before examining the answers given by French LDS, a few words on the history of the Mormon presence in France will be useful.

A brief history of the French missions

The fact that Mormonism had been extremely slow in gaining converts in France because it had been found so foreign corroborated my hypothesis. The French mission started in 1849 in Le Havre with Howard Lowell, a Welshman later aided by several American missionaries, Curtis Bolton, John Taylor and John Pack. A mission could finally be set up in Paris under the presidency of Louis Bertrand. The whole entreprise did not really catch on, most of the 337 members registered in 1853 being from the Channel Islands that were in fact British. Louis Bertrand despaired to Brigham Young: “An experience of more than three years has taught me that nothing is to be hoped from the unfaithful French: they are all spiritually dead,”[792] words that I would hear again in my own study of the contemporary LDS. The French mission was closed in 1864. It reopened in 1912, was shut down again in 1914, and reopened in 1923 to include Belgium and French speaking Switzerland that seemed to be more receptive. The lack of French speaking missionaries was a major problem. In 1930, several branches were opened: Blois, Bordeaux, La Rochelle, Angoulême, Périgueux and Limoges. The one in Lille (North) was reopened, but then others were closed. In 1933 there were only 77 French members, and 795 in the whole mission.[793] It was closed in 1939 and reopened at the end of the war, in 1946, only to be strongly criticized by the media and the public. The government refused to grant “carte de séjour” (the equivalent of a green card) to the missionaries who then had to leave the country in 48 hours. One local saint told one of my students that when he was a missionary, he had heard that the president of the French mission, James L. Barker, had met with Robert Schuman, the French Secretary of Foreign Affairs, to pressure him into understanding that if these problems did not cease, he would lobby the American government to cut the financial aid France was receiving through the Marshall Plan.[794] In 1999, one of my local respondents would worry that my study might be but another attempt to discredit his Church in France like in the fifties.

The anti-Mormon feelings immediately after WW2 led President Barker to launch a major PR campaign with lectures, concerts by the Tabernacle Choir on the radio, and more proselytism thanks to a basketball missionary team. Since basketball was rather new, the LDS would win 90% of the games, thus inviting curiosity, and they would speak of the Church to their new fans. Other saints participated in musical competitions.[795] At that time, it was clearly through Americanism that one tried to recruit French people. Yet, success was still slow: in 1951 there were only 116 French members. Negotiations began to have the Church recognized as “Foreign association” and the first church was built in Nantes (Brittany) in 1962.

The great leap forward came in 1958 with the clever stratagem the Church has devised to help with the baptism of the dead: genealogical research. The Church finally gained official recognition in France when the general director of Archives de France, Charles Braibant, signed an agreement with M. Myers (representing the Church in Europe) granting permission to microfilm public records over 100 years of age.[796] As could be expected, the sixties saw the growing increase of converts, as in all NRMs in the West. In 1960 only there were suddenly 942 baptisms.[797] There are now about 35,000 members. Though the number is steadily growing, it is lower proportionally than in most other Western European countries. In the 1990, 40% of the French LDS were single, rather young and they seemed to be attracted to the activities the Church offered.[798] It was in such a context of recent growth that my investigation took place.

Hypotheses

My starting point was that Mormonism was first and foremost profoundly American (this affirmation does not challenge the authenticity of Joseph Smith’s revelations). All religions are marked by the culture in which they are born, but Mormonism is in a class of its own for it displays cultural influences far more than any other religious group born in America. Briefly, the major ones can be listed as such:

1) A democratic vision of priesthood, inherited from Protestantism but far more strongly enhanced in the Church. The interdiction for Blacks to access the same priesthood (lifted in 1978) can be seen as the reflection of the conflicts over slavery in the areas where the saints settled, in Missouri notably. It can also be linked to the interdiction for Blacks to join American Masonry from which the founders borrowed quite a lot of rituals.[799]

2) The possible divinization of man following Lorenzo Snow’s telling definition: “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” Though this dogma comes from ancient times, it has been best expressed in the United States where the self-made man going always further West to conquer the land and power has been sacralized in the national discourse.

3) The designation of America in the Book of Mormon (in a veiled way originally and then plainly in the following versions) as the New Zion. Mormonism was the first religious group to put this in writing, even if it did not invent the concept but was pursuing the vision the Pilgrim Fathers had of the City upon the Hill. There have been very few groups (if any) afterwards who actually printed this in their Scriptures (I can only think of Elizabeth Clare Prophet’s Summit Lighthouse as a major worshipper of the United States, but this nation is for her just one among many sacred lands, unlike in Mormonism).

4) The concept of the Gathering of Israel or the obligation for the Saints to rush to the American Zion, a fabulous tool to convince thousands of immigrants to run to Utah, just as the general propaganda of America as everyman’s Canaan brought millions to the United States. The teaching of “global Zion” began with the expansion of American imperialism beyond the frontier: Salt Lake put an end to the Gathering and made it clear that saints should remain wherever they were so as not to choke the Great Basin economically and also in order to implant the Church more effectively in the whole world. The Articles of Faith still do mention however the American continent as the locus where the New Jerusalem will be built.

5) The extraordinary gift for successfully colonizing forbidding territories: the saints turned literally the desert into a fertile oasis, just as the Americans in general have displayed an incredible capacity for the mastery of hostile lands, waters and peoples…

Since I have never found counter arguments to what Thomas O’Dea told me when I met him as a young student of religions at the University of California at Santa Barbara: “Mormonism is America in miniature”, my purpose was to see how such a culturally marked religion could appeal to a people – the French – strangely biased negatively towards the United States.

The answers to the questionnaire

I discussed my project with a member of the local stake[800] and convinced him to help me hand out questionnaires. After some delay due to potential refusal from the part of the national authorities to participate in the study, I obtained the authorization to hand it to members of the Church here in Bordeaux, in a ward near Paris and in one in the East of France. 120 questionnaires were handed out, plus a dozen ones with questions targeted at American missionaries.

The respondents

35 questionnaires were filled out by French LDS and five American missionaries filled in a specific questionnaire. A lot of LDS did not want to answer since they thought I was a government spy in spite of my explanations and my credentials in the introduction of the file. Some of those who did answer were rather aggressive for they hated my inquisitiveness that according to them was not interested in the proper questions and they endeavored to guide me unto the right path to understand the spiritual perfection of their Church. Their suspicion was partly due to the fact that I was conducting the very first scholarly study of French Mormons, now they would not be so weary.[801]

Though the number of filled out questionnaires was not very high, I also discussed the matter at length with several LDS who did not fill out questionnaires, notably on the bus ride taking us through the night to the Madrid Temple before its consecration. I debated the issues as well with a number of French people who had been contacted by LDS but had not converted.

The LDS respondents represented a good sample of French provincial and Parisian middle class, with a great range of levels of education (end of high school to last year of university), of occupations and ages, men and women. The youngest respondent was 24, the oldest 75. The questions are given at the beginning of each subchapter.

The questions about the Americanness of Mormonism

1) How had they encountered the Church? What was its appeal for them? Had they been influenced by the nationality of the early missionaries?

Most French LDS (16) had come from Catholicism (themselves or their parents) before joining the Church, 5 had no religion, 9 were second generation LDS, one was third generation, one came from Protestantism. They had been LDS for at least 5 years, at the most 39 years, thus an average of 22 years. Only 6 were the only LDS in their families. 11 had joined the Church through a family member, 3 thanks to friends.

About a third (12) had been evangelized by missionaries, mostly American ones (16). If some said that it was better to be taught in one’s language, many said there was some definite pleasure in speaking to foreigners. Missionaries who responded to my questionnaire felt that their being American was a plus in trying to get people's attention: “We get their attention easily because we are American”; “with French non-members, I felt it was an asset to be American. People, who were not members, were not typically used to having Americans in their lives. They felt it was something special to talk to an American on the street, or have an American in their home.”

Most French LDS had not been missionaries themselves (19), sometimes their children were. Those who went on a mission went to Tahiti (6), Belgium (1), Italy (1), Africa (2), France (5). I asked whether in those countries the Church was associated or not with the US. They all said it was, to such an extent in fact that the people there had found surprising to have non-American missionaries.

2) To the question “Has the fact that the Church has American origins and that most missionaries are American attracted you?” the answers were adamant: 2/3 of the respondents (24) denied the fact that the Church's being American had had any appeal for them, and they would have joined it whatever its national origin. This type of answer expressing a clear denial of any kind of appeal emanating from the United States recurred constantly, but was belied by various explanations to other questions as we shall see. 4 people did say that the kindness and youth of the American missionaries had indeed been a factor of seduction. 23 never felt any kind of suspicion towards them. 4 felt irritated at their “I know it all, we are the best” but they liked the message they were carrying.

The reasons most gave for joining the Church: they had received a testimony asserting this was the true Church restored. Many respondents criticized my not leaving enough blank space to answer this question. We French do not dare ask intimate questions of that order, but obviously this is what people wanted to talk about and on separate sheets of paper they wrote long explanations about their innermost motivations. It is a rather usual phenomenon with recent converts, or even with old time members of highly proselytizing groups. Yet, might we take this as a sign of their being influenced by the American custom of testifying publicly on one's faith?

The LDS listed several reasons for their joining: the restoration of the true Church (12), the example of their family (2), trust in converted friends (3), and various doctrinal points.

3) Is America “behind” Mormonism? Had the “American Dream” exerted any attraction on them? Was America the major force behind Mormonism?

Half of the respondents refused the reference to the American Dream (material success, comfort, anybody can get rich) as an incentive, yet the other half disagreed and replied that that was a major factor of conversion but they had never felt this attraction themselves (this type of answer was consistent throughout my investigation). They said it was mostly the young (one respondent said 50% of conversions among the youth had such an origin), or some not fully enlightened converts who had succumbed to its charm. They also admitted that those who converted to Mormonism as a means to “benefit from Americanism” did not remain for long within the Church, or that they changed their viewpoints after realizing that life in America was not really better than in France. Obviously for Western Europeans, the situation has evolved in the last half century for it came out from various discussions that right after WW2 the American Dream was indeed the major conversion factor.

Two former French missionaries in Tahiti where as they put it “there is a chapel every 5 miles et 14,000 members out of 120,000 inhabitants” (and this is where the first French temple was built), reported that the local saints were extremely attracted to the United States and felt that joining the Church would bring them closer to this country. In the French island of La Réunion, near Madagascar, seven LDS missions are French out of 14 and if at first the locals see the Church as French they quickly perceive its Americanness.

One LDS told me that when he saw the first missionaries here in France (the mission reopened in 1946 as mentioned above) he had then thought they were part of the Marshall plan package, and then he had changed his mind when he discovered the message. However, we can say that they were truly part of the package. After conducting my study, around the year 2000 in Paris at a Church festival and conference (at the Saint Merri center) I heard a major French authority of the Church proclaim that WW2 had been a marvelous gift. This fell on my French ears as the worst negativism I had ever heard. I must have been the only non-LDS listener for nobody reacted. The man went on: of course a lot of people had suffered but that war had sealed the definite victory of the US which had thus allowed the Church to follow American soldiers and bask in the limelight. The power of its motherland had forced the reluctant allies to accept Mormonism along with reconstruction. France was of course the most obvious “reluctant ally” and it had had to bow down and suck up its Gallic pride. History proved the speaker right as I explained in the short survey of the Church here. I must say I felt it was terribly wrong to take pride in the success of the Church (or of anything, for that matter) over the bodies of some 65 million dead. Gallic pride had been defeated by a much fiercer pride that I could not condone.

In this respect it was interesting to see that some of my respondents went as far as saying that they hated the US, its superiority complex and its crass culture before becoming LDS, but now they had taken a liking for the country since they could then see its positive points (proving thereby that in spite of what French LDS try to believe, one cannot separate a religious group from its surrounding culture). Yet, most French LDS felt the same love and hate relationship or gratitude and suspicion vis-à-vis the Americans in general as the non-LDS French, but declared liking their American friends. Some LDS did say even LDS Americans were condescending and so they, the French LDS, were in fact trying to show them that the Church was American no more.

4) What relationship did French LDS entertain with their non-LDS friends and French society in general? Were they being ostracized? How did they explain the extremely slow inroads of the Church in France?

Generally today French LDS are not the butt of jokes or sarcasms. One reason I think may be that in France one does not talk much about religion in general and many people would not be aware of working with a Mormon. In spite of what French LDS try to prove, Mormonism is overwhelming still perceived by the general public as an American group (with missionaries going by two, with white shirts and back packs) and not many people will imagine that there can be French Mormons. When they do find out, they usually ask questions on polygamy and the microfilming of birth records.

To the question, “why do you think the French do not convert easily to Mormonism, do you think it may due to their suspicion towards the United States”, respondents explained (like Bertrand a century earlier) that the French were too materialistic, proud, individualistic, selfish, unruly, spiritually dead, or too intellectual, sometimes too strongly Catholic (or not enough). They were extremely severe with their fellow-countrymen, and did not think their lack of interest for the Church stemmed from any mistrust towards the US. The reasons were French people love to eat and drink so they cannot abide by a strict healthy diet. They are attached to their traditions and suspect any novelty. Mormonism is a figure of modernity and they reject modernity. Bruce A. Van Orden, the author of Building Zion: The Latter-Day Saints in Europe, was more understanding of French non converts as he explained that “The French way of life melds high achievement and exquisite leisure. Most people enjoy philosophizing, socializing and savoring their world-famous cuisine while enjoying their privacy, which makes it difficult for missionaries to find openings for normal proselytizing efforts.”[802]

5) The Gathering of Israel.

What was the respondents’ perception of the place held by America in the Book of Mormon and the doctrine of the Gathering as stated by the 10th Article of Faith: “We believe that […] Zion (New Jerusalem) will be built on the American continent”? Did it hurt their feelings as French citizens? How did they interpret the fact that the gathering of the Saints was gradually abandoned at the end of the 19th century, and would they leave everything to go to the USA if need be?

The majority of the respondents (19) were not bothered at all by the special place America held in God’s Design and said that the New Revelation had to have a specific location and thus the United States was like Palestine for the Hebrews, no more no less. Yet, most also found clear arguments to support God’s decision. America was young and pure. This answer interestingly came on questionnaires that had earlier denied the fact that America had much to do with Mormonism.

To the question “would you emigrate if the authorities called you to Zion?”, they said: Yes (22) they would migrate, 5 specified they would do so only if a new revelation commanded it, but they would do so reluctantly, and in fact 3 confessed they did not think it would be in the near future. 17 confessed they had never thought about migrating at all. In fact, if they had to go to the “American continent” as the article of faith stipulates, they would rather go to Canada, which is also a choice that French people often favor. People knew saints who had moved to the US, but it was always for professional reasons (or to go to the university), not for religious ones.

One even said the choice of America for the gathering was not important at all, it was “a principle of religion”, which was not very clear, but implied, probably, that this was not a major tenet. Visibly, the millenarian call had waned in Mormonism, but this is a well-known fact, except within the fundamentalist community.

The answers to my questions on this issue showed that in spite of previous affirmations letting on a sort of indifference towards the US as a country (for it was a sort of rival of France), when doctrinal requirements were at stake, French LDS highly valorized the United States and found God’s choice perfectly deserved.

6) Respondents were also asked to define the most typically American characteristics of their Church. One third did not see any and consistently refused to see any link between the Church and the US beyond the mere historical foundation. The others quoted a variety of features that were definitely not French such as the family evening, American missionaries with their accent and their uniforms, the minute cataloguing of information, data processing, genealogical technology, the democratic, participative and easy-going organization, the celebration of American feasts, cookies, openness and tolerance […] One must also add that the paraphernalia used by American missionaries, who still form the majority of missionaries in France, includes slides and video on the United States, American traditional dances and free English lessons.

7) How did local LDS view the future for the Church in France?

Respondents explained that the characteristics listed above would soon be limited since there were more and more non-American LDS. These would of course catch some of these American positive features but would also replace others by their own national mores. They all approved the new policy of the authorities favoring more and more autonomy for the foreign stakes. Soon the Church should no longer be recognizable as American. One missionary said: “As French members become ready to serve in positions of more responsibility, this will eradicate the myth of the “American Church’ and people will be more open-minded.” French LDS concluded that the Church would be no more American than the Catholic Church was Roman. Such an answer underscored the misunderstanding of the impact of the cultural environment on any movement. The fact that the Vatican is in Rome does bear tremendously on everything within and without the Church. All religious movements reflect more or less visibly some of the cultural traits that surrounded their birth and development.

Conclusion

This survey, though conducted on a small corpus, led me to conclude to the acclimation of Mormonism to France, as can be seen in the perception French LDS had of their Church. Practically the majority of answers demonstrated they felt the same attachment to France as non-LDS French. Yet, unlike American LDS, they are not super patriots. This can be explained by the general mistrust of patriotism in France (due to the tragedies that befell our continent in the past century because of nationalism and misplaced patriotism), but also by the flaws LDS perceive in a motherland still rather suspicious of their new Church. By joining it, French saints go from no religion or from a very routinized one (Catholicism mostly here) that requires hardly anything from them, to a very demanding one. They isolate themselves from what they perceive to be the negative aspects of French society (just like all LDS in the world regarding the countries they live in) and they have created their own Mormon culture that takes precedence over their national identity. Obviously, in this they differ from their American brothers, for, even if American LDS have organized their own specific culture sometimes at odds with the surrounding society because of diverging views of morality, they remain strongly attached to the American nation. Again this is due to the characteristics of Mormonism (listed in the beginning of this study) genetically linked to American features: in this case the strong nationalism that marks out the USA among Western countries. Such emphasis on the nation is understandably needed when the whole population has come at one point or another from somewhere else. Patriotism is a compulsory cement of the American nation, and the saints are intimately welded into it.

Furthermore, like most French and Western Europeans, all the respondents (but clearly not all French LDS) did not feel lured to the American mirage of wealth and happiness. This is easily explained by the high standard of living due to the efficient work ethic on our side of the Atlantic as well. French LDS do not feel the urge to migrate, but in this regard also they are traditionally French (France has never been a major pool for emigration simply because of its own resources and space). They all refused to be seen as belonging to an American Church, but maintained their Church was the primitive Church restored, not attached to any particular nation.

Bruce A. Van Orden observed that since it was very hard to evangelize the French, the major efforts of the missionaries in France bore on immigrants who make up about a third of urban LDS communities. I have not yet been able to study their own perceptions in order to find out whether the appeal of the Church is for them the same as for my respondents or whether they see in a conversion to Mormonism a passport for the dreamland of most immigrants (the same strategy is displayed in all new religions in France: they address immigrants primarily because they form a more receptive audience for a variety of reasons, alienation from the general society being one of the major ones).

A final point needs to be stressed. My respondents consistently refused to see a link between politics, culture and religion. Yet American LDS, like any missionary throughout the world, carry their country in their baggage and not just their Scriptures, mainly when the Scriptures they carry celebrate the special blessing God granted to their own country. Missionaries have always been ambassadors. Their success in evangelizing the crowds will not just bring about spiritual success, but also economic and political advantages for their homeland.[803] Strangely enough, French LDS do not want to admit that much. They stress that the Church's policy has been to refuse to export the American way of life, and they quote as an example the replacement of baseball by soccer in the missionary guide to Europe. In an editorial of Church News,[804] one could read: “The principles of the Gospel are not American […] A Kenyan can adopt the principles of the Gospel and remain a Kenyan, rooted in his own culture.” This was a far cry from the early policy of the Church that sought to impose its own standards and that some observers referred to as the Macdonaldization of the world through its mormonization.

It is a fairly well-known fact now that the Church has been conscientiously erasing in its initial teachings all the characteristics that could be perceived as too weird or too American in order to pass for an exclusively Christian Church, the best Christian Church. One of my respondents, an American missionary, clearly did not know all the tenets I was referring to and claimed I was mistaking the Mormons for the Jehovah's Witnesses. Another one explained that they were not supposed to speak about those tenets in their own mission but had to focus only on the generic Christian message.

All these issues made my own questionnaire sound even more irritating to French LDS. Yet there is a specific point that contradicts the official toning down of idiosyncrasies or the recent “radical Christianization.” It is the doctrinal tenet that at first may seem detached from everyday life but ultimately bears on the politics of the Church at large: the function of the American continent in the Restoration of the Primitive Church and the Latter-Day Gathering of Israel, a function closely intertwined with Manifest Destiny. French respondents declared they were rather indifferent to the US as a country, but they did glorify its special role as the land chosen by God. Such an adoption of the American nationalist creed definitely places Mormons, whatever nations they live in, within the sphere of influence of the United States. This is neither new nor strange. This has always been the essence of missions. What is unusual, however, is the reluctance, or rather the refusal of French LDS respondents to acknowledge it. For the Church of Salt Lake City this refusal is a major success. By denying that it is anything but the true Church of Jesus Christ these LDS testified to its complete inculturation in France.

IDENTITY UNDER CONSTRUCTION: THE CONVERSION EXPERIENCE OF HUNGARIAN LATTER-DAY SAINTS

IRÉN ANNUS AND NÓRA CSEPREGI

Introduction: Religion and post-socialist Hungary

2015 marked the 25th anniversary of the regime change in Hungary. The shift from a socialist state structure to a democratic one in 1989-90 introduced a series of fundamental transformations not only in terms of political life, business ventures and economic production, but also in the social and cultural realms. Although Hungarians enjoyed a gradually increasing freedom in various walks of life as of the mid-1960s, the overall independence that citizens experienced after the fall of socialism gave them the power to act more liberally according to their consciences and, therefore, to choose their own world view. As a result, a new ideological marketplace emerged, offering a wide range of political views represented by various parties and civil society organizations, while in the religious field, the major traditional churches, the largest being the Roman Catholic and Reformed churches, reclaimed both power and a prominent public voice. At the same time, the big churches also experienced the emergence of a variety of new religious ideas and communities that were now competing with them in their quest for potential converts.

The range of ideologies offered to Hungarians in the new era coincided with a general need to deconstruct the past and reconstruct the present. Essential to this process was the re-constitution of identities, both collective and individual, especially in the areas of ethnicity and national identity, both deeply embedded in current political discourses. In many cases, political and religious beliefs became intricately interlaced, ultimately inscribing “in popular consciousness ideas about the close connections between religious and ethno-national categories […] [implying that] adherence to an ethno-national group automatically conjured up a specific religious tradition,”[805] a phenomenon that appeared in other former socialist countries as well. Conservative parties, such as the Christian Democrats and the Hungarian Democratic Forum, offered a vision of a new Hungary with slogans and values that mainstreamed traditional Christianity, intertwined with democratic values that hearken back to the country’s past, which had proven to be a winning combination: after the elections of 1990, these two parties were part of the new coalition and thus of the first government of the new republic.

This obvious political preference on the part of the governing powers expressed towards the traditional Christian churches made the entry and acceptance of new religious communities quite difficult. Hungary’s last socialist government before them embraced an open-door policy in terms of minority religions entering the country. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for example, became fully recognized in Hungary by the socialist government in 1988, after which LDS missionary activity started to intensify.[806] Twenty years later, in 2009, while Hungary’s population was 67% Roman Catholic and 25% Protestant, the LDS Church counted approximately 0.005% of the people among its members, with its church membership of 4,474.[807] The LDS Church is centered in Budapest, but is present nationwide, organized into one stake, five wards, and fourteen branches. No temple building has been erected in the country so far.

Despite the Church’s over two decades of activity in Hungary and clear visibility through its missionaries, Hungarians tend to maintain an ambivalent image of the Church and its members. This is partly due to the fact that most of them know precious little about Mormonism, a fact which may make Mormons suspect in their eyes.[808] Furthermore, as traditional churches do not engage in door-to-door witnessing, the Mormon method of proselytizing seems quite unusual for many Hungarians. Moreover, many Hungarians hold views that are shaped by the mainstream historical churches: the Catholic Church, for example, considers the Mormon Church as a cult, much as it does many of the 260 other religious groups listed in the 2001 Census, which also measured Hungarian religious life for the first time in 50 years. In his analysis of the Census data, Catholic author Lenhardt, for example, argues that religious pluralism has failed to enrich the country and its people; instead, it has created a chaos that should be dealt with through religious integration, all in the fashionable name of being in compliance with the rest of the European Union.[809] Despite all this, however, the Mormon Church has continued its steady growth.

It is, therefore, a unique undertaking to take a closer look at the people who converted to Mormonism in the midst of the ideological and cultural turmoil of the first twenty years after the regime change. This study, framed by the sociological model of Giddens’ theory of structuration and Jenkins’ identity model of internal-external dialectics of identification, investigates conversion narratives offered by Hungarian Latter-day Saints. Taking ten semi-guided in-depth interviews as the primary source for this micro-level analysis, the study examines (1) the ways in which conversion to Mormonism came about; (2) attendant changes in daily practices in the lives of the converts; and (3) resultant changes in self-perception and identity construction among these Saints. Applying discourse analysis in the examination of the texts, the paper embraces a descriptive – as opposed to a normative – approach to the experience of conversion which, as Rambo summarizes, “delineate[s] the contours of the nature of the phenomenon … [and] observes the nature of the process.”[810]

Conversion, social practices and identity construction

The conversion experience has been a widely studied theme in religious studies that has drawn on a number of disciplines, including psychology, anthropology, sociology, theology, among others. A thorough investigation of the definition and typology of conversion, its possible stages, the range of motifs and various factors behind it, such as age, social position, mental and psychological states, and the personality change it may bring about, are indeed only a few of the issues meticulously discussed since the groundbreaking works of James[811] and Starbuck[812] in the field. A historical overview of these would reach far beyond the scope of the present study; therefore, only works directly related to the current research will be integrated into the discussion to follow.

Austin-Broos defines conversion as “a cultural passage” that is “experimental at first” but with time “becomes a deliberate change with definite direction.”[813] Having drawn on Bourdieu’s concept, Austin-Broos argues that conversion is “a type of passage that negotiates a place in the world … a quest for habitus.” [814] Bourdieu viewed habitus as “a set of dispositions”[815] that frames attitudes, perceptions, social action and practices. Social practices constitute a key element in Giddens’ theory of structuration.[816] He proposes that they comprise the basis of social systems as it is through them that people and institutions are bound in a permanent, constitutive relationship, in the course of which they are routinely produced and reproduced over time and space. Giddens considers people to be knowledgeable agents who reflexively monitor their actions and are therefore able to offer accounts of their motivation as well as to rationalize their actions.[817]

Regularly performed, routinized actions are social practices that can be regarded as expressive of one’s social identity. Since Giddens conceptualizes identity as “a particular narrative going,”[818] practices mapped in narratives of the self may be understood as signifiers of belonging. Austin-Broos defines conversion as “a quest for human belonging” which provides the self with a new identity, in the course of which, she adds, “a newly indoctrinated self [is] defined through the gaze of others.”[819] This observation reflects what Jenkins emphasizes in his identity model, in which he, much like Giddens, relates the individual to the social in a dialectical manner. Jenkins argues that self identity is “an ongoing and in practice simultaneous, synthesis of internal self-definition and external definitions of oneself offered by others,”[820] or, as Austin-Broos phrased it, “through the gaze of others.”

Giddens is in agreement with these scholars in the understanding that identity is an ongoing project, one that, in his opinion, is shaped by the individual’s need for ontological security: it is this basic need that defines one’s “trajectory of development from the past to the anticipated future.”[821] This trajectory of the self is a coherent, consciously and pervasively structured, reflexive formation of a life, the discoursal presentation of which often includes “a corrective intervention into the past”[822] so characteristic of autobiographical narratives, through which a reflexive ordering of the narrative of the self is performed in order to tailor one’s past to the image of the present and of the anticipated future.

Life stories guided through a limited set of questions, therefore, can provide an apt source for examining the conversion experience among the Hungarian Latter-day Saints, along with the subsequent changes in their social practices, self-perception and identity construction. The elements and layers of their autobiographical narratives allow for an analysis of the content and for a mapping of various discoursal strategies, such as corrective intervention in the past, which contribute towards the constitution of a cohesive trajectory of the self, including accounts of the rationale and motivation involved in social action. It must be emphasized that the overall image these life stories convey is self-reflective: they have not been contrasted with views of other people mentioned in these narratives for the sake of the validity of certain claims, for example, especially when it comes to the issue of the external definition of the self.

The conversion experience

The conversion experience among Hungarian Latter-day Saints was researched in three places in various parts of the country in order to achieve a more even and accurate outcome: one large, one mid-sized, and one small town in the mid-western, south-eastern and mid-eastern regions of the country were selected for the investigation. We requested volunteers from local congregations for the project, out of whom ten were found by random selection and with whom we conducted semi-guided interviews between March and June 2010. All the Saints interviewed were active members of the Church at the time of the interviews. They were all external converts[823] who joined the Church after the age of 14. There was also an even number of male and female respondents. The general profile of the interviewees is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. The general profile of the Saints interviewed.

The Saints who indicated previous religious affiliation were all Catholic, though, except for one person, they had been inactive. As for the range of their characteristics, the female respondents were between the ages of 25 and 63, while the men were between 22 and 44. Regarding the age of their baptism, the women interviewed ranged between the ages of 14 and 58, whereas the men were between 17 and 31. The women interviewees had been members of the LDS Church for 5 to 16 years, and their male counterparts had been for 1 to 16 years. The women recalled that 1-8 months had elapsed between the time they were introduced to Mormonism and the time they received baptism, while this period was 2-24 months for the men. Interestingly, all the interviewees said that they had encountered this faith through missionaries and that their baptism was a direct outcome of their proselytizing efforts.

In Hungary, conversion after the fall of communism in most cases fell into the category of affiliation that Rambo defines as “conversion or recruitment to a new religious movement,”[824] with fewer examples of institutional transition, which is understood as denominational change within the same religious tradition. This is the outcome of socio-political realities and historical legacy in Hungary, where all religious activity was strongly discouraged and marginalized during socialism. After the regime change, although religious activism had increased, the number of people leaving their Catholic roots and affiliation, even if they were inactive, indicates that the Church was unable or unwilling to create the lively and passionate environment that could have drawn these members closer to their faith; nor was it able to provide an ideology and a model through which people could imagine to frame their lives in the state of flux they experienced around them.

All the respondents said that the Mormon missionaries they had met played an essential role in their conversion: they were initially attracted to Mormonism because of the overall first impression they had of them. The missionaries appear in all the accounts as young, energetic, happy, optimistic, relaxed, and self-confident people. As one interviewee noted, they “believe with a smile on their faces,” which speaks volumes about the usual image Hungarians hold of religions and believers in general being overly serious.

Some of the interviewees were impressed by the fact that these Saints leave their families and homes behind, sacrifice their time and money to actually do what is expected of all Christians: to proselytize. This is indeed meaningful in the Hungarian cultural context in two ways. In religious terms, it signifies the way the Saints in fact perform their religious duties, which indicates their true devotion, obedience, and honesty. Their model restores faith in faith, something that has been treated with some skepticism for quite some time in Hungary.[825] In social terms, Hungarians value family unity above all, along with the home, and the social network of friends. This is coupled with a broad social and economic interdependence and a lack of mobility. Leaving all this behind for the sake of faith is regarded as a major sacrifice and a sign of true commitment, which is seen as admirable. Therefore, LDS missionary activity in Hungary can be transformed into major cultural capital on the part of the Mormon Church, and can be utilized as such.

Once initial contact was established with the missionaries, a gradual immersion into the faith itself started to take place. The respondents noted that during missionary visits they were first talking in general, becoming acquainted, in the course of which they established the basis of their relationship. During the second phase, their religious education started to take place during these home visits, eventually leading to the act of baptism. The period of missionary teaching was described as crucial since it was the first time that they, as potential converts, were introduced to the basic beliefs and doctrines of the Mormon faith along with related rituals and social practices as well as received answers to their questions. When asked, respondents noted that they were captivated by the family-centered nature of the church, the even and rational nature of the teachings, and the fact that all of the issues they raised were addressed in a sensible manner. Pre-baptism visits to some events at the local congregation were also mentioned as a powerful way to experience how welcoming and inclusive Mormons are as a community.

This was especially emphasized in cases when a Saint formerly felt rejected by or excluded from other groups she or he belonged to. A number of the Saints stressed that the church is indeed like a family for them, where they are embraced with love and feel a sense of safety, warmth and acceptance. They were able to experience first-hand that not only the missionaries, but also Mormon believers in general are kind, happy, and content. They witnessed that the Saints keep their values and norms, which they found exemplary. They felt that the community was further proof of how the Mormon faith can guide one to achieve a happy and balanced life. While this was a general sense among the Saints we interviewed, two of them also pointed out how they did not feel that they were becoming involved in something overly idealistic or disingenuous, but in a real community of people with their own weaknesses. “People are not perfect. Only the church is,” as one of the Saints quoted a missionary, while another woman recalled the way she was warned by the missionaries that the congregation has “real people” in it, with their own shortcomings, but that they can gradually improve their character with the help of their faith and the church.

While the interviewees received positive vibes and support from their newfound external group, their conversion was judged in various ways by their family and friends, which is equally important in terms of their constituting an external definition of their selves. The very first point to consider is the position of the Saints themselves, reflective of their pre-conceived notions about the possible reaction of members of their former social network to their conversion.[826] They seemed to have had some concerns as they had chosen not to discuss their meetings with the missionaries with other people. Moreover, most of them remained silent about their conversion even after their baptism. It seems that their openness about their religious affiliation came about gradually, as part of their long conversion process: the more time had elapsed, the more vocal they became about their faith.

As for the reaction to the news of their conversion, the accounts indicate that most family members and friends, once informed about their baptism, accepted the fact. While all of our respondents talked about it with their family members, only some of them mentioned it to their friends. The news of conversion elicited various immediate responses. Overall, they encountered a general lack of knowledge about Mormonism, which was clear from the questions and comments they received. Sometimes, family members expressed concern over someone joining a church that is not traditional in Hungary. At times, this concern went beyond the limits of standard discussion, potential converts being called “crazy” and “out of their minds.”

When these discussions took a negative turn and the converts ended up not enjoying the support of their family, they, as one respondent observed, “just don’t talk about it.” However, only family members who were practicing Catholics, had opposed their conversion vehemently from the very beginning, finding it extremely problematic and distressing. They attempted to convince the Saints who had found themselves in this situation to leave Mormonism, bringing up arguments against this Church, such as it being a cult, wanting to rob the new converts of their money, brainwashing people, still practicing polygamy, etc. As for friends, typically the Saints did not share the news of their baptism with them. Those who did, found that their decision was accepted. One interviewee said he “mentioned something,” and that his friends therefore knew he was “some kind of religious something or other,” but it was not discussed in depth.

The issue of acceptance was also one of the points at which some of the converts shifted into the discourse of othering in relation to their non-Mormon family and friends. In these cases, they constituted themselves as the marginalized other, that is, they engaged in the presumed discoursal pattern of the majority. The previously mentioned respondent, for example, defines himself the way he thinks his friends would identify him, being “some kind of … something” in religious terms. Another respondent repeated the same pattern when providing the following account: “my friends went along, not talking about polygamy, not saying that it’s a cult. I was so proud of them for being so smart and that they accept me this way.” The self-referential “this way” implies that he constitutes himself as the one being different, the outsider, and therefore speaking from what he imagines to be the discursive position of a mainstream, average Hungarian, in relation to whom his friends come through as open and well-informed.

While the Saints interviewed spent about six months on average studying the scriptures before baptism, they all agreed that their conversion was a long, gradually evolving experience. There was only one Saint who recalled one formative moment in this process that she identified as the moment of her conversion. She told us that one day while praying a strange feeling came over her, which was the first time she felt God’s presence in her soul. She argued that this moment represented the completion of her conversion. Others connected the experience of conversion to the ability of being fully immersed in the faith, thoroughly understanding and following its teachings, and identifying with the complex world view that it offers.

Changes in social practices

The conversion experience in these life stories was always connected to the individual’s search for spiritual fulfillment, as well as a direction in their lives. The state of feeling lost can be explained not only by the individual’s particular circumstances, life situation and specific mental and psychological states, as conversion always takes place within a “larger sociological, cultural, historical, and religious context.”[827] The average for the church membership period of the Saints interviewed is ten years, meaning that they converted to the Mormon faith around 2000. By then, the initial euphoria that had accompanied the regime change in Hungary shifted away and the harsh realities of the market-driven economy and deepening political divide began to take their toll on everyone.[828] Ten years after the regime change, people came to believe that they had lost real guidance in terms of leadership, they felt insecure in their daily lives, and they began to long for the sense of stability that the paternalistic state structure was thought to have provided during the socialist era. Moreover, their Hungarian identity and sense of belonging had been constantly questioned by some of the political parties that by then had appropriated the definition and content of national and ethnic identities along with the nation’s history.[829]

A series of studies on the psychological state of the Hungarians in the new millennium reveal a shocking reality. A research project completed in 2002 and a follow-up project in 2006 showed that the psychological state of Hungarians had worsened.[830] People had become more stressed and depressed, experiencing an increasing sense of loneliness and alienation. These representative studies also demonstrate that less educated people with a low income level were especially in danger of psychological distress. They felt generally lost in life and hopelessly excluded. In 2002, for example, over half of the respondents said that they felt they had no purpose in life, and this number increased to 90% by 2006.

Another series of studies that examined the power of religious belief in mental health maintenance was conducted in Hungary between 1988 and 2006.[831] It was found that belief and active participation in a religious group provide a safety network, and thus contribute significantly to maintaining healthy mental and psychological states. Data indicated that members of lower socio-economic classes are more drawn to religions and that their involvement in religious life is the most active. They also found that religion is most widely present among the elderly and that women tend to be more open to spirituality than men.

These results confirm previous findings regarding the role of religion. Starbuck argues that one often experiences “depression, sadness, pensiveness”[832] before conversion. Paloutzian, Richardson and Rambo also find that people with difficulty in their childhood or suffering “from feelings of personal inadequacy are particularly prone to conversion because they have personal or behavioral needs that are not satisfactorily met.”[833] Pelkmans explains that religious movements are so appealing to people in perceived need because they “offer concrete answers to complex problems.”[834] Moreover, Solomon argues that the sacred texts religions offer make sense out of human existence in the world by offering a narrative with a creative origin and a promise of a life that extends beyond death, therefore “constituting our greatest – and perhaps only – weapon”[835] against it.

These are all elements that appear in the conversion narratives of our respondents. They all claimed that they were in search of something spiritual to guide their actions and to give them direction. They offered accounts of a taxing period in their lives when they met the missionaries. The various psychological or financial constraints and troubles in times of uncertainty were often not expressed in direct terms. Interestingly, except for two respondents, everyone said that they had an “average, normal” life, but the semiotic field that they fill these words with differs significantly. In this regard, the respondents can be placed into two categories. One is a group in which the Saints see their pre-baptism values, behaviors and actions as being the same as they were after baptism. These Saints characterized themselves as being “a nice boy,” “a good boy,” “an average young woman,” and “a good young fellow with no problems” before their baptism. While this provided an opportunity for some of them to develop friendships, others felt excluded from mainstream society, often because they did not share in the social practices of their peers: they did not drink, smoke, or party the way others did.

While discourses of self-tailoring may apply in the case of these narratives as well as corrective intervention in the past that offers a retroactive self-justification for their conversion, it is important to note again the position the speaker takes up in relation to the category of normalcy, which in this case is that of their current Mormon standing. This stands in sharp contrast to the narrative offered by members of the second group. One female respondent said: “I used to be nervous, making a fuss all the time, always blaming others if something didn’t work out, being angry at everyone, unhappy and complaining all the time […] so I was an absolutely normal person.” Then, she continues, “I spent my free time gardening and gossiping… […] I was flapping my gums as they do today out there in the outside world.” This discourse captures a self-positioning in which she refers to her life as a non-Mormon Hungarian as normal, implying that she constructs her current Mormon position as their other: non-normal and non-standard. She later claimed that she “has had two lives”: one before baptism, and one afterwards, during which she was given the chance to correct the mistakes she had made in her first life. Obviously, she values her current life more, to which she assigns more value or worth, i.e. a position of superiority. In either case, this aspect of recalling pre-conversion life and identity indicates a very marked practice of discoursal othering, constituting a divide that is solely based on religious affiliation. The Saints distance themselves from other Hungarians, which, therefore, indicates that their identification with the Mormon Church proves more powerful than their ethnic or national identification.

As for specific topics common in pre-baptism life stories, a study was conducted by Szenes.[836] She examined narratives by young people who had converted to a new religious movement between the ages of 18 and 25, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hare Krishnas, and Latter-day Saints. She found that frequently recurring themes in these life stories can be grouped around five major topics. One, love and relationships within the family: in the stories these are described as stressful, filled with painful memories of mistreatment, and cases of the parents’ divorce are quite common. Two, childhood fears and angst: these include fear of unexpected bad events and misfortune, as well as of death. Three, personal character and interests: often one may observe a dearth of strong personal ties, a lack of fulfilling activities, and an overall need for answers to transcendental questions. Four, personal relationships, including sexuality: they also seem to be out of balance, resulting in extreme behavioral patterns, problems with self-esteem, and a negative feeling about their pre-conversion life. Five, religion in the family: either no religious background is mentioned, or it is quite weak, leading to no personal religious experience.

Our respondents, most of whom converted in the same age range, also bring examples of each of these topics that in certain ways map their pre-conversion identity and practices. Most of the interviewees came from broken families. About half of them saw their parents divorce during their childhood, giving accounts of numerous conflicts and stressful situations as a result. One person grew up in a single-parent family, where the mother’s brother, who was living with them, was meant to be the father figure, but with little success. The other half reported that they had grown up in a regular family although one noted that she got into serious trouble during her teen years.

Because of these family troubles, they had been carrying with them their own fears and anxieties. Although there were not many direct mentions of these, the recurring theme of “forgiveness” in the context of the Mormon faith may refer to these. One respondent spoke at length about the importance of forgiveness, which he had learned about in church, because through that he was able to normalize his relationship with his family members. Another respondent stressed how through forgiveness she was hoping to be able to show her “divorced parents an example” and thus help them to improve their attitude and relationships.

As for individual interests and character, almost all of the respondents noted that they felt a lack in their lives and wished to fill in the void. They were in search of something, seeking answers to existential questions. Many of them were engaged in various activities – in sports, music and singing – but ultimately found them unfulfilling. In terms of their relationships, only two respondents were married when they were baptized, but now half of them are. Except for one, their spouses are also members of the church. The single respondents all shared in their desire to establish a family but also noted how they found it difficult because of the lack of young people in their congregations. Most of the Saints observed that their value systems and behavior remained the same as they had been before their conversion. Szenes argues that this is often a post-conversion retrospective self-justification through which members establish a continuum in their lives from their current perspective, which reminds one of Giddens’ notion regarding the trajectory of the self. As for the success of religious socialization, which is an issue that may apply to converts with Catholic backgrounds, the transmission of the Catholic faith had been unsuccessful, which accounts for their continued search for the transcendental.

When asked about their values, behaviors and daily practices, their answer was constructed from the discoursal position of a Mormon. As noted above, most of them agreed that their values and behavior had not changed because of their conversion. Three respondents added that their faith only strengthened their former values and shifted the order of their significance. When giving accounts of their practices, the Saints talked about these in the context of the Mormon faith: they mentioned practices related to The Word of Wisdom. None of them used drugs, some consumed alcohol occasionally, but most of them drank either tea or coffee before their conversion. Most of them were also quite active, having had hobbies, varying from choir singing, folk dancing and sports to going to the theater and the movies. They also socialized with their friends: in fact, with the exception of two, they all maintained their friendships after conversion. If not, as one of them put it, “it was not because of my faith.”

The Shepherd brothers took Rosabeth Kanter’s model, originally developed for the utopian communities of the nineteenth century, and applied it to the Latter-day Saints, surveying the various commitment functions that church membership entails.[837] They argue that these involve both costs and benefits on the part of church members, as illustrated in Table 2. Annus revisits this typology and concludes that it in fact captures the position of three different groups: commitment functions refer to the mechanisms the LDS church makes use of in order to retain membership through the various practices; benefits are reflective of the view of the Church members; and costs reflect “the interpretation of the practices assigned to them by […] their collective Others.”[838]

Commitment functions        Costs            Benefits

Member retention            Sacrifice            Investment

Group cohesion                Renunciation        Communion

Social control                Mortification        Transcendence

Table 2. Mormon commitment mechanisms[839]

The interviews conducted reflected this proposition. None of the interviewees regretted any of the changes they had made or experienced because of their conversion; that is, they did not feel that their church membership had any costs. They all agreed that their conversion represented a positive turn in their lives; that is, they had gained only benefits from their decision. These benefits were defined by the Shepherds as investment, communion, and transcendence.

In response to questions about daily practices, a number of common themes regularly recurred in each interview. With regard to investment, the practices of dietary restrictions introduced in The Word of Wisdom were mentioned first. Two of these practices, namely drinking tea and coffee, were singled out as the ones they found most difficult to change. However, everyone saw this change in a positive light. In fact, the Saints argued that all the commandments and subsequent changes in practices are liberating as they clearly mark boundaries for proper action and thus serve to protect them. As one respondent put it, “they are like the protective railing at the edge of the chasm.” Their newly embraced faith also presented them with a framework within which they could set feasible personal goals, create a vision for their future, and lend meaning to their earthly existence.

Through church membership, the social network of the Saints changed as well. Interviewees living in Mormon families emphasized various family-related activities, such as family home evenings, as a common practice that they truly enjoyed. They felt that these evenings brought family members closer together, strengthening family ties and their ability to focus attention on each other. All the Saints noted the importance of regularly praying together in the family and discussing the teachings of their faith.

They also considered their congregation as an extended family. “They are real brothers and sisters to me,” according to one respondent, while another noted: “I didn’t use to have a family, but now they’ve given me one.” Everyone commented on the multi-level layering of the relationships between members of the congregation, where they work together during Sunday events, in visiting teaching, while serving on various committees and at cultural and social gatherings. These communions with others link the members socially to a strong matrix, as a result of which, as some of them observed, they have little or no time left to socialize with others or engage in hobbies on a regular basis. This, however, provides them with a strong sense of belonging and security, which is reinforced by their practices, which are transcendental in nature.

The greatest power on which, to refer to Giddens’ notion, their ontological security rests is their firm belief in God, His mercy, and His providence. Some of them mentioned how their lives took a less stressful and materialistic and more loving and caring turn because they believed that God would help them when they were most in need. They also gained moral and spiritual strength from this knowledge. One interviewee described at length how through his faith he was able to deal with death, sadness and tragedy more effectively than before. Now he had “the strength to go on,” as he put it. Other common practices referred to included again regular praying and studying the scriptures, which they considered the foundation of their faith and of their relationship with God.

This accounts for the change in the way they act in the world. Many of them noted that they see themselves in their relation to others as being less critical and annoyed, and becoming more open and accepting of others. They felt their self-esteem increased significantly and that the various calls that they received and duties that they performed in church have helped them in acquiring new skills. These may assist them in improving their position in the outside world as well as contributing to their constant development framed within the context of eternal progression. Overall, in their assessment, their relationship and quality of life have improved since their baptism. Except for one respondent, they had all discontinued their former hobbies and leisure-time activities and filled most of their days with church-related activities.

Conclusion: Identity under construction

In Hungary, similarly to other post-socialist states in Central Eastern Europe, religion after the regime change served some different needs than before. Perhaps more than in other parts of the world, people were in search of ideologies, religious or other, to provide a new framework within which they could guide their own lives, frame their actions, and solidify the basis for their newly constructed world. The steady spread of new religious movements was one of “‘passionate religious movements’ (Berger 1999, 2), concerned less with tradition and ritual and more with truth, morality and visions of the future,”[840] which is explained by the fundamental changes the population experienced.

Based on the interviews conducted, the LDS Church has entered the religious marketplace with an alternative faith that has proven successful in capturing the religious imagination of some of the population, offering them the ideological and spiritual framework within which they could re-frame and re-define their lives under the newly emerging state structure. Conversion, which was mainly characterized as a long, gradual, complex process, has introduced a series of intricate changes in the converts’ lives. Most importantly, they seem to have (re-)gained a sense of ontological security, as a result of which their character and attitude have been transformed, consequently impacting their behavior, actions, manner of thinking, level of confidence, etc. The discursive techniques used and positions taken in the interviews clearly indicated that they had integrated their conversion experience into the narrative as a natural part of their trajectory of the self, presenting life stories that were logically cohesive and connecting their pre- and post-conversion lives into a feasible continuum. At the same time, in terms of the position they take as story tellers, they continuously constructed a marked boundary between themselves and the gentile Hungarians, a marked difference that also appears in their social practices.

Their self-identification reflects these observations. Applying Gordon’s identity model,[841] Annus examined the identification of the Latter-day Saints in the US. She finds that their identification with their faith is the most powerful segment of their identity, and thus most influential in their daily lives.[842] The Saints interviewed in Hungary were also asked to elaborate on their identity. Their responses reveal that before their conversion, most of them considered their occupation to be the most important segment in their identity, followed by the self, while for the post-conversion period, 90% of the respondents claimed that they consider their identification with their faith to be in the center of their identity, placing the self in second place, while nationality, occupation, gender and age were listed as far less significant. Their conversion is complete.

”THE OTHER” IN THE LIMELIGHT: ONE PERSPECTIVE ON THE PUBLICITY SURROUNDING THE NEW LATTER-DAY SAINT TEMPLE IN FINLAND

KIM B. ÖSTMAN[843]

Introduction

Media attention is a two-edged sword with the potential for both positive and negative publicity. Still, many societal actors find it important to stay in people’s minds through media exposure. Religious movements, for example, often want their share of attention in order to shape public attitudes and attract converts.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is no exception. In the United States in recent years, the Mormon Church has been given the broadest exposure through events not directly related to it, such as the candidacy of presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. The Mormons and their faith also had worldwide coverage during the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. Furthermore, the Latter-day Saints tend to surface in mainstream media through their missionaries, humanitarian projects, and sometimes features perceived as peculiar.

At the local level, new Latter-day Saint temples are probably one of the largest single sources of media attention. The stated purpose of temple building is, of course, to give devout Mormons easier access to their most sacred religious ceremonies. Nevertheless, these building projects are always accompanied by media attention as a highly welcome side dish, especially during the public open houses that are organized before the completed temple is dedicated. Thus, while the Church spares few means to make the temple construction project itself successful, it also expends great efforts to make the public open house a success in terms of public relations. With temple open houses as interesting intersections between the esoteric and the exoteric, the Church also takes great care to train temple tour guides (usually local Latter-day Saints) and to give an understandable picture of its sacred and partly secret temple tradition to the public.

According to Jan Shipps, interested observers have of late been able to witness a “templization” of Mormonism.[844] While this means, among other things, an increased focus of Mormon discourse and religious practice on the faith’s temples, templization can also be seen in the accelerated pace with which Latter-day Saint temples are being built around the world. During five-year periods from 1987 to 2007, the number of new temples dedicated has been four, five, fifty-eight, and seventeen, respectively.[845]

The result of this proliferation is that public open houses at temples occur much more frequently than they did a couple of decades ago. Thus, the general public is more frequently exposed in its own locale to Mormonism, often a foreign faith phenomenon. Considering how frequently open houses currently occur and how important a role they play in introducing individuals to Mormonism (and, not least, in shaping the Latter-day Saint image through the media), research literature on the topic is surprisingly silent.

The purpose of this article is to begin filling that gap by discussing some of the publicity accompanying the recently built Helsinki Finland Temple, located in the southern Finland city of Espoo. Discussions of the public open house among Latter-day Saints in Finland have understandably tended to emphasize positive feedback from the general public. After years of rejection and difficulties, many saw the great interest of the public as something miraculous. In order not to skew the overall picture, however, it is important to also discuss the wider variety of thoughts Finnish people had concerning Mormons and their temple. While many visitors had highly positive things to say, most Finns did not visit the temple, nor was every visitor’s experience positive.

This article represents one attempt to nuance the picture by focusing on Mormons as the cultural or religious “other” in media stories related to the Helsinki temple building project. The analyzed discourses can be roughly divided into an otherness-promoting hegemonic discourse and into a counter-discourse that seeks to remove the Mormon image of otherness. By otherness-promoting discourses, I refer to modes or manners of speaking that seek to construct an image of something as foreign, as not belonging to one’s own group, “not us,” as simply “the other.” By counter-discourses or otherness-diminishing discourses, I refer to those modes or manners of speaking that seek to eliminate mental images of “the other” and to construct an image of familiarity, normalcy, and something related to and part of “us.”

My material consists of more than 100 newspaper and magazine clippings, radio stories, and television news reports from around Finland.[846] The greatest interest in the temple project was naturally displayed in the media of the capital city region around Helsinki. However, bulletins by the Finnish News Agency or other writings on the Mormons were published in general newspapers around Finland and in professional, religious, and other magazines or periodicals.[847] Chronologically, the material begins in May 2001 when the location of the projected temple was announced and ends in December 2006. It is most abundant for the fall season of 2006. As a general observation, the spectrum of Finnish media where information about the temple appeared is fairly wide geographically and especially wide ideologically.[848] Billing it as “Finland’s first Mormon temple” also naturally aroused interest outside the capital city region.

The context of the publicity is a culture in which a stereotypical and passive Lutheranism is thought of as the most characteristic form of religiousness. Lutheranism often forms the base against which all other religiousness is evaluated.[849] In the case of foreign religions, the media have often concentrated on what is appropriate in Finnish society.[850] My discussion is thus theoretically anchored to the religious and cultural identity of Finns and to the power of the media to maintain boundaries between “us” and “them” – in in this case, between average Finnish religiosity and Mormonism.

I will first discuss ways in which the foreign image of Mormons was brought up by the general media, the religious media, and ecclesiastical representatives of other churches in Finland. Second, I will discuss how Finnish Latter-day Saints sought to diminish or remove images of themselves as “the other.” The subheadings in this article are actual quotations from the publicity and exemplify the themes and attendant discourses. Due to the mass of material, I will limit my discussion and perspective to only a few recurring main themes. One should thus keep in mind that this article is not a general overview of the publicity related to the new Helsinki Temple. Rather, it discusses the publicity from a very specific perspective.

Before engaging with the material, however, I will first build a context by describing the Finnish religious landscape and Mormonism’s place in it, discuss the Helsinki Temple project and open house, and evaluate the role of the media in discussions of phenomena perceived as foreign by the cultural mainstream.

Religion and the Mormon Church in Finland

Finland is a country with 5.2 million inhabitants. About 80 percent are members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. According to some sociologists of religion, however, the situation can most aptly be described as the Finns believing in belonging to rather than believing in the tenets of the Lutheran Church.[851] One must also keep in mind that only a fraction of Finns who are Lutherans are active churchgoers. In general, Finland can be said to be a highly secularized country, where membership in the Lutheran Church is more a sign of cultural belonging than a mark of religiosity.

In addition to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Finnish Orthodox Church (comparatively small), both of which hold the status of state church, several smaller churches and religious movements operate in Finland. These can be roughly divided into older Christian or Christian-based churches, the religious traditions of immigrants, and new religious movements. Studies show that Finns often have reserved feelings toward religions that deviate from the mainstream.[852] Although the reasons for these feelings have not been studied in depth, I surmise that the negativity is a reaction to proselytism, popularized images of brainwashing, and the culturally foreign.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been present in Finland in one way or another ever since the first missionaries entered the country in 1875. The country was first dedicated for the preaching of the Latter-day Saint gospel in 1903, with a rededication following in 1946. Since that year, missionary work has continued without interruption. According to the Church’s own statistics, there are currently approximately 4,500 Mormons in Finland, assembling in thirty congregations around the country. LDS meetinghouses have been constructed since the 1950s. Approximately half of the membership is “active” by Latter-day Saint standards, meaning that they attend at least one religious service per month. The Church is ecclesiastically divided into the Helsinki and Tampere stakes in the south while the Finland Helsinki Mission’s districts cover the rest of the country.

Finnish Mormons have often been described as very dedicated temple attendees. They have regularly organized temple excursions since the dedication of the Bern Switzerland Temple in 1955 and, since 1985, to the temple near Stockholm, Sweden. With a temple now completed in their own country, Finnish Mormons have entered an interesting new era, the effects of which remain to be seen.

In spite of the relative normalcy of individual Finnish members who compare well to the general Finnish population, the Mormon Church in Finland has never shaken off its foreign image. Finns are accustomed to religion that is historically tied to Finland and led by their own countrymen. The Mormon Church, in contrast, is transnational but strongly American. LDS leaders who visit Finland are usually American. Mormon missionaries working in Finland are mostly Americans who speak Finnish with clearly perceptible accents and very limited vocabularies. In the past, these American missionaries have even been suspected by some of being spies for the U.S. government.[853] Compared to Lutheranism, the Mormon Church is conservative in biblical interpretation, sexual ethics, and its male-only priesthood. In addition to its non-Finnish features, then, the image of the Church’s otherness in contemporary Finnish society is strengthened by the values it espouses.

The foreign image is, of course, not unique to Mormonism in Finland. Mormonism fights an identity of otherness and foreignness in all new host cultures into which it spreads. To conquer these difficulties, Latter-day Saints would have to arrive at unique acculturation solutions in each country. So far, however, the operating model has emphasized the international unity (and, by extension, the American nature) of the Church. Policies and operating models are formed in the United States and spread worldwide to other countries and cultures through a hierarchical leadership and organizational structure. Thus, it may be said that the Mormon Church, when detached from its culture of origin, operates to some extent as a colony; the organizational model, methods of action, and Church culture are American-influenced, and there is relatively little leeway for cultural adaptation.[854]

Attitudes toward Mormon otherness are ambivalent among the general population in Finland: some want to draw strong boundaries, while others champion religious pluralism. Globalization and immigration have increased Finnish tolerance for and understanding of other cultures, even though these processes have not removed the traditional feelings of foreignness and otherness. It is clear, for example, that membership in the Mormon Church is not thought of as normative Finnish religiousness. Rather it is something foreign that creates an identity of otherness.

Mormons themselves generally seek to remove boundaries. Undoubtedly, their purposes vary from promoting mutual respect to creating cultural continuity in Christian host cultures and thus lowering the threshold of conversion.[855] In this, the Mormons are not alone; most churches that seek to increase their membership numbers and their influence in society court acceptance by the mainstream to various degrees. Some sociologists of religion speak of a search for optimum tension. A church has to be sufficiently different from the mainstream to be an attractive alternative. But on the other hand it cannot be too different, as that would lead to the church’s societal marginalization.[856]

The New Temple in Finland

New buildings have great symbolic power because they change the existing physical landscape. They serve as landmarks and visible reminders of changes in a country’s culture. People sometimes voice objections to building projects if they find them unsuitable for one reason or another. Examples of this are the “not in my backyard” objections encountered by the building projects of foreign religions. In the southern city of Turku, Finland, for example, some people have objected to the construction of an Islamic cultural center with its minarets.[857] Difficulties with mosque-building projects have been reported also in Sweden, a country similar to Finland in many respects.[858]

The southern cities of Helsinki and Vantaa responded unenthusiastically to the prospect of a Mormon temple for reasons that have not been made public. However, a building site was eventually found in the neighboring city of Espoo, where assistant city manager Olavi Louko voiced his own feelings that Mormonism was a foreign religion, explaining to a newspaper reporter that “Espoo had just included multiculturality and tolerance in its values. I thought that values must be lived by and promised to find a site.”[859]

The Helsinki Temple was completed in the fall of 2006, about six and a half years after the temple project was announced.[860] An open house was scheduled for September 21 through October 7, 2006,[861] with local Latter-day Saints serving as guides. The temple tour consisted of a short introductory video in the nearby visitors' building, a walk through the temple itself, and refreshments and possible further individual discussions after the tour in a tent outside the temple. Depending on the number of people and the length of queues at the temple site, the tour lasted anywhere from about one to three hours. The temple was open from 10 A.M. to 9 P.M., with the evening hours often extended to 10 P.M. to accommodate those who had been waiting.

A press conference was held on September 19, 2006, during which both local and American LDS officials spoke. The conference and the temple tours for the media that followed resulted in television and newspaper stories across Finland, which in turn attracted visitors. In addition to small pass-along invitation cards, the Church also prepared an eight-page advertisement in tabloid form, financed largely by local Latter-day Saints. It was distributed professionally to homes in the Helsinki region and, to a lesser extent, by local congregations elsewhere in Finland. Three weeks after the open house had begun, a total of 55,791 visits to the temple open house had been logged. Some of these visitors were, of course, local Mormons and repeat visitors from Finland and other countries in the temple district. Still, a very large number, mostly Finns, visited the temple of a religion often thought of as foreign and as “the other” on the Finnish religious landscape.

The high number of visitors is in fact an interesting and to some extent a puzzling phenomenon, because recent studies show that the Latter-day Saints do not have a good public image in Finland. A poll from 2003 shows that 57 percent of Finns had a negative attitude toward the Latter-day Saints.[862] The figure is 40 percent for the fifteen-to-twenty-nine-year-olds who were interviewed for the 2006 Youth Barometer.[863] In view of the Church’s own goal of 25,000 visitors, from the numbers alone, the open house was a resounding success. (See Table 1 for a daily breakdown of visitors.

The media’s role in the discussion of otherness

In discussing the media’s presentation of “the other,” the media themselves cannot be thought of as the primary source for discrimination or images of otherness. Instead the media reflect attitudes already present in the mainstream of society. The real origin of otherness must be sought in other social processes.[864]

However, there is a sort of symbiotic relationship between concepts of otherness and the media, a relationship in which one feeds the other. The media affect individual attitudes and may thus promote an image of various minorities as groups that are foreign to the culture. The media also have a primary position as an actor that articulates the host culture’s relationship to “the other.”[865] Moreover, the religious media in particular interpret and evaluate current events from the perspective of a certain religious worldview.

The media are usually thought of as an objective news producer and thus become crucial when reporting on minorities, since they often function as the majority’s primary contact with the minority. If the image they construct is distorted, the actual reality of a minority group remains inaccessible except to individuals who have special knowledge of it through, for example, an acquaintance who is a member of it. In short, the media occupy a responsible position, as the information they transmit strongly impacts the construction of the minority’s public image.[866]

The role of the media is problematized, especially in the case of churches and religious movements. While the media should provide a neutral and objective look, religious movements often seek to mediate a growth-promoting image of themselves. This characteristic, of course, also holds true for any non-religious group with a special interest or bias to promote. In such cases, the media must tread carefully to avoid stereotypical views and to give correct information based on credible sources. At the same time, the media should not function as a critiqueless propagator of the interests of either minority groups or their antagonists.

Achieving a balance can be difficult, and reporting on minority faiths has often been negative, even to the extent that a negative public image can become part of a religious movement’s identity.[867] This is probably to some extent true in the case of the Latter-day Saints in Finland. After the public open house at the Helsinki Temple, for example, the official Church News, a special weekly section of the Church-owned Deseret News, stated in a somewhat black-and-white manner that Finnish media had been the Church’s ”long-time detractors” but that things had now changed.[868] Actually, however, Finnish media had already earlier balanced negative descriptions with neutral and positive information on the Latter-day Saints.

Even with good intentions, the media often produce discourses that follow the perspective of the mainstream population. This can occur, for example, due to the private feelings and thoughts of the reporters themselves. Hence, discourses about the Mormons often show features that deviate from average Finnish culture. Furthermore, media reporting can construct an image that creates differences between society’s majority and minority, between “us” and “them.”[869] For example, when Finnish media describe ”the Mormon way of life,” it is hard to imagine that they would similarly employ such a blanket generalization in speaking of ”the Lutheran way of life.” That way of life is thought of as part of the mainstream’s attributes, and it is therefore not necessary to speak of it in the same way.

Although journalists strive to be fair, their manner of speech can easily promote a foreign image of various groups. Smaller churches may be called religious “communities” or “societies,” while the Evangelical Lutheran Church is often merely called “the Church.” In this kind of discourse, the Lutheran Church becomes familiar and safe, while other churches and movements are something out of the ordinary. In some cases, a sinister label can be implicitly attached to smaller churches. For example, when reporting on the recent suicide of a religious person, a journalist wrote that “no particular denomination or sect was found” behind the matter. Instead the believers accused of aiding the now-deceased person to commit suicide had become acquainted with her in “a completely regular Lutheran Bible circle.”[870]

As a simplified summary, then, it can be said that the choice of topics and words by the media affects the image of familiarity or foreignness attached to churches and religions. At the same time, it must be remembered that the point of analyzing discourses is not to criticize individual reporters; they function within the larger discourses of society and may thus maintain images of otherness without noticing it themselves.[871]

A few clarifying words on the media specifically in Finland are appropriate to contextualize the following discussion. The television media in Finland consist mostly of a handful of nationwide channels and a larger number of small regional channels which, in general, are less popular than the nationwide channels. The radio media similarly consist of a handful of nationwide stations with both nationwide and local broadcasts and a fairly large number of local stations. The print media consist of three truly nationwide newspapers, some larger regional newspapers, a multitude of smaller local papers, and a wide variety of secular and spiritual newspapers, magazines, and periodicals. Material for the news media is distributed nationwide by the Finnish News Agency (Suomen Tietotoimisto, STT) and is often printed in the same form in newspapers around the country. In addition to this source of news, every news outlet also creates its own stories in normal fashion. (See Appendices 1-2.)

The general media: “The feeling is different than in churches usually”

The purpose of this section is to illustrate Mormon-related discourses of othering in the general media. While these media are aimed at the general Finnish population, even Finns who are not actively religious are likely to be members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and therefore likely to accept it as an element of the national identity of Finland. As sample themes, I have chosen the special nature of the Helsinki Temple as a construction site, the temple as a closed place of worship, the American image of the Mormon Church, and distancing reactions to the religious ceremonies performed in Mormon temples.

“The week’s special: The Mormon Church’s new sanctuary”

Temples are especially sacred to Latter-day Saints. Whereas weekly worship services are held in ward and branch buildings, temples can be interpreted as sites of pilgrimage that are visited less often. The sacredness of the temple can be seen in, among other things, the special arrangements at the construction site and the entry requirements of a completed temple. Both of these issues received attention from the Finnish media.

On the construction site, the Mormon Church instructed its contractors not to smoke, swear, or listen to the radio. Moreover, the press juxtaposed this unusual site with regular worksite conditions by commenting that “not even a girlie calendar hangs on the walls of work site booths.”[872]  The quality requirements for the work were extremely high, and the site was lauded widely as a place of high quality where professionals could utilize the full range of their skills and do their job properly.[873]

In contrast to Lutheran churches, Mormon temples are closed places of worship. According to a Finnish LDS public affairs representative, the temple is “isolated from the world and a protected space. Only the worthy may enter.”[874] Many newspapers emphasized the significance of the open house in contrast to its future inaccessibility: “This building is not open for everyone,”[875] and after the open house, “the temple will be dedicated, and those not of the religion have no business in the temple after that.”[876]

People in Finland are used to seeing the symbol of the cross associated with buildings of Christian churches. The cross is perhaps the most important symbol creating unity among the Christian ingroup. Latter-day Saints do not use it, however. Some media outlets noticed this omission: “There is something like a Church tower seen on top of the trees [as you approach], but there is a golden angel on the top.”[877] The comment shows the surprise concerning this element. The ban on photography inside the temple also differs from many other religious buildings and was a regular comment in articles about the temple.

Finnish churches often contain a large hall where the congregation gathers. When looked at from the outside, Mormon temples give the impression of containing such a spacious assembly room instead of the numerous smaller rooms they actually contain. One reporter in the capital city region commented: “By the way, the temple doesn’t, to the surprise of many, have any large undivided hall space like our churches do, Lutheran churches and others.”[878] The innocuous contrast between “our churches” and the Mormon temple implicitly labels the temple as part of “the other.”

“Light for the people in the American way”

While it may be quite difficult to exactly and objectively define the essential differences between American and Finnish culture, many reporters thought they saw Americanisms as they visited the open house. The practical arrangements of the temple open house were taken care of by Finnish Mormons. The general instructions, however, came through constant supervision from Church headquarters--in effect, from Americans, and perhaps were thus culturally slanted.

Some reporters thought the temple felt American due to its architecture and its furnishings. One journalist noticed artificial flowers and even pondered in a lighter mood, based on the general impression, whether the teeth of the visitors were possibly whitened,[879] whereas a radio reporter noticed the “American [interior], […] deep carpets and shiny thick panels, light and space like . . . in Hollywood props.”[880] The totality was, in one writer’s opinion, “undeniably ‘American’ and has little in common with cool Nordic or austere Finnish design.”[881] As another writer put it, “There is just something too American in it, even if most of the building work is Finnish.”[882] Indeed, a reporter thought the Mormons were now offering “light for the people in the American way.”[883]

Many open house visitors met – especially on the day of the press conference – foreign Mormon leaders and missionaries in addition to Finnish temple tour guides. The reporter of a nationwide tabloid newspaper wrote that he was greeted in English as soon as he entered the temple site, and “along a strip of 20 meters I meet at least three young men speaking broad American English.” In addition, he wrote, a “slew of American brothers” presented “in the beyond-the-puddle style what felt like an unending amount of thank yous.”[884] The experience implicitly mediates a message depicting Mormonism as a foreign phenomenon. This foreign image was strengthened by a news feature shown on nationwide television, which included an American Mormon leader’s comments in English.[885]

A radio reporter in the capital city region commented on his positive experience among the visiting crowd by saying that “the Americans are splendidly competent at handling large crowds punctually and efficiently. […] [The crowd] is kept in control very well, and the atmosphere is upheld in a really professional manner.”[886] The comment is interesting, considering that Finnish Mormons handled the local arrangements. Does the comment represent the reporter’s subjective assessment, preconceived notions, arrangements that really deviated from Finnish norms, or something else?

“A foreign sect enters Finns’ forefathers into its Baptismal Registers”

Latter-day Saint temple ceremonies are esoteric and Mormons do not normally speak of them in public in a detailed manner. In spite of this, or perhaps because of it, the practice of proxy baptism in particular generated negative feelings in some of the general print media, mostly during the spring of 2004 and usually in the more popular tabloids rather than traditional “quality” papers.

An article in a nationwide tabloid newspaper was headlined “The Deceased Will Soon be Baptized Here” and stated among other things that Adolf Hitler had received Mormon proxy baptism.[887] A regional newspaper stated shortly thereafter in a small piece on its front page that the “baptism of the deceased” and other proxy ceremonies that Hitler had received were “hair-raising rituals.”[888] A column in a newspaper distributed free, mainly in the capital city region around Helsinki, was headlined “Baptized against One’s Will.” The writer thought that “the fact that the sect has already married Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun by proxy should ring the warning bells.”[889] A nationwide magazine article reinforced the image of Mormonism as a foreign and strange religion by stating that “the American Mormon Church is going to baptize into its own faith the forefathers of the Finns.”[890] The writer, identifying former Finnish president Urho Kekkonen as an icon of the nation, stated that a proxy baptism had been performed for him, too.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Latter-day Saints microfilmed parish registers of the Lutheran Church in Finland.[891] While the Church advises its members to perform proxy ceremonies mostly in behalf of their own ancestors, such ceremonies have also been performed without regard for kinship relationships through Church-sponsored “name extraction” programs. Some Finns have voiced their disappointment and their irritation that their Lutheran forebears have received Mormon proxy baptisms. Said one: “My forefathers have been members of the Lutheran Church as far back as parish registers are available. It is therefore very insulting that Mormons in their temple rites use the names of my ancestors.”[892]

The juxtaposition of Finnish forefathers and foreign Mormons has been strengthened by stating that many people find “detestable the thought that a foreign sect is entering their forefathers into its own baptismal registers” and that “the sect” in so doing forgets the will of the deceased.[893] The Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman stated that it is a surprise for many Finns “that the information of their relatives is in the Mormons’ books.”[894] A former Mormon stated that she had gotten upset about the doctrine of proxy baptism a number of years ago but that the Lutheran Church “awoke to the newcomer too late” to prevent the construction of the temple near Helsinki.[895]

In summary, some see proxy baptisms as a practice offensive to Finnish customs and even as dishonoring the deceased. Such an emotion-invoking discourse can be seen as a strong reinforcement of images of otherness. Its main message seems to be that “Mormon activity is not within the bounds of good taste and offends Finnish identity.” This and the aforementioned otherness-promoting discourse support my original assumption that the Mormons are to some degree regarded as foreign in Finnish society.

The religious media and ecclestiastical representatives: “Interest can be dangerous”

The religious media reflect the attitudes of the general media toward Mormonism but with a particular emphasis and from a different perspective. While the general media may be more interested in the position of religions and churches as actors in society at large, the religious media and ecclesiastical representatives are often interested more in questions of faith content and theology.

In the case of the religious media and ecclesiastical representatives, word choice and particularly its mental associations create a window into the religious values of the person who employs the particular discourse of othering.[896] And since religious newspapers, for example, are often the organs of specific churches, they may emphasize the drawing of boundaries between themselves and other churches and religious movements. Ecclesiastical representatives may also feel that the drawing of such boundaries is necessary in their public comments.

One could surmise that religious actors in a secularized society would show understanding and less prejudice toward other churches that are also fighting the common problem of secularization and indifference toward organized religion. However, these religious actors also take part in discourses of othering and in drawing distinct boundaries. Their reasons lie in matters such as mutually contradictory truth claims, cultural differences, and perceived rivalry.[897]

Examples of both affinity and rivalry can be seen in connection to the Mormon temple in Finland. A former minister of the Lutheran Leppävaara Parish in Espoo gave some positive public statements concerning the temple. For example, he thought that the temple was beautiful to the point of nearly arousing envy and that the Mormons were dedicated people with high morals. He “doesn’t see the Mormons as competitors.”[898]

On the other hand, about a dozen signatories announced to Espoo city officers that they objected to “the Mormon heresy’s coming to their home area.”[899] The boundary between Lutherans and Mormons is also clear when the same parish minister hopes that the Lutheran Church will be believable enough, so “that people won’t feel the need to change religion.”[900] One writer thanked the Espoo Parish Union for drawing a clear boundary in its newspaper “on the strange doctrine that has become situated in the area of its parishes.”[901]

In this section, I describe some discourses of othering brought up by the religious media and by ecclesiastical representatives. For thematic examples, I have chosen the contested Christian identity of Mormonism, the drawing of boundaries, and the temple’s religious ceremonies.

“The Mormons’ doctrine deviates greatly from Christianity”

The term “Christian” is problematic due to its multiple definitions. Parties can define the term in a way suitable to them in order to make their own division between Christians and non-Christians or, sociologically speaking, between “us” and “them.” Protestants, for example, often want to draw a boundary and create a dichotomy with Christians on one side and Mormons on the other. Mormons, on the other hand, regard themselves as clearly Christian and sometimes wonder how anyone can think differently. The situation is problematic: Who has the right to judge which definition of the term “Christian” is correct and which definitions of Christian terminology and symbolism are correct? An analysis of religious newspapers shows that some Finnish Protestants do not like the Mormon way of using familiar terminology with meanings different from Protestant custom. Mormons may in those cases be thought of as misleading evangelizers and may even be accused of “duplicitous ecumenism.”[902]

The religious media and ecclesiastical representatives sometimes connect Mormons with new religions that have their basis in Christianity. However, sometimes they say clearly that the Mormon Church is not Christian,[903] basing their exclusion, for example, on theological arguments concerning the atonement of Jesus Christ or on the Mormons’ rejection of the traditional Christian creeds.[904] Sometimes they justify their exclusion in part by arguing that “Christian churches” do not accept the Mormons as Christian.[905] This appeal to majority opinion is an example of the difficulty of making a judgment based on objective criteria.

One representative of the Free Church compares Protestantism with Mormonism and uses the expression “the thing that makes Christian truth superior” in referring to the crucial difference.[906] By doing so, he creates an interesting dichotomy; the wide diversity of the Christian ingroup is diminished, perhaps owing to the crucial importance of maintaining the boundary. In reality, of course, “Christian truth” is not a monolithic whole but rather consists of a great variety of diverging opinions. The diminishing of the differences within one’s own ingroup can be done for effect in a discourse of othering.

Finally, the relationship between Protestants and Mormons may sometimes feel uncomfortably unclear for the Protestants themselves. The following comment shows the uncertainty that can surface when boundaries are unclear: “Christ has a very central place in their doctrine. . . . Then again their concept of God is very different than the one people are used to in Christian Churches. . . . Many Christians think that it is easier to deal with religions clearly different from one’s own faith, such as Islam or Judaism, than with the kind of ‘cousin’ of the Christian faith as Mormonism. In the latter case one contradictorily feels both close and far away at the same time.”[907]

“Mysteries and secrets, closed temples and unknown religions”

In addition to denying the Christian identity of Mormonism, the religious media found other reasons to be suspicious of the temple construction project. According to one observer, the project meant that “an American faith is conquering Finland.”[908] Finland was seen as a mission field “where souls are fought over”[909] and where the Mormons would begin to operate more eagerly than before.

Half-humorously, one writer mused on the difficulty of abstaining from alcohol, coffee, and tea and decided that she would “remain Lutheran after all.”[910] A letter to the editor stated: “I cannot refrain from informing Kyrkpressen’s Christian readers that the Mormon Jesus is a brother to Lucifer. The one with the horns.”[911] The writer did not attempt to describe the Mormon belief in a premortal existence in which all beings, mortal and supernatural, Jesus and Lucifer included, are brothers and sisters. Thus, the letter creates an even more strongly alienating image of Mormon theology.

As might be expected, the religious media tended to be suspicious of the secret Mormon temple ceremonies. One writer characterized the Church as “nearly like a sect of freemasons.”[912] Another reporter stated that “a Mormon has to perform secret oaths and rituals in the temple.”[913] The depiction is technically accurate, but a Mormon would probably have chosen the words ”sacred ordinances” instead of the more frightening words ”oaths and rituals.” As a parallel example, an outsider perspective of the Christian communion could create an even stronger image of foreignness by depicting it as a cannibal feast, where believers eat and drink their god’s flesh and blood. The depiction is technically correct but generates strong feelings of otherness and completely ignores the symbolic and well-known meaning of the communion to the believers themselves.

One writer regarded the Mormon form of church government with suspicion, calling it an “aggressively authoritarian” organization that sought to “control the entire lives of its members.”[914] Another writer described it as a “syncretistic composite religion,[915] possibly meaning that it was a compound of elements from Christian and non-Christian sources. From a larger perspective, one can, of course, view Christianity itself as a syncretistic composite religion. In any case, one-sided choices of words and perspectives distance and alienate Protestant readers from Mormons and create sometimes alarming images of otherness.

“Next to desecrating graves and tampering with the deceased”

The concept of proxy ceremonies was dealt with in the religious media and by ecclesiastical representatives with greater disapproval than by the secular media. Christian baptism has been thought of as a once-in-a-lifetime event, and proxy baptism can thus be seen as meddling with the faith choices of a deceased person. In Finland, proxy baptisms aroused such strong feelings that their compatibility with legislation on religious freedom has been called into question. In answer, an officer of the Ministry of Education, which is the highest authority in matters of religion and state in Finland, pronounced proxy baptisms as being within the bounds of the law.[916] A letter to the editor reported that a feud among some older persons in an extended family had broken out due to proxy baptisms having been performed by a young LDS relative.[917]

Representatives of the Lutheran and Orthodox Churches have at times been very critical of proxy baptisms. For example, the archbishop of the Finnish Orthodox Church was reported as stating that proxy baptisms are “a completely impossible and unbelievable thing: baptizing popes and marrying nuns. Just preposterous.”[918] The bishop of the Lutheran Church’s Kuopio Diocese felt Mormon activities were “dubious” and that proxy baptisms were akin to “desecrating graves.”[919] A representative of the Tampere Parish Union stated that the Lutheran Church “does not in any form approve of the Mormon custom of baptizing the dead.”[920]

When criticizing Mormon proxy baptisms, the Protestant mainstream does not usually acknowledge that Christian theology itself could be criticized on the same basis: It requires belief in the doctrine of a Savior who atoned in behalf of every person. An officer of the Ministry of Education came up with another similarity: “I don’t know if we’re talking about anything much different from a Christian praying for somebody who is dead even though that person may not be a Christian.”[921] Regardless of these similarities, many religious writers have portrayed proxy baptisms as foreign and unsuitable in the Finnish religious landscape.

Thus, generally speaking, it can be said that the otherness-promoting mode of discourse used by the religious media and ecclesiastical representatives is stronger than that employed by the general media, although there are exceptions.[922] They feel that more is at stake than just relaying information on the Mormons. In their eyes, the Mormons are not only culturally foreign but also religiously heterodox actors who compete for the same resources and individuals, and against whom one’s own troops must be “vaccinated.”

Finland’s Mormons: “We would like for this veil of mystery to be taken away”

During the nineteenth century, Latter-day Saints tended to withdraw from the rest of society and define their identity by differentiating themselves from others. The internal discourse often maintained an image of the rest of the world as evil and of their own group as the only place of salvation. During the twentieth century and especially toward its end, Mormonism changed and, at present, seeks to identify itself to some extent in the general population’s mind with Protestant and Catholic Christianity, normal “mainstream Christianity.” Ignoring their polygamous past and other eccentricities, Latter-day Saints seek to generate an image that emphasizes the general Christian features of their faith.

To some extent this desire is justified, because much misleading and sensationalistic information on the Mormons has been distributed throughout the years, a problem Mormonism shares with many other religious minorities. On the other hand, this mainstreaming discourse may in itself create a misleading image of the Latter-day Saints, because Mormonism also has clear differences from traditional Christianity. Latter-day Saints have also been accused, often on solid grounds, of withholding their higher and more controversial teachings from the general public through this mainstreaming discourse.

The public open house at the Helsinki Temple gave the Mormons in Finland an opportunity to employ their otherness-diminishing discourse in public outside their own publications. According to a public affairs representative, the open house was a clear opportunity “to increase knowledge concerning the Mormon religion and to rectify flawed views.”[923] In a nationally televised interview prior to the open house, another public affairs representative hoped that the forthcoming publicity would improve the Mormon Church’s image in Finland: “We believe that the completion of the temple will bring at least good publicity. The completion of the Copenhagen Temple in 2004 didn’t really bring new members, but attitudes toward the Church changed. The Church became a better match with society.” This will hopefully happen also in Finland.”[924]

In the following section, I will deal with some LDS ways of utilizing an otherness-removing counter-discourse in connection with the Helsinki Temple open house. As themes, I have chosen the emphasis upon the normalcy of the Church and its members, the temple and its ceremonies, and Mormon Church relationships with Finland.

“When they learned to know, the prejudice departed”

One way that the LDS Church sought to promote a familiar image of itself was by referring to its worldwide dimensions. One newspaper article quoted a foreign Mormon leader at the temple open house as stating that the Mormon Church is “one of the fastest-growing churches in the world.”[925] The Mormon-produced press package also claimed that the Church is “one of the world’s fastest-growing Christian churches.”[926]

The Church’s growth since the second half of the twentieth century has, in fact, been numerically impressive. It has grown from a 1 million member denomination to a worldwide church with more than 12 million members. However, claims of rapid growth are to some extent misleading. The Church typically reports only numbers of members of record without acknowledging informal disaffiliations or even that some members’ whereabouts are unknown. Unless members formally resign or are excommunicated, they continue to be counted as members, even though they may no longer even regard themselves as Mormons. This is one reason that Mormonism is still in many ways a North American phenomenon, although large numbers of baptisms have been performed elsewhere.[927]

In some highly secularized countries including Finland, actively religious individuals of whatever denomination are sometimes thought of as peculiar. In connection to the temple open house, Mormons sought to emphasize their normalcy. An American sister missionary working in Finland, for example, commented on claims of peculiarity by saying that “we do, for example, use makeup and watch TV; we do normal things.”[928] A Mormon public affairs representative on national television described herself and her husband as attending “all kinds of places” and social events without, for example, drinking coffee or alcohol. But “we haven’t been considered oddities in any way.” She also emphasized that Mormons do not use external religious symbols, that they invest in education, and that they belong to all classes of society. She tries to “live as probably every other Christian person tries to live,” thus emphasizing the Mormon identification with mainstream Christianity.[929] “The Church offers a healthy way of life that fits with modern times,” commented a Mormon bishop in Espoo. He continued: “The Church is at its best when it offers its members solace and safety.”[930]

In Finnish society, the most easily recognizable Mormon image is the missionary stereotype: Dark-suited Americans who speak Finnish with a distinct accent and go from door to door explaining their faith and Church. Their presence has even made its way into Finnish popular culture.[931] During the temple open house, the Mormons emphasized that the door-to-door technique was less utilized at present as “not so suitable in Finnish culture.” For example, missionaries had been serving as officials in the Jyväskylän Suurajot rally.[932]

Religious evangelization is sometimes thought of as negative and pushy with a message that people are not really interested in. Although the ultimate goal of LDS missionaries is for individuals to accept the doctrines of the Mormon Church and join it, this purpose can move to the background in normalcy-emphasizing discourses. According to a public affairs representative, for example, the missionaries are “not so much seeking to convert, but to help people find a new lifestyle.”[933] She is speaking of the same thing, but the mainstreaming discourse presents the matter in a more neutral manner.

Mormons have also emphasized their Christian identity,[934] explaining the lack of the Christian cross in Mormon iconography as a desire to concentrate on Jesus as a living person. A typical explanation is: “Although we are a Christian Church, we don’t use the cross, since we want to remember Jesus as a living person, not as a dead person.”[935] However, since the presence of the cross does not prevent Christians from believing in the resurrection (and, hence, in Jesus as a living person), it seems reasonable to ask to what extent the omission of the cross represents early Mormonism’s efforts to draw a boundary between itself and mainstream Protestantism.[936]

“There is nothing secret [in the temple]”

The ceremonies of the temple are very sacred to Latter-day Saints. The ceremonies are not discussed in detail with persons not of the faith, with Church members who have yet to participate in them, or even with other temple-going Mormons outside of the temple itself. The esoteric, symbolically “unwritten” nature of the ceremonies promotes an experience of sacredness and strengthens the social ties of the members.[937] Consequently, in the minds of the non-Mormon public, Mormon temples are a mystery. Moreover, narratives concerning temples by former Mormons may reinforce the foreign and mysterious image.

A public open house at a new temple is thus always an interesting challenge for the Mormon Church: how to inform the public in an understandable, clear, and normalcy-emphasizing manner, while at the same time preserving the esoteric nature of the ceremonies. Latter-day Saints themselves emphasize the sacred nature of the temple and usually sidestep the esoteric nature of the ceremonies. The Church’s spokesman in Finland,[938] for example, stated in a nationally televised news interview, “There is nothing secret there. We think there are sacred things there, and now we have the chance to show it and tell about it to people.”[939] Similarly, a public affairs representative said in another nationally televised interview, “There are no mysterious rituals connected with visiting the temple, but instead everything is very beautiful, simple, symbolic, and pure.”[940] In practice, the ceremonies are partly secret chiefly because of their sacredness, as was clear during the guided tours during the open house. Of course, a reasonable question is the practical issue of trying to engage laypersons in discussions of ceremonies and symbolism that require a deep understanding of Mormon theology, especially in an open house setting where time is limited and conditions are crowded.

Latter-day Saint explanations of temple ceremonies usually emphasize the “family-centered” nature of the ceremonies and often mention eternal marriage and proxy baptisms for the dead. Mormons think of these ceremonies as uniting families for eternity, and the person in the street can connect marriage and baptism with his or her own experiences. Allusions to the endowment ceremony proper are more vague, while initiatory ceremonies are even rarer in public descriptions of the temple ceremonies by Mormons. Usually LDS spokespersons stick to a general explanation that the temple teaches the purpose of life.

As has been mentioned, proxy baptism has been met with criticism as tampering with the religious choices that the deceased made during his or her lifetime. Mormons themselves have acknowledged that people may consider such a state of affairs offensive, and a public affairs representative in Finland commented: “Because of that we neither baptize or perform marriages for other deceased persons than our own relatives,”[941] and “The custom is that our Church’s members want to give their deceased relatives a chance” to accept the gospel in the next life.[942] This limited and misleading picture, which ignores the hundreds of thousands of ordinances performed by nonrelatives through name extraction programs, is probably motivated to promote a discourse of mainstreaming.

In contrast, other Latter-day Saints have sometimes clearly explained that, while proxy ceremonies are primarily performed in behalf of the deceased relatives of Mormons, the activity is not limited to them. Another Church public affairs representative commented that “the purpose is to give everyone a chance, and they will then decide whether they accept baptism or not. There should not be anything stranger in it than that.”[943] Mormons have emphasized that proxy ceremonies do not bind the deceased in any way nor change their religious choices against their desire. Mormons have also compared proxy baptisms to the universal nature of Jesus’s atonement.[944]

However, the universal nature of proxy work has sometimesplaced the Mormons in difficult situations. For example, because God’s justice in principle requires that salvific ceremonies be performed by proxy for all those that did not take part in them while alive, in order to give the same chance to everyone, they have been performed also on behalf of Adolf Hitler. From the Mormon point of view, such a step is theologically consistent because Hitler was, despite his atrocities, a human being like everyone else. Others have been shocked that Mormons consider such a person worthy of salvation and would be willing to associate with him on any basis. Perhaps partly due to the difficulty of explaining this theological point, the Church has erased these ceremonies from its records and stated that it is not appropriate to perform proxy work for persons such as Hitler.[945] Some Finnish Mormons have mistakenly denied, for example, that proxy sealings have been performed for Adolf Hitler and his mistress, Eva Braun, although such ceremonies have in fact been performed. When a newspaper reported this fact and a Mormon spokesperson requested a correction, the newspaper that reported these “hair-raising rituals” obliged by stating that “the article’s claim that Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun would have been married later is not accurate, either.”[946]

Latter-day Saints maintain a database of those in whose behalf proxy temple ceremonies have been performed. In contrast to other genealogical information provided by the Church which is openly available on the internet, the temple ordinance files are not. Attempts to obtain the information have raised suspicion in the mind of some non-Mormon Finns.[947] A Church public affairs representative sought to erase this suspicion by claiming that “all information is freely available to everyone. There are no secret registers, only normal genealogical information.”[948] This statement is accurate except that it applies only to genealogical (i.e., birth, marriage, and death dates) information, not temple ordinance data.

In summary, although it is true that the symbolic meaning of the temple ceremonies would be difficult to explain in a brief, clear way, it can also be claimed that the Mormon Church does not explain its temple ceremonies in a more detailed manner to defuse its image of otherness. Nonetheless, despite the efforts of the Latter-day Saints to appear normal, the secrecy of their temple ceremonies maintains a boundary between them and the Finnish population in general.

“The atmosphere in Finland used to be different … Fortunately things are different now”

In their mainstreaming discourse, the Mormons have also emphasized the connection between the Church and Finland. During the guided tour at the Helsinki Temple, for example, the introductory video explained how Finnish President Tarja Halonen had met LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley in connection with the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, and how Mormon missionaries helped the Finnish team in the 1952 Helsinki Summer Olympics. Presumably these items were mentioned to reduce the boundaries between the Finnish identity and Mormonism and bolster the credentials of Mormonism among the Finns.

The Church’s spokesman in Finland also emphasized how architects worked to make the temple’s architecture compatible with Finnish designs. He stressed a common element: “This kind of rising, strong tower stands out on Finnish churches.”[949] Mormons commented reassuringly that “there were no problems with obtaining the building permit.”[950] No Mormon mentioned the earlier less-than-enthusiastic general reactions from the cities of Helsinki and Vantaa in any media reports that I have seen, thus muting a source of possible differences.

However, some Latter-day Saints also acknowledge their label of foreignness on the Finnish religious landscape. According to the Church’s spokesman, “General lack of awareness of us is perhaps our greatest problem.” A Finnish Mormon who had been to the United States compared the religious atmospheres of both countries and contrasted the U.S. acceptance of religious pluralism with Finland’s general uniformity and lack of religious interest. “In Finland you do not talk that much about religion. If you do not belong to the state religion, then it is something different,” she stated in an interview on a national television network.[951]

At the same time, Mormon discourse lowers boundaries by emphasizing that the atmosphere has changed and that diversity is better tolerated nowadays. “Contemporary youth have a lot of knowledge and they are open-minded, which reduces unnecessary prejudice,” A Mormon bishop commented in a newspaper interview.[952] When people “learn to know,” prejudice departs.[953] The open house at the Helsinki Temple gave the Latter-day Saints an excellent opportunity to help Finnish people “know.”

Discussion

This article has dealt with the Helsinki Finland Temple open house through the perspective of discourses on Mormon otherness in Finnish society. I have focused on three different viewpoints, each with a limited number of representative themes: the general media, the religious media and ecclesiastical representatives, and Latter-day Saints themselves.

Themes in the general media dealt with matters such as the temple as an atypical building and construction site, American features in the Mormon Church and the temple’s architecture, and proxy ceremonies performed in the temple. The religious media and ecclesiastical representatives dealt more deeply with Mormonism by approaching its theology, comparing LDS doctrines with “Christian” doctrines. The result was usually to distance Mormons from what was seen as the Christian ingroup. In all, the entire spectrum of media contained fairly similar and clear discourses that strengthened the foreign image of Mormons in Finland to varying degrees.

Mormons themselves sought to reduce their image of otherness and to be regarded as a legitimate and normal part of Finnish religiosity. They emphasized the sacred nature of the temple and its meaning to them, downplaying or not mentioning the temple’s symbolic ceremonies but instead presenting them in general statements about the purpose of life and the important family-building ceremonies of proxy baptism and eternal marriage. Mormons also reminded the public that they consider themselves to be part of Christianity.

Although Mormons are thought of as foreign and as representatives of ”the other” in Finnish discussions, they are not unique; any religion different from Lutheranism probably must explain its doctrines and existence. This is true for Christian minorities, immigrant religions, and new religious movements. Mormonism’s status as “foreign” in Finland is also interesting because, while leadership clearly comes from the United States, the local membership and leadership in Finland consists of Finns. Those adhering to Islam and Hinduism in Finland are usually immigrants and often of visibly foreign origin. Does this Finnish element diminish the image of Mormons as foreign in Finland? Or, in contrast, does Mormonism in Europe practically demand that its adherents replace pieces of their own national culture with American-colored features--becoming, in anthropologist Walter van Beek’s words, “Mormon Europeans” instead of “European Mormons?”[954]

On the whole, it can be argued that the wide media coverage of the open house at the Helsinki Temple tended to make Mormons less other. Invisible psychological barriers about visiting the temple diminished as generally positive news reports came out and as early visitors told friends about their own experience. The success of the open house had a snowball effect (indications of which are seen in Table 1), resulting in more visits than the popular fair featuring summer vacation homes in Koli, northern Finland (approximately 56,000 versus 38,000). Many visitors even had to queue in the rain, but they still wanted to see the Mormon temple. Of course, the temple’s location in the well-populated capital city region certainly helped produce the relatively high number of visitors.

It is important not to skew the overall picture, keeping in mind that most Finns did not visit the temple and that some visitors had a negative or indifferent experience (not reported in this article). Still many people clearly felt very positive about what they saw and the peace and beauty they experienced. Church members were mostly happy about their friends visiting and reckoned that the experience had reduced feelings of foreignness. A Finnish Latter-day Saint explained: “For years, family and neighbors have thought us to be different. A group of 10 colleagues came. They felt the spirit of the edifice and shed tears. Now they understand my life. It is not strange to them anymore.”[955]

The Church gathered comments from visitors by distributing a feedback form in the refreshment tent after the guided tour. Nearly 6,000 forms were returned and would constitute an interesting corpus for further study. What did people think about what they saw? Did their image of the Mormons become less or more foreign, or was it foreign to begin with? Were their preconceived notions strengthened or did their thoughts change? The source material is not, of course, representative of all Finns because of the method through which it was gathered; but such a study could nevertheless provide interesting perspectives into Finnish religiosity and Finnish people’s thoughts as they got acquainted with a religion many perceive as being foreign.

However, one must be cautious not to overemphasize the degree to which the Mormons actually are thought of as foreign in Finnish society. Much reporting was positive from the Mormon point of view, praising the aesthetics and peacefulness of the temple. Articles also mentioned features of Mormonism that were thought of as “normal” in Finnish society, such as routine Mormon participation in military service.[956] A fairly lengthy radio interview with a Finnish Mormon lawyer profiled him as a well-educated and busy professional man and father in whose life faith is an important component.[957]

Conversely, it is also important to acknowledge that the Mormons themselves maintain boundaries between themselves and mainstream Finnish society. Accompanying the mainstreaming discourses emphasized in this article, the Church has practices that clearly strengthen an image of otherness. For example, the LDS Church in Finland does not participate in ecumenical cooperation with Christian churches except in providing humanitarian aid, rarely takes part in societal activities in a visible way, and does not usually announce its local activities through established information channels such as newspapers. The temple tradition is itself exclusive. Not even all believers are automatically welcome to Latter-day Saint temples.

The Mormon Church is thus, like other churches, continuously facing the challenging problem of optimum sociocultural tension mentioned earlier. How may it balance inclusiveness and exclusiveness so that its own doctrine and core identity are not excessively diluted and so that the tension between itself and society at the same time is not so strong as to inhibit growth? This question in and of itself would form an interesting field of research with regard to changing Mormon identity and avoiding an otherness-promoting public image in Finland. Comparative data already exists from the perspective of Mormonism in the United States.[958]

It must also be kept in mind that the rough division into general and religious media that this article used for reporting convenience disguised nuances among different actors that belong to the same group. In general, looking at media groups as monolithic entities can be misleading. Nevertheless, I have chosen this approach to provide a detailed overview from one particular sociological perspective. In the future, it would be interesting to compare a broader report of publicity associated with the Helsinki Temple with publicity connected to new temples and their open houses elsewhere. Scandinavia alone, for example, would provide comparisons with the 1985 open house of the Stockholm Sweden Temple and the 2004 Copenhagen Denmark Temple, at least the latter of which used approaches, models, and publicity materials very similar to those employed in Finland. Comparisons with temples in other countries and on other continents would provide further illumination.

Conclusion

In this article, I have discussed otherness-promoting and otherness-removing discourses related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Finland. My data came from publicity related to the newly completed Helsinki Finland Temple, specifically comments and statements by professional media journalists, religious entities and representatives, and the Latter-day Saints themselves. The findings show that the Latter-day Saints do indeed have a foreign image in Finland. Finnish media projected an image of the Latter-day Saints as “the other” through, for example, evidence of American culture, allegations of suspicious activities, and deviation from traditional Christianity. Latter-day Saints, for their part, often employed a counter-discourse intended to emphasize the normalcy of Mormons as Finnish citizens with a worldview slightly different from that of the mainstream.

The completion of the Mormon temple in Espoo and the accompanying publicity thus provided a clear example of the existence of otherness-promoting and otherness-diminishing discourses for one religious minority in Finland. The participants looked at matters from their own perspective, which framed and shaped their comments. The mainstream Finnish population finds the Mormons foreign in many ways, while Mormons themselves feel that they are simultaneously both part of the regular mainstream population in many ways yet different from it. As is so often the case when constructing an image of society and evaluating the place of various groups in it, the problem culminates in difficult questions. Where should the boundaries of a questionably homogenous mainstream be drawn? And perhaps most important of all, who is authorized to draw them?

Appendix A – Information on referenced print media

Note: Circulation data has been gathered mainly from information provided by the Finnish Audit Bureau of Circulations (www.levikintarkastus.fi) and the media monitoring company Observer Finland (www.observer.fi). The data is generally valid for the year 2005 or 2006.

FREEDOM OR SERVITUDE: RUSSIA AND THE LDS CHURCH

KAHLILE B. MEHR AND MATTHEW K. HEISS

I tell Thee that man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born. But only one who can appease their conscience can take over their freedom. In bread there was offered Thee an invincible banner; give bread, and man will worship thee, for nothing is more certain than bread.[959]

In 1843, Joseph Smith foresaw that missionary work in the then Russian Empire would be connected to “some of the most important things concerning the advancement and building up of the Kingdom of God in the last days, which cannot be explained at this time.”[960] The meaning of this statement for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereafter Church) continues to elude those who ponder it.[961] Through two decades of effort, thousands of missionaries serving first in one and eventually in eight missions, grew nominal Church membership to 20,000 spread across a vast continent, with insufficient numbers or leadership for the creation of a major governing congregation known as a “stake” until June 2011. With the creation of the Moscow Russia Stake, the the possibility of accomplishing the “important things” alluded to by Joseph Smith advanced significantly forward.

At a deeper level, the question is whether converts have adopted a gospel culture and shed some elements of their traditional culture not conducive to living according to Latter-day Saint standards and in service to each other. While history is not a mechanism to judge moral development and spiritual growth, it is a tool to investigate the nature of the challenge in achieving the ideals of the Church in an antithetical world. The Church has struggled to establish itself firmly in a culture and environment very different than that in which the Church was founded in the 19th century. This paper describes the Church experience in Russia from its beginning to this day and assesses its future.

The Church originated in the United States, a nation based on the concept that political power is held by the people and that government is established to serve them. The political tradition of Russia is diametrically the opposite, a nation subjugated by Tatars and reduced to serfdom by centuries of repressive Tsarist rule. In 1917, the Russian Revolution opened up a vista of unlimited freedom to create a state to serve the Russian people rather than Russian autocrats. The result was a new Soviet autocracy, more pervasive and constrictive than that of the Tsars. The Bolshevik Revolution of 1918 subverted the Russian Revolution of 1917. While Soviet leaders promised to build communism, they built a bureaucracy to bolster conformity. Many Russians remember Stalin, not for ordering mass executions, but because he forged a modern state and steeled a nation in wartime to achieve victory, causing the rest of the world to tremble at Soviet might.[962] The fact is that while Russian history has been strong in forces tending to preserve the traditional collective life, it has struggled with ways in which status and rights of the individual could develop.[963] Fyodor Dostoevsky, the pre-eminent Russian novelist in the 19th century, captured this dilemma in his “poem” known generally as “The Grand Inquisitor.”

In “The Grand Inquisitor,” Christ appears in Seville, Spain, at the height of the Inquisition. He is imprisoned by the cardinal, the Grand Inquisitor. Later that night, the cardinal visits Christ and has an extended conversation with him in which he lays out the dilemma of individual freedom versus group security, conformity, and servitude. A few passages of the Inquisitor’s speech summarize the argument: “Didst Thou not often say then, ‘I will make you free’? But now Thou hast seen these ‘free’ men, the old man adds suddenly, with a pensive smile. 'Yes, we've paid dearly for it,' he goes on, looking sternly at Him, 'but at last we have completed that work in Thy name. For fifteen centuries we have been wrestling with Thy freedom, but now it is ended and over for good.” The Inquisitor goes on to say, “In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, ‘Make us your slaves, but feed us.’ They will understand themselves, at last, that freedom and bread enough for all are inconceivable together, for never, never will they be able to share between them! They will be convinced, too, that they can never be free, for they are weak, vicious, worthless, and rebellious. Thou didst promise them the bread of Heaven, but, I repeat again, can it compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, ever sinful and ignoble race of man?”

In modern times, the Church entered Russia when the political and social barrier of communism that had shielded them from the world had piqued rather than dulled their interest and wetted their desire to experience what they had been missing since the rise of the Soviet regime. For a short season between 1989 and 1991, the Mormon missionaries taught continuously as Russians imbibed the West as much as the gospel message of the Church. As Gary Browning, the first president of a Church mission in Russia wrote, “A great facilitator of early missionary success among the Soviets was a pent-up hunger to learn more of life’s spiritual meaning. This coupled with an initial inclination to regard beliefs from the West as generally superior to those obligatory under Communism, created an environment of receptive minds and hearts.”[964] In time, Russian curiosity was sated or replaced by the struggle to survive and, to a limited degree, by the rise of consumerism. The missionaries began spending more time looking for those to teach rather than teaching. The Church waited for decades for the door to open and then struggled after that brief period to retain the interest of a people bludgeoned by economic disintegration and societal dislocation.

The early period to 1985

On 1 June 1843, Joseph Smith “Gave a letter of instruction to George J. Adams, who is to accompany Elder Orson Hyde on his mission to Russia.”[965] Neither Adams nor Hyde ever made it to Russia. The costs of such a mission and the subsequent death of Joseph Smith a year later changed the plans and refocused the attention of Church leaders. Following Smith’s death, Hyde remained in Nauvoo, Illinois, to support Brigham Young and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who were considered by many to be Smith’s successors. Adams, on the other hand, followed another contender for Church leadership, James J. Strange, and became a member of Strange’s first presidency.

Between 1895 and 1985, the Church had but a passing contact with Russia. The first baptisms in Russia occurred in 1895. Elder August J. Hoglund, a native of Sweden, went to St. Petersburg at the request of the Lindelof family. Johan Lindelof’s mother had been baptized years earlier in Finland. After living in St. Petersburg for sixteen years, Johan wrote to the Scandinavian Mission asking for missionaries. Hoglund arrived, taught, and baptized them. By 1903, two of the Lindelof children had been baptized.[966] Only one other baptism was recorded during that period. Severin Norman Lee, traveled from the Scandinavian Mission to St. Petersburg in May and June 1897, where he visited the Lindelof family and baptized Amalia Josephina Lindborn.[967]

On August 6, 1903, Francis M. Lyman, president of European Mission and a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, traveled to Russia’s capital, St. Petersburg, where, in the Summer Garden, he “offered up prayer for Russia with the Czar, with his government and people, that they may be prepared for the preaching of the Gospel.” Three days later, while in Moscow, Lyman “again prayed to the Lord for his blessing upon this country, government and people, that the scales may be removed from the eyes of the people, and their shackles be stricken off from their souls.”[968] Lyman had hoped to use the Lindelof family as a nucleus around which to build the Church.[969] In 1905 this hope dimmed as war broke out between Russia and Japan. No sustained missionary effort was mounted thereafter and no other baptisms occurred on Russian soil before the Bolshevik Revolution. In 1918, the Lindelof family was sentenced to imprisonment and hard labor. Only two of the seven Lindelof children are known to have survived. Two daughters died in exile while the fate of the other three children is unknown.

There is a unique reference to American Mormon expatriates performing an LDS ordinance on Russian soil during the Revolution. On April 27, 1919, Andrew Hasberg, a member of the U.S. Expeditionary Force, was baptized in a lake near Vladivostok, being the first baptism performed in Siberia.[970]

In October 1959, Ezra Taft Benson, while serving in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and as United States Secretary of Agriculture in the Eisenhower presidency, traveled to the Soviet Union. While in Moscow, he visited the Central Baptist Church and delivered a message of peace and hope to a full congregation. The Apostle said, “Be unafraid, keep His commandments, love one another, pray for peace and all will be well.” The U.S. News & World Report writer commented to his U.S. audience, “It turned out to be one of the most moving experiences in the lifetime of many of us.”[971]

Thirty more years would pass before missionaries returned to Russia. In the meantime, a lone Russian convert, Andre K. Anastasion undertook in 1925 the task of translating the Book of Mormon into Russian. Born in Odessa, Russia, on October 13, 1894, he left there for London in 1914, and was baptized at the age of 23 there on March 18, 1918. Remaining in England until 1945, he moved to the United States. He served a mission in France, 1953-1955.[972] While the translation manuscript was completed during a period of two years, several decades would pass as it went through a series of revisions, reaching completion in 1966. Through the 1970s various individuals were asked to review the translation, including future Russia mission presidents Gary L. Browning and Thomas F. Rogers. The review committee finished its work in 1980. On June 3, 1981, the printing of the Book of Mormon in Russian was completed. Through a long and tortuous process, it was now ready as a testament to the Russian people when missionaries entered.

Initial efforts, 1985-1991

From 1985-1991, the Church proceeded cautiously and patiently as it entered Russia, then still the Soviet Union. The year 1985 was a defining moment for the Church to start anew in Russia. Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union; Ezra Taft Benson, obdurate opponent of communist ideology, became President of the Church; and a small temple was dedicated in Freiberg, German Democratic Republic, the only LDS temple ever constructed behind the Iron Curtain. While these three events were not related casually, they all presaged the new epoch. Gorbachev’s reforms spun out of his control. The Eastern Bloc nations suborned by Soviet power after World War II broke away and the Soviet Union ceased to exist on December 25, 1991.

Ezra Taft Benson appointed Apostle Russell M. Nelson, in 1985 to oversee the Church’s actions in Eastern Europe. Nelson recounted twenty years later when he was so charged for “those nations whose doors had been closed to the gospel because of communism,” that he felt it too large task for him, but not for the Lord.[973]

In 1985, the Communist grip on Eastern Europe seemed absolute, though looking below the surface, cracks appeared. In the mid-1980s, the East German government needed hard currency. Erich Honecker, the East German head of state, also wanted acknowledgement from Western governments, in particular the United States of America. Seeing the Church as a source of both US dollars and influence in Washington D.C., the German Democratic Republic began to allow the construction of meetinghouses. This seeming religious tolerance and the construction of the LDS buildings coincided with the East German freedom demonstrations, which eventually led to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, certainly a catalyst for the major changes throughout Central and Eastern Europe.[974]

In 1987, the Church organized a new mission, the Austria Vienna East Mission, which was responsible for all of the nations in Central and Eastern Europe, with the exception of the German Democratic Republic. Dennis B. Neuenschwander was called to preside over this mission. Neuenschwander, who had earned a PhD in Russian from Syracuse University, had spent several years traveling throughout Central and Eastern Europe negotiating the microfilming and preservation of genealogical records for the Utah Genealogical Society (corporate identity of the Church’s Family History Department). Commenting on the influence of the temple in Freiberg, Neuenschwander said, “The temple became a standard, a light, and whenever there is a temple, there is additional power and enlightenment and spirituality.”[975] Within two years of the dedication, young missionaries entered Hungary; the next year Poland; and in the fourth year, German Democratic Republic, and the Soviet Union.

In the latter half of the 1980s, several events occurred in the Soviet Union, America, and Finland, that made the establishment of the Church in Russia possible. These include expatriate Mormons working and living in the Soviet Union, diplomatic efforts made by Church representatives in Washington D.C., and missionary work among Soviet nationals done by Finnish Church members.

In the mid-1980s, Church expatriates began to work in the Soviet Union, playing an important role in helping the Church to become established. Bruce and Mary Wheeler, members of the Church from Idaho Falls, Idaho, arrived in Moscow on September 25, 1987, where Wheeler worked on contract at the U.S. Embassy. Lynn Barnes, another Latter-day Saint, was already in Moscow working at the embassy. The expatriates attached to the embassy were organized into a group in February 1989. Bruce Wheeler was set apart as Moscow group leader by Dennis B. Neuenschwander, President of the Austria Vienna East Mission.[976]

In the summer of 1989, Dohn Thornton, an American Latter-day Saint working in Moscow, met Galina Goncharova, who was looking for religious direction in her life. He gave her a copy of the Book of Mormon and taught her about the Church throughout the summer and fall. In November 1989, Neuenschwander visited the Moscow group. He exhorted group members to be more open in doing missionary work with Russians. He reported that Olga Smolyanova, a Muscovite, had joined the Church in Italy and had since returned to Moscow. Smolyanova and Goncharova were soon attending group meetings. Gradually, other Russian investigators began attending group meetings. On June 10, 1990, Goncharova was baptized, several months after the first baptism was performed in St. Petersburg, covered later in this article.[977]

On the diplomatic front in Washington D.C., Beverly Campbell, a worker in the Church’s office for public communication, began to contact Soviet officials to explore the possibilities of Church authorities visiting the Soviet Union. When Russell M. Nelson and Hans B. Ringger, the Europe Area President, went to Moscow in June 1987, they met Campbell’s contacts: the chairman of the Council of Religious Affairs, Konstantin Kharchev, and with leaders of the Russian Orthodox, Jewish, and Protestant faiths.[978]

Campbell continued to work with Soviet officials and eventually befriended Soviet Ambassador to the US, Yuri V. Dubinin, and his wife, Liana (of Armenian heritage). She hosted the Dubinins at the Washington D.C. Temple Visitors’ Center and Liana Dubinin at a special luncheon at Campbell's home.[979] At Campbell’s invitation, they came to Utah April 27-29, 1990. Jon M. Huntsman, who had met them while working on a humanitarian relief for Armenian earthquake victims, hosted them at a stake conference in the Salt Lake Monument Park Stake over which he presided. The Dubinins also visited Brigham Young University. While there, Ambassador Dubinin was asked if the Church would be allowed in the Soviet Union. Without hesitation, Dubinin answered that it would, thereby giving an official nod to an activity already in progress for several months.[980]

Under the direction of Finland Helsinki Mission President, Steven R. Mecham, Leena Riihimäki (later Laitinen), a Finnish sister missionary serving in the Finland Helsinki Mission, who prior to her mission had studied Russian for six years, and her American companion, Carina Mahoney, contacted Russians arriving by train in Helsinki from Leningrad and Moscow two or three days each week from July-November 1988. President Mecham assigned elders to this task in December 1988.[981] These missionaries would wait at the harbor and train station for the Russians to arrive in Finland. They would try to begin conversations, get addresses, and pass out copies of the Book of Mormon. Several books were given out, and some addresses were collected. Though there were no convert baptisms as a direct result of this contacting, some of the missionaries involved would later enter the Soviet Union.[982] The Russian Embassy contacted the Helsinki Mission Office requesting that the missionaries not accost those in business suits and in groups, quite often Russian officials.[983]

In 1989, Yuri, Ludmilla, and Anna Terebenin, heard about the Church from a friend while vacationing in Hungary. They were baptized in Budapest, Hungary. They returned to their home in Leningrad and began to tell their friends about their new-found faith. In September 1989, Neuenschwander traveled to Leningrad and visited the Terebenins, who became the critical point of contact when the missionaries first visited Leningrad on January 13, 1990. It was in the Terebenin’s apartment on February 11, 1990 that the first branch in the Soviet Union was organized by Finland Helsinki Mission president Steven R. Mecham.

Convert baptisms began in 1990. Young missionaries from the Finland Helsinki Mission, David S. Reagan and Kevin A. Dexter, arrived in Leningrad on January 26, 1990, taught interested persons and baptized Anton Skripko on February 3, 1990, the first person to be baptized in Russia in modern times.[984] Around this same time, Aimo and Nellie Jäkkö of Lappeenranta, Finland, met Andrei Semionov, a Russian physician from Vyborg, Russia, while on a canoeing trip in Russia. The Jäkkös befriended Semionov and introduced him to the Church. Semionov Andrei was baptized on February 24, 1990, and later served as the first Russian branch president when the Vyborg Branch was organized on March 25, 1990. To support the first Russian converts, President Mecham organized an ecclesiastical unit tied to his mission and called the Baltic District in January 1990. He called five Finnish couples to serve as missionaries to visit Church members in Leningrad and Vyborg, Russia; and Tallinn, Estonia, which was still part of the Soviet Union at the time. Jussi Kemppainen served as Baltic District president.[985]

The Church created the Finland Helsinki East Mission, which was responsible for missionary work in the Soviet Union, on July 1, 1990. Gary L. Browning, a Russian professor from Brigham Young University, served as the first mission president. On February 3, 1992, this mission became the Russia Moscow Mission while the western portion of the country and the Baltic nations were organized to become the Russia St. Petersburg Mission. Charles H. Creel, who was serving as a senior missionary in Kiev, Ukraine, part of the Austria Vienna East Mission, was called to serve as the first mission president. In time, more missions were created as will be noted later in this paper.

The first official recognition of the Church in Russia, granted on September 13, 1990, was limited to the branch in Leningrad.[986] The Russian Republic granted the Church republic-wide recognition on May 28, 1991. Alexander Rutskoi, then serving as the Russian Vice President announced it on June 24 at a banquet following the performance of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir at the Bolshoi Theater. This meant that the Church could begin to legally acquire property for meetinghouses, print Church literature, maintain bank accounts, and perform other operational functions that would enable the Church to grow in Russia.[987]

The Russian state

No sooner had the Russian Republic recognized the Church than the Soviet Union dissembled. Explaining the collapse, Mikhail Gorbachev said to a Columbia University audience in 2002 that Soviet communism was “pure propaganda,” that Soviet politicians operated with lies saying that capitalism was headed toward catastrophe while communism was developing well.[988] From 1985-1991, Gorbachev strove to reform the Soviet Union from within. After six years of glasnost (openness and transparency) and perestroika (restructuring), the reforms failed. When Soviet power evaporated in 1991, Russia emerged from the Soviet past standing again at the crossroad of freedom or despotism.

For a decade Boris Yeltsin, the first president of the Russian Federation, strove to implant democratic reforms but in 1998, the Russian economy collapsed. On August 17, Russia froze all bank accounts. No one could withdraw or move money. Banks failed and millions of Russians lost their life’ savings. Many businesses shut down and workers, unpaid for months, lost their jobs. The exchange rate for the ruble plummeted and inflation soared.

In 1999, Vladimir Putin obtained power through the democratic process and retrained it through what some may see as the traditional autocratic process, serving as president and later as prime minister. The excesses and disruptions of an open system returned to the more predictable and stable environment of a closed system. In would seem in the end that the Soviet system was not so much the imposition on Russians but an extension of their heritage. As stated by a well-informed Western observer forty years earlier, “Government, in Russia, is not traditionally expected to derive its sanction from the governed, from which it follows that government, though unloved, is respected according to its efficiency and even sometimes according to its ruthlessness.”[989] After the period of economic chaos and national crisis, it was as if the Russians were taking their new-found freedom and laying it at the feet of the latter-day inquisitors in return for the security of bread.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev noted in 2009 that a great many Russians still had the feeling that they lost their country with the collapse of the Soviet Union. They idealized their past and dreamed of regaining it. When Medvedev stated that Stalin committed crimes, some wrote, “Our country has Stalin to thank for its developed economy and free social services, and they said that there was virtually no crime under his leadership. They said that today's Russian leaders should first of all try to match those achievements.” [990]

The 10th anniversary of the August 1991 bloodless coup when Boris Yeltsin deposed Mikhail Gorbachev passed without any commemoration, as Russian President Vladimir Putin remained silent. It symbolized Russians welcoming the restoration of Soviet-style leadership after the tumultuous Yeltsin years.[991] Under Putin, Russia’ affluence and stability improved, fueled by high oil prices. Russia regained the confidence to confront the West and reassert the nation’s influence as a world power. Russia’s new assertiveness salved the trauma of the Soviet collapse. Without adopting Europe’s political and social norms, Russia emerged from the economic crisis of 1998, the economy growing an average of 6.7 percent annually through 2007.[992] While Russia regained its confidence and sense of strength, the level of corruption and nepotism also rose. The economy did not diversify, continuing to depend on raw material exports. In 2011, Russia was far from being modernized and providing a better life for a broad spectrum of the populace.[993] In summary, the nation has edged away from the freedoms it briefly enjoyed, leaving open that question of the Church’s ability to progress and thrive.

The Church in Russia, 1991-2006

The Church created a total of eight Russian missions before the end of its first decade there. It created Russia Samara, the third mission, in 1993 and two additional missions, Russia Novosibirsk and Russia Rostov, in 1994. In 1995, it created the sixth mission, Russia Yekaterinburg, followed by in 1997 by the Russia Moscow South Mission (re-designated the Moscow West Mission in 2006). At the end of the decade in 1999, it created the eighth mission, Russia Vladivostok. A few key events during this period of expansion are noted below.

The prophetic statement of Joseph Smith from the previous century was remembered in 1993. On February 21, 1993, Gary Browning met with over five hundred members of the Church and friends. Ten of the fifteen Moscow congregations, known as branches, were formed or reorganized and the branch leaders selected and sustained by the local Church members. As he was pondering his speech to end the conference, “Suddenly and unexpectedly intimation filled my consciousness and instantly encompassed my whole being. . . . I had a distinct and powerful impression that the spirit of the Prophet Joseph Smith was rejoicing with us in this historic meeting. […] As I reflected on this, I realized that 150 years had passed since the 1843 appointment of the first missionaries to Russia and that this day of fulfillment must be an occasion for heavenly rejoicing and grateful recognition of the efforts of so many over those fifteen decades.”[994]

While the growth in Russia was welcome, the number of conversions in Ukraine (generally twice the number in Russia) always astounded Thomas Rogers, mission president in St. Petersburg, 1993-1996, particularly in view of the heavy restrictions the Ukrainian government then placed upon the Church with missionary quotas.[995] One reason is the national character of Ukraine, which is founded in the fact that they endured little serfdom, compared with Russia, and preserved a much more powerful tradition of independent proprietorship.[996] In time, Ukraine would qualify for a stake and for a temple, while the church in Russia struggled towards these goals.

A momentous event occurred in 1998 when Russia, as the newly reconstituted Russian Federation, created in 1992 after the demise of the Soviet Union, granted Federation-wide recognition to the Church on May 14, allowing the Church to continue to provide humanitarian and missionary work and meet as congregations. The new approval was needed following passage of a law requiring re-registration of all churches as will be described later in this paper.

The first nationwide temple event occurred in 2002. At first, the Church was not able to secure government permission to receive the broadcast. However, at the last moment, the Russian government gave the Church a license to set up satellite receivers so that Church members in Russia could participate in the dedication of the Nauvoo Temple. It was the first temple dedication witnessed by the general Church membership living in Russia.[997]

That same year, President Gordon B. Hinckley visited Russia in September and spoke to a gathering of over two thousand members and guests in the Cosmos Hotel in downtown Moscow, the largest Church gathering ever to be held in Russia. He encouraged them in adhering to the basic principles of Mormon doctrine and promising them that if they did so, the Lord would take care of their temporal needs, such as food, shelter, and clothing.[998]

On August 6, 2003, Church members gathered in the scenic gardens surrounding Peter the Great’s Summer Palace in St. Petersburg to commemorate the centennial of Mormon Apostle Francis. M. Lyman’s blessing of Russia. On a rainy evening, hundreds of Church members and guests gathered under the canopy of beautiful trees in an area lined by white statues to recount events of Lyman’s prayer. Robert F. Orton, first counselor in the Europe East Area presidency, referring to the congregation, he said, “You are the product of prayer, of prophecy, and of the Spirit of the Lord, which has been poured out upon the people of this land.” Earlier in the year, missionaries and members spent many volunteer hours working in the Summer Gardens in preparation for this event and to support other events associated with the tri-centennial of the city, which had been built to open up Russia to the West.[999]

The dedication of the Helsinki Finland Temple in 2006 was a watershed date in the promulgation of a positive public image for the Church in Russia. Located close to the Russian border, the Church now included Russia within its Helsinki Finland Temple district, the geographical area covered by the temple. The Russian press was invited to tour the temple. After a VIP tour of the Helsinki Temple, one distinguished Russian social commentator, Lev Auinsky, recounted his feelings, “You walk into this temple and all of a sudden you see that everything is well defined, that there is a purpose, and that man has potential to become something much greater than he could ever imagine himself. […] Every Russian in the 21st century needs to have this kind of an experience.” In a chorus of comments on the bus going back to the hotel, the journalists commented, “Well, we’ve been to the temple. We’re feeling clean. We’re feeling light.” After the dedication, Pieper reported, that there was a flood of positive and accurate articles and reports written by journalists and scholars concerning the Church.[1000] One example that Pieper likes to point out is the book written by Sergey Antonenko, editor and journalist at the historical journal Rodina, is titled Mormons in Russia: Through the Century.

Religious and civil opposition

The Church in Russia has faced civil and religious opposition that has hampered its ability to function normally and may have adversely impacted conversion and retention. This was true for all denominations that entered the country after the Soviet collapse. In June 1996, the Church received some unwelcome publicity when Russian national security advisor, Alexander Lebed, singled out the Church as “mold and filth which has come to destroy the state.” He called for the outlawing of foreign denominations.[1001] U.S. President William J. Clinton raised concerns about Lebed’s statement with Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin and was assured by the Prime Minister that Russia would maintain religious tolerance.[1002] Lebed later apologized for his remarks.[1003]

Still, a greater adversary than the state was the Russian Orthodox Church. It aggressively sought to fill the void left by the fall of communism.[1004] The hierarchy of the Orthodox Church felt threatened by these new denominations entering Russia, despite the fact that most of those who joined the Church, according to Thomas Rogers, were already alienated from Orthodoxy as well as religion in general because of decades of atheistic indoctrination.[1005] In a poll of 2000 Russians conducted in August 2001, 74% of Russians identified themselves with Orthodoxy, but only 4% attend church once a week or more and 6% less often; meaning that 10% engaged in religious worship.[1006] Regardless, the Orthodox leaders had little tolerance for the principle prevalent in the West of state-church separation and freedom of conscience. They were tied to their history as a close associate of the Russian state, thus enjoying power and prestige. In their view, it was unpatriotic to defect from Orthodoxy.[1007]

In 1997, the Federation Assembly of the Russian Federation enacted laws governing religion in Russia titled “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations.” These laws affirmed “the right of each person to freedom of conscience and freedom of religious profession, as well as to equality before the law irrespective of religious affiliation and convictions;” assumed “that the Russian federation is a secular state;” and recognized “the special role of Orthodoxy in the history of Russia and in the establishment and development of its spirituality and culture.”[1008] Though Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism were mentioned in the preamble as “constituting an integral part of the historical heritage of the peoples of Russia,” Article 13, which covers the ”Representation of Foreign Religious Organizations,” put the LDS Church and other denominations seen as foreign on unequal ground. Section 2 of Article 13 reads: “A foreign religious organization may be granted the right to open its representation on the territory of the Russian federation. The representation of the foreign religious organization may not engage in cultural and other religious activity nor does it have the status of a religious association established by the present federal law.”

The new law required each congregation to re-register. Fully half did not and thereby lost their status as legal entities. While all of the LDS Church congregations were compliant, they were still subject to the broad discretion granted under the new regulation. For instance, a congregation might be liquidated if it violated the social order, which includes “infringement of the person, rights, and freedom of citizens” as defined by Russian law.[1009] The main circumstance abrogating the consequence of the law, however, was governmental inefficiency, meaning that enforcement was capricious and usually not widespread.[1010]

Harassment of members continued. On August 20, 2000, Mormon congregations were driven from the meeting place in Volgograd and two missionaries were threatened. In early October the U.S. State Department criticized attacks on religious minorities in Russia. On October 6, 2000, Russian Interior Minister Vladimir Rushailo retorted that police and religious leaders should combine to oppose sects which “aim to undermine statehood in Russia.”[1011] Commenting later in the year the on situation, Alexander Marchenko, a Moscow spokesman of the Church, said “The Orthodox Church wants to have an ideological monopoly in Russia.” [1012] The article continues, “Weakened by years of repression, the Orthodox Church has looked with anxiety as sects and religions have begun to spread on its canonical territory.” It quotes Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexi II saying, “These sects are trying to divide our people.” Hence, the intervention of foreign based churches was seen as a threat by both a key governmental official and the chief religious leader.

State opposition to religious groups was pervasive for those entering Russia after Soviet times. As reported in 2000, the Salvation Army was denounced by Moscow authorities for being a subversive military organization. 100,000 Baptists in 1,400 communities were similarly seen as subversive. Jehovah’s Witnesses were taken to court four times from 1996-2000 and denounced for their “aggressive proselytism” by the Russian Orthodox Church.[1013] Pentecostals saw their Living Faith newspaper banned in Penza.[1014]

The LDS Church has generally been viewed as an American church and un-Russian, resulting in significant challenges for Russians to join the Church and maintain positive relations with friends and family.[1015] The LDS Church Archives has over 130 oral histories with Russians, many of which contain specific examples of the hardship Church membership brought into these people’s lives. In a 1999 poll, a majority of Russians now viewed the West as an unfriendly force out to harm Russia.[1016] This was a significant shift from the awe in which Russia held the West prior to the fall of the Soviet Union.

Sometimes, Mormon missionaries were attacked, though many of these instances of violence were random and simply based on the missionaries being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In March 1998, two missionaries serving in the Russia Samara Mission were kidnapped and held for ransom. Four days later, the captors released Travis Tuttle and Andrew Probst.[1017] In October 1998, Jose Mackintosh, an LDS missionary from Nevada, was attacked by a drunk and killed while serving in the city of Ufa, situated in the Russia Yekaterinburg Mission. His companion, Bradley Borden, was wounded in the attack and recovered in Frankfurt, Germany. He returned to complete his mission in Russia.[1018] Anti-American sentiment was sometimes the cause for this type of physical harassment. Attacks temporarily peaked in consonance with American military activity. According to Douglas Callister, a church leader at the time, there were seventy physical attacks on missionaries in 2003, the year the United States led the invasion of Iraq and as many as twelve per week after the invasion. [1019] Yet, Callister noted that in that same year there was a harbinger of change. The historical journal Rodina published a favorable about the Church. An influential publication, in August 2007, Rodina was awarded with the state honorary badge "For Active Work on Patriotic Upbringing of the Citizens of the Russian Federation."[1020]

New Russian visa regulations, issued in August 1998, required non-Russian religious workers to leave the country four times a year to renew their visas. At the time, the Church had 800 missionaries in Russia.[1021] This situation posed major financial, logistical, and administrative challenges as the Church relied heavily on non-native full-time missionaries to staff its eight missions. Travelling outside the country to have their visas renewed, missionaries were often required them to be away from their assigned areas for several days to a week. This significantly disrupted their work.[1022] In 2003, filling visa requirements to keep a missionary in Russia took 200-300 hours per year.[1023] Tougher visa restrictions that went into effect on October 4, 2007, caused the Church on July 14, 2008, to temporarily curtail sending missionaries needing visas, primarily from the United States.[1024]

Local government officials sometimes refused to register Church congregations. The Church began attempting to register a congregation in Kazan, Tatarstan, in 1998, and in 2002 the congregation remained unregistered.[1025] In Chelyabinsk, the local Department of Justice delayed the Church's application to register, stating that church activities are not permitted by federal law. Registration was only granted in the early 2000s after the Church won in court.

At times, local Russian authorities have denied the Church permission to purchase land to build meetinghouses.[1026] The Church would not pay bribes, so building permits often went to the bottom of the pile.[1027] By 2000, there were only four meetinghouses in Russia, mostly remodeled buildings.[1028] Building construction in Vyborg met opposition at the end of the1990s.[1029] The local Orthodox Church distributed a petition to forbid the Church from building. Foreign-funded Protestant groups distributed an extensive line of anti-Mormon literature. The local newspaper ran articles critical of Mormons. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were paid by the Church in legal fees. Prior to the dedication, the congregation had been bumped from many rental facilities under pressure from Orthodox groups. Although appropriate building permits were obtained, the mayor cancelled them after construction had already begun. In 2001, four years after its construction and dedication, the meetinghouse in Ufa was still unoccupied. It was closed by a state inspection board because of uncompleted construction on an adjacent property.

Another Church initiative drew the ire of the Orthodox Church In 2003, the Russian Orthodox Church expressed its outrage at what it claimed was a Mormon scheme to buy up the names of dead Russians in order to baptize “dead souls’ in their faith. A microfilming project in Nizhnii Novgorod was put on hold while a local government commission studied it.[1030] The filming continued sporadically through 2007.[1031]

To counter the opposition, Church leaders have nurtured relationships with government leaders. They advocated the message delivered by Dmitry Silchenkov, the Church’s full-time non-LDS attorney, to the city’s director of religious affairs in St. Petersburg in the 1990s, “The Mormons should be tolerated because they are law abiding and make good citizens. St. Petersburg would be a better place if there were more of them.”[1032] During his visit to Moscow in 2002, President Gordon B. Hinckley met with government leaders, including Viktor Zorkaltsev of the Duma and chairman of the Public Unions and Religious Organizations and members of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He told them that LDS missionaries are the best ambassadors for Russia when they return home.[1033] Europe East Area President, Douglas Callister, befriended Sergei Krivashaev, the governmental official who monitored all foreign missionaries during his Callister’s service from 2001-2004. Callister said that if any of them did anything inappropriate, to call him, promising send the missionary home rather than have Russia deport the offender.[1034] The Church had 650-700 missionaries in Russia at the time. Krivashaev said he appreciated Callister’s honesty. The Church had a positive image among government officials according to a poll conducted by the government. This was not true of other religions at the time.

Russian health and lifestyle

Severe Russian health issues, such as a declining birth rate and alcoholism have undermined the welfare of the population and the growth of the Church. The country’s health collapsed in the 1990s. In the last decade of the 20th century, the marriage rate plummeted thirty percent; the divorce rate leaped sixty percent; the birthrate plunged forty percent. Russia went from the highest fertility rate (the average number of babies a woman is expected to bear) in 1990 to among the lowest in Europe.[1035] One of the main reasons for seeking abortions was that the women could not support a family. They lacked money, space to live, or confidence they can regain their jobs after childbirth. Some women married foreigners and departed the country. The outlook was for a shrinking, aging population when there was a crucial need for young people to rejuvenate the economy. One-six of the rural residents died off or fled to the cities.[1036]

From 1994-2004, life expectancy fell so drastically that a boy born in Russia could expect to live just to the age of fifty-eight, younger than if he were born in Bangladesh. “No other educated, industrialized nation ever had suffered such a prolonged, catastrophic growth in death rates. At the same time, Russian women bore scarcely more than half the number of children needed to maintain the population.[1037] The New York Times reported in 2000 that tuberculosis, nearly under control in Soviet times, had become epidemic. A wave of old diseases appeared as regional outbreaks of encephalitis, typhoid fever, malaria, polio, pneumonia, and influenza peppered the nightly news.[1038] Many Russians drained their sorrow in alcohol. In 2000, the average citizen downed world-record 4.4 gallons of alcohol a year.[1039]

Things had improved slightly by 2010 when life expectancy was 60 years for men and 73 years for women.[1040] The Russian population peaked in 1991 at about 148 million. Low birth rates and abnormally high death rates caused the population to decline by about 800,000 per years from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. The improving economy in the 21st century had a positive impact. The birth rate rose from its lowest point of 8.27 births per 1000 people in 1999 to 12.4 per 1000 in 2009. The highest total birth rate since 1991 was achieved in 2009. The death rate remained high, especially among working-age males: 14.2 per 1000 compared to 8.4 for the United States.[1041]

Michael Wines, a reporter for the New York Times, linked these problems to the political and economic circumstances already described in this paper. He opined that these problems emanated from the collapse of the Soviet framework which propped up society: guaranteed work, free housing and child care, cheap vodka, the numbing relief of having no responsibility for the future because the state carried it all, and the sense of being part of a great empire. Russia’s problem was whether a society that had demolished a thousand-year compact – a loaf of bread and a bed in exchange for the loss of all individuality – now regarded its masses as people, not expendable parts of some vast machine.[1042] Again, the words of Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor seem to ring true: “…nothing is more certain than bread.”

Population decline inhibited the growth of and stability of the Church population. Because of the Church’s health code, known as the Word of Wisdom, which forbids alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea, Russia’s high rates of cigarette and alcohol consumption posed significant obstacles for missionaries to address with people investigating the Church and also with Russian church members who were still less-active struggling to abstain from drinking and smoking. Those who had participated in an elective abortion generally had to be interviewed by a member of the mission presidency to be considered for baptism. Other common lifestyle practices, such as casual sexual relations, tested many members' beliefs and created additional barriers to overcome with many prospective members.[1043]

Church membership

The social and cultural circumstances were mostly likely major factors in the decelerating Church growth in Russia. During the decade 2000-2010, it flattened and then dropped. The total nominal membership in 2000 was 13,509 and 21,023 in 2010.[1044] Hence, the increase for the second decade of missionary work, 7,514, was half as much as for the first decade; even though there was a larger membership base to assist in the proselytizing effort residing in a larger number of cities.

David Stewart, who served an LDS mission in Russia, is a long-time observer of Church conditions in Russia, has made his findings available at the website Cumorah. [1045] He summarizes the situation of the membership. Stewart has observed that from 1992 to 2008, Church members’ activity rates (i.e. attending weekly meetings and living LDS standards) and convert retention rates have been consistently low. Missionaries serving in some cities reported member activity rates as low as 10% such as Perm in the Urals and Novokuybeshevsk along the Volga. Many branches in the Russia Moscow West Mission had only fifteen to twenty active members in early 2011. In mid-2010, only 50 of the more than 350 members in the Vladivostok Branch were active. Some branches in the larger cities such as Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Saratov had between 50 and 75 active members. There were 500 members in St. Petersburg in 1992 and 1500 by mid-1994, with subsequent growth to over 2000 members in the 2000s. However, only an estimated 250 members attended church regularly in St. Petersburg in late 2010, approximately half of the number that attended fifteen years earlier. Stewart estimates that nationwide, the active membership is 3,500-4,500 out of a total 15,615, or 17-23% of total. In addition to inactivity, over the last twenty years there has been emigration of Russian members to other countries, sapping the strength from the congregations left behind.

Stewart reports that many of Russia's most populous cities have experienced a decline in the number of Church congregations. In 2001, there were eight branches in Yekaterinburg whereas in 2010 there were three. During this same time period, the number of branches in St. Petersburg declined from thirteen to nine, in Ufa from four to one, in Novosibirsk from five to three, and in Samara from four to two. The Church consolidated them in an effort to increase the size of active membership to provide better social interaction among members. In some cases, smaller units were made dependant branches, which are small member groups that are not able to function independently, minimizing the administrative burden on the few local members in an area. Two major cities have maintained their congregations. Rostov has experienced no change in the number of congregations over the past decade whereas Saratov has been the only city with over one million inhabitants to have increased in the number of branches, growing from four to six. The pace at which Mormon missionaries were sent into cities that had no Church members slowed dramatically in the 2000s. Part of the reason for this is to let mission presidents, missionaries, and local Church leaders build up and strengthen centers of strength. Only a handful of cities were opened in the mid or late 2000s such as Kemerovo, Novokuznetsk, and Stavropol.

With regard to unit totals, Stewart notes that in 1993, there were 33 branches in Russia, increasing to 96 in 1997 and 112 in 2000, mainly reflecting the opening of new cities for missionary work. The number of branches totaled 120 in 2002 and declined to 116 by year-end 2010. In late 2009 and 2010, the number of branches declined as a result of most branches without a local member serving as branch president becoming dependent branches or groups. By 2000, the number of districts increased to thirteen, the same total as existed in 2011.

Church expansion, as reported by Stewart, pales in comparison with two other missionary-oriented Christian groups despite fewer foreign full-time missionaries and lower costs, though their growth has declined similarly. Much of the progress attained by Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses occurred in the 1990s and these denominations have a presence in nearly all major cities throughout the country. Seventh Day Adventists reported two and half times as many members as Mormons, but six times as many congregations. As Adventists only report members who regularly participate, it is likely that there are nearly ten times as many nominal Adventists as Mormons in Russia. Jehovah's Witnesses operate twenty times as many congregations as Mormons, baptize up to 6,000 converts in 2010, and have over 160,000 active members.[1046]

Consequently, Stewart concludes that the prospect for future growth in Russia is poor if the current trends continue: slow growth, low receptivity, poor member activity, stagnant or declining attendance at congregations in major cities over the past decade, ongoing leadership development challenges among local members, the continuing trend of congregation consolidations in major cities, high dependence on foreign missionary manpower, heavy visa restrictions for foreign missionaries leading to a decline in the full-time missionary force of more than 50% during the 2000s, and the dramatic slowdown in opening new cities for missionary work during the 2000s and in 2010.

Tatiana Gavrilova, a Church member from Yaroslavl describes the situation there in June 2011, located in the Russia Moscow West Mission, 160 miles northeast of Moscow. They had a baptism in 2010, a girl who is no longer participating. In 2009, they had two baptisms. Active or younger members move to Moscow to get better jobs. A couple is planning to move to Canada for “greater opportunities.” When visiting Moscow during the creation of the stake in 2011, she reported, “I had a chance to talk to some members from places I had served in [on a mission] and found out the branches there have the same problems, people are getting inactive and a lot of people are moving too.”[1047]

Yet from a longer-term perspective, having members in Russia at all is an indication of progress and a radical shift in Russian politics. Speaking in 2002, President Gordon B. Hinckley said to 2,197 people packed in the Cosmos Hotel in Moscow, “I never dreamed I could come to Moscow, Russia, and see a congregation of this kind.”[1048] He intoned the messages of a Mormon doctrine and culture, so foreign to many Russians. “Believe in God, the Eternal Father. He is the great governor of the universe, but he is our Father and our God to whom we may go in prayer. We are his sons and daughters. Have you ever really thought that you are a child of God and that you have something of divinity within you? Believe in God and be not faithless. Work with him in spirit and in truth. Believe in him. Read his words and follow his teachings.” He left his blessing “that as you will walk in faith and faithfulness, there will be food on your tables, and clothing on your backs, and shelter over your heads. There will be peace in your homes and peace in the land, and for this I pray.”[1049]

President Gordon B. Hinckley emphasized other principles such as importance of marriage and family life, young men serving missions and becoming educated, drinking no alcohol, and paying tithing. His presence had a powerful impact those who attended the meeting and is described by Europe East Area President Douglas Callister, “They have grown up in a system in which no one had kept their promises. The Soviet system has not done so. So, having a prophet to visit them is reaffirming that they belong to a church which is here to stay and does keep its promises.”[1050]

The Helsinki Finland Temple dedication on October 22, 2006 was transmitted by satellite to 44 sites in Russia. The temple district was the largest of any in the Church prior to the construction of the Kyiv Ukraine Temple, which was completed in 2010. Prior to the construction of a temple in Helsinki, Russian Church members had to travel to Stockholm, Sweden, or to the other European temples in Germany, Switzerland, and England. Now a temple on that threshold made it more readily available to them. Several hundred members from Russia attended the temple, eager to enter the temple, quiet and introspective as they waited.[1051] There was a dedicatory session in Russian, attended only by Russians. Similarly, a large Russian contingent celebrated the dedication of the Ukraine Kyiv Temple on August 29, 2010.[1052]

During his service in the Europe East Area presidency 2005-2009, Paul B. Pieper focused on strengthening families to provide stability in local Church units. The situation he faced as president of the Europe East Area was that the membership consisted of part-member families (i.e. where only one of the marriage partners is LDS), young single adults, and only a few couples that were married in LDS temples. So they embarked on getting young people married and getting married people sealed, making the family the center of their lives. They translated the two Church manuals Strengthening Marriage and Strengthening Families. They conducted seminars for Russian married couples, training them in how to use those manuals to instill the principles in the lives of the members.[1053]

Despite the circumstances of the first two decades, there are prospects for renewed Church growth. “Those who stayed [in the Church] were the really converted people – they had felt something very special and held firm,” said Ivan Marchenko, convert since 1995, serving in a Moscow branch presidency in 2010. The second generation is coming of age, many from outlying regions have moved to Moscow and other major cities, replacing others who have moved to Western Europe and the United States. Despite the reduction in the missionary workforce, Gregory A. Schwitzer, president of the Europe East Area, said, “We don’t see it as a major barrier anymore.” Missionary numbers and conversion statistics for the recent past are considered confidential making it virtually impossible to assess the impact of fluctuations in the missionary force with the growth or decline in membership. Still Russia is a major Church player in the Europe East Area, encompassing eight of fourteen missions and two-thirds of the members in the area.[1054]

Church leadership

Developing a leadership experienced in Mormon doctrine and principles is a key factor in the Church’s future in Russia. Aspects of leadership in the Church are contrary to the Russian tradition. In Russia, leadership has always been seen as a matter of control and not a matter of blessing and helping lift people to a new level of living. And this is on top of the fact that the Church operates with a lay leadership, as opposed to professional ministers and pastors. Consequently, leadership training based on LDS doctrine is a constant part of Mormon life. Paul B. Pieper, commenting on his responsibilities as president of the Europe East Area said, “It’s going to take a while and we just keep teaching some very fundamental things.”[1055] Richard Chapple, who was serving as a mission president in Moscow wrote, “Our number on challenge here is . . . training leadership. Back in the States we have . . . decades and decades of experience to look back on. . . . Here we simply don’t have that, and so it’s train, train, train. You can’t train somebody once. [It’s] an ongoing process. You never get finished with it.” Donald Jarvis, president of the Russia Moscow Mission from 1996 to1998, reported, “We found most branch presidents [local small congregation leaders] loath to delegate: they tended to do far too much themselves, often setting up chairs before meetings rather than holding branch presidency meetings to assign callings and responsibilities for all active members.” He attributed their lack of training the youth as a factor in losing from Church activity in Moscow ninety percent of their young men ages 12-18.[1056]

The Church has struggled to keep Russian male converts who are authorized to be local leaders, often called “priesthood holders,” active over the long-term regardless of whether they have served in leadership positions. One mission president reported that during his three-year tenure in the early 1990s, fourteen branch presidents went inactive or left the Church, likely due to either the lack of commitment or a perceived slight that they were released from their responsibilities rather than be promoted. Notwithstanding local leadership challenges, in 2011 nearly all branches in Russia have native branch presidents; most but not all have native counselors, men who serve in an official capacity to support the branch president. Full-time missionaries often greatly assist in administrative and leadership positions as counselors in branch presidencies.[1057]

A handful of Russian members have served as Russian mission presidents and Area Seventy, high-level local Church leaders. Viacheslav I. Efimov from St. Petersburg presided over the Russia Yekaterinburg Mission from 1995-1998. As the first native Russian mission president, he managed to turn the newly-formed Yekaterinburg Mission into the highest-baptizing mission in Russia at the time. A missionary who knew him while serving in St. Petersburg wrote, “Efimov will always be remembered as one of the greatest pioneers and founding fathers of the Church in Russia. . . . His optimism, common sense, and warm smile were infectious. He was the best leader in that entire city and he instructed and inspired countless other leaders, especially district presidents, branch presidents, and their counselors. I have also heard that he was beloved by the missionaries who served under his direction in the Yekaterinburg Mission.”[1058] Viacheslav I. Efimov, died in St. Petersburg on February 24, 2000. However, he has been succeeded by others. Two more native mission presidents were called in 2003: Albert Yergovich Aumeister from St. Petersburg to serve over the Russia Rostov Mission and Viktor Aleksandrovich Solomein from Yekaterinburg to serve over the Russia Moscow South Mission.[1059] In 2011, Vladimir A. Nechiporov, a native Russian from Russia’s Far East, was serving as president of the Russia Rostov-na-Donu Mission. These men and their wives serve as good examples of converted Russians and also let the average Russian member see “one of their own” serve in a high-level capacity.

In the fall of 2007, the Europe East Area president, Paul Pieper, began to feel that the number of foreign missionaries was counterproductive. Russians did not take charge with them present. His concern occurred prior to the Russian government adopting new tougher visa regulations. In November, Pieper convened a Russia-wide council to teach district presidents how to feel the importance of their responsibilities for the local congregations and how take action to proceed with less support from the missionaries. Pieper wished to counsel each of them in their native tongue. There were too many until he received a call from Dennis B. Neuenschwander, who was fluent in Russian. He explained that Boyd K. Packer, a senior member of the Church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, had told him to go to Russia. When Neuenschwander asked him why, Packer said, “I don’t know. Just go to Russia. You’ll know why you’re supposed to be there.” He went. With Pieper they were able to accomplish together the task of inspiring the leadership individually to move forward.[1060] The timing was auspicious as by 2010, the missionary force had diminished to 300-plus missionaries.[1061]

Gary Browning, a former mission president who served in Russia, likewise saw an opportunity in the new situation. “The church really is growing in its maturity,” he said. “All of us would love to have the missionaries remain there. There could be a silver lining to this cloud, because this may give the members an additional incentive to play their roles more effectively, and to find relatives and neighbors and work associates who would be interested in the church.”[1062]

The calling of Area Seventies in Russia manifested the confidence of Church leaders in having native Russians to direct its affairs. In 2008, Anatoly Reshetnikov from Saratov, Russia, as well as Dmitry Mikulin from Kharkov were appointed to this office at the time same time. Paul B. Pieper recounts the reaction of the members to this event. “I just look at the eyes of the Saints and they were just glued to them. They’re ours. There was just a power that came with them being there.”[1063] That “power” referred to by Pieper may be the power of example: Russian members now seeing their own people rise in the ranks of Church leadership. In 2009, Dmitry V. Marchenko from Moscow was the second Russian to be called as an Area Seventy, Mikulin being a native Ukrainian.[1064] They have not been approached at this time by the authors about their experiences and how they see the situation in Russia because of the short time frame of their experience and the confidentiality that surrounds the personal opinions of Church leaders.

LDS educational programs known as seminary, which is instruction for teenage Church members, and institute, instruction for in college and beyond, began in 1993. It has become a bright spot for the future of the Church in Russia. 1,289 were enrolled in seminary and institute during the 2008-2009 school year, increasing to 1,444 during the 2009-2010 school year. Considering the activity numbers, this means that a very high percentage of the active membership in the age group 14-30 is enrolled. Increasing seminary and institute attendance in the late 2000s is a positive development that if sustained may indicate greater progress in retaining new converts, success in reactivation efforts, and greater potential for increasing the number of local members serving full-time missions.[1065]

Possibly because of the decreasing corps of missionaries and the desire to establish a stake, Church General Authorities from headquarters in Salt Lake City visited Russia in unprecedented numbers from 2009-2010. Dieter F. Uchtdorf, a counselor in the First Presidency, the highest governing body of the Church, and Neil L. Andersen, a member of the Church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, visited Kiev, Ukraine; and Moscow, Samara, and Yekaterinburg, Russia. Following the Moscow meeting, a 17-year-old seminary student said, “We are the ones who know how to share the gospel with those who live in Moscow, and we are the ones who can do this work.” It was the first visit of a member of the First Presidency to Yekaterinburg. Uchtdorf compared the Urals as the Gates of Siberia to the members. “You are the Gates to the future of the church. You are true pioneers in the best sense of the word, and others will follow.”[1066]

Russell M. Nelson, another member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, dedicated the Voronezh Branch meetinghouse on October 20, 2009. There were 175 in attendance. He visited the city in 1993 when his son, Russell M. Nelson, Jr., was serving there as a missionary. “It is one of the centers of strength in the Moscow West mission,” Nelson said.[1067] He continued to visit other cities: Nizhnii Novgorod, October 21, and Samara, October 24-25, 2009.There were 169 people at the meeting in Nizhnii Novgorod. Many came from Tver and Yaroslavl. Nelson pronounced an apostolic blessing and bore his testimony in Russian. An investigator, responding to feelings he felt during the meeting, decided to be baptized and said; “Now I want to serve a mission, too.”[1068] LDS Apostles L. Tom Perry and Richard G. Scott visited Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Novosibirsk, June 4-13, 2010. They trained local congregation leaders, helping them to recognize how their fulfilling their responsibilities can bless the lives of those they serve.

A stake is a key indicator of Church growth and development. It requires a certain level of active membership. The 2010 recommendations for countries outside of North America state that a stake should have 1900 members and five wards or congregations. There must also be 24 fully-participating men who have been ordained to the Church’s Melchizedek Priesthood.[1069] In 2006, full-time missionaries reported that the Moscow Russia District had reached the needed numbers of active members and priesthood holders for a stake to be organized. It didn’t happen at that time. In order to increase church growth prospects over the medium term, local and mission leaders decided to divide the district into two districts in hopes of establishing two stakes one day. Having failed to accomplish this purpose, in 2010, the districts were consolidated into a single district in hope of creating a single stake for Moscow in the near future.[1070] In early 2009, the Russia Moscow mission was realigned to include just the district of Moscow to focus the energy of the mission on just that city.[1071] This milestone was achieved on June 5, 2011. A gathering of 1,100 people witnessed this even at Moscow’s Plaza Auditorium as six larger congregations know as wards and three smaller congregations known as branches were organized into a stake. [1072] A month earlier, this event was leaked unofficially. Matt Martinich wrote: “The LDS Church has worked for over a decade to establish stakes in several of Russia's largest cities, but recurrent local leadership development challenges, poor convert retention rates, and low member activity rates have prevented the establishment of stakes until present. Many active young single adults and other members have relocated to Moscow from other areas in recent years and have strengthened branches in the city.”[1073]

Freedom or servitude: “For now we see through a glass, darkly…”

At the end of his very long history of the United States between 1815 and 1848, Professor of History Emeritus Daniel W. Howe wrote, “History works on a long time scale, and at any given moment we can perceive its directions but imperfectly.”[1074] Surely this insightful statement applies to how we view and write about the Church in Russia.

The Church entered Russia during a time of relative freedom. Organizations and influences from the West were welcomed by a people who felt themselves liberated after decades of Soviet rule and who were curious to experience what they had so long been denied. Their curiosity and openness to new things waned as Russia’s experiment with Western-style democracy and a free market economy resulted in socio-political disorder. As has been noted above, the once remarkable growth of the Church has slowed.

During this time of slow growth and consolidation, despite opposition and what seem to be setbacks, the Church continues to pour resources into Russia to support those who have joined as members and to reach out to those who the Church hopes will join some day as well. Missionaries continue to be sent to Russia’s eight missions. High-level Church leaders known as General Authorities have been sent to live in Moscow to be closer to the people they have been called to serve. The dedication of temples on Russia’s borders has inspired and strengthened members within its borders. Russians who have proven their commitment to the Church are asked to serve in leadership positions, thereby building up their congregations.

The reduction of the American missionary force has provided the Russian leadership the opportunity to more fully solidify the Church as a Russian institution, not just an extension of the Church in the United States. What is seen by some as a setback may one day be viewed as a necessary period of incubation that has permitted the leadership to mature and the active membership to grow in their conviction and commitment. And finally, the creation of a stake in Moscow is an important milestone in the Church’s effort to remain in Russia and pursue the path of offering a Mormon lifestyle to the Russian people.

Russian members believe their Church offers a new spiritual reality based on Mormon principles that offered a remedy to some of the problems in Russian society. The desired result is epitomized by the comment of a Russian Church member at the 2003 centennial celebration in St. Petersburg. Svetlana Karpova, the president of the Church’s female organization known as the Relief Society in Moscow’s Arbatsky Branch at the time, who said, “The first time I came to Church I was very happy, like the sun was shining in my bosom. I became happier. My life became more interesting.”[1075]

In the minds of Church leaders, the future of the Church in Russia is still bright. In Moscow on November 20, 1995, Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland said, “In my life time, I will return to Moscow and a hundred theaters like this [1,200 seat capacity] will not be enough to hold the members of the Church.” [1076] Indeed, Mormons believe in the statement made by the Church founder Joseph Smith that Russia will yet be the scene of “some of the most important things concerning the advancement and building up of the Kingdom of God in the last days,” though this is in a timetable not yet clear. Nevertheless, economic hard times and a political shift towards a more repressive government system that will not allow the Church to fully function may yet impact the growth and progress of the Mormonism in Russia.

Even as Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor spoke to Christ saying, “In the end they [mankind] will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, ’Make us your slaves, but feed us’”; so Russia, after experimenting with freedom and discovering anarchy, may find solace in accepting servitude and security. This circumstance will continue to challenge a Church seen as being from the West where freedom underpins political and social life.

SEEKING THE ”SECOND HARVEST”: CONTROLLING THE COSTS OF LATTER-DAY SAINT MEMBERSHIP IN EUROPE

ARMAND L. MAUSS[1077]

The Church in Europe must live again. The work of the Church has run on the backs of its European Saints since the beginning. Don’t think that you are just minding the shop waiting for the Savior to come. Don’t think that the great days of gathering in Europe are over. This is our time.[1078]

Most of the world today is certainly not secular. It’s very religious. So is the U. S. The one exception to this is Western Europe. One of the most interesting questions in the sociology of religion today is not, How do you explain fundamentalism in Iran? but, Why is Western Europe different?[1079]

European exceptionalism [must be seen] in the proper perspective. As long as their religious markets are highly regulated, the apparent secularization of many European nations will be sustained. But should significant and authentic competition arise, it seems likely that other Europeans will embrace religion . . . .[1080]

I. Introduction

It is not often that we see a convergence in predictions between apostles and sociologists, though, to be sure, this is not the first prediction from Rodney Stark that has proved pleasing to the LDS leadership.[1081] Yet, for today’s LDS members in Europe, the coming “great days of gathering,” or, in President Hinckley’s terms, the “second harvest,” must seem as far off as the Millennium itself. And certainly the earlier projections by Stark of enduring Church growth have proved rather optimistic where Europe is concerned, as the influx of new converts has barely kept pace with the defection of unconverted or disillusioned members. The seemingly static church membership size in Europe (at least in Western Europe) is no secret, nor is the ongoing struggle of the Church to retain its members. Well-researched articles on such topics have been appearing for more than a decade, and in 2005 a series of articles in the Salt Lake Tribune brought the problem starkly to public attention.[1082] More recently, a devout and energetic young LDS scholar has established a website rich in data about the nature, distribution, and retention of the membership, and he has published a telling critique of the LDS missionary program, along with many suggestions for improving both the conversion and the retention rates.[1083] On balance, the prospects so far seem quite mixed for the future of the LDS Church as a worldwide religion in a meaningful sense, especially in Europe.

In this paper, I propose first to review what seem to me the most important deterrents to the growth of the LDS Church in Europe, and then to identify both a theoretical basis and some operational developments that nevertheless might justify the optimism of the Church leaders cited at the top of this paper. This approach will give my paper a kind of “bad news vs. good news” bifurcation, with the “bad news” reviewed first.

I will concede at the outset that my own personal knowledge about the Church membership in Europe is quite limited, based mainly on 1) a fairly extensive study of membership data reported in various published sources, including some cited in this paper; 2) first-hand accounts from informed European members (to be cited as I go along), and 3) some interviews and other communications with knowledgeable Church leaders and members in Europe.[1084] In travels during the past decade or so, I have also attended perhaps a dozen ward meetings of the Church in England, Belgium, and Sweden. I’m well aware that this record does not make me a great expert, but it has left me with some experiences and impressions, both cognitive and emotional. I should emphasize, furthermore, that my observations and generalizations apply mainly to the LDS experience in Western Europe. Some of these will be far less applicable to Eastern Europe, where the religious and political histories are quite different, and where a significant LDS presence is more recent.  From my reading and observations, I have concluded that it is not easy to be an active Latter-day Saint anywhere in Europe, for there are many costs of membership, both obvious and hidden, costs which most American members can scarcely appreciate or even imagine. Some of these costs can be mitigated by creative changes in the Church program itself (to be addressed later), but many of them cannot be, for they are built into the cultural and political contexts of European societies.[1085]

II. Secular culture and the regulation of religion

Social scientists have been predicting the decline and fall of religion ever since at least Auguste Comte almost two centuries ago. So far, however, historical developments during those centuries, and especially the periodic religious resurgences, have proved to be obstinate counter-indications of secularization. Nevertheless, many scholars and commentators have observed that contemporary Europe, especially as contrasted with the United States, is permeated with a secular culture of disbelief in traditional religion and with moral permissiveness toward a variety of personal behaviors once regarded as major vices.[1086] The contrasting persistence of religious belief in the United States has tended to be regarded, somewhat dismissively, as “American exceptionalism.”[1087]

Post-war trends in the European religious scene[1088]

European observers seem astounded that surveys find belief in God and an afterlife among Americans so much higher than among Europeans, at least in Western Europe. Furthermore, such religious belief as there is does not seem to be accompanied by church-going in Europe nearly as much as in the United States. Depending on the survey and the region, one finds a majority of  Americans in church on Sunday,  compared to around 20% or less in Europe – a situation leading British scholar Grace Davie to see a theme of “believing without belonging” in her study of religion in contemporary Britain.[1089]

Large-scale cultural trends, however, are rarely self-generated. They are likely to follow upon important political developments that seem to call for new norms and values, and which render the old ways impractical, irrelevant, or at least “politically incorrect.” In the case of Europe, these political developments have included fundamental changes in the relationships between the traditional religions and national governments since the Second World War. Though a certain amount of disillusionment with religion in general probably followed that war (given the seeming inability of any deities to prevent such disasters), the main impact upon church-state relationships was the attenuation, or even elimination, of government sponsorship for religion, including the traditional state churches. In the Soviet-controlled east, of course, this meant the emergence of officially atheist states. In the west, however, under the influence of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed in Geneva by much of the world in 1948, an increase in religious freedom was gradually institutionalized. The derivative European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was signed in Strasbourg in 1950.[1090]

Further institutional backing for these documents came in 1962 through a multilateral treaty establishing the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), also in Strasbourg. This court has issued many efficacious judgments against member nations for various violations and state persecutions of minority religions, often resulting in the rewriting of national laws. Not all European nations are signatories to the ECHR, but as one after another has signed on, Europe has come increasingly to share an ideology of “human rights” where religion is concerned. In this ideology, each individual is to be guaranteed freedom of conscience – that is, freedom to choose any religious belief or tradition – or none whatever.[1091] Starting in the 1990s, after the fall of the Soviet Union, religious freedom came to be a principal concern also of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), with 56 member states, as it has struggled to bring peace and security to the newly emerging states of eastern Europe.[1092]

As liberating as all this might seem at the level of individual conscience, however, the same ECHR also guarantees each member state the ultimate right to grant or deny the status of “legal entity” to any religious body.[1093] Thus legal entity status must be sought and granted in accordance with the laws of each country. The ECHR Court at Strasbourg, with some success, has attempted to require that legal status be granted in a fair and neutral process, without arbitrary delays or restrictions, without considering the preferences of the traditional state religions, and without any judgment about the religious doctrines of the applicant bodies. Yet the same jurisprudence permits a state to deny or restrict legal entity status wherever, in its judgement, the application for such status raises questions about public safety, order, health or morals.[1094]

In Western Europe, generally speaking, the UK has been among the most liberal in granting legal entity status, and France among the least liberal, with most other countries in between.[1095] Although the ideal of equal treatment is everywhere espoused rhetorically, actual implementation turns out to be quite complicated by a variety of competing traditional values in the various states, and more recently by the increasing assertiveness of Islam in many European countries.[1096] Most of the former Soviet states in the east, meanwhile, have proved quite restrictive, especially after their traditional religious bodies began to re-establish the old ties with their governments and to push back against the initial successes enjoyed by Mormons and others after the Soviet collapse. Yet, even in those countries, the ECHR Court in Strasbourg has had some impact with a succession of rulings upholding access to legal entity status.[1097]

In sum, there are at least three implications of the current jurisprudence governing religious association in most of Europe: 1) As important as are the principles of freedom of religion, or freedom of association, the legal entity status for any religion, so essential for even the most basic legal and social privileges, ultimately depends upon the laws and their interpretations in each nation; 2) therefore, there is considerable variation from one nation to the next in both the process and the obstacles involved in gaining legal entity status; and 3) each nation may retain a state church or otherwise privilege traditional  religious bodies over newer ones, and may continue to extract a religious tax from its citizens.

Religion in Europe as seen by sociologists and psychologists

In most of Europe, all of this has led to a “two-tiered” (or even multi-tiered) system of religious registration and recognition, according to which the conventional religions in each nation are privileged not only by tradition but also by cooperative – even organic – relationships with the government.[1098] These integrated relations between governments and the traditional religions had, of course, already existed for centuries, comprising what some sociologists have called “pillars,” by which social and civic life in Europe was carried on. Thus Catholic citizens had their births, schooling, employment, marriages, and funerals through institutions provided by the Catholic “pillar” and Protestants received the same through a Lutheran, Reformed, or other traditional “pillar.”[1099] Where conventional religious “pillars” proved insufficiently inclusive, eventually secular pillars were created, such as a socialist, a liberal, or a union “pillar.”In this system, religious institutions had vital secular, civic functions, supported by public taxes, whether or not citizens were church-goers.

To be sure, my description of this process here is very superficial and, indeed, somewhat obsolete, for the religious “pillars” have eroded considerably in more recent years, partly because increasing numbers of citizens, especially immigrants, have been difficult to assimilate into one of the traditional religious pillars, and partly, perhaps, under the influence of changes encouraged by the spreading ECHR regimen in Europe. The necessary social services and amenities are increasingly available outside the religious “pillars,” so that religion is less salient as an organizational basis for society. At the same time, the more ancient spiritual functions do not seem to have been sought by the citizenry in any greater numbers, so church attendance remains very low. Having been themselves secularized through years of integration with governments, the traditional churches seem to have lost their raison d’être and their power to provide meaning in life.[1100] Recognizing that “believing without belonging” leaves the actual functions of traditional churches somewhat ambiguous, Professor Grace Davie has more recently suggested the term “vicarious religion” to refer to religious institutions in which few citizens seek either social or worship services, but still hold to certain supernatural beliefs and still feel loyal to their religious traditions. In this conceptualization, the traditional churches continue to represent even the large number of non-participants; for the latter still expect the church to be available for occasions of celebration, bereavement, or crisis, and to be supported by public funds, but on Sundays they prefer only to have their interests “represented” vicariously by the more devout few.[1101]

Yet the basic two-tiered structure among religious communities still remains, such that the newer religions are marginalized, stigmatized (de facto if not de jure), and subject in many places to special surveillance and restrictions. Mormons share a place on this lower tier of religious respectability, along with Jehovah’s Witnesses, Pentecostals, and even some of the more “scary” new sects (or “cults” as they are usually called in the U. S.), such as Scientology, Unification Church (or “Moonies”), The Family (formerly “Children of God”), and followers of various Eastern gurus.[1102] All such “cults” (including the LDS) remain at varying degrees of disadvantage whenever they are involved in any transactions requiring government approval, ranging from access to desirable parcels of land for church buildings all the way to child custody disputes. Indeed, there remains in many countries an official wariness about all “sects”, a pejorative term commonly used in Europe to refer to any and all religious communities not part of the immediate post-Reformation world.[1103] The rising Muslim tide in Europe might be seen as even more ominous than the “sects,” but the latter have apparently gained no comparative legitimacy in the process.

In general, sociologists in the U. S., the U. K, and most of Europe, have found no scientific basis on which to privilege the beliefs of conventional Christians over those of so-called “sects” or “cults.” Accordingly, most social scientists have long abandoned this pejorative, preferring instead the more neutral term “new religious movements” (or NRMs).[1104] Certain psychologists, however, with their more therapeutic proclivities, have been unwilling to abandon altogether the suspicion that some religious beliefs must be considered ipso facto symptoms of dubious mental health. Governments in France, Belgium, and francophone Switzerland, for example, have all sought the assistance of psychologists to help them identify “potentially harmful sects,” of which well over a hundred have been compiled into official lists, often including the LDS.[1105] In France, the “Interministerial Monitoring Mission Against Sectarian Abuses” (French acronym MIVILUDES), established in 2002, and largely financed by the French government, has been somewhat influential as a “watchdog” organization regularly advocating various kinds of regulations against “sect” activities, not only in France but elsewhere.[1106] More recently, a team of Belgian psychologists has reviewed the applicable literature of psychology on “contested religious movements,” and basically found no reliable evidence that such movements cause any harm.[1107] Nevertheless, through a complicated rationale, they still concluded that it would be well for the Belgian government to consider “precautionary” policies to protect its citizens from potential “moral harassment” by CRMs.[1108]

The high cost of being Mormon, then, for LDS families and individuals, comes fundamentally from being relegated both constitutionally and culturally to this lower tier or margin of religious respectability.[1109] Until this situation can be changed, which I believe is possible in future generations, membership in the LDS Church will continue to carry a cost, heavier in some countries than in others, but a cost nevertheless, with respect to marriage opportunities, family lives, friendships, careers, and many other life-chances. As I mentioned earlier, the number and impacts of these costs can scarcely be appreciated by Latter-day Saints in the United States, where membership and activity in a given religious community rarely have any implications for other aspects of a person’s life. For that reason, American Saints (unless they have served missions elsewhere) tend to hold the naïve idea that retaining one’s religious faith (or “testimony”) is simply a matter of keeping the divine commandments and maintaining church activity. Brought up on pioneer stories about their European forebears, who sacrificed all for the sake of gathering to Zion, American Saints do not adequately appreciate the huge difference in the cost-benefit ratios faced by today’s European Saints compared to those of the 19th century.

Precisely because they came out of humble origins, and from countries with limited religious freedom, Mormon converts in Europe during most of that century could expect a net gain in life circumstances if they could emmigrate to America – as thousands did, often with Church help.[1110]  This is not to gainsay any of the faithfulness or sacrifices of those early European Saints as they left loving friends and families for a new religion and a cruel and hazardous journey on sea and land. Yet they did have prospects, and their faith in those prospects was usually vindicated within a generation or two in the new land. LDS converts gathered, furthermore, to a new religious community in which their faith was regularly reinforced by a supportive network of friends and church leaders. I am not unaware of cases in which immigrants to early Utah returned in disillusionment and bitterness to their homelands, but most of the transplanted Saints soon experienced a net improvement, materially and spiritually, over what they had left behind. For today’s European converts, by contrast, though their situations would vary from one country to another, the cost of church membership is likely to exceed the benefits, material and otherwise, for there is little to be gained by emigration, in most cases, even when it’s possible; yet in the home country one’s worldly prospects are more likely to be diminished than enhanced by membership in a stigmatized religion. Even in the spiritual part of the equation, while a convert might take strength for awhile from a powerful personal conversion experience, there is usually not much spiritual support from family, friends, or large and thriving LDS congregations. Everything depends on one’s own resources, insofar as these can be acquired through spiritual experiences and reinforced in the normally small LDS communities. Those European Saints who remain faithful and active today seem a tough breed indeed!

III. The LDS retention problem[1111]

There is recent evidence of some improvement in the retention of new converts in Europe, to which I will refer in the next section. First, however, it seems only realistic to acknowledge that European wards and branches are still struggling under the heavy burden of inactive members brought into the Church in recent decades – usually amounting to a majority of those on the membership rolls. I shall never forget the startling experience I had at a priesthood meeting in the Nottingham area in 1995, at which the entire business of the meeting was devoted to discussing which of the many inactive elders and high priests should be invited to apply for a cancellation of their Church membership!  The dead weight of unconverted and disaffected members on church rolls is another heavy cost to be borne by those who are still active – the moreso in Europe than in America, for in Europe the member who drops out can seldom be brought back but is gone permanently, whereas inactive members in the U. S. more often circulate in and out of church activity and can more often be reclaimed later in life.[1112] No matter how it’s measured, the attrition in both Europe and elsewhere has been discouraging: the national census data in some countries (in Europe and elsewhere)  show that only from a fourth to a half as many citizens claim an LDS identification as appear on official LDS records. “Active” church status, usually defined simply as attending at least one church meeting a month, remains at around a fourth of the members of record in most countries outside North America.[1113]

This situation can be understood as the cumulative consequence of thousands of unfavorable “cost-benefit analyses” by disaffected individuals, whose church experiences have proved more stressful than gratifying. Of course, all new converts in all societies are likely to encounter stress as they transition into an LDS way of life. Some of the consequences of conversion, however, just in the normal daily experiences of the members, seem to exact a higher cost for European Saints than for their brothers and sisters in North America.[1114] Here are just a few examples:

1) Much larger investments of time and energy are required simply for attendance at regular Sunday meetings, usually with travel over much longer distances, a burden greatly magnified with the additional meetings required for local ward and stake leaders (and, one might add, for seminary youth and teachers during the week).[1115]

2) Partly because of the time-consuming nature of LDS church life, and partly because of a conservative LDS understanding of proper sabbath observance, an active member in Europe is regularly forced to choose between church activities and participation in recreational activities with his or her family, given that Sundays are the preferred and usual days for family gatherings.[1116] The families typically cannot understand the preoccupation of the convert with religion, and family relationships are often ruptured beyond repair, especially when the convert is young – for the youth in Europe are under parental and family guidance longer than is common in the U. S.  This strain in family relationships contributes to a common perception in Europe that Mormonism is just another “cult” stealing away the youth.

3) Like others in the “lower tier” of European religious legitimacy, the Latter-day Saints sometimes face legal discrimination (de facto if not de jure) in cases of divorce (where the religious “cult” participation of a spouse might even be cited as cause), in child custody cases, adoption applications, and sometimes even in access to employment. So far the Church itself has not been inclined to intervene in such cases on behalf of the aggrieved member, adding a touch of irony to this special cost of membership.

4) Tithes and offerings turn out to be a much larger proportion of disposable income for most European members than for Americans. Given the welfare state features of many European nations, the tax rates are already comparatively high, and contributions to the LDS Church are often not deductible as they are in the U. S.

5) Expectations for LDS members to participate in missionary work in various ways, though routine (if somewhat desultory) among U. S. members, are experienced as much more intrusive and objectionable invasions of privacy in most European societies. The pressure applied by succeeding waves of well-meaning American missionaries for local Saints to arrange visits and meetings with their friends simply increases the stress associated with their church membership.

These conditions are not, of course, unique to LDS members in Europe, though they are almost certainly much greater in degree than for Church members in America. As members who are unable to endure unfavorable cost-benefit ratios drop out of activity, they produce also an additional cost of membership for those who stay and must therefore pick up the slack at the increased jeopardy of their own respective cost-benefit assessments. A vicious circle is thus set in motion. Especially in places where the men cannot be retained long enough to obtain the Melchizedek Priesthood, the Church cannot form new wards and stakes (or is forced to collapse and combine them).[1117]

Great as these costs to individual members might be, today’s poor retention rates are attributable less to the struggles of converted members than to decades of a proselyting methodology that emphasized numerical increases in baptisms over enduring conversions of new members who could add to the human and religious capital of the branches, wards, and stakes of the Church.[1118] Baptisms in the recent past have occurred disproportionately from among those with the least to lose, who are therefore the most readily “available” in a social sense – the young, the single, the modestly educated, non-European immigrants, and the lonely.[1119] The high costs of these earlier decades of inadequate convert preparation and premature baptisms are evident not only from the low retention rates mentioned above, but also from the well-informed accounts by devout and active LDS scholars in England, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, among other countries.[1120] Their work describes some of the serious – and often tragic – setbacks to church growth and retention that have followed from large-scale baptisms of essentially unconverted new members in previous years. Even the latest program outlined in the new missionary manual envisions setting a date for the baptism of an investigator as early as a month or less after the first missionary contact.[1121] To be sure, the manual emphasizes the need for investigators to understand at least the four basic lessons before they are baptized, but there is no requirement that they demonstrate an enduring change, prior to baptism, either in behavior or in commitment to church activity.[1122] Large wards, with plenty of leaders, home teachers, and visiting teachers, can encircle, sustain, and fellowship new converts, but especially in the struggling smaller wards and branches of Europe, the unconverted disproportionately tax the time and resources of the local members and leaders. For this reason, bishops and other local leaders will sometimes resist early missionary baptisms (understandably so).[1123]

IV. Brighter prospects on the European horizon

More recent data suggest that future attrition will no longer come so much from poor retention of new converts as from other factors over which the Church has but little control, such as 1) a reduced birthrate among LDS parents (as among other Europeans); 2) continued emigration to the western hemisphere; and 3) a reduction in the U. S. military presence (especially in Germany), which has recently thinned out the numbers of both American and local Saints employed on military bases. There is some evidence, however, of improved retention of converts: In the Europe Central Area during 2006, the proportion of new converts who had attended Church meetings at least once in the previous month was 69% -- higher than in many American wards.[1124] Furthermore, the proportion of 20-year-old men holding the Melchizedek Priesthood rose from 31% in 2001 to 38% in 2006. Even more encouraging is the evidence of retention among the European youth in particular: From 2001 to 2006, the proportion of 20-year-old men who had served (or were then serving) missions increased from 13% to 20%.[1125] This increased success among youth and young single adults bodes well for producing a multi-generational membership in Europe.

Yet growth remains slow among the European LDS membership. The marginal status and image of the Church, and the pervasive secularized culture, still contribute to the high and varied costs of being an active LDS member in Europe today. Readers can perhaps recognize how such conditions can be costly in certain ways for the Church as an institution without appreciating how those costs are also translated to the level of the individual member. Institutional attrition, slow growth, and marginal status in a secularized society all bespeak a greater or lesser degree of stigmatization of the Church in European society, at least as symptoms, if not as causes. By extension, individual members share in this stigmatization, just as children do in stigmatized families.[1126]  Of course, many costs specific to the individual member also occur, as indicated above. Ultimately, individual costs cannot easily be distinguished from institutional costs, since the latter so often amplify the former.

What is occurring in Europe that might enhance the appeal, and/or help to reduce the costs of LDS membership, so that more members can be attracted and retained? Where can we see indications of the future “great days of gathering” envisioned by Elder Jeffrey Holland and others?  I will offer three considerations that might justify such optimistic predictions. The first draws on contemporary sociological theory to identify some cultural and political changes in Europe that have the potential to increase the appeal of the LDS religion among some segments of the population. Second will be a glimpse at the promising international efforts so far by LDS professionals and public affairs missionaries to improve the legal climate in each country for the operation of the Church and the enhancement of its public image. Then finally, in a separate section, I will consider some prospects and processes that might make the LDS Church and religion seem a little less “American” and a little more universal.[1127]

New theoretical outlooks on secularization and its implications

As indicated earlier in this paper, many scholars, both LDS and others, have discussed the secularization process that has occurred in Europe and the implications of that process for the future of religion and religious belief. The process has been sufficiently complicated, and so variable from one European society to another, that many different implications can be pointed out with some evidence for each – and some of them mutually contradictory. Indeed, the very definition of secularization, and the identification of its key indicators, remain matters of scholarly debate.[1128] At least one component generally considered part of the secularization process, however, is “detraditionalization” – the decline in the power of traditional norms and institutions to inform personal identity, choices, and behavior.[1129] As individuals are thus thrown back on their own intellectual and emotional resources, they will not all respond in the same way. Accordingly, despite what conventional “secularization” theories have been predicting, not all “detraditionalized” individuals will necessarily turn to strictly rational, pragmatic, and materialistic epistemologies in their search for meaning. Some will remain open to spiritual understandings and interpretations of their existence and destinies. To be sure, terms like “spiritual” also can have many different meanings. Dutch sociologists Houtman and Aupers propose that in the “detraditionalized” context of modern Europe, we are seeing the rise of a “post-Christian spirituality,” based on a quest to “reestablish . . . contact with the divine self . . . to reconnect to a sacred realm that holistically connects ‘everything’ and thus to overcome one’s state of alienation.”[1130]

This is, they acknowledge, a kind of “romanticist conception of the self,” which “lays central stress on unseen, even sacred forces that dwell within the person, forces that give life and relationships their significance.”[1131] Unlike traditional Christianity, which sees the divine as primarily transcendent, post-Christian spirituality sees the divine as essentially immanent; and it also rejects the premise of secular rationalism that if “truth” exists it can be discovered only by rational human faculties. Thus post-Christian spirituality is epistemologically a “third way” of gnosis – “rejecting both [traditional] religious faith and scientific reason as vehicles of truth.”[1132] Importance is placed on trust in one’s “inner voice” or intuition. Or, in the words of Hanegraaff, “truth can only be found by personal, inner revelation, insight, or ‘enlightenment’ […] in contrast with […] reason or faith. […]  This ‘inner knowing’ cannot be transmitted by discursive language [as is rational knowledge] […] (n)or can it be the subject of faith […] (for) there is, in the last resort, no other authority than personal, inner experience.”[1133] This description of the “post-Christian” mindset raises at least two derivative questions: (1) In the modern world, is there really a sizeable population embracing such a gnostic epistemology? (2) Is the LDS gospel likely to appeal to such people?

In response to the first question, Houtman and Aupers draw upon the World Values Survey for 14 Western countries (1981-2000) with a careful sample of more than 60,000 cases. By a complicated statistical process of cross-classifying survey respondents according to their answers on five questions, the authors identified a sub-sample that could be considered neither traditionally Christian nor rationally secularist in orientation. Between 15% and 40% of this subsample believes in life after death and in a life force or spirit, rejects atheism, and yet has but little confidence in traditional churches and denominations to meet people’s spiritual needs.[1134] It is this population, neither traditionally religious nor secular, that the authors consider “detraditionalized” and “post-Christian.” These people have not rejected religion per se but have relocated the sacred from religious institutions to an immanent spiritual force residing deep within oneself. The authors find, furthermore, that this spiritual orientation has actually been spreading in recent decades, particularly among the younger and better educated, and most notably among the inhabitants of France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Sweden.[1135]

At first glance, this post-Christian segment of the population in Europe might not seem a very promising “market niche” in which Mormonism would have any appeal. The LDS Church, after all, makes claims about objective, transcendent truths which are outside the individual and available for individuals to discover for themselves through the promptings of the Holy Spirit. That does not seem quite like relying on the immanent divinity within oneself for discovering one’s own path to truth and meaning. On the other hand, Mormonism has always encouraged a certain dependence on “personal revelation” in seeking the divine will, and this ideal has co-existed in some tension with a methodology of linear, deductive apologetics in quest of universal truths.[1136] In the 19th and early 20th centuries, LDS preaching, proselyting, and pulpit discourse relied heavily on rationalistic Biblical arguments. Missionaries not only used such an approach in open public meetings and in the private homes of potential converts, but they distributed thousands of pamphlets or “tracts” based on such propositional arguments. In more recent decades, however, LDS preaching and proselyting have increasingly emphasized feelings over reason as the means of validating the truth-claims of the Church.[1137] Moroni 10:4-5 in the Book of Mormon is understood primarily as a call for members and investigators to rely on the spiritual promptings that they feel when they pray for confirmation of the authenticity of LDS teachings and of the Book of Mormon in particular.

Mormons, of course, understand the promptings of the Holy Spirit to come from outside the individual, but there is no obvious distinction between internal and external origins of feelings in such matters. Both missionaries and their investigators are taught that “(i)n answer to our prayers, the Holy Ghost will teach us truth through our feelings and thoughts. (These feelings) are powerful, but they are also usually gentle and quiet.”[1138] Yet Mormonism does not hold that all spiritual experiences come externally from the Holy Spirit: some originate from a person’s own inner promptings called the “light of Christ.” This is an impersonal force that “giveth light to every man that cometh into the world” (Doctrine and Covenants 84:46), “which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space […]” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:12). As Elder Boyd K. Packer explains, “A teacher of gospel truths is not planting something foreign or even new […] Rather, the missionary or teacher is making contact with the Spirit of Christ already there. The gospel will have a familiar ‘ring’ to [an open-minded investigator].”[1139]

So we have the discovery of a “detraditionalized” population in modern secular Europe, dubbed “post-Christian” by Houtman and Aupers, because of its belief in an immanent divine power deep within each individual; and then we have a description in LDS scriptures of a divine light given at birth to every individual. Are these essentially the same powers or attributes? Such is, of course, a theological question, not an empirical one. What is important for purposes of the present discussion, however, is not whether either or both of these immanent qualities can be empirically demonstrated, but rather whether there is a segment of the modern post-Christian population that believes in such attributes and might be attracted precisely by the non-traditional nature of Mormonism. If so, such people will seek to authenticate LDS claims by resort to their own internal promptings, whatever these are called, and they will find increasing validation for their efforts as they associate with members of the LDS religious community, who are taught to recognize the “light of Christ” and the Holy Spirit in personal revelation. Such personal, subjective conversions, however, will not prove durable without some eventual support from the more rationalistic tradition in LDS discourse and teaching.

Houtman and Aupers reject the claim by such scholars as Steve Bruce that the radical individualism, fragmentation, and diffuseness of “New Age” spiritual believers militates against their socialization into any kind of community. At the very least, such participants in new spiritual milieux will socialize each other in the quest for personal authenticity. [1140] In other words, post-Christian spiritual experiences can be “socially constructed because people are socialized into a spiritual discourse about the self” – which, in Mormon parlance, might be rephrased as discourse about “gaining a personal testimony.”[1141] Ultimately, only time will tell whether there is a segment of post-Christian believers that will constitute a promising niche for Mormon proselyting in the emerging religious market of modern Europe. It need not be a very large niche to be important. After all, the 19th- century niche where Mormonism took root in England, Scandinavia, and Germany was not large in absolute terms, but it produced half of the entire LDS membership by 1880.

Changing prospects for the LDS position in Europe

Even if the secularization of Europe has produced a “detraditionalized,” post-Christian niche holding some promise for the “marketing” of the LDS faith, there remains the serious question of whether the Church as a corporate institution is in a position to appeal to that niche. It is apparent from the political and cultural conditions described earlier in this essay that the LDS Church retains a public image which places it at a serious disadvantage in the European religious marketplace. There is, of course, more than one way to portray the position of the LDS Church in the world. However, the context I find most useful and revealing is one that I have borrowed from contemporary American sociologists and economists who study religion.[1142] As it has evolved over the past two decades, it has come to be called the “religious economy model.”[1143] This model postulates that the potential for a “religious market” is universal, since every society, implicitly or explicitly, holds out to its members the promise of happiness or fulfillment or success (however defined), contingent upon conformity to that society’s basic values and norms. Yet, it is inherent in the nature of human experience that no society “delivers” adequately on its promises to all or even most of its members.

It is from this gap between the ideal and the real that the market arises for the other-worldly products of religion (and a number of other markets, as well). The main products of the religion market are supernatural; the “goods” in this market are covenants or promises – certificates, as it were – available in this world but redeemable only in the next world. Because this redemption of “certificates” takes place at some future time, it must be accepted on faith in claims that are “unfalsifiable” – cannot be either proven or disproven – in the here and now. This means that each individual must make periodic cost-benefit assessments, the outcome of which will determine whether s/he continues to prefer products from the same religious firm or not.[1144] Because this process for each individual is rationalistic, this theory is akin to so-called “rational choice” theories in contemporary economics, sociology, and political science.

In this religious economy model, the LDS Church is likened to an industrial and commercial corporation, with the corporate headquarters in Salt Lake City.[1145] Like other corporations, the Church not only designs and produces certain products but also directs a worldwide marketing program intended to recruit a clientele of long-term customers who will continue to prefer its products over those of its competitors. Such a conceptualization encourages us to analyze the nature and appeal of the Church’s products in various niches of the world market, and to see how the “packaging” of its products might need to be different for these different niches. Our attention is drawn also to the nature of the competition: In the U. S., we are used to seeing competition from other religious “firms” or organizations that are also in the business of marketing other-worldly products. Europe is different, however, according to the conventional wisdom, for the religious market is limited to that marginal fringe or lower tier of so-called “sects.” Otherwise, there is no real competition in a highly secularized culture of moribund religious traditions sustained by the state.

This situation in Europe presents a challenge not only to the LDS Church but also to the religious economy paradigm that has emerged recently in the American sociology of religion.[1146] According to this new paradigm, secularization is inherently a self-limiting process, for no matter how much comfort and security societies can deliver in this world, fulfillment and contentment must ultimately come from an other-worldly system of meaning that is not susceptible to the periodic setbacks, disappointments, and disasters that have always punctuated human experience. Theoretically, the more secular a society becomes, and the longer it has been undergoing secularization, the greater the proportion of its population that should be in the market for other-worldly meaning systems.[1147]  Of course, these other-worldly products need not, and often do not, come only from organized religion, which is in competition also with astrology, magic, and many other claimants to an other-worldly reality.[1148]

The proponents of this new paradigm have long recognized that for the religious market to operate in this idealized way, it must be mostly free of constitutional constraints. Regulation of the religious market by state agencies or public interest groups can be expected to have the same effect as regulation has in other markets. Constraining market access for certain religious communities, or relegating them to a marginal niche, will not only place artificial barriers on their growth and development, but it will also tend to undermine the integrity even of the favored religious traditions, leaving them lazy and flabby and unable to compete if and when regulations of the market eventually erode in favor of real competition. Furthermore, when market constraints are finally removed, brand new religious firms can be expected to spring up, especially those of an unconventional or “fringe” kind. The general effect will be to increase the total volume of “customers” in the religious market as a whole, just as in any other market, according to “supply-side” economists. Certainly this has been the case in the recent history of religion in Latin America, where the traditional Catholic monopoly has long since broken down.

The short-term and long-term consequences of market regulation, then, can be summed up in the following five propositions:[1149]

1) If government regulation of religious markets suppresses competition, the authorized religious groups will make little effort to attract rank-and-file support or to meet religious “demand.”

2) Moreover, the authorized churches will tend to be controlled and staffed by careerists, who are often quite lacking in religious motivation.

3) The net result will be widespread public religious alienation and apathy.

4) In addition, lacking effective religious socialization and congregational support, religious beliefs will become tentative, vague, and somewhat eclectic.

5) However, deregulation will (at least eventually) produce a religious revival. As religious organizations begin to compete for public support, participation in organized faiths will rise, and religious beliefs will become more clearly defined and widely held.

One implication of that fifth proposition is that if and when conventional religious organizations revive and become more aggressive in the market, the newer, unconventional religions will be harder to sustain.[1150] Because the religious market in the U.S. has always had plenty of active conventional religions, the unconventional ones, such as the Mormons, have found it difficult to compete without becoming more “conventional,” as they did during the 20th century. In Europe, by contrast, since the conventional religions remain weak, the unconventional ones are actually more prevalent and noticeable than in the U. S. – or at least they seem so, given the amount of official animosity and “anti-cult” activity in Europe. In this difficult market, Mormonism will have to compete with many other unconventional or marginal religions, but its prospects for an increased market share against other religions will be directly tied the success of lawyers, public affairs experts, and scholars in combating the defamation and fear-mongering generated by the political establishments in much of Europe.

To be sure, this new paradigm has had its adherents and its critics, both in the U.S. and in Europe.[1151]  Its European critics, in particular, have pointed out that it has been derived mainly from the American historical experience and ideologies, with reference particularly to the market metaphor and to the notion of secularization as inherently self-limiting.[1152] Furthermore, although unconventional or “fringy” new religions in Europe might be numerous, their combined membership remains very small. Much of the argument between American proponents and European opponents of this theory has to do with what counts as data or evidence, and with how “secular” Europeans really are as individuals. Given the general social, political, and ideological climate prevailing in most of Europe today, it might be difficult to see a large potential market for the products offered by the LDS “firm,” or by any other religion that demands costly investments of time, energy, wealth, and self-discipline in exchange for covenants and promises to be redeemed in the next world. Of course, only time can tell about the long-term efficacy of any investments and commitments – whether made for rewards in this world or for rewards in the next. The various supposed “guarantees” of ultimate security and happiness in this world are scarcely more reliable than the promises of ultimate salvation in the next. Both kinds of rewards are “products” that must be “sold” to more or less willing consumers, who accept them on faith in the future.

So what evidence have we that government regulation of religion is holding back a demand for other-worldly products that might be building up in Europe, either despite or because of the prevailing secular environment? One indication comes from a 2007 article in the Wall Street Journal by a Stockholm-based journalist, who finds various unexpected outbreaks of religious sentiment and “upstart churches” in Sweden and other supposedly “secular” countries, precisely for the reasons postulated in the new paradigm outlined above.[1153] Introvigne and Stark too offer a variety of evidence from various European countries to claim an inverse relation between religious participation and government regulation in any given society. Their showcase example, though, is Italy.[1154] After 1947, all religions in Italy were supposedly equal before the law, but a series of Christian Democrat governments had always shown favoritism to the dominant Catholic religion. After Vatican Council II, however, and especially after the erosion of Christian Democrat political dominance in the 1980s and 1990s, the government entered into a series of new concordats with various religious communities, starting with the Vatican in 1984. Since then, Catholic priests have no longer drawn their salaries from the state.

However, the public still pays an amount of 0.8% of their total tax for purposes designated by law as “humanitarian or religious.” Taxpayers may direct their respective portions to the religious communities of their choice, which need not be their own religious communities; or they may opt to leave the allocation to the discretion of the government for a “general humanitarian” purpose. Baptists, among others, have declined to accept their designated portion of the allocation. What’s most interesting about this process is that it sets up an annual competition among the several religious communities, complete with professional ad campaigns, to attract these designated taxes from any and all of the tax payers without regard to what their actual church memberships might be. Given that 89% of the Italian population claims to be “religious” (though only 40% are involved church members), the designated church tax has been going disproportionately to non-Catholic denominations.[1155]

This semi-deregulation process in Italy has opened up much more space for new Evangelical and Pentecostal groups, as well as for a growing number of so-called “para-churches” (e. g. Campus Crusade) and for totally new religious movements (NRMs), which in Italy do not face a significant “anti-cult” campaign as in France or Belgium.  So far, these non-Catholic bodies remain small, though by 2001 there were 120 independent Evangelical or Pentecostal groups and some 350 unconventional new religious movements. A major reason that the Protestants and NRMs are not growing faster is because of increased competition from a resurgent Catholicism, which itself is undergoing a certain amount of internal competition from segments such as Opus Dei and the Catholic Charismatic movement. Those claiming to be “active” Catholics rose from 33% in 1981 to 38% in 1999. In other words, deregulation has not only encouraged the rise and development of various competing religions, but Italy has actually become even more Catholic as a result, supporting the claim of Stark and others that deregulation brings an increase in the total amount of religious activity, not just in the number of new religions.[1156]

Finally, survey data show a general increase among Italians, across roughly two decades (1981-1999), in religious belief and participation: those believing in life after death increased from 44% of the population to 59%; those believing in hell rose from 33% to 49%; those claiming to pray with some regularity went from 71% to 79%; and weekly church attendance from 32% to 40%. Interestingly enough, these figures for the general population were replicated, for the most part, among those between 18 and 29 years of age (though with somewhat smaller figures). The authors go on to cite several other recent studies by scholars in Italy which have also shown a generally upward thrust in religiosity among Italians.[1157] Nor is Italy unique in such trends. The Bertelsmann Foundation, a non-profit research firm doing periodic surveys in Europe, recently found that most Germans and Swiss, for example, claim to be “religious,” and that more than a fifth of respondents in each of those countries actually claimed “deep religious convictions.” These generalizations are qualified importantly by noting that such claims come disproportionately from women, youth, and Roman Catholics, and that “religious convictions” don’t necessarily mean regular church attendance or traditional convictions. Yet, neither do such findings bespeak a shrinking religious market in Europe.[1158]

Let me be clear about the contentions of this essay so far: I am not claiming to have demonstrated (1) that secularization (however defined) has reached its limits in Europe and is now in decline; or (2) that deregulation of the religious market in Europe has been rolled back enough to permit a major religious resurgence there; or (3) that a new and extensive “post-Christian” religious consciousness has arisen in Europe that will provide a fertile niche for rapid LDS growth. These three propositions would all require far more empirical evidence than I can adduce here. They are also developments that could occur independently of each other without any necessary causal relationships among them. Furthermore, even to the extent that they are occurring, they might be necessary conditions, but would not be sufficient conditions, for a new “second harvest” of the Church in Europe. Nevertheless, if they are considered in light of the general theoretical framework proposed here, they do seem to offer at least the prospects for a brighter Mormon future in Europe. But much remains yet to be done.

LDS efforts to reduce market regulations in Europe

It is not well known among the American Saints, though it might be better known elsewhere, that the LDS Church itself has been actively involved in political, legal, and diplomatic efforts to reduce restraints on the religious market all over Europe. This is not a new development, for the Church has had an effective international diplomatic program for decades. One need only recall the work of David M. Kennedy, of the international research center at BYU that bears his name, who was appointed by President Kimball in 1974 as a special envoy from the First Presidency to various governments, a post that he occupied until 1990.[1159]  Among his many accomplishments was gaining access for the Church and its members in Soviet-occupied eastern Europe to certain new opportunities, including the building of the temple in Freiberg, then East Germany (GDR), in 1985.[1160]

More recently, the International Center for Law and Religion Studies (ICLRS) has been established at the J. Reuben Clark School of Law at BYU, directed by Dr. W. Cole Durham, Jr. This Center describes its mission as working “with scholars, government leaders, nongovernmental groups, and religious organizations from a variety of countries and faith traditions, to promote religious liberty and study the relations between governments and religious organizations.”[1161] The work of this center is supplemented by a few skilled senior couples serving special missions and based in certain strategic locations such as Brussels and Geneva. Led by the globe-trotting Dr. Durham, this entire effort is devoted to reducing formal restrictions on religious activity and associations of all kinds, not just on the LDS, and improving the image of the Church and its members among the general publics in every country. To use the language of the religious economy model again, all such efforts are aimed at reducing the costs of membership by improving the public image and legal status of the Church in the various countries.

Although based at BYU, the work of this International Center is multi-faceted and world wide. It includes active participation in numerous conferences on religious regulation and freedom; cooperative projects with other centers having similar missions, such as CESNUR (Center for the Study of New Religions) based in Turin, and the Center for Human Rights at the University of Oslo; communications and negotiations with various governments, including occasional filings of amicus briefs, over issues such as legal status and privileges for various religious communities; and teaching courses in various universities and law schools on all such matters. For example, in 2007 Dr. Durham worked jointly with a colleague at the University of Oslo to prepare academic materials for a graduate course in religious freedom and comparative constitutional law – to be taught in Indonesia! Durham also spent a month teaching a course on similar topics at the Central European University in Budapest. At BYU itself, there is an ongoing program of summer fellowships to provide students with expertise in these legal and constitutional issues, after which they are stationed as “interns” at various locations to gain practical experience along with their academic training.

The periodic ICLRS symposia at BYU for the past dozen years have been especially impressive, for they have cumulatively involved hundreds of scholars and government ministers of religious affairs, among others, out of nearly every country imaginable from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe (to speak alphabetically, not geographically)! China, Russia, and eastern Europe have been especially strongly represented, no doubt a deliberate strategy in the Center’s selection process. Among the participants in these symposia have been the Austrian justice of the European Court on Human Rights; the head of Belgium’s “Advisory Centre on Harmful Sectarian Organizations;” the Chief Justice of the Norwegian Supreme Court; various law professors; and several sociologists, including some well known to me, such as James Richardson at the University of Nevada and Eileen Barker at the London School of Economics. In looking over the entire list of past participants in these BYU symposia, one is struck by the obvious effort to establish relationships with government ministers and advisors likely to come bearing considerable prejudice. One hopes and assumes that they return home from these symposia somewhat less prejudiced against the cause of religious freedom generally and the LDS religion in particular.[1162]

Yet, as effective as this Center at BYU clearly is, its efforts must be limited to the “softening up” process – to building friendships, to persuasion, remonstrance, advice, teaching, and setting good examples. It has no formal power, and it is not a political pressure group. For more direct and strenuous efforts, the Church must find its support from local Saints and friends with expertise in law, in public relations, and in lobbying. Some such experts are found in Area offices and in the various European stakes. Most of them are local Europeans, though some are special missionaries. Along with the constitutional changes promoted by the European Convention (and Court) on Human Rights in recent decades, discussed earlier, these efforts by hard-working European Latter-day Saints have helped greatly to create enough political space that the Church in most of western Europe enjoys a level of legal recognition that is adequate for most purposes, though still not ideal. Its legal status still needs to be consolidated so that it will truly enjoy the rights and privileges accorded to the “recognized” religious organizations. Even though the Church can operate as a legal entity and carry on its program openly in most countries, to the general public, and to much of the officialdom, it is still treated as an obscure sect or “cult.”[1163]

In eastern Europe, the situation is even less favorable: Certain restrictions remain against the LDS Church and the other newer religions, despite the provisions of the ECHR and the OSCE, which most countries of eastern Europe have ostensibly either joined or aspired to join.[1164] Some of these restrictions derive simply from the traditional Catholic and Orthodox outlooks on religion common to central and eastern Europe, which have been embodied in the so-called “Austrian model” for implementing the ECHR. Serbia and Romania, for example, have recently adopted that model, which permits state discrimination in favor of the traditional religions, as well as restrictions upon unconventional and “foreign” religions.[1165] Of course, whatever the laws of the various countries might provide, many restrictions also take the form of deliberate administrative delays, evasions, and extra-legal intimidations.[1166] Even in those cases, however, the Church’s efforts have sometimes prevailed through the work of Dr. Durham, of friendly local scholars and officials he has cultivated, of skilled legal counsel based in the Area Office, and of local LDS public affairs people. For example, after years of ground work, in October, 2006, the Church finally got legal recognition for the first time in Slovakia. It wasn’t easy. Slovakian law required supportive petitions containing at least 20,000 valid signatures to be collected and submitted to the government within a ten-day period. This feat was accomplished with the help of the 70 LDS missionaries from the neighboring Czech Republic.

In another emerging eastern nation, Moldova, gaining legal status also required some political pressure from LDS legal counsel in Europe. For awhile LDS missionaries had been permitted there unofficially, but a change of government brought a crack-down with some harassment, and the missionaries were soon ordered to leave. The Church filed for legal recognition more than once according to the prescribed procedure, but the government remained unresponsive. Then the Church filed suit and won favorable verdicts at successive levels of the Moldovan court system, but the government still failed to comply. Finally, five LDS members of the U. S. Senate sent a letter to the Moldovan President reminding him of the commitments his country had made under the new European legal framework for religious freedom, and he finally complied. And so it has been going, and will continue to go for some time, as the Church continues its struggle to increase its public presence and respectability in Europe and to reduce the costs of membership among its faithful adherents.[1167]

However, both the Moldovan example and the Italian situation (discussed earlier) present a public relations dilemma for the Church. In Moldova, the good news is that the Church was able to get five U. S. Senators to intervene to achieve the desired effect. But that is also the bad news, for it strengthens the perception that the Church in that country (and perhaps neighboring countries as well) is essentially an American church, backed by the U. S. government, which is not likely to facilitate its acceptance as an authentic part of the Moldovan religious landscape. Meanwhile, in Italy, the LDS Church has applied for legal recognition under the new Italian system, but the Parliament has not yet approved this intese, as it is called.[1168] LDS opinion in Italy is mixed as to how long the approval might take, but whenever it comes, the Church will be faced with the question of whether or not to accept its fair share of the otto mille tax. On the one hand, if the Church accepts the tax money, it will be violating its usual policy of remaining entirely independent of government funding. On the other hand, if it rejects the tax money, it is likely to be seen as deliberately opting out of “legitimate” Italian religious life, as though it is just another big, rich American outfit whose members don’t need their share of community funds, given their connection to this “foreign” institution. Such are the dilemmas encountered even when the Church gains some success in trying to reduce the costs of membership for its European Saints![1169]

V. Adapting the Church to the European setting

Some of the costs of membership borne by the Saints outside the United States, including those in Europe, are unintentionally imposed by the Church itself as an essentially American organization. In countless ways, some subtle and some not so subtle, the Church gives expression to American cultural preferences and even to American interpretations of certain traditional teachings. Unlike the European legal arena that I have just discussed, the Church arena is one over which the Saints and leaders themselves have the ultimate power, through the process of revelation, to decide how the church program should be adapted to the culture and traditions of each society. In making these adaptations, the Church, both at headquarters and through its leaders in each country, will be able to reduce the cost and enhance the appeal of membership only to the extent that local members and investigators can visualize how the Church program can be implemented or adapted in their lives – and without unduly increasing the cultural tension between themselves and their local families, friends, employers, and familiar traditions. Or, to resort again to the language of economists, members and investigators need to be able to see how they can “buy into” the Church program with a minimal loss or expenditure of the “cultural capital” that they have already accumulated in their respective societies.[1170]

This is by no means to advocate a cost-free religion, either in Europe or anywhere else. Contemporary social science theory would agree with President Hinckley that a religion commanding the loyalty and commitment of its adherents must “stand for something.”[1171] Put another way, the Church must “protect its brand” – it must always strive to make sure that the world knows what it stands for, and how it is distinctive. Ever since Kanter’s 1972 study of religious and other utopian societies, social scientists have understood that organizational demands for conformity and sacrifice function as “commitment mechanisms.” [1172] More recently, Lawrence Iannaccone and others associated with the “new paradigm” have argued similarly that truly strong and enduring religions are “strict” – that is, they make demands on their members. [1173]

Yet the nature and degree of strictness of those demands must be commensurate with the perceived benefits enjoyed by the adherents in a particular “market niche.” If the demands are too strict, they will be counterproductive and will strain the bonds of customer loyalty. If they are not strict enough, they will invite “free riders,” who, if they become too numerous, will demoralize the more committed and undermine the long-term viability of a “firm” or organization.[1174] Some demands arising from the standard policies and practices of the Church require much more sacrifice in Europe and elsewhere than in the United States and might require selective adaptations to make them feasible. Still other organizational demands (e. g., the Word of Wisdom for Latter-day Saints) mark important behavioral boundaries that can create some tension between the organization and its surrounding culture – and which are actually functional as long as the tension is moderate or optimal for the niche in question: If the tension is too great, the religious organization will be stigmatized and persecuted. With minimal or no tension, however, the organization will lack distinctiveness, or a clear “brand” that can attract and hold adherents looking for something special.[1175]

From this theoretical viewpoint, then, the strategy of the LDS Church would be to advocate and enforce doctrines and practices that would represent not maximal but optimal strictness within, as well as optimal cultural tension with the outside. However, this is obviously not a matter in which “one size fits all;” for what is “optimal” in one market niche or cultural setting will not necessarily be optimal in another – a predicament that is difficult to manage in an organization guided by correlation, standardization, and centralized control. Elder Dallin Oaks, of the Twelve Apostles, has attempted to define a “gospel culture” that is separate and independent of any of the cultures of the world, because it derives from the LDS Plan of Salvation and informs the “values and expectations and practices common to all members of the Church […]”[1176] Elder Richard P. Lindsay, while President of the Africa Area, was quoted in a 1993 article with a somewhat more expansive definition of the gospel culture as “transcend(ing) all boundaries and barriers.” Yet, he adds: “Building a gospel culture doesn’t mean the denial of everything in our separate heritages, although we must keep the doctrine pure and be willing to change certain traditions that aren’t compatible with the gospel.”[1177] A still more expansive view can be seen in an earlier article by Elder Charles Didier, who described the gospel culture as "a vast amalgam of all the positive aspects of our cultures, histories, customs, and languages. The building of the kingdom of God is such an amalgam, and is the only place where these different values may and can coexist" – that is, an “amalgam” rather than something “separate and independent” of all the world’s cultures.[1178] This definition seems to leave more room for adaptations across cultures, but a precise and common definition of “gospel culture” has not yet been embraced by all Church leaders.

Selective adaptation of doctrines

Obviously a major component in the gospel culture would be the official doctrines of the Church, a category that is not itself without some ambiguity. A recent “LDS Newsroom” release on the official Church website attempts a rather parsimonious definition of what constitutes official doctrine, including only what’s in the Standard Works, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.[1179] The same Newsroom document contains the following caveats: 1) even from those official sources, isolated statements should not be taken out of context; 2) not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, constitutes doctrine, but might be just a personal opinion; 3) some doctrines (such as the atonement of Christ) are core doctrines and are thus far more important than other doctrines (such as the precise location of the Garden of Eden); and 4) continuing revelation is intended to be relevant to the circumstances of a given age or period, so that teachings and practices of the Church are subject to modification across time. Back in 1994, in a somewhat less public setting, the First Presidency defined the following as “fundamental”: a faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; the atonement and resurrection; the apostasy and restoration; the divine mission of Joseph Smith; continuous revelation; the plan of salvation; and the priesthood with its ordinances and covenants. Even this relatively short list, of course, leaves room for a certain amount of interpretation, but it probably corresponds pretty well to what the Newsroom release means by “core doctrines.”[1180]

From these various official statements, and the observations of Elder Oaks and others, we can infer that his concept of a “gospel culture” is limited to a certain set of “commandments, covenants, ordinances, and blessings,” as noted above. Yet there will be an  investment or cost in time, treasure, energy, and moral courage entailed for anyone in any culture who strives to act on even this limited definition of “gospel culture,” which itself will by no means seem to non-Christians – or even to many Christians – as culturally neutral. The gospel culture, then, will inevitably exact some cost for those who undertake to live the LDS way of life, the moreso the more exotic that way of life seems in a given traditional culture. Can anything be done with the doctrines and policies of the Church that might mitigate this cost and thus improve member (customer) retention rate?

Probably not much can be done with the fundamental or “core” doctrines outlined above, if the LDS “brand” is to be protected, and it is doubtful that many of the Saints would welcome an erosion or abandonment of any of those core doctrines. Douglas Davies has argued that a major appeal of the LDS Church is its program for “transcendence over death,” or (in more familiar LDS parlance) its “plan of salvation.”[1181] Seekers open to such supernatural explanations for the purpose of life, whether in traditionally Christian or other cultures, will continue to investigate the core LDS claims, so it would be a mistake to abandon or “water down” these major products of the LDS brand. Nor would such a dilution be likely to appeal to committed secularists, who tend to avoid the theological marketplace altogether. Since the “LDS Newsroom” statement about Mormon doctrine reminds members that not all doctrines are of equal importance, one strategy for reducing the costs of membership, it seems to me, would be to de-emphasize certain doctrines selectively, and emphasize others, when “marketing” the religion to peoples of different cultures.[1182]

I can well understand, for example, why many European Saints these days might prefer that visiting authorities and church publications would leave in the background such traditional doctrines as the location of the Garden of Eden, the divine status of the U. S. Constitution, and the oft-repeated folk prophecy that someday the elders of the Church will have to save the Constitution. Such seeming “Americanisms” have nothing to do with “coming unto Christ” or with the covenants made as part of the profferred “plan of happiness” for all of God’s people. Even the designation of America as “a land choice above all other lands” in the Book of Mormon does not refer to the particular nation known as the United States of America. Not that there can be any doubt that historically (or even ontologically) the LDS Church is an American organization; but still, to the extent that any of these “Americanisms” are highlighted in LDS discourse, they imply invidious comparisons with European and other nations. This is bound to exacerbate, not reduce, tension for European members, especially in an age when the foreign policy of the United States seems so troubling to Europeans and others.[1183]

Still more dubious are doctrines long taught by Utah leaders about the LDS people as uniquely “chosen,” not only for a special mission to the world in modern times, but also for a special lineage assigned them in the pre-existence, so that they could be born as literal Israelites, and particularly Ephraimites, in the 19th and 20th centuries.[1184] Though lacking a canonical basis, these doctrines enjoyed widespread acceptance for a very long time, since they tended to favor the British and other northwestern Europeans, from among whom most early Mormon converts had come. Such doctrines were also part of the same ideological framework that gave rise to restrictions on people of African ancestry and to the generally racist categorizations of humankind that have been common in both Europe and America for centuries. However valid it might have seemed to take such doctrines literally in the 19th century, contemporary LDS usage has been far more figurative or metaphorical, as were Paul’s original teachings to the Galatians. Yet, to the extent that contemporary American Saints and leaders insist on literal understandings of invidious distinctions among peoples of different lineages, they will impose an unnecessary burden on the public image of the Church, thereby increasing the general costs of membership in Europe and elsewhere in the world.[1185]

The recent modification of a certain phrase in an official Church document illustrates how easily a potentially troubling traditional doctrine might be set aside by minor textual changes. The document in question is the Introduction to the Book of Mormon bound with that book ever since 1981. Originally written by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, that Introduction contains a phrase describing the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon as “the principal ancestors of the American Indians;” but in a slightly revised version appearing for the first time in 2007, the corresponding passage now describes the Lamanites as “among the ancestors of the American Indians” (italics added).[1186] Most Latter-day Saints, whether in Europe or anywhere else, probably paid little attention to this change in wording, but for the minority of members who have been paying attention to the scholarly literature on the Book of Mormon, the change is important.[1187] Why? Because it relieves faithful scholars, apologists, and ordinary members of the need to defend the traditional belief that all the aboriginal peoples of the western hemisphere had descended from the small bands of Near Eastern Semites described in the Book of Mormon. A broader implication of the same change is that the Church now has no official doctrine describing exactly where the Book of Mormon story did take place, though some Western Hemisphere location is still the official understanding.

Many other examples of traditional teachings in the Church could also be cited in this connection, but perhaps these are enough to illustrate my main point that there are doctrinal issues outside the “core,” which the Church could review (and perhaps modify) to reduce some of the unnecessary costs of membership, especially in Europe.

Localizing the LDS presence

Aside from doctrinal issues, which, to be sure, can be quite sensitive, there are also many less sensitive issues that have implications for increasing or decreasing the costs of membership in the LDS Church. If the LDS religion is ever to become “normalized” in Europe – that is, to seem as though it really belongs, and is not just a foreign “cult,” it will have to be dressed as much as possible in the local garb of each nation – at least culturally and figuratively speaking. Actually, to some extent, this statement could even be taken literally, for the typical buttoned-down, dark suit, white shirt, and clean-shaven look, apparently de rigueur for priesthood leaders in every country, sends a mixed message about whether they are representatives of a local people or of an American corporate organization. In particular one wonders about the apparently official insistence on the clean-shaven look for stake presidents and other local priesthood leaders, especially in countries where beards are fairly common.[1188] To be sure, though, there are far more important issues than dress and grooming in an LDS presence, and in many respects, Church leaders are already implementing changes that might help to “normalize” the LDS presence in European communities. Consider the following examples:

1) LDS leaders, male and female, are now typically local people, not only at the branch, ward, and stake levels, but also at the area level. Area Presidencies still tend to be sent mostly from Church Headquarters, on a rotating basis, but the time seems close that we will see Area Presidents themselves called from among the natives and permanent residents of European and other countries to serve indefinitely in such callings.  As that occurs, these leaders will become the “faces” of the LDS Church in those countries, increasingly familiar to both members and non-members, somewhat like the resident  prelates in the traditional churches.[1189] The 2008 call of Elder Dieter Uchtdorf (a second-generation Mormon) to the First Presidency of the Church is an important step in that direction. So are the increasing proportions of non-Americans called to the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy. Of course, the paid employees of the Church in CES, Welfare, Translation, Facilities Management, and other roles have typically been locals for a long time. The same is true of those involved in Public Affairs for the Church at various levels.[1190]

2) Church leaders are striving to increase the “sense of ownership” that the Saints in various countries have toward Church publications. Of course, the translation of the Book of Mormon and other scriptures into various languages has been going on for a long time, and the same with hymnals to some extent. Yet the process of translation sometimes reflects competing interests between a Headquarters desire for staying as close as possible to literal renderings of the English originals and a local desire for a more colloquial and comfortable rendering – though even at the local level opinions will always be diverse.[1191] The main Church magazine, Ensign, published in many languages as Liahona, now contains a section of news about church members in the various local countries. These inserted sections are produced, written, and edited by local members under the supervision of the Area Presidency. On the BCC “Blogsite” for June 9, 2007, both the UK edition and the Finland edition of the Church magazine received high marks from young LDS bloggers for such local coverage in their respective countries, hoping that they were seeing the beginning of a “decentralization” of church supervision of such material “in favor of regional and local flavor” to help create “a church identity less dependent on SLC.”[1192] General and Area authorities native to various local countries are already contributing to the official literature in those countries, as in the case of the article by President Patrick Kearon in the UK edition of the Ensign for June, 2007, but more might be done with articles that highlight the lives of faithful members and of key events in the LDS history of each country (in place of Utah’s Pioneer Day). Certainly the recently established LDS websites for the various languages and countries will also improve a feeling of connection to the Church for its far-flung members, though these sites are still in the early stages of development.

Beyond such official initiatives, translations of articles, or collections of articles, from unofficial publications such as BYU Studies, Dialogue and the Journal of Mormon History also seem now in prospect. Bilingual LDS Church members with scholarly training and credentials could assist greatly both in selecting material for translation into various European languages and in the translation process itself. Access to such publications in all the European languages would increase the sense of connection to the scholarly literature on Mormon culture, in addition to the official literature, among the European Saints of an intellectual bent.

Of course, literature from or about the Church for internal consumption, important as that is, will not help much to improve the LDS public image on the outside. There is a desperate need for reliable contemporary literature on the Church and the religion to be available to European journalists, scholars, and educators, preferably through their own local libraries. This need was brought starkly to my attention during 1999 when my wife and I visited a few local libraries in modest-sized cities and towns in the north of England. We were appalled at what the library patrons and local school children would have encountered in trying to study up on “the Mormons” in those towns. On returning to the United States, I reported on this situation to a friend in the leadership of the Seventy, who later notified me that “library kits” containing the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and a number of standard “classics” by Talmage and others had recently been distributed to numerous libraries in all the English-speaking countries, as indeed they had been for years in the United States. I am reliably informed that a private group of members and returned missionaries, both in Utah and in Germany, are translating the Encyclopedia into German for posting on a private website. There are also a few, but very few, outlets from which the Saints in various countries can purchase Mormon-related books locally. One of these, serving German-speaking Saints, is HLT Bücher (LDS Books) located in Salzburg. These are promising developments, but bare beginnings.[1193]

Policies and practices

Every large, bureaucratic organization devises policies and practices which seem reasonable and efficient as applied to the organization in general but which produce unintended consequences and unexpected tensions up and down the various levels of the structure. I suspect that one of the constant sources of frustration for the American general authorities and officers of the LDS Church is trying to find adaptations of general policies and practices that will work in Europe, Asia, and everywhere else. If appropriate adaptations cannot be made, the demands of church programs and policies often become too costly for the members to bear. Examples of individual cost-benefit dilemmas were mentioned early in this paper (e.g. sabbath observance and seminary attendance). Any of the normal tensions over policies and practices in large organizations are simply exacerbated by cultural differences between the American headquarters and the local stakes. Again, a variety of instances might be cited in which expectations originating in Utah seem to clash with cultural preferences in Europe. Some of these have been discussed in the work of various scholars who are active members and leaders of the Church in Europe and in other countries.[1194] These clashes might arise from different political and economic traditions, or from differential cultural preferences in adapting the church programs, or still others from the increasingly secularized and permissive local norms governing relationships between the sexes. For example, even though family law is very much in flux, both in Europe and in the U. S., the LDS Church cannot be expected to accept homosexual relationships or even heterosexual cohabitation as normative.[1195] However, I can envision a policy that might recognize pre-existing (i. e. pre-conversion), long-term monogamous heterosexual relationships (i. e., “common law” marriages) for members who are otherwise living gospel standards and preparing for eventual temple marriages.[1196]

One of the cultural differences that sometimes complicates relationships between American and European Latter-day Saints is the greater personal reserve and privacy expected in social interactions among Europeans. Thus traditional LDS practices such as home teaching and visiting teaching often come across as invasions of privacy or unwanted intrusions into the lives of members, especially those who are not very active in the Church.[1197] During the past few years, both the First Presidency and the European Area Presidencies have formally changed the home teaching policies in recognition both of this cultural sensitivity and of the practical difficulties in comprehensive home teaching where most of the membership is inactive in the Church, and most of the men fail to achieve the Melchizedek Priesthood. Accordingly, the latest policy calls for (1) limiting home teaching assignments to about five families or individuals for each pair of brethren willing to serve as home teachers; and then (2) assigning those home teachers in such a way as to give priority to (a) new members and (b) the most responsive among the less active, with (3) the use of missionaries to supplement the work of home teachers in both of those categories.[1198]

This same basic cultural difference is greatly intensified when it is a non-member home being visited by uninvited Mormon missionaries doing their daily “tracting.” This method of seeking investigators and potential converts has always rankled Europeans (and those in many other cultural settings as well), who are likely to resent being accosted by strangers wishing to discuss something as private as religious beliefs, especially when they are disturbed in their own homes. Actually, tracting has for some years been given the lowest priority among proselyting methods, considered a last resort when missionaries can’t find other ways to make promising contacts. While missionaries might always do some tracting from time to time, the Church has been seeking a variety of alternative methods for finding and teaching investigators in ways that do not require the “frontal assault” of knocking on their doors. Indeed, in some of the more affluent neighborhoods people live behind locked gates, making tracting impossible. In some European missions, the missionaries now depend mainly on a system of “unplanned finding,” which consists of watching for unobtrusive opportunities to greet people and engage them in conversations in random locations, such as bus stops and buses, trains and train stations, stores, markets, street displays, sports events, and other random times and places. The missionaries are urged to seek at least ten such opportunities every day, and thus to remain in a “mode of constant finding.” During each such conversation, the missionaries will hand out “pass-along cards” with engaging pictures, the phone number of the missionaries, the address of the nearest LDS chapel, and the Church website in the local language.[1199]

It has long been well known that the likelihood of an eventual baptism is greatly enhanced the more that local Church members themselves are involved in the teaching process, so the preferred missionary method has come to be teaching investigators in the presence of, and with the participation of, members of the Church whenever possible.[1200] Various procedures for involving the members are laid out in the new (2004) missionary publication, Preach My Gospel (cited earlier). In some of the newly opened countries, where the members are too few and too new to help much in this way, the missionaries fall back on another time-honored method, namely offering English classes to bring in potential investigators. At the beginning of each class, the missionaries explain their ultimate purpose in offering these classes, so that there are no false pretenses. They indeed do a conscientious job of teaching English, but then invite those who might be interested in their religious message to remain after the class for further discussion.

Among the most recent and effective method for involving members in the missionary program is one that was “pilot-tested” in 2003, with the encouragement of two apostles, and finally implemented during the next two years in all of the stakes of the Europe Central Area, and perhaps in other areas as well. This method uses the CES classes with their Young Single Adults as “Institute Outreach Centers.” Under the ultimate direction of the local stake and mission presidents, these YSAs join with full-time missionaries to invite and bring young people of the same general age range (18-30) to local LDS church buildings for Family Home Evenings, Institute classes, cultural and intellectual events, socials, and sports activities. Through these events, missionaries get many opportunities to teach young investigators in the chapels with YSA members present. So far the results of this program have been promising, not only in conversions but in retentions, for 80% of those converted through the Institute Outreach Centers are still active a year after baptism. Social scientists have long known that people in this transitional age range comprise the “demographic” most likely to be open to new ideas and experiences, including religious ones, so this approach appears to be a very effective “marketing strategy” for reaching the most likely “customers.”[1201]

The same approach has had some derivative and secondary applications: It is now being used in an effort to reactivate some of the less active YSAs themselves, and it was introduced among teenage youth as well through “Especially for Youth” (EFY) programs in Sweden and Germany during 2006. There are signs that the youth of all ages who get involved in this kind of outreach to their peers not only give the missionary effort a big boost but also are themselves more likely to go on missions and remain active in the Church. Meanwhile, the YSAs who participate also provide role models that encourage the younger set in their stakes to aspire to enter missions, higher education, and temple marriages. [1202]

Every device attempted by the Church to reach non-members is likely to produce an ambiguous cost-benefit (or risk-benefit) assessment. Probably the most serious problem for the public image of the LDS Church is simply that so few people, especially outside the U. S., have ever even heard of the LDS Church, to say nothing of having been exposed to a reasonably competent and accurate explanation of what it stands for. Mere publicity, however massive in scale, is not a solution in the absence of quality control – as is apparent from the mixture of the sublime and the ridiculous stirred up about Mormonism by the Romney presidential campaign in the U. S. Yet the one-to-one approach through tracting, “unplanned finding,” or bringing young single adults to Institute gatherings, is a “slow and steady” method, which is unlikely to produce rapid church growth. The involvement of faithful members in the proselyting process, whether in their homes or in YSA events, has the advantage of increasing their personal investment in that process, and in the church program more generally, but it also carries the risk of an excessive cost for the members when leaders apply too much pressure to participate. For the LDS religion to come to seem somewhat more normal and natural as part of the European setting, and thus less stigmatizing for its members and investigators, will likely require another couple of generations of these kinds of slow and steady efforts.

VI. Summary and conclusions

In this paper, I have been concerned mainly with the differential cost of LDS membership in Europe compared to North America, with special reference to what the Church can do to reduce the costs of membership among the European Saints. I reviewed three conditions that seem to me especially important as sources of these membership costs: (1) the secularized and regulated cultural and political environment throughout Europe, in which the LDS Church must operate; (2) the special costs to European members, collectively and individually, from various cultural, legal, and even logistical burdens that American members rarely face; and (3) the energy and resources that European leaders and members have had to devote to the retention and recovery of inactive members – with poor prospects of reactivating the latter. I turned then to  developments that hold out the prospect for significantly reducing membership costs in the years ahead, especially: (1) the creation of a market niche of well-educated young Europeans with a non-traditional spiritual orientation, as a side-effect of the secularization of the traditional European religions; (2) the extensive campaign being waged by the Church itself to reduce the regulation and stigmatization of the LDS and other newer religions in Europe; and (3) the potential for local adaptations of general Church doctrines, policies, and practices that will make church activity less costly and more appealing  for European members.

There are good reasons to be optimistic about the future of the Church in Europe. Old traditions and restrictions on new religions are breaking down. The religious market is stirring, and the LDS brand, with its innovative combination of the familiar and the novel, will find new “customers” in the younger generations. The Church now has experienced local leaders in place and enough organizational stability to maintain successful “franchises” in many wards and stakes. Many of these leaders are of a second generation of European Mormons, who have already learned to cope with the costs and adapt to the tensions with a Utah leadership. As an Area President put it to me, “recent developments in Europe can give our […] members an increased level of confidence about their own membership in the Church here. One […] challenge (for all of us) is that they deserve to have more confidence than some of them feel.” For my own part, I see a new cohort of general authorities emerging in their fifties and sixties (and younger) who have more experience than ever before in countries outside North America, are more often native to those countries, and are more sensitive than ever to the inappropriate intrusions of American culture into LDS church life in other countries. I see them also as more open than in earlier generations to the counsel and advice of local Saints and leaders living in Europe and elsewhere, despite the strictures of “correlation.”

I see that openness extending also to the work of scholars in the field of Mormon Studies, especially during the past decade or so while President Hinckley was at the head of the Church. As recently as November, 2007, the official LDS news bureau issued a statement supporting academic Mormon Studies at secular universities and referencing President Hinckley himself for its authority. Citing recent academic conferences on Mormonism, this statement declares that “the Church encourages a deeper and broader examination of its theology, history, and culture on an intellectual level […] [and] open dialogue and conversation between the Latter-day Saints and various scholarly and religious communities […] [in the belief that] Mormonism has a depth and breadth of substance that can hold up under academic scrutiny.”[1203]

Mormon Studies programs and courses are gaining traction at various locations in the United States, and the organization of the European Mormon Studies Association bodes well for a similar academic developments in Europe. The intellectual ferment,  which Islam and various new religions have brought to Europe in recent years, has generated a variety of regular scholarly conferences on religion there, most of them under very respectable auspices, such as CESNUR and INFORM.[1204] If LDS scholars will present papers and join in the conversations at such conferences, “they can bring especially fresh perspectives rooted in their [own] LDS experience in Europe […] [and the day] may come […] when there will be courses in Mormon Studies at universities across Europe”[1205] That might seem a far-fetched prospect today, but no more so than a similar projection about Mormon Studies in American academia would have been in the middle of the 20th century.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND STATISTICS

MORMONISM IN EUROPE: A BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY

MICHAEL J. HUNTER

This essay surveys studies useful to serious students and researchers interested in Mormonism in Europe. It focuses on scholarly books, articles, theses, and dissertations, and, out of necessity, is selective. Works of a more popular nature are included only when they contain information valuable to researchers not found in other publications. The studies listed herein are generally categorized by region and country and fall in a somewhat chronological order by topic within those geographic regions.

Europe

The worldwide growth of Mormonism has spurred several attempts at single-volume surveys of international Mormonism, including James R. Moss et al., The International Church (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Publications, 1982) and Donald Q. Cannon et al., Unto Every Nation: Gospel Light Reaches Every Land (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003). The broad scope of these publications results in sketchy treatments of Mormonism in Europe. Bruce A. Van Orden attempted to provide the first book-length, comprehensive survey focused exclusively on Europe with his Building Zion: The Latter-day Saints in Europe (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1996). Designed as a one-volume popular survey, this much maligned publication was selective on details, general in treatment, and heavily dependent on secondary sources. Yet, its value to students and researchers in providing background information and a quick overview should not be underestimated. Several other popular surveys of Mormonism in European regions and countries are listed in this essay for this same reason. Anthologies about Mormonism in Europe are dissected in appropriate sections below.

For very brief overviews of Mormonism in individual European countries, refer to the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History, ed. by Arnold K. Garr, Donald Q. Cannon and Richard O. Cowan (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2000); and the 2010 Church Almanac (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 2010). Sketches in the latter are based mainly on Church News articles. Andrew Jenson provides informative sketches of European ecclesiastical units, including missions, wards, and branches in his Encyclopedic History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Publishing Company, 1941). Jenson compiled his mini histories from larger unit histories in the Church Historian’s Office. Countries not receiving an individual entry in this essay will likely have a sketch in one of these three reference works.

Looking first at works related to Europe in general and beginning with 19th-century missionary work, James R. Christianson discusses the broad concept of “gathering” and its relationship to missionary work and migration from Europe in “The Gathering to Zion: Its Nature and Implications” in Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint Church History: British Isles, ed. by Donald Q. Cannon (Provo, UT: Department of Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University, 1990), 115-131. Richard L. Jensen looks at the administration of European missionary efforts in “Without Purse or Scrip? Financing Latter-day Saint Missionary Work in Europe in the Nineteenth Century,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 12 (1985), 3-14; and David J. Whittaker focuses on missionary publications in “John Taylor and Mormon Imprints in Europe, 1840-54” in Champion of Liberty: John Taylor, ed. by Mary Jane Woodger (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2009), 110-142.

Publications looking generally at Mormon European migration include John Alden Olsen, “Proselytism, Immigration and Settlement of Foreign Converts to the Mormon Culture in Zion,” Journal of the West, vol. 6 (April 1967), 189-204; and Davis Bitton and Gordon Irving, “The Continental Inheritance” in The Peoples of Utah, ed. by Helen Z. Papanikolas (Salt Lake City: Utah State Historical Society, 1976), 221-250.

Looking to the early 20th century, Heber J. Grant’s assignment as European Mission president is the topic of Ronald W. Walker’s “Heber J. Grant’s European Mission, 1903-1906,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 14 (1988), 16-33; and Thomas G. Alexander looks at the struggle of European missions in the early 20th century in “Die Europaische Missionen, 1900-1930: Die Schwierigkeiten des Evengelium im Fruhen 20. Jahrhundert zu Verbreiten,” HLT Forum, vol. 3 (Spring 1987), 45-51.

The American Latter-day Saint soldier’s encounter with Europe is the main focus of Robert C. Freeman and Dennis A. Wright’s Saints at War: Experiences of Latter-day Saints in World War II (American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, 2001); and Paul H. Kelly and Lin H. Johnson’s Courage in a Season of War: Latter-day Saints Experience World War II (N.p.: P. Kelly and L. Johnson, 2002); although both contain a few experiences of European Latter-day Saints. David F. Boone focuses on American Latter-day Saint missionaries in Europe in “The Evacuation of Missionaries at the Outbreak of World War II” in Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint Church History: Europe, ed. by Donald Q. Cannon and Brent L. Top (Provo, UT: Department of Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University, 2003), 65-88. Gary James Bergera looks at the relief effort following World War II in “Ezra Taft Benson’s 1946 Mission to Europe,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 34 (Spring 2008), 73-112. Benson’s mission is also the topic of numerous popular treatments.

The international growth of Mormonism in the latter part of the 20th century and the resulting collision of cultures with its inherent tensions and problems is discussed in Spencer J. Palmer, The Expanding Church (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1978); and F. LaMond Tullis et al., eds., Mormonism: A Faith for All Cultures (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1978). Related to this are the numerous studies that look at the struggle to obtain and retain Church members in Europe, including Wilfred Decoo, “Feeding the Fleeing Flock: Reflections on the Struggle to Retain Church Members in Europe,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 29 (Spring 1996), 97-118; Gary C. Lobb, “Mormon Membershp Trends in Europe among People of Color: Present and Future Studies,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 33 (Winter 2000), 55-68; Rodney Stark, “Modernization, Secularization, and Mormon Success” in In Gods We Trust: New Patterns of Religious Pluralism in America, ed. by Thomas Robbins and Dick Anthony (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1990), 201-218; Armand L. Mauss, “Seeking a ‘Second Harvest’: Controlling the Costs of LDS Membership in Europe,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 41 (Winter 2008), 1-54; and Armand L. Mauss, “Can There Be a Second Harvest?: Controlling the Costs of Latter-day Saint Membership in Europe,” International Journal of Mormon Studies, vol. 1, no. 1 (2008), 1-59. This concept is also looked at broadly in some of the essays in Reid L. Neilson, ed., Global Mormonism in the 21st Century (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 2008).

British Isles

Richard L. Evans relied heavily on content from the Millennial Star when he wrote his 20-part series, “British Mission History,” which appeared in the Millennial Star from May to December 1928. The series was later compiled into the first single-volume survey of Mormonism in the British Isles entitled A Century of ‘Mormonism’ in Great Britain (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1937). Evans’s work was superseded by Ben V. Bloxham, James R. Moss, and Larry C. Porter, eds., Truth Will Prevail (Solihull, England: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1987), which was published as part of the sesquicentennial celebration of the Church’s introduction into the British Isles and has limited use due to its lack bibliographical references.

Papers resulting from “Church history study tours” by faculty in Brigham Young University’s Department of Church History and Doctrine have been compiled into two anthologies: Donald Q. Cannon, ed., Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint Church History: British Isles (Provo, UT: Department of Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University, 1990); and Cynthia Doxey et al., Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint Church History: The British Isles (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2007). These publications cover a wide range of topics, including missionary work, migration, persecution, publications, media image, World War II, and historic sites. Other such anthologies are analyzed below.

The early apostolic missions to Britain are the topics of a book-length treatment by James B. Allen, Ronald K. Esplin, and David J. Whittaker entitled Men with a Mission: The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the British Isles 1837-1841 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992). This work provides rich coverage of its four-year focus. Numerous other studies exam this early period, including Sam Hamerman, “The Mormon Missionaries in England, 1837-1852” (M.A. thesis; Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, 1938); James B. Allen and Malcolm R. Thorp, “The Mission of the Twelve to England, 1840-41: Mormon Apostles and the Working Classes,” BYU Studies, vol. 15 (Summer 1975), 499-526; Eugene England, “A Modern Acts of the Apostles, 1840: Mormon Literature in the Making,” BYU Studies, vol. 27 (Spring 1987), 79-95; Ronald W. Walker, “Cradling Mormonism: The Rise of the Gospel in Early Victorian England,” BYU Studies, vol 27 (Winter 1987), 25-36; Thomas E. Lyon, “In Praise of Babylon: Church Leadership at the 1851 Great Exhibition in London,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 14 (1988), 48-61; Paul H. Peterson, “The 1857 Reformation in Britain” in Mormons in Early Victorian Britain, ed. by Richard L. Jensen and Malcom R. Thorp (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1989), 211-223; Garth N. Jones, “Who Came in Second?” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 21 (Summer 1988), 149-154; Ronald K. Esplin, “The 1840-41 Mission to England and the Development of the Quorum of the Twelve,” and Richard D. Poll, “The British Mission during the Utah War, 1857-58” in Mormons in Early Victorian Britain, ed. by Richard L. Jensen and Malcom R. Thorp (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1989), 70-91, 224-242; Andrew H. Hedges, “Shaping the Stones: Lorenzo Snow’s Letters to Priesthood Leaders of the London Conference, November 1842,” BYU Studies, vol. 38, no. 4 (1999), 6-25; Peter J. Vousden, “London Missionaries and the Great Exhibition of 1851,” BYU Studies, vol. 44, no. 2 (2005), 77-98, 122-135; and Ronald G. Watt and Kenneth W. Godfrey, “‘Old 42’: The British and European Mission Headquarters in Liverpool, England, 1855-1904,” Mormon Historical Studies, vol. 10 (Spring 2009), 87-100.

Publications that focus on individual British missionary experiences in the 19th century include Lawrence R. Flake, George Q. Cannon: His Missionary Years (D.R.E. dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1970); Ronald W. Walker, ed. “The Willard Richards and Brigham Young 5 September 1840 Letter from England to Nauvoo,” BYU Studies, vol. 18 (Spring 1978), 466-75; Donald Q. Cannon, “George Q. Cannon and the British Mission,” BYU Studies, vol. 27 (Winter 1987), 96-112; Kenneth W. Godfrey, “Charles W. Penrose: The English Mission Years,” BYU Studies, vol. 27 (Winter 1987), 113-25; Richard W. Sadler, “Franklin D. Richards and the British Mission,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 14 (1988), 80-95; D. L. Davies, “From a Seion of Lands to the Land of Zion: The Life of David Bevan Jones” in Mormons in Early Victorian Britain, ed. by Richard L. Jensen and Malcom R. Thorp (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1989), 118-141; Donald R. Shaffer, “A Forgotten Missionary: Hiram Clark, Mormon Itinerant, British Emigrant Organizer, and First President of the L.D.S. Hawaiian Mission, 1795-1853” (M.A. thesis; Fullerton: California State University, 1990); Lawrence R. Flake, George Q. Cannon: His Missionary Years (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1998); Ronald O. Barney, “Letters of a Missionary Apostle to His Wife: Brigham Young to Mary Ann Angell Young, 1839-1841,” BYU Studies, vol. 38, no. 2 (1999), 156-201; and Robin Scott Jensen looks at Martin Harris’s work for the Strangites in “A Witness in England: Martin Harris and the Strangite Mission,” BYU Studies, vol. 44 (2005), 77-99. Space limitations prevent the listing in this essay of all published life writings, including missionary diaries, but students and researchers should be aware of the value of these publications in providing details of individual missionary, migration, and life experiences.

Malcolm R. Thorp discusses the background and motives of British converts in “The Religious Background of Mormon Converts in Britain, 1837-52,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 4 (1977), 51-66; and “Social and Religious Origins of Early English Mormons” in World Conference on Records: Preserving Our Heritage, August 12-15, vol. 6, series 444 (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1980), 1-14. Other such works are Susan L. Fales, “The Nonconformists of Leeds in the Early Victorian Era: A Study in Social Composition” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1984); Robert D. Hales, “The British Contribution to the Restored Gospel,” BYU Studies 27 (Winter 1987), 13-24; and Grant Underwood, “The Religious Milieu of English Mormonism” in Mormons in Early Victorian Britain, ed. by Richard L. Jensen and Malcom R. Thorp (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1989), 31-48. Millenarianism among early British converts is discussed in Robert L. Lively Jr., The Catholic Apostolic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: A Comparative Study of Two Minority Millenarian Groups in Nineteenth-Century England (Ph.D. dissertation; Oxford: Mansfield College, 1977); Grant Underwood, The Millenarian World of Early Mormonism (Ph.D. dissertation; Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, 1988); and Malcom R. Thorp, “Popular Mormon Millennialism in Nineteenth-Century Britain,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 31, no. 2 (Summer 2005), 89-11.

Other studies looking at 19th-century British Mormons are Leonard J. Arrington, “Mormon Women in Nineteenth-Century Britain,” BYU Studies, vol. 27 (Winter 1987), 67-83; and Malcom R. Thorp, “Childhood in Early Nineteenth-Century Britain Reflected in Some LDS Sources” in Mormon Identities in Transition, ed. by Douglas J. Davies (London and New York: Cassell, 1996).

More publications have been produced on the topic of migration of British converts than perhaps any other topic related to Mormonism in the British Isles. Studies on the topic include M. Hamlin Cannon, “Migration of English Mormons to America,” American Historical Review, vol. 52 (April 1947), 436-455; M. Hamlin Cannon, The ‘Gathering’ of the British Mormons to Western America: A Study in Religious Migration (Ph.D. dissertation; Washington, DC: American University, 1950); Phillip A.M. Taylor, Mormon Emigration from Great Britain to the United States, 1840-1870 (Ph.D. dissertation; Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 1950); M. Hamlin Cannon, “English Mormons in America,” American Historical Review, vol. 57 (July 1952), 893-908; Wilbur S. Shepperson, “The Place of Mormons in the Religious Emigration of Britain, 1840-1860,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 20 (July 1952), 207-218; Philip A.M. Taylor, Expectations Westward: The Mormons and the Emigration of Their British Converts in the Nineteenth Century (Edinburgh, Scotland: Oliver & Boyd, 1965); A.M. Taylor, “Why Did British Mormons Emigrate?” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 22 (July 1954), 249-270; Bruce A. Van Orden, “The Decline in Convert Baptisms and Member Emigration from the British Mission after 1870,” BYU Studies, vol. 27 (Spring 1987), 97-105; Ray Jay Davis, “Law and the Nineteenth-Century British Mormon Migration” in Mormons in Early Victorian Britain, ed. by Richard L. Jensen and Malcom R. Thorp (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1989), 243-257; and Lily Pritchard, Across the Waves: Mormon Emigration of British Saints, 1840-1870 (Ph.D. dissertation; Bradford: University of Bradford, 1989).

The earliest British immigrants arrived in Nauvoo while Joseph Smith was still alive, and publications that deal with this time period include James B. Allen, ed., “To the Saints in England: Impressions of a Mormon Immigrant (the 10 December 1840 William Clayton Letter from Nauvoo to Manchester),” BYU Studies, vol. 18 (Spring 1978), 475-480; Richard L. Jensen, “Transplanted to Zion: The Impact of British Latter-day Saint Immigration upon Nauvoo,” BYU Studies, vol. 31 (Winter 1991), 76-87; and Fred E. Woods, “The Gathering of the British Saints” in Joseph: Exploring the Life and Ministry of the Prophet, ed. by Susan Easton Black and Andrew C. Skinner (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005), 331-339.

Several writings look specifically at the voyage conditions and experiences of British Mormons on their way to America, including Richard L. Jensen and Gordon Irving, “The Voyage of the Amazon: A Close View of One Immigrant Company,” Ensign, vol. 10 (March 1980), 16-19; Fred E. Woods, “Stories of America and the Sea: ‘On Board the “International,” All Joyful and Lighthearted,’” Log of Mystic Seaport, vol. 51 (Summer 1999), 23-25; and Paul B. Pixton, “The Tyrian and Its Mormon Passengers,” Mormon Historical Studies, vol. 5 (Spring 2004), 29-52. William H. Brugger discusses British Mormon migration poetry about sea voyages in Mormon Maritime Migration in Meter (Ph.D. dissertation, Madison, NJ: Drew University, 2007). Publications that look at the British Isles as a portal for European immigrants include W.H.G. Armytage, “Liverpool, Gateway to Zion,” Pacific Northwest Quarterly, vol. 48 (April 1957), 39-44; Scott Alan Carson, “Indentured Migration in America’s Great Basin: An Observation in Strategic Behavior in Cooperative Exchanges,” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, vol. 157 (2001), 157; Scott Alan Carson, “Indentured Migration in America’s Great Basin: Occupational Targeting and Adverse Selection,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, vol. 32 (Winter 2002), 387-404; Fred E. Woods and Nicholas J. Evans “Latter-day Saint Scandinavian Migration through Hull, England, 1852-1894,” BYU Studies, vol. 41, no. 4 (2002), 75-102; and Fred E. Woods “The Tide of Mormon Migration Flowing through the Port of Liverpool England,” International Journal of Mormon Studies, vol. 1, no. 1 (2008), 60-86.

The vast majority of British immigrants made their way to Utah, and this period of migration history is discussed in Frederick S. Buchanan, “Imperial Zion: The British Occupation of Utah” in The Peoples of Utah, ed. by Helen Z. Papanikolas (Salt Lake City: Utah State Historical Society, 1976), 61-113; Vida Leigh, “A Mormon Melting Pot: Ethnic Acculturation in Cedar City, Utah, 1880-1915” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1990); Lynne Watkins Jorgensen, “The Martin Handcart Disaster: The London Participants,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 21 (Fall 1995), 171-200; Rebecca Bartholomew, Audacious Women: Early British Mormon Immigrants (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995); Scott Alan Carson, “European Immigration to America’s Great Basin, 1850-1870,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, vol. 34, no. 4 (2004), 569-594; and David L. Wood, “‘The Dearest Laborers’: Pilgrims on the Lightning Road to Zion,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 75 (Winter 2007), 44-62. Works that look specifically at Mormon immigrants who became Church leaders include Dennis Rowley, “Fishing on the Kennet: The Victorian Boyhood of James E. Talmage, 1862-1876,” BYU Studies, vol. 33, no. 3 (1993), 480-520; and Lawrence R. Flake, “Twelve Sons of Britain: General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Who Were Born in England” (Springville, UT: CFI, 2008).

Studies that look at the Mormon image in the British Isles during the 19th Century include; Leonard J. Arrington, “Charles Mackay and His ‘True and Impartial History’ of the Mormons,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 36 (Winter 1968), 25-40; Richard J. Dunn, “Dickens and the Mormons,” BYU Studies, vol. 8 (Spring 1968), 325-334; Fawn M. Brodie, “Sir Richard F. Burton: Exceptional Observer of the Mormon Scene,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 38 (Fall 1970), 295-311; Laura Foster Wilson, “Richard Burton Visits the City of the Saints,” American West, vol. 12 (January 1975), 4-9; Thomas R. Burton, “Through the Glass Darkly: Early British Perceptions of Mormonism,” Mormon Letters Annual 1984, 1985 (1985), 141-49; Edwina Jo Snow, “British Travelers View the Saints, 1847-1877,” BYU Studies, vol. 31 (Spring 1991), 63-81; M. Guy Bishop, “The Saints and the Captain: The Mormons Meet Richard F. Burton,” Journal of the West, vol. 33 (October 1994), 28-35; Craig S. Smith, “The Curious Meet the Mormons: Images from Travel Narratives, 1850s and 1860s,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 24 (Fall 1998), 155-181; and Paul E. Kerry, “Thomas Carlyle’s Draft Essay on the Mormons,” BYU Studies, vol. 25, no. 1-2 (2006), 261-288.

Craig L. Foster has looked more specifically at anti-Mormon propaganda in the British Isle in his publications: “Anti-Mormon Pamphleteering in Great Britain, 1837-1860” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1989); “Victorian Pornographic Imagery in Anti-Mormon Literature,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 19 (Spring 1993), 115-132; “Henry Caswall: Anti-Mormon Extraordinaire,” BYU Studies, vol. 35, no 4 (1995-96), 144-159; and Penny Tracts and Polemics: A Critical Analysis of Anti-Mormon Pamphleteering in Great Britain, 1837-1860 (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2002). Polygamy was a major focus of anti-Mormon literature and Kenneth L. Cannon II takes a legal look at it in “A Strange Encounter: The English Courts and Mormon Polygamy,” BYU Studies, vol. 22 (Winter 1982), 73-83, while Constance L. Lieber provides a very personal profile of a polygamous wife’s self-imposed exile to the British Isles in “‘The Goose Hangs High’: Excerpts from the Letters of Martha Hughes Cannon,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 48 (Winter 1980), 37-48.

Special topics related to 19th century British Mormons are discussed in Richard H. Cracroft, “Liverpool, 1856: Nathaniel Hawthorne Meets Orson Pratt,” BYU Studies, vol. 8 (Spring 1968), 270-272; Thomas E. Lyon, “Publishing a Book of Mormon Poetry: The Harp of Zion,” BYU Studies, vol. 27 (Winter 1987), 84-95; Gordon K. Thomas, “The Book of Mormon in the English Literary Context of 1837,” BYU Studies, vol. 27 (Winter 1987), 37-45; John F.C. Harrison, “The Popular History of Early Victorian Britain: A Mormon Contribution,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 14 (1988), 3-15; and Cynthia Doxey, “The Church in Britain and the 1851 Religious Census,” Mormon Historical Studies, vol. 4 (Spring 2003), 106-138.

Malcolm R. Thorp looks at Mormonism’s clash with 19th-century sectarianism in “Sectarian Violence in Early Victorian Britain: The Mormon Experience, 1837-1860,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library, vol. 70 (Autumn 1988), 135-47; and “Early Mormon Confrontations with Sectarianism, 1830-40” in Mormons in Early Victorian Britain, ed. by Richard L. Jensen and Malcom R. Thorp (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1989), 49-69. Richard L. Jensen looks at the administrative function of councils in 19th Century Britain in “Church Councils and Governance” and William G. Hartley discusses the creation of an ecclesiastical office unique to Britain in “LDS Pastors and Pastorates, 1852-55,” both in Mormons in Early Victorian Britain, ed. by Richard L. Jensen and Malcom R. Thorp (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1989), 179-193, 194-210. Brief historical overviews of Church auxiliaries in late 19th-century and early 20th-century Britain can be found in Josephine B. Lund, “The Relief Society in Great Britain,” Millennial Star, vol. 92 (12 March 1931), 163-167, 169; Nettie L. Woodbury, “Primary Association of the British Mission,” Millennial Star, vol. 95 (24 August 1933), 547-550; and Robert E. Riggs, “The Origin and Development of Sunday Schools in the British Mission,” Instructor, vol. 84 (September 1949), 434-437.

Popular-media sensationalism of Mormonism in Britain in the early part of the 20th century is the topic of numerous studies, including Richard Alan Nelson, “A History of Latter-day Saint Screen Portrayals in the Anti-Mormon Film Era, 1905-1936” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1975); Malcolm R. Thorp, “‘The Mormon Peril’: The Crusade against the Saints in Britain, 1910-1914,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 2 (1975), 69-88; Malcolm R. Thorp, “Winifred Graham and the Mormon Image in England,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 6 (1979), 107-121; Richard Alan Nelson, “Commercial Propaganda in the Silent Film: A Case Study of A Mormon Maid (1917),” Film History: An International Journal, vol. 1 (1987), 147-62; Peter J. Vousden, “The English Editor and the ‘Mormon Scare’ of 1911,” BYU Studies, vol. 41, no. 1 (2002), 65-75; and Brian Q. Cannon, “‘Scandalous Film’: The Campaign to Suppress Anti-Mormon Motion Pictures, 1911-12,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 29, no. 2 (Fall 2003), 42-76.

Malcolm R. Thorp looks at 20th-century government policies regarding Mormon missionaries in “The British Government and the Mormon Question, 1910-1922,” Journal of Church and State, vol. 21 (1979), 305-23. Other works that focus on missionary work in the British Isles during the 20th century include Mary Brown Firmage, “‘Dear Sister Zina…Dear Brother Hugh…’,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 21 (Summer 1988), 29-50; Richard L. Bushman, “The Crisis in Europe and Hugh B. Brown’s First Mission Presidency,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 21 (Summer 1988), 51-59; D. Michael Quinn, “I-Thou vs. I-It Conversions: The Mormon ‘Baseball Baptism’ Era,” Sunstone, vol. 16 (December 1993), 30-44; Richard Mavin, “The Woodbury Years: An Insider’s Look at Baseball Baptisms in Britain,” Sunstone, vol. 19 (March 1996), 56-60; Cliff Bagley, Mormon Missionaries Who Played Sports in England, (N.p.: C. Bagley, 2006); and Gary James Bergera, “Ezra Taft Benson’s 1921-23 Mission to England,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 35 (Fall 2009), 85-111.

Sociological studies of Mormonism in the British Isles include Bryan R. Wilson, “Migrating Sects: Review Article,” British Journal of Sociology, vol. 18 (September 1967), 303-317; Eric Clifford Butler, “Exodus to Community: The Growth and Confirmation of Group Consciousness among British Mormons (Honors Thesis, Harvard University, 1969); Robert L. Lively Jr., “Some Sociological Reflections on the Nineteenth-Century British Mission” in Mormons in Early Victorian Britain, ed. by Richard L. Jensen and Malcom R. Thorp (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1989), 16-30; and Joy A. O’Bannion, “The Convert as Social Type: A Critical Assessment of the Snow-Machalek Conversion Typology as Applied to British Mormon Converts” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1998).

Researchers looking for demographic resources should consult Robert Buckle, “Mormons in Britain: A Survey” in A Sociological Yearbook of Religion in Britain, Vol. 4, ed. by Michael Hill (London: SCM Press, 1971), 160-179; Tim B. Heaton, Randal J. Johnson, and Stan L. Albrecht, “The Making of British Saints in Historical Perspective,” BYU Studies, vol. 27 (Spring 1987), 119-35; and Eva Courtney Benson, “’And know the place for the first time’: The 1851 Ecclesiastical Census of England and Wales and Early LDS Branch Records” (Honors Thesis, Brigham Young University, 2000). Derek A. Cuthbert provides a demographic survey of the latter half of the 20th century in The Second Century: Latter-day Saints in Great Britain, Volume 1, 1937-1987 (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1987); and “Church Growth in the British Isles, 1937-1987,” BYU Studies, vol. 27 (Spring 1987), 13-26.

David J. Whittaker has compiled several bibliographic aids to assist researchers, including “Mormonism in Great Britain, 1837-1987,” Mormon History Association Newsletter, vol. 3 (July 1987), 1-4; “Mormonism in Victorian Britain: A Bibliographic Essay” in Mormons in Early Victorian Britain, ed. by Richard L. Jensen and Malcom R. Thorp (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1989), 258-271; Mormon Americana: A Bibliographic Guide to Printed Material in the British Library Relating to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (London: Eccles Center for American Studies, The British Library, 1994); and Mormonism in Victorian England: Selected Readings (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1998). Other bibliographic resources include Noel R. Barton, “Latter-day Saints Sources for Tracing Early British Mormons” in World Conference on Records: Preserving Our Heritage, August 12-15, 1980, Vol. 6, series 424 (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1980); Peter Crawley, Mormon Imprints in Great Britain and the Empire 1836-1857 (Provo, UT: Friends of the Brigham Young University Library, 1987); and Robert L. Lively Jr., “Bodleian Sources for the Study of Two Nineteenth-Century Millenarian Movements in Britain,” Bodleian Library Record, vol. 13 (April 1991), 491-500.

England

England is remarkable among European localities for the number of publications about its local congregations. Studies focusing on Mormons in the local English setting, include Douglas J. Davies, “The Mormons of Merthyr-Tydfil” (B.Lit. thesis, Oxford University, 1972); Andrew Phillips, “Mormons in Essex 1850-1870,” Essex Journal, vol. 18 (Winter 1983/84), 57-65; John B. Cotterill, Midland Saints: The Mormon Mission in the West Midlands, 1837-77 (Ph.D. dissertation; Newcastle: University of Keele, 1985); David M. Morris, The Emergence and Development of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Staffordshire, 1839-1870 (Ph.D. dissertation; Southampton: University of Southampton, 2010); John B. Cotterill, “The British Mission of the Mormon Church with Particular Reference to the West Midlands of England, 1837-1860” (M.A. thesis; Newcastle: University of Keele, 1978); Jan G. Harris, “Mormons in Victorian England”[Manchester] (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1987); Jan G. Harris, “Mormons in Victorian Manchester,” BYU Studies, vol. 27 (Winter 1987), 46-56; Parley P. Pratt and David H. Pratt, eds, “Oh! Brother Joseph,” BYU Studies, vol. 27 (Winter 1987), 127-31 [Urban Manchester, England]; Madison H. Thomas, “The Influence of Traditional British Social Patterns on LDS Church Growth in Southwest Britain,” BYU Studies, vol. 27 (Spring 1987), 107-17; Lynne Watkins Jorgensen, “The First London Mormons: 1840-1845: ‘What Am I and My Brethren Here For?’”(M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1988); Paul F. Smart’s “The History of the Early Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Preston, Lancashire, England” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1989); John B. Cotterill, “The Rise and Decline of the Church in the West Midlands,” Andrew Phillips, “The Essex Conference,” and Susan L. Fales, “Artisans, Millhands, and Laborers: The Mormons and Leeds and Their Nonconformist Neighbors,” all in Mormons in Early Victorian Britain, ed. by Richard L. Jensen and Malcom R. Thorp (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1989), 92-103, 142-155, 156-178; David M. W. Pickup, ‘The Pick and Flower of England’: The Story of the Mormons in Victorian Lancashire (Burnley, Lancashire, England: Living Legend, 1991); David A. Beale, The Persecution of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Within the Bristol, England Stake of Zion, 1840-1900 (Degree dissertation, University of West England, 1993); Paul F. Smart, “The History of the Early Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Preston, Lancashire, England” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1989); Stephen G. Arrowsmith, “The ‘Unidentified Pioneers’: An Analysis of Staffordshire Mormons, 1837 to 1870” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 2003); Peter J. Vousden, “Mormons in Plymouth 1922-1963,” Devon Historian, vol. 75 (Autumn 2007), 28-31; Stephen J. Fleming, “The Religious Heritage of the British Northwest and the Rise of Mormonism,” Church History, vol. 77 (March 2008), 73-104; Ronald E. Bartholomew, “The Patterns of Missionary Work and Emigration in Nineteenth Century Buckinghamshire, England,” International Journal of Mormon Studies, vol. 1, no. 1 (2008), 99-136; Ronald E. Bartholomew, “Babylon and Zion: Buckinghamshire and the Mormons in the Nineteenth Century,” Records of Buckingham, vol. 48 (Spring 2008), 231-254; Ronald E. Bartholomew, “The Patterns of Missionary Work and Emigration in Early Victorian Buckinghamshire, England, 1849-1878,” BYU Studies, vol. 48, no. 1 (2009), 123-160; and Ronald E. Bartholomew, “19th-Century Missiology of the LDS Bedfordshire Conference and its Interrelationship with Other Christian Denominations,” International Journal of Mormon Studies, vol. 2 (Spring 2009), 108-127.

Recent publications about English historic sites include Carol Wilkinson, “Mormon Baptismal ite in Chatburn, England,” Mormon Historical Studies, vol. 7, no. 1-2 (Spring/Fall 2006), 83-88; and Ronan Head, “Creating a Mormon Mecca in England: The Gadfield Elm Chapel,” Mormon Historical Studies, vol. 7, no. 1-2 (Spring/Fall 2006), 89-101.

Sociological studies focusing on 20th-century Mormonism include John D. Gay, “Some Aspects of the Social Geography of Religion in England: The Roman Catholics and the Mormons” in A Sociological Yearbook of Religion in Britain, Vol. 1, ed. by Michael Hill (London: SCM Press, 1968), 47-76; and Ronan James Head, “The Experience of Mormon Children in English School-Based Religious Education and Collective Worship,” International Journal of Mormon Studies, vol. 2 (Spring 2009), 196 – 205.

Bibliographic sources useful to researchers include Stanley B. Kimball’s “Early Records in England,” Improvement Era, vol. 58 (February 1955), 96; and “Early Church Documents in England,” Millennial Star, vol. 120 (March 1958), 72-75, as well as the bibliographic resources suggested in the general British Isles portion of this essay.

Isle of Man and Channel Island

John Taylor discusses his early missionary work on the Isle of Man in a series of letters found in Millennial Star, vol. 1 (March 1841), 276-80; Times and Seasons, vol. 2 (May 1, 1841), 400-402; Millennial Star, vol. 2 (May 1841), 12-16; Times and Seasons, vol. 2 (July 15, 1841), 483-85. Early missionary work in the Channel Islands is discussed by Edward L. Hart in “John Hyde, Junior-An Earlier View,” BYU Studies, vol. 16 (Winter 1976), 305-12.

Ireland

Currently, the most complete survey is Brent A. Barlow’s “History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Ireland since 1840” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1994). The focus here is on missionary work and immigration with the appendices providing lists of missionaries and immigrants. The few other publications related to Mormonism in Ireland focus on Mormon Irish immigrants in American, including Robert J. Dwyer, “the Irish in the Building of the Intermountain West,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 25 (July 1957), 221-235; Craig L. Foster, “William Butler: Irish Convert and Builder of the Kingdom,” Nauvoo Journal, vol. 7 (Spring 1995), 56-61; and Dwight W. Radford, “Irish Immigrants among Three American Minority Religions,” The Irish at Home and Abroad, vol. 5 (2nd Quarter 1998), 77-83. More studies are needed like Claudia W. Harris’s discussion of Mormons in the socially and religiously divided Ireland of the 20th century entitled “Mormons on the Warfront: The Protestant Mormons and Catholic Mormons of Northern Ireland,” BYU Studies, vol. 30 (Fall 1990), 7-19.

Scotland

Missionary work in Scotland in the 19th century is the topic of Andrew Jenson’s “The Scotch Mission: Or the Introduction of the Fulness of the Gospel into Scotland,” Historical Record, vol. 6 (December 1887), 348-352; Frederick S. Buchanan, “The Ebb and Flow of Mormonism in Scotland, 1840-1900” BYU Studies, vol. 27 (Spring 1987), 27-52; Bernard Aspinwall, “A Fertile Field: Scotland in the Days of the Early Missions” in Mormons in Early Victorian Britain, ed. by Richard L. Jensen and Malcom R. Thorp (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1989), 104-117; Frederick S. Buchanan, “From the Missouri to the Clyde: Samuel W. Richards in Scotland, 1846-1848,” Nauvoo Journal, vol. 7 (Fall 1995), 24-38; Polly Aird, “Why Did the Scots Convert?” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 26 (Spring 2000), 91-122; David J. Whittaker, “Orson’ Pratt’s [An] Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions: A Seminal Scottish Imprint in Early Mormon History,” Mormon Historical Studies, vol. 5 (Fall 2004), 79-100; and Polly Aird, “Without Purse or Scrip in Scotland,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 39 (Summer 2006), 46-69. Matthew O. Richardson provides interesting background on Scotland’s Albany Crescent stone which so influenced David O. McKay in “What E’er Thou Art, Act Well Thy Part: John Allan’s Albany Crescent Stone,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 33 (Fall 2007), 31-61.

Frederick S. Buchanan has written numerous items about 19th-century migration of Scottish Mormons to the United States, including “The Emigration of Scottish Mormons to Utah, 1849-1900” (M.A. thesis; Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1961); “Scots among the Mormons,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 36 (Fall 1968), 328-352; “Scottish Immigrants and the Muse: Verses from the Dust,” Mormon Letters Annual (1984, 1985), 36-58; A Good Time Coming: Mormon Letters to Scotland (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1988); and “Robert Lang Campbell: ‘A Wise Scribe in Israel’ and Schoolman to the Saints,” BYU Studies, vol. 29 (Summer 1989), 5-27. Other writings on the topic are Fred E. Woods, “Conveyance and Contribution: Mormon Scots Gather to an American Zion,” History Scotland, vol. 5 (July-August/September 2005), 48-54, 37-42; Kenneth W. Merrell, Scottish Shepherd: The Life and Times of John Murray Murdoch, Utah Pioneer (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2006); Polly Aird, Mormon Convert, Mormon Defector: A Scottish Immigrant in the American West, 1848-1861 (Norman, Oklahoma: Arthur H. Clark Co., 2009). Thomas E. Lyon’s articles about Scottish Mormon John Lyon are “Feud and Fun: Humor in the Poetry of John Lyon,” Mormon Letters Annual (1984, 1985), 56-76; “John Lyon: Poet of the Lord” in Supporting Saints, ed. by Donald Q. Cannon and David J. Whittaker (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1985), 213-33; and John Lyon: The Life of a Pioneer Poet (Provo, UT: Religion Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1989). Peter D. Cameron edited a history of a Scottish local unit in Paisley and the Mormons, 1840-1980: A Brief History of How the Church has Developed in Paisley, Scotland (Paisley, Scotland: Scottish Mission, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981).

Wales

A contemporary survey can be found in “Mormonism in Wales,” Littell’s Living Age, vol. 78 (July-September 1863), 124-127. Douglas J. Davies surveys one Welsh locality in “The Mormons of Merthyr-Tydfil” (B.Lit. thesis, Oxford University, 1972). The first scholarly study of Mormonism in Wales was T.H. Lewis, Y Mormoniaid Yng Nghymru (Caerdydd: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru, 1956).

Mormon immigrants to the United States from Wales is the topic of numerous studies, including John R. Gibbs, “My Experience with the Church in Wales,” Journal of History, vol. 10 (July 1917), 315-325; John Johnson Davies, “Historical Sketch of My Life,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 9 (July/October 1941), 155-167; Leslie E. Rees, “A Collection and Analysis of Folk Songs from Wales, Sanpete County, Utah” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1966); Ronald D. Dennis, The Call of Zion: The Story of the First Welsh Emigration (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1987); Douglas J. Davies, Mormon Spirituality: Latter-day Saints in Wales and Zion (Nottingham, England: University of Nottingham, 1987); Ronald D. Dennis, “The Welsh Mormon Exodus,” Planet: The Welsh Internationalist (February/March 1989), 39-45; and Roscoe Howells, From Amroth to Utah (Llandysul, Ceredigion, Wales: Gomer, 2001).

An account by a Welshman who wrote of his visit to Welsh immigrants in Utah is the topic of William D. Davies, ed. and Phillips G. Davies, trans., “William D. Davies Visits the Welsh in Utah in 1891,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 49 (Fall 1981), 374-387. June R. Rowley looks at a 19th-century Welsh immigrant searching for the Welsh influence among Native Americans in Llewellyn Harris, Child of Destiny, and His Search for the White Indians (St. George, Utah: P. and R. Anderton, 2003).

Ronald D. Dennis has spent many decades studying 19th-century Welsh Mormon writings. He identified these early Welsh publications in his Welsh Mormon Writings from 1844-1862: A Historical Bibliography (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1988). He translated many of these publications into English, including Prophet of the Jubilee: A Facsimile-like Edition in English of Volume I, Number 1, of Prophwyd y Jubili, the First Welsh Mormon Periodical (Provo, UT: R.D. Dennis, 1981); A Facsimile and a Translated Facsimile of Ugdorn Seion (Zion’s Trumpet) (Provo, Utah: R.D. Dennis, 1989); Prophet of the Jubilee (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1997); Ugdorn Seion: Zion’s Trumpet: 1849 Welsh Mormon Periodical (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2001); and Defending the Faith: Early Welsh Missionary Publications (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2003). Dennis looks at 19th-century anti-Mormon writings in “The Reverend W.R. Davies vs. Captain Dan Jones,” BYU Studies, vol. 27 (Spring 1987), 53-65.

Publications that focus on the life and missions of Welshman Dan Jones include Rex LeRoy Christensen, “The Life and Contributions of Captain Dan Jones” (M.A. thesis; Logan, UT: Utah State University, 1977); Ronald D. Dennis, “Dan Jones,” Abergele Field Club and Historical Society Review, vol. 7 (1988), 2-5; Ivan J. Barrett, Dan Jones (Salt Lake City: Hawkes Publishing, 1989); and Ronald D. Dennis, “Captain Dan Jones and the Blind Man,” BYU Studies, vol. 37, no. 4 (1997-1998), 143-172.

Scandinavia

For an account of Mormon missionary efforts in Scandinavia from 1850 to 1926 consult Andrew Jenson’s History of the Scandinavian Mission (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1927). In commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the introduction of the LDS Church in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, a commemorative history and photographic directory of former missionaries was published in Anthon H. Lund et al., Scandinavian Jubilee Album, 1850-1900 (Salt Lake City: n.p., 1900). Accounts of some of the earliest missionary efforts in Scandinavia include Erastus Snow, One Year in Scandinavia…. (Liverpool, England: F.D. Richards, 1851); Joseph William Olson, “Life of Erastus Snow” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1935); Preston Nibley, “Experiences of Erastus Snow” in Missionary Experiences (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1942), 119-124; Albert L. Zobell, Jr., Under the Midnight Sun: Centennial History of Scandinavian Missions (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1950); and Andrew Karl Larson, Erastus Snow: The Life of a Missionary and Pioneer for the Early Mormon Church (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1971). Missionary work in the latter part of the 19th century is the focus of Susan Easton Black et al., Legacy of Sacrifice: Missionaries to Scandinavia, 1872-1894 (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2007).

In 1923, Reed Smoot and John A. Widtsoe traveled as ambassadors for the Church to Scandinavia in an effort to ease restrictions on missionaries. An account of this is found in John C. Thomas, “Apostolic Diplomacy: The 1923 European Mission of Senator Reed Smoot and Professor John A. Widtsoe,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 28 (Spring 2002), 130-65.

William Mulder provides a rare glimpse at the influence of Mormonism on Scandinavia in “Image of Zion: Mormonism as an American Influence in Scandinavia,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, vol. 43 (June 1956), 18-38. In relation to the Mormon influence on Scandinavia, Andrew Jenson reviewed Mormon publications in Scandinavia with his “Scandinavian Latter-day Saint Literature,” Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine, vol. 13 (October 1922), 181-91.

Migration of Mormon converts from Scandinavia to the United States is the topic of numerous studies by William Mulder, including “Utah’s Nordic-Language Press: Aspect and Instrument of Immigrant Culture” (M.A. thesis; Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1947); “Through Immigrant Eyes: Utah History at the Grass Roots,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 22 (January 1954), 41-55; “Mormons from Scandinavia, 1850-1900: A Shepherded Migration,” Pacific Historical Review, vol. 23 (August 1954), 227-46; Mormons from Scandinavia, 1850-1905: The Story of a Religious Migration (Ph.D. dissertation; Cambridge: Harvard University, 1955); “Utah’s Ugly Duckling: A Profile of the Scandinavian Immigrant,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 23 (July 1955), 233-59; Homeward to Zion: The Mormon Migration from Scandinavia (Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press, 1957; reprinted with same title by University of Minnesota Press, 2000); “Scandinavian Saga” in The Peoples of Utah, ed. by Helen Z. Papanikolas (Salt Lake City: Utah State Historical Society, 1976), 141-185; and “A Sense of Humus: Scandinavian Mormon Immigrant Humor” in Western Windows: Studies on the American West, ed. by Peter H. DeLaFosse (Salt Lake City: Utah Westerners, 2006), 59-81. Studies on the same topic are Ernest L. Olson, “Otto Rydman, Satirist: An Immigrant Editor’s Views of the Scandinavian Scene in Utah” (M.A. thesis; Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1949); Kenneth O. Bjork, “Mormon Missionaries and Minnesota Scandinavians,” Minnesota History, vol. 36 (December 1959), 285-93; Kenneth O. Bjork, “A Covenant Folk, with Scandinavian Colorings,” Norwegian-American Studies, vol. 21 (1962), 212-51; Jorgen Dahlie, A Social History of Scandinavian Immigration, Wasington State, 1895-1910 (Ph.D. dissertation; Pullman, WA: Washington State University, 1967); Alfred Christiansen, “Scandinavians and the New Zion in the West,” American Scandinavian Review, vol. 60 (1972), 263-71; Cynthia Rice, “A Geographical Appraisal of the Acculturation Process of Scandinavians in the Sanpete Valley, Utah, 1850-1900” (M.A. thesis; Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1973); William A. Wilson, “Folklore of Utah’s Little Scandinavia,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 47 (Spring 1979), 148-66; Helge Seljaas, “Scandinavian Mormons and Their Zion,” Scandinavian Studies, vol. 60 (Autumn 1988), 445-52; Shauna Christine Anderson et al., Passport to Paradise: the Copenhagen “Mormon” Passenger Lists (West Jordan, UT: Genealogical Services, 2000); Fred E. Woods and Nicholas J. Evans, “Latter-day Saint Scandinavian Migration through Hull, England, 1852-1894,” BYU Studies, vol. 41, no. 4 (2002), 75-102; and Lynn Henrichsen et al., "Building Community by Respecting Linguistic Diversity: Scandinavian Immigrants in Nineteenth-Century Utah," Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 78 (Winter 2010), 4-22.

Denmark

Marius A. Christensen provides a survey of missionary work in “History of the Danish Mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1850-1964” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1966). Although it relies heavily on a single manuscript source – the mission histories in the Church History Department – this thesis provides some useful background information, including information on missionary work in Iceland and the Faeroe Islands.

Works that discuss Mormonism in 19th-century Denmark include Donald K. Watkins, “Notes on the Early Mormon Mission in Denmark,” The Bridge: Journal of Danish American Heritage Society, vol. 3 (August 1980), 1-5; Val G. Hemming, “A Voice from the Land of Zion: Elder Erastus Snow in Denmark, 1850 to 1852,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 35 (Spring 2002), 131-43; and Julie K. Allen and David L. Paulsen, “The Reverend Dr. Peter Christian Kierkegaard’s ‘About and Against Mormonism’ (1855),” BYU Studies, vol. 46, no. 3 (2007), 100-156.

Numerous works have been published on the 19th-century migration of Danish Converts to Utah, including William Mulder, “’Man Kalder Mig Digter’: C.C.A. Christensen, Poet of the Scandinavian Scene in Early Utah,” Utah Humanities Review, vol. 1 (January 1947), 8-17; Gwendolyn Jacobson, ed., Memories of ‘Little Denmark’: History of Elsinore and Brooklyn, Utah (Richfield, UT: Elsinore Literary Club, 1962); Jrgen W. Schmidt, Oh, Du Zion I Vest: Den Danske Mormon-Emigration (Copenhagen, Denmark: Rosenkilde og Bagger, 1965); H. N. Hansen, “An Account of a Mormon Family’s Conversion to the Religion of the Latter-day Saints and Their Trip from Denmark to Utah: Parts I and II,” Annals of Iowa, vol. 41 (Summer, Fall 1971), 709-728, 765-779; Jens P. Wilde, “Bleeding Feet, Humble Hearts: Danish Mormon Migration, 1850-1860,” The Bridge Journal of Danish American Heritage Society, vol. 3 (August 1980), 6-10; George R. Nielsen, “Danish Mormons” in The Danish-Americans (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1981), 59-69; Jrgen W. Schmidt, C.C.A. Christensen: Dansk-Americansk Maler, Samfundsrevser og Missionaer, 1831-1912 (Lynge, Denmark: Forlage Moroni, 1984); Bruce A. Van Orden, “Anthon H. Lund: Gentle Danish Apostle” in Pioneers in Every Land, ed. by Bruce A. Van Orden, D. Brent Smith, and Everett Smith, Jr. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 163-82; Shauna Christine Anderson, Ruth Ellen Maness, and Susan Easton Black, Passport to Paradise: The Copenhagen “Mormon” Passenger Lists (West Jordan, UT: Genealogical Services, 2000); Margit Egdal, Mads Nielsen, David og Marie i Guds eget land: en slgtskrnike: fra Nordfyn til Elsinore i Utah (Norway: Landbohistorisk Selskab, 2000); Lyndia Carter, “Story of Heartbreak and Separation Moving West with the Mormons,” Crossroads, vol. 12 (Dec 2001), 5-8; and Jennifer L. Lund, “Out of the Swan’s Nest: The Ministry of Anthon H. Lund, Scandinavian Apostle,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 29 (Fall 2003), 77-105. Local newspapers published for Danish immigrants in Salt Lake City include: Bikuben (1876-1935), Utah Posten (1873-1874), and Utah Skandinav (1874-1877).

Histories of local congregations of Latter-day Saints in Denmark include Hans Frederik Peterson, “Journal Excerpt from Aalborg (1851),” Morgenstjernen, vol. 3 (1884), 268-271; Andrew Jenson, “Arnager,” Historical Record, vol. 5 (1886), 30; Andrew Jenson, “Scandinavian Reminisces III: First Branch in Denmark,” Contributor, vol. 16 (January 1895), 153-160; Andrew Jenson, “Scandinavian Reminisces IV: The Branch at Aalborg,” Contributor, vol. 16 (February 1895), 246-253; Margit Egdal, Miraklet på Fyn: de Sidste Dages Hellige på Fyn og Langeland (Otterup: Otterup Lokalhistoriske Arkiv og Forening, 2002); Dennis and Sonja Hacking, trans., Odense Ward, Aarhus Denmark Stake (Odense, Denmark: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2007).

Source material on Danish-Mormon materials is described in Jrgen W. Schmidt, Mormon Bibliografi 1837-1984: En Dansk (Lynge, Denmark: Forlaget Moroni, 1983); and William Mulder, “Denmark and the Mormons: The Jrgen W. Schmidt Collection,” Princeton University Library Chronicle, vol. 52 (Spring 1991), 331-57. Danish publications of the Scandinavian Mission are also important sources for the study of Mormonism in Denmark, including Skandinaviens Stjerne (1851-1957), Danske Stjerne (1957-1985), Sjernen (1985-1967), Ungdommens Raadgiver (1880-1887), and Morgenstjernen (1882-1885).

Finland

A survey of Mormonism in Finland from 1856 to the 1980s can be found in Anna-Liisa Rinne, Kristuksen kirkko Suomessa: historiikki Myohempien Aikojen Pyhien Jeesuksen Kristuksen Kirkon juutumisesta taän maahan (Turku: A. Rinne, 1986). Rinne’s work also contains short histories of various LDS congregations in Finland. In addition to this survey, a starting point in the study of Mormonism in Finland is found in Kim B. Östman’s bibliographic review of information about the Church in Finland (available in English and Finnish), “Mormonism Tutkimus Suomessa: Kirjallisuutta, Tutkimusideoita ja Lahteita,” Uskonnontukija-Religionforskare, vol. 2 (2006); and “The Scholarly Study of Mormonism in Finland: An Overview of Literature, Research, Ideas and Sources,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 41 (Summer 2008), 32-56.

Long before the LDS Church sent missionaries there, newspapers in Finland were publishing information about Mormons, and Kim B. Östman takes a look at the 1840s Finnish newspaper coverage of Mormons in his “Early Mormonism in Finnish Newspapers,” BCC Papers, vol. 1 (2006), available online at http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/07/31/bcc-papers-1-1-ostman/ (accessed 9 July 2017).

In 1875, Carl and John Sundstrom were the first LDS missionaries to serve in Finland, and temporary branches were soon established in several Finnish towns where a majority of Finns belonged to the Lutheran Church. The encounter of Mormonism and Lutheranism in the 1870s and 80s is discussed in Kim B. Östman, “Reaction of Lutheran Clergy to Mormon Proselytizing in Finland, 1875-1889,” International Journal of Mormon Studies, vol. 2 (2009), 128-141. Östman investigates the minor part that emigration played in the lives of Mormon Finns in the 19th century in his “Suomesta Siioniin: Mormonisiirtolaisuus Utahiin 1800-luvulla,” Siirtolaisuus-Migration, vol. 34 (2007), 12-19. More generally, the nineteenth-century entry of Mormonism to Finland  is discussed in Kim Östman’s The Introduction of Mormonism to Finnish Society, 1840-1900 (Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press, 2010).

In his master’s thesis and related article, Zachary R. Jones discusses missionary work in 19th-century Russian-ruled Finland: “Conflict and Conversion: Mormon Proselytizing in Russian Finland, 1860-1914” (M.A. thesis; Williamsburg, VA: College of William and Mary, 2008); and “Conversion amid Conflict: Mormon Proselytizing in Russian Finland, 1861-1914,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 35 (Summer 2009), 1-41.

In 1947 the Finnish Mission was formally organized with Henry A. Matis as president. A collection of biographies and remembrances of missionaries who served under Matis from 1947 to 1954 can be found in Alvin S. Anderson, Udell E. Poulsen, and Phileon B. Robinson, Suomi Calls (Salt Lake City: Finnish Mission Society, 1957); and Suomi Calls Update (Salt Lake City: Bruce A. Matis Family Society, 1986). The Finnish Mission published the periodical Valkeus from 1950 to 1967. On the 50th anniversary of the Finnish Mission, a book of remembrances from those who served in Finland was published under the title Muistamme, 1947-1997: Puolivuosisataa uskoa joka askeleella suomessa (Salt Lake City: Henry A. Matis Family Society, 1997). This work also includes a directory of former missionaries who served in the Finnish mission and the Finland Helsinki mission, 1947-1997.

Kaija Hannele Penley surveys missionary work in Finland from the Matis period to 1969 in “Leadership of Mormon Missionary Efforts in Finland and Its Influence on Conversion Rates in the Finnish Mission, 1947-1969” (M.A. thesis; Logan, UT: Utah State University, 1994). The public image of the LDS Church in Finland during this same period (1946 to 1968) is covered in Risto Kurra, “Mormonikääntyminen ja mormonismin kuva Suomessa” (M.A. thesis; Turku: University of Turku, 1970). The main focus of Kurra’s thesis, however, is the conversion and orthodoxy of Mormon Finns based on surveys conducted around the 1970 period. Related to the public image of the LDS Church in Finland after World War II is the Lutheran Church’s attitude toward the microfilming of Finnish parish registers by the Genealogical Society of Utah, which is discussed in Maria Ollila, “Käsin kopioinnista mormonien rahoittamaan mikrofilmaukseen: Suomalaisten kirkonkirjojen jäljennystyö 1924-1955” (M.A. thesis; Helsinki: Department of Theology, University of Helsinki, 2003).

Kim B. Östman surveys attitudes of the political left toward Mormons in the 1980s in “The Mormon Espionage Scare and Its Coverage in Finland, 1982-84,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 33 (Winter 2008), 82-117; and Sinikka Saarela studies the conversion and orthodoxy of Mormon Finns in the 1980s in “Mormonikääntymys Suomessa” (M.A. Thesis; Jyväskylä: Department of Sociology, University of Jyväskylä, 1987).

In the 1990s, Eija Taskinen researched the socialization process of Mormon converts in “Oulun pyhät: Oulun Myöhempien Aikojen Pyhien Jeesuksen Kristuksen Kirkon piirissä tapahtuvan sosialisaatioprosessin tarkastelua” (M.A. thesis; Oulu, Finland: University of Oulu, 1994). The conversion stories of 42 Finnish members were gathered in the late 1990s and published in Sirkka Pirilä, Kääntymykseni: kertomuksia elämän käännekohdista (Oulu, Finland: FINE Publishing, 1998).

Jessica Björkman surveyed Mormon missionaries in Finland in early 2000 for her thesis “Jesu Kristi Kyrka av Sista Dagars Heliga och missionstjänsten i Finland” (M.A. thesis; Turku: Åbo Akademi University, 2000). She looks at what Mormon missionaries thought the Finns’ impressions of them were as well as how much the missionaries thought the Finns knew about Mormonism.

After the dedication of the Helsinki Finland Temple in 2006, Kim B. Östman published several articles related to the temple: “Nykyajan kristillistä esoteriaa: Katsaus mormonismin temppelitraditioon,” Teologinen Aikakauskirja, vol. 111 (2006), 430-40; “‘The Other’ in the Limelight: One Persepctive on the Publicity Surrounding the New LDS Temple in Finland,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 40 (Winter 2007), 71-106; “A Finnish Mormon Temple or ‘America in Karakallio?’: The Activation of a Stereotype at an Encounter of Cultures,” International Journal of Mormon Studies, vol. 1 (2008), 137-153; and “Esotericism Made Exoteric? Insider and Outsider Perspectives on the 2006 Mormon Temple Public Open House in Espoo, Finland,” in Western Esotericism, ed. by Tore Ahlbäck (Åbo: Donner Institute for Research in Religious and Cultural History, 2008), 124-138.

Iceland

Currently, the most comprehensive survey of Mormonism in Iceland is Fred E. Woods’ Fire on Ice: The Story of the Icelandic Latter-day Saints at Home and Abroad (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2005). It was translated into Icelandic by Friðrik Rafn Guðmundsson and published as Eldur á ís: Saga hinna íslensku Síðari daga heilögu heima og að heiman (Reykjavík: Universitas Islandiae, and Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2007).

The life of one of the first Icelandic converts, Gudmundur Gudmundsson is discussed in Lavon Brunt Eyring, The Life History of Gudmundur Gudmundsson: Icelandic and Danish Missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (n.p.: L. Eyring, 1984); Fred E. Woods, “Fire on Ice: The Conversion and Life of Gumundar Gumundsson,” BYU Studies, vol. 39 (2000), 56-72; and Fred E. Woods, “Icelandic Conversion and Emigration: A Sesquicentennial” in Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint Church History: Europe, ed. by Donald Q. Cannon and Brent L. Top (Provo, UT: Department of Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University, 2003). This latter work also discusses the immigration of Icelandic Latter-day Saints to the United States.

In 1911, Andrew Jenson, president of the Danish-Norwegian mission, traveled to Iceland. His journal entries and photographs of the trip are provided in Fred E. Woods, “Andrew Jenson’s Illustrated Journey to Iceland, the Land of Fire and Ice, August 1911,” BYU Studies, vol. 47 (2008), 101-116.

Norway

There are several excellent surveys about Mormon missionary work in Norway, including Robert Brookman Cushman’s brief coverage in American Religious Societies in Norway (Ph.D. dissertation; Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, 1942), 42-77; and the more comprehensive coverage provided by Curtis B. Hunsaker, “History of the Norwegian Mission from 1851 to 1960” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1965); Gerald M. Haslam, The Norwegian Experience with Mormonism, 1842-1920 (Ph.D. dissertation; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1981); republished as Clash of Cultures: The Norwegian Experience with Mormonism, 1842-1920 (New York: Peter Lang, 1984); and Johnnie Glad, The Mission of Mormonism in Norway 1851-1920: A Study and Analysis of the Reception Process (Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang, 2006). Marianne Bodin Aanderbakk focuses on northern Norway in her “Jesu Kristi Kirke Av Siste Dagers Hellige I Nord-Norge” (M.A. thesis; Tromso: University of Tromso, 2006).

Andrew Jenson discusses the early years of Mormonism in Norway in his “Scandinavian Reminisces V: First Missionaries in Norway,” Contributor, vol. 16 (March 1895), 297-305; “Scandinavian Reminisces VI: Elders Imprisoned in Norway,” Contributor, vol. 16 (April 1895), 335-342; and “Scandinavian Reminisces VII: Final Success in Norway,” Contributor, vol. 16 (May 1895), 417-421. Hans Frederik Peterson, the first Latter-day Saint missionary to Norway discusses his experiences in “Journal Excerpt (1851),” Morgenstjernen, vol. 3 (1884), 268-271.

Focusing on Norwegian emigrant experiences is Arlow William Andersen, “The Norwegian-Danish Methodist Mission in Utah,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 25 (April 1957), 153-61. Helge Seljaas produced several works on the Norwegian emigrant experience, including “The Mormon Migration from Norway” (M.A. thesis; Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1972); “Norwegians in Zion Teach Themselves English,” Norwegian-American Studies, vol. 26 (1974), 220-28; “Polygamy among the Norwegian Mormons,” Norwegian-American Studies, vol. 27 (1977), 151-62; and “Norwegians in Zion Teach Themselves English,” Norwegian-American Studies, vol. 26 (1974), 220-228.

Norwegian Mission publications include Morgenstjernen (1922-1925) and Lys Over Norge (1937-1967). Dianna Gundersen discuses missionaries in Norway in her With Scriptures in Their Backpack: American LDS Women Missionaries in Norway (Ph.D. dissertation; Oslo: University of Oslo, 2001).

Sweden

A. Dean Wengreen surveys the latter half of the 19th century in A History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Sweden, 1850-1905 (Ph.D. dissertation; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1968). Wengreen supplements the usual reliance on Church mission records with several missionary diaries. Publications that focus on 19th and early 20th-century Swedish Mormon immigrants to the United States include William Mulder, “Mother Tongue, ‘Skandinavisme,’ and ‘The Swedish Insurrection’ in Utah,” Swedish Pioneer Historical Quarterly, vol. 7 (January 1956), 11-20; Hilda Erickson, “Fantastic Hilda: Pioneer History Personified,” Swedish Pioneer Historical Quarterly, vol. 15 (April 1964), 63-76; Sheryl Richard Benson, “The Emigration of Swedish Mormons to Utah, 1905-1955” (M.A. thesis; Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1965); Louise Thalmann Hasler, “Autobiography of Louise Thalmann Hasler,” Swiss American Historical Society Newsletter, vol. 23 (November 1987), 4-21; D. Michol Polson, “The Swedes in Grantsville, Utah, 1860-1900,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 56 (Summer 1988), 208-21; Jennifer Eastman Attebery, “Being Swedish-American in the Intermountain West: The Experience of Immigrants to Idaho and Utah,” Swedish-American Historical Quarterly, vol. 49 (July 1998), 234-44; Leslie Albrecht Huber, “Background of an Emigrant: A Peasant Family in Malmohuslan, Sweden,” Swedish-American Historical Quarterly, vol. 55, no. 2 (2004), 68-83; and Leslie Albrecht Huber, “Kerstina Nilsdotter: A Story of the Swedish Saints,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 32 (Fall 2005), 241-263. Helpful in a study of Swedish Mormon immigration to the United States is Robert D. Bingham, “Swedish-Americans in Utah: A Bibliography,” Swedish Pioneer Historical Quarterly, vol. 30 (July 1979), 205-9. Local Swedish immigrants in Salt Lake City published two newspapers: Svenska Hardden (1885-1892) and Utah-Posten (1900-1935).

For Mormonism in Sweden in the 20th century, Carl-Erik Johansson provides a seventy-year mission survey with his “History of the Swedish Mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1905-1973” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1973). The Stockholm Sweden Temple is the topic of Stig A. Stromberg, A Temple on the Hill (West Jordan, UT: Scandia Publications, 2007); and John C. Thomas, “A Gathering Place: Russian Week at the Stockholm Sweden Temple,” BYU Studies, vol. 39, no. 1 (2000), 67-89.

Finally, a few useful resources for the study of Mormonism in Sweden include the LDS Church’s Swedish periodicals Nordstjernan (1877-1894) and Nordstjärnan (1894-1967).

Western Europe

Although there were a few early attempts at missionary work in continental Europe as early as 1840, efforts didn’t begin in earnest until 1850. Publications mentioned at the beginning of this essay regarding Europe contain information about Mormonism in Western Europe as well as other regions, including sketches of countries that may not be listed separately here. Ralph L. Cottrell, Jr. discusses early missionary work in Gibraltar, Italy, Malta, and Switzerland in “A History of the Discontinued Mediterranean Missions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1963); and Jean Lemble provides an overview of Mormonism in France, Italy, Switzerland, and Belgium in Dieu et les Francais: Les Saints des Derniers Jours Francophones (Paris: Liahona, 1986).

Belgium

The beginnings of the Church in Belgium in the 19th century is discussed in An Burvenich, “Het ontstaan van de Kerk van Jezus Christus van de Heiligen der Laatste Dagen in Belgie, 1861-1914 (M.A. thesis; Ghent: State University of Ghent, 1999). Wilfried Decco looks at the social psychology of Mormon converts in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium in “Mormonism in a European Catholic Region: A Contribution to the Social Psychology of LDS Converts,” BYU Studies, vol. 24 (Winter 1984), 61-77.

France

Surveys can be found in Gary Ray Chard, “A History of the French Mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (M.A. thesis; Logan, UT: Utah State University, 1965); and Marc Appel, L’Eglise de Jesus-Christ des Saints des Derniers Jours: Les Mormons en France, 1850-1981 (France: M. Appel, 1981).

In July 1849, William Howell of Wales was sent by the presidency of the British Mission to open missionary work in France. This LDS foray into France is covered in Ronald D. Dennis, “William Howells: First Missionary to France” in Supporting Saints, ed. by Donald Q. Cannon and David J. Whittaker (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1985), 43-81. Also in 1849, Howell made his way over to the Channel Islands, where he met Philip de la Mare, a Frenchman and recent convert to the LDS Church. De la Mare later immigrated to Utah where he became successful entrepreneur. His life is covered in Nicholas G. Morgan, “The Life of Philip De La Mare,” Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine, vol. 21 (January, April 1930), 5-11, 86-89; and Leon R. Hartshorn, “Philip De La Mare, Pioneer Industrialist” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1959).

The French Mission officially opened in June 1850 when Elder John Taylor and Curtis E. Bolton arrived in France. Richard D. McClellan discusses one of the early French converts baptized by Taylor in “Not Your Average French Communist Mormon: A Short History of Louis A. Bertrand,” Mormon Historical Studies, vol. 1 (Fall 2000), 3-24. French translations of Church literature were among the first materials published by the LDS Church in a language other than English. The Etoile du Deseret was published monthly for one year beginning in May 1851. A history of this publishing endeavor is found in Douglas J. Geilman, “Etoile du Deseret, Publications of the French Mission, 1851-52” in Champion of Liberty: John Taylor, ed. by Mary Jane Woodger (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2009), 143-169.

Due to its lack of success, the French Mission closed in 1864. The closure is covered in Richard D. McClellan, “President Louis Bertrand and the Closure of the French Mission, 1859-64” in Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint Church History: Europe, ed. by Donald Q. Cannon and Brent L. Top (Provo, UT: Department of Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University, 2003), 23-46.

In 1890, the LDS Church sent several artists to France to study at the Académie Julian with the expectation that they would return to Utah and paint murals for the Salt Lake Temple which was nearing completion. Known as the Paris Art Mission, this venture is covered in Martha Sonntag Bradley, “John Hafen and the Art Missionaries,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 12 (1985), 91-105; William C. Seifrit, “Letters from Paris,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 54 (Spring 1986), 179-202; and Jeffrey D. Andersen, Portrait of the 1890-1892 LDS Paris Art Mission: An Andragogical Perspective (Ph.D. dissertation; Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, 2000).

A look at how the French viewed the Mormons in the 19th Century is found in Wilfried Decoo, “The Image of Mormonism in French Literature: Part I,” BYU Studies, vol. 14 (Winter 1974), 157-75; and Claude Fohlen, “Les Mormons Vus par les Francaises,” Revue Francaise d’Etudes Americaines, vol. 6 (October 1981), 223-34.

The French Mission reopened in 1912 only to close again with the outbreak of World War I in 1914. It reopened in 1924, and the mission began publishing a magazine in Switzerland called L’Etoile in 1928 (name changed to La Nouvelle e Etoile in 1963, but back to L’Etoile in 1967 when it became unified with all other international magazines). One work that explores the French view of Mormonism from 1900 to 1930 is Wilfried Decoo, “The Image of Mormonism in French Literature: Part II,” BYU Studies, vol. 16 (Winter 1976), 265-76. Lawrence S. Jeppson looked a media coverage of the LDS Church in France from 1947 to 1953 in his study “Information and Misinformation: An Analysis of the Press Relations of the French Mission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (M.A. thesis; Boston: Boston University, 1955).

Very little has been published about the post-World War II period of the LDS Church in France. A day-by-day account of the French Mission from 1946 to 1950 is found in Winnifred Bowers and Norma Gibbs Olsen, The French Mission: 1946-1950 (N.p.: W. Bowers and N.B. Olsen, 1998). One article that describes events in 1958 that led to the excommunication of nine missionaries in the French Mission is Kahlile B. Mehr, “The Trial of the French Mission,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 21 (Fall 1988), 27-45. A sociological study of the cultural orientation and assumptions of French Latter-day Saint leaders in the 1980s can be found in C. Brooklyn Derr, “Messages from Two Cultures: Mormon Leaders in France, 1985,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 21 (Summer 1988), 98-111. Other works that look at Mormonism in France in the 20th Century include two by John C. Jarvis, Mormonism in France: A Study of Cultural Exchange and Institutional Adaptation (Ph.D. dissertation; Pullman, WA: Washington State University, 1991) and Mormonism in France: The Family as a Universal Value in a Globalizing Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).

Germany

Gilbert W. Scharffs surveys Mormonism in Germany in History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Germany between 1840 and 1968 (Ph.D. dissertation; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1969); Mormonism in Germany: A History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Germany between 1840 and 1970 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1970); and A History of the Church in Germany (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1972). The latter publications are based on the former Ph.D. dissertation which relied heavily on manuscript histories of the German missions.

From 1851 to 1852, the Swiss Mission published a German publication in Hamburg entitled Zion’s Panier. Latter-day Saint missionaries opened the first German mission in Hamburg in 1852. Orson Spencer’s report to Brigham Young on Spencer’s short-lived 1853 mission to Germany was published as The Prussian Mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Liverpool: S.W. Richards, 1853). In 1854 the mission closed when most converts migrated to Utah. A German periodical entitled Der Darsteller der Heiligen der Letzten Tage was published in Geneva and Zurich, Switzerland from 1855 to 1861, and another entitled Die Reform der Heiligen der Letzten Tage was published in Geneva, Switzerland from 1862 to 1863. The image of Mormonism in Germany in the 19th century is the topic of D. L. Ashliman, “The Image of Utah and the Mormons in Nineteenth-Century Germany,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 35 (Summer 1967), 209-27; and David H. Miller, “The Ives Expedition Revisited: A Prussian’s Impressions,” Journal of Arizona History, vol. 13 (Spring 1972), 1-25.

In the same year that the mission closed in Hamburg, Karl G. Maeser, a German educator in Dresden, read about the LDS Church in an anti-Mormon pamphlet. He eventually joined the Church and immigrated to Utah. In 1868, Brigham Young called him to return to Germany and preside over the Swiss-German Mission. Missionary work proceeded slowly in the decades that followed. This early period of missionary work in Germany is covered in Michael Mitchell, “The Mormons in Wilhelmine Germany, 1870-1914: Making a Place for an Unwanted American Religion in a Changing German Society” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1994); and A. LeGrand Richards, “Moritz Bush’s Die Mormonen and the Conversion of Karl G Maeser,” BYU Studies, vol. 45, no. 4 (2006), 46-67.

The Emigration of German Saints from Germany is discussed in William Mulder, “Utah’s Nordic-language Press: Aspect and Instrument of Immigrant Culture” (M.A. thesis; Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1947); Thomas L. Broadbent, “The Salt Lake City Beobachter: Mirror of an Immigration,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 26 (October 1958), 329-50; Douglas D. Alder, “The German-Speaking Migration to Utah, 1850-1950” (M.A. thesis; Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1959); Ronald K. Dewsnup, “German-speaking Immigrants and the State of Utah: A Brief History” (M.A. thesis; Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1983); Allan Kent Powell, “The German-Speaking Immigrant Experience in Utah,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 52 (Fall 1984), 304-46; Douglas D. Alder, “Die Auswanderung,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 52 (Fall 1984), 370-88; Stephen Cameron McCracken, “German-Speaking Immigrants Living in Cache Valley: An Oral History” (M.A. thesis; Logan, UT: Utah State University, 1986); and Mark L. Grover, “The Mormon Church and German Immigrants in Southern Brazil: Religion and Language,” Jahrbuch für Geschichte Von Staat Wirtschaft und Gesellshaft Lateinamerikas, vol. 26 (1989), 295-308.

When World War I began, missionaries were evacuated, leaving about 60 branches in Germany and Switzerland. Studies related to this period of history include Allan Kent Powell, “Our Cradles Were in Germany: Utah’s German American Community and World War I,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 58 (Fall 1990), 371-87; and Jeffrey L. Anderson, “Brothers across Enemy Lines: A Mission President and a German Soldier Correspond during World War I,” BYU Studies, vol. 41, no. 1 (2002), 127-39. The period following World War I is the subject of Jeffery L. Anderson, “Mormons and Germany, 1914-1933: A History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Germany and its Relationship with the German Governments from World War I to the Rise of Hitler” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1991).

From 1933 to 1945, the Third Reich, recognized only three churches – Lutheran, Catholic, and the LDS Church. Numerous studies about this period have been published, including Joseph M. Dixon, “Mormons in the Third Reich: 1933-1945,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 7 (Spring 1972), 70-78; Christine E. King, “Strategies for Survival: An Examination of the History of Five Christian Sects in Germany, 1933-45,” Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 14 (1979), 211-34; Alan F. Keele, “The Fuhrer’s New Clothes: Helmuth Hbener and the Mormons in the Third Reich,” Sunstone, vol. 5 (November/December 1980), 20-29; Christine E. King, “Some Lesser-Known Victims of Totalitarian Persecution,” Patterns of Prejudice, vol. 16 (1982), 15-26; Christine E. King, “The Conjunction of World Views: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” in The Nazi State and the New Religions: Five Case Studies in Non-Conformity, Vol. 4 (New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1982), 59-87; Karl-Heinz Schnibbe, Douglas F. Tobler, and Alan F. Keele, The Price: The True Story of Mormon Who Defied Hitler (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984); Karl-Heinz Schnibbe, Jugendliche gegen Hitler: Die Helmut Hbener Gruppe in Hamburg, 1941/42 (Berg am See, Germany: Berg Publishing, 1991); Rudi Wobbe and Jerry Borrowman, Three Against Hitler (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 1992); Blair R. Holmes and Alan F. Keele, When Truth was Treason: German Youth against Hitler: The Story of the Helmuth Huebener Group Based on the Narrative of Karl-Heinz Schnibbe (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995); Klaus J. Hansen, “Growing up in Hitler’s Germany,” Queens’ Quarterly (Canada), vol. 103, no. 1 (1996), 73-85; Klaus J. Hansen, “Under Kaiser and Fhrer: The Story of a Mormon Family,” The Third Eye, vol. 1 (1996), 14-30; Richard Lloyd Dewey, Huebener vs Hitler: A Biography of Helmuth Hubener, Mormon Teenage Resistance Leader (Provo, UT: Academic Research Foundation, 2003); Jessie L. Embry, “Deliverer or Oppressor: Missionaries’ Views of Hitler during the 1930’s,” in Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint Church History: Europe, ed. by Donald W. Cannon and Brent L. Top (Provo, UT: Department of Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University, 2003), 47-63; and Steven E. Carter, The Mormons and the Third Reich, 1933-1946 (Ph.D. dissertation; Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas, 2003). During this period President Heber J. Grant visited Germany, and this visit is the topic of Richard Holzapfel and Marc Alain Bohn, “A Long Awaited Visit: President Heber J. Grant in Switzerland and Germany, 1937,” BYU Studies, vol. 42, no. 3-4 (2003), 4-20. Donald Q. Cannon provides a unique perspective from the life of one German Saint from the World War I period to the post-war period and beyond in “New Dimensions of Devotion: Walter Krause,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 29, no. 2 (Spring 2003), 135-149.

When Nazi Germany invaded Poland in 1939, World War II began and lasted until 1945. Mormonism in World War II Germany is the topic of Terry Bohle Montague, Mine Angels Round About: Mormon Missionary Evacuation from Western Germany 1939 (Orem, UT: Granite Publishing, 2000); Colleen Whitley, “Prisoners of War: Minutes of Meetings of Latter-day Saint Servicemen Held in Stalag Luft 1, Barth, Germany,” BYU Studies, vol. 37, no. 1 (1997-98), 206-17; Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, “Friends Again: Canadian Grain and the German Saints,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 23 (1997), 46-76; Marianne Muthreich Southworth, “One Fold, One Shepherd,” ed. by Jorg Dittberner (Springville, UT: Bonneville Books, 1999); David F. Boone, “The Evacuation of the Czechoslovak and German Missionaries at the Outbreak of WWII,” BYU Studies, vol. 40, no. 3 (2001), 122-54; Robert C. Freeman, “When the Wicked Rule the People Mourn: The Experiences of German Saints During World War II,” in Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint Church History: Europe, ed. by Donald W. Cannon and Brent L. Top (Provo, UT: Department of Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University, 2003), 89-107; Robert C. Freeman and Jon A. Felt, German Saints at War (Springville, UT: CFI, 2008); Roger P. Minert, “The Fate of the LDS East German Mission Home in World War II,” Mormon Historical Studies, vol. 10, no. 1 (Spring 2009), 101-111; and Roger P. Minert, In Harm’s Way: East German Latter-day Saints in World War II (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2009).

In 1949, the USSR established the German Democratic Republic in the Soviet zone of occupied Germany and in the East Berlin portion of the Allied-occupied capital city. Raymond Kuehne uses a wide variety of documents in his survey entitled Mormons as Citizens of a Communist State: A Documentary History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in East Germany, 1945-1990 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2009). Other studies of East Germany include Wallace G. Bennett, “The Sunday Schools of Europe, Eastern: East German Mission,” Instructor, vol. 84 (October 1949), 493-496; Marita Haibach Walter, “Mormonen im Raum Frankfurt: Untersuchungen zur Situation Einer Amerikanischen Kirche” (M.A. thesis; Frankfurt: Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitat, 1981); Douglas F. Tobler, “Before the Wall Fell: Mormons in the German Democratic Republic, 1945-89,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 25 (Winter 1992), 11-30; Jeff Cole, “Religion in Eastern Germany: Spiritual Force or Anachronism” (M.A. thesis; Fullerton: California State University, 1994); Garold N. Davis and Norma S. Davis, “Behind the Iron Curtain: Recollections of Latter-day Saints in Germany, East, 1945-1989,” BYU Studies, vol. 35, no. 1 (1995), 47-78; Garold N. Davis and Norma S. Davis, Behind the Iron Curtain: Recollections of Latter-day Saints in Germany, East, 1945-1989 (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 1996); Thomas S. Monson, Faith Rewarded: A Personal Account of Prophetic Promises to the East German Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1996); Wolfgang Zander’s “In God’s Hands in Divided Germany,” in Pioneers in Every Land, ed. by Bruce A. Van Orden, D. Brent Smith, and Everett Smith, Jr. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 148-62; Bruce W. Hall, “Gemeindesgeschichte als vergleichende Geschichte: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in East Germany, 1945-1989” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1998); Bruce W. Hall, “And the Last Shall Be First: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Former East Germany,” Journal of Church and State, vol. 42 (Summer 2000), 484-505; Bruce W. Hall, Render Unto Caesar: State, Identity and Minority Churches in the German Democratic Republic (Ph.D. dissertation; Buffalo: State University of New York, 2003); Raymond M. Kuehne, “How Missionaries Entered East Germany: The 1988 Monson-Honecker Meeting,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 39, no. 4 (2006), 107-137; and Raymond M. Kuehne, Mormonen und Staatsbürger eine dokumentierte Geschichte der Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligender Letzten Tage in der DDR (Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2007).

In 1985, the Freiberg Germany Temple was dedicated in the German Democratic Republic and numerous articles have been written about the temple, including David F. Boone and Richard O. Cowan, “The Freiberg Germany Temple: A Latter-day Miracle” in Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint Church History: Europe, ed. by Donald W. Cannon and Brent L. Top (Provo, UT: Department of Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University, 2003), 147-168; and Raymond M. Kuehne, “The Freiberg Temple: An Unexpected Legacy of a Communist State and a Faithful People,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 37, no. 2 (Summer 2004), 95-131.

Mormonism in Germany in the late 20th century is discussed in Stephen Van Orden, “Spit-Shined Shoes, Clear Decisions, and West German Mission Horror Stories” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1996). Lynn K. Packer writes of his 1963-65 missionary experiences in the Central German Mission in A Missionary Experience (New York: Carlton Press, 1969).

There have been numerous histories of local German units written including Wolfgang Zander and Ulrich Ruckauer, Die Mormonen im Sudwesten Deutshlands: Auf den Spuren Ihres Lebens und Ihrer Geshichte (Stuttgart: Pfahl Stuttgart, 1986); Berlin (Germany) Stake, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 25 Jahre Pfahl Berlin, Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzen Tage (Berlin: Berlin Stake, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1986); Peter Wllauer, “Geschichte der Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzen Tage im Raum Regensburg” in Bericht vom Orson Hyde Symposium. Universitat Regensburg, 4-5 Oktober (1991); Hermann Mssner, “Mormon Pioneers in Southland Germany” in Pioneers in Every Land, ed. by Bruce A. Van Orden, D. Brent Smith, and Everett Smith, Jr. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 148-62; and Jorg Dittberner, “One Hundred Eighteen Years of Attitude: The History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Free and Hanseatic City of Bremen,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 36, no. 1 (2003), 51-69.

Finally, a useful aid in studying Mormonism in Germany is D. L. Ashliman’s listing of German publication on Mormonism entitled “Mormonism and the Germans: An Annotated Bibliography, 1848-1966,” BYU Studies, vol. 8 (Autumn 1967), 73-94.

Italy

The earliest beginnings of Mormonism in Italy in the mid 19th century, including Lorenzo Snow’s involvement, is discussed in Lorenzo Snow, The Italian Mission (London: W. Aubrey, 1851; reprint Dallas, Texas: S.K. Taylor Publishing Company, 1973); Michael W. Homer, “The Italian Mission, 1850-1867,” Sunstone, vol. 7 (May/June 1982), 16-21; Michael W. Homer, “’Like the Rose in the Wilderness’”: The Mormon Mission in the Kingdom of Sardinia,” Mormon Historical Studies, vol. 1 (Fall 2000), 25-62; and James A. Toronto, “A Continual War, Not of Arguments, but of Bread and Cheese”: Opening the First LDS Mission in Italy, 1849-1867,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 31 (Summer 2005), 188-232.

In 1850, Lorenzo Snow decided to begin missionary work in Italy among the Waldensians, a small Protestant community in the Piedmont region. Several works discuss this encounter, including Hugh T. Law, “Another Italy? The Families of the Piedmont,” in World Conference on Records: Preserving Our Heritage, vol. 7, series 529 (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1980); Diane Stokoe, “The Mormon Waldensians” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1985); Jared M. Halverson, “’To Make a People Prepared for the Lord’: Italy’s Wadensian Saints as a Case Study on Conversion” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 2005); Michael W. Homer, “The Waldensian Valleys: Seeking ‘Primitive Christianity’ in Italy,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 31 (Summer 2005), 134-187; and Michael W. Homer, “Seeking Primitive Christianity in the Waldensian Valleys: Protestant, Mormons, Adventists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses in Italy,” Nova Religio, vol. 9 (May 2006).

Other publications related to Mormonism and Italy in the 19th century include Lorenzo and Eliza R. Snow’s visit to Italy in 1872, which is discussed in George A. Smith et al., Correspondence of Palestine Tourists: Comprising a Series of Letters (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Steam Printing Establishment, 1875), 100-69. Missionary work in Italy in the 1890s is discussed in Michael W. Homer, ed., James Bertoch: Missionary Journal and Letters to His Family: June 22, 1892 to March 25, 1893 (Salt Lake City: Prairie Dog Press, 2004). Nineteenth-century immigration of Mormon converts is the topic of James A. Toronto, “Giuseppe Efisio Taranto: Odyssey from Sicily to Salt Lake City” in Pioneers in Every Land, ed. by Bruce A. Van Orden, D. Brent Smith, and Everett Smith, Jr. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 125-147; Michael W. Homer, “An Immigrant Story: Three Orphaned Italians in Early Utah Territory,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 70 (Summer 2002), 196-214. Michael W. Homer looks at the image of the LDS Church in Italy from the 19th century to the early 20th century in “The Church’s Image in Italy from the 1840s to 1946: A Bibliographic Essay,” BYU Studies, vol. 31 (Spring 1991), 83-114.

The experiences of 20th century immigrants is discussed in Philip E. Notarianni, “The Italian Immigrant in Utah – Nativisim (1900-1925)” (M.A. thesis; Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1972); and Louise Degn, “Susanna Goudine Cardon: An Italian Convert to Mormonism” in Sister Saints (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1978), 119-36. Finally, Mormonism in Italy in the 21st century is the topic of Michael W. Homer, “LDS Prospects in Italy for the Twenty-first Century,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 29 (Spring 1996), 139-58; and Massimo Introvigne, “The Mormon Factor in the Romney Presidential Campaign: European Perspectives,” International Journal of Mormon Studies, vol. 2 (Spring 2009), 98-107.

Netherlands

The most detailed history of Mormonism in the Netherlands is Douglas F. Tobler, Barton W. Marcois, and J.L. W. van Langendijk’s five-part series entitled “Geschiedenis van de Mormoonse kerk in Nederland en Vlaanderen,” Horizon, vol. 1-2 (March 1982-September 1983). Keith C. Warner provides a good survey of missionary work in his “History of the Netherlands Mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1861-1966” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1967). Jacob Van Hinte discusses Mormon emigration from the Netherlands in the 19th century in Netherlanders in America: A Study of Emigration and Settlement in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Book House, 1985), 590-94. De Utah Nederlander (1914-1935) was a local newspaper published in Salt Lake City for Dutch immigrants.

Looking to the 20th century, Sylvester Q. Cannon’s two terms as president of the Netherlands-Belgium Mission (1900-02 and 1907-09) is discussed in Winfield Q. Cannon, Sylvester Quayle Cannon: Tall in Character and Stature (Provo, UT: Winfield Cannon and Wanda Cannon Trust, 1998). Cannon is also profiled in “Sylvester Q. Cannon, de leider der Mormonen in Nederland,” De Hollandische Revue, vol. 14 (February 25, 1909), 117-130. The Netherlands Mission produced several periodicals in the 20th century, including De Ster (1896-1967), De Pionier (1929), Op Klompen (1959-67), and His Marvelous Work (1968). Walter E.A. Van Beek discusses Mormonism in the 21st century in “Ethnization and Accommodation: Dutch Mormons in Twenty-first Century Europe,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 29 (Spring 1996), 119-38.

Portugal

Very little as been published about Mormonism in this southwest European nation where members of the U.S. armed forces stationed there in the early 1970s were the first members of the Church in the area. Mark L. Grover discusses the role migration from Brazil and Africa played in the growth of Mormonism in Portugal in “Migration, Social Change, and Mormonism in Portugal,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 21 (Spring 1995), 65-79.

Switzerland

Latter-day Saint missionaries began proselyting in Switzerland in 1850, and early missionary work in Switzerland is covered in William Budge, “My Swiss Mission” in Labors in the Vineyard (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor, 1884); and Paul-Anthon Nielson, 'Sending the Gospel to the Swiss': Die Ersten Zehn Jare Des Mormonentums in Der Schweitz, 1850-60 (Ph.D. dissertation; Bern: University of Bern, 1989). In 1853, the Swiss Mission published a French-language periodical entitled Le Reflecteur. James R. Christianson looks at the life of one 19th century Swiss convert in “Jacob Spori: Nineteenth-Century Swiss Missionary, Educator, and Kingdom Builder” in Supporting Saints, ed. by Donald Q. Cannon and David J. Whittaker (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1985), 343-368. Information regarding missionary work in Switzerland in the early 20th century is found in Richard Schmutz, “The Mundane and the Transcendent: Excerpts from Letters of Johannes and Clorinda Schmutz, 1900-1902,” Swiss-American Historical Society Review, vol. 34, no. 1 (1998), 49-66. Mormonism in Switzerland in the 20th century is discussed in Richard Hozapfel and Marc Alain Bohn “A Long Awaited Visit: President Heber J. Grant in Switzerland and Germany, 1937,” BYU Studies, vol. 42, no. 3-4 (2003), 4-20.

Eastern Europe

The most comprehensive survey of Mormonism in Eastern Europe is Kahlile B. Mehr’s Mormon Missionaries Enter Eastern Europe (Salt Lake City: Brigham Young University Press and Deseret Book, 2002). This work covers the topic from the 19th century through the fall of communism during the last two decades of the 20th century when Mormon missionaries entered numerous countries throughout the former eastern bloc. This carefully documented survey is based on hundreds of interviews as well as other documentary sources. Mehr also provides researchers with a list of sources in his “Selected Bibliography: Historiography of the Church in Eastern Europe” in Telling the Story of Mormon History: Proceedings of the 2002 Symposium of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History at Brigham Young University, ed. by William G. Hartley (Provo, UT: Joseph Fielding Smith Institute, 2004), 119-120.

Looking at the pre-1990 period, Arthur Gaeth, a former mission president in Czechoslavkia, writes about early missionary efforts in the Balkan countries of Romania, Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Bulgaria, and how these missioary efforts were slowed by World War I in “Children of Adversity,” Improvement Era, vol. 41 (June 1938), 338-39, 375-76. Anson D. Shupe and John Heinerman discuss Mormon efforts to penetrate the Iron Curtain beginning in the 1970s in “State-within-a-State Diplomacy: Mormon Missionary Efforts in Communist and Islamic Countries” in The Politics of Religion and Social Change, vol. 2, ed. by Anson D. Shupe and Jeffrey K. Hadden (New York: Paragon House, 1988), 67-83. Kahlile B. Mehr looks at the unique role senior missionary couples played in paving the way for Mormon proselytizing missionaries in Eastern Europe in “Missionary Couples in Communist Europe,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 29 (Spring 2003), 179-199.

Albania, Austria, Belarus, and Bulgaria

Nathan Pali discusses the beginnings of Mormonism in Albania in “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Enters Albania, 1992-1999” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 2008). Stanley B. Kimball covers Mormonism in Austria from the time Orson Hyde traveled through on his way to the Holy Land in 1841 to the early 20th century in “The Mormons in the Hapsburg Lands, 1841-1914,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vols. 9-10 (1973-1974), 143-169. Wallace G. Bennett looks at how Sunday schools in Austria faired during World War II in “The Sunday Schools of Europe, Eastern: Austria,” Instructor, vol. 84 (December 1949), 643-544. Howard L. Biddulph provides significant information about Belarus in The Morning Breaks: Stories of Conversion and Faith in the Former Soviet Union (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1996). Kahlile B. Mehr discusses how Mormon English teachers and humanitarian missionaries were instrumental in opening Bulgaria to Mormon missionaries in “Keeping Promises: The LDS Church Enters Bulgaria, 1990-1994,” BYU Studies, vol. 36, no. 4 (1996-97), 69-105.

Czech Republic (Czechoslovakia)

A brief survey can be found in Kahlile B. Mehr, “Enduring Believers: Czechoslovakia and the LDS Church, 1884-1990,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 18 (Fall 1992), 111-154. For information on the LDS Church in Czechoslovakia during the 20th century before the communist rule, see David F. Boone, “The Evacuation of the Czechoslovak and German Missions at the Outbreak of WWII,” BYU Studies, vol. 40, no. 3 (2001), 122-154. Articles that discuss Mormons in Czechoslovakia during communist rule, include Olga Kovarova Campora, Saint Behind Enemy Lines (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997); and Daniel Reeves, “Saints in Communist Czechoslovakia: Trial by Fire” in Religious Education Student Symposium (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2004), 159-174. Wallace G. Bennett looks at how Sunday schools in Cezechoslovkia faired during World War II in “The Sunday Schools of Europe, Eastern: Czechoslovakian Mission,” Instructor, vol. 84 (November 1949), 567, 569.

Estonia, Hungary and Romania

Arnold K. Garr looks at early members in the late 20th century in “Mormon Pioneers in Communist Estonia, 1998-90” in Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint Church History: Europe, ed. by Donald Q. Cannon and Top L. Brent (Provo, UT: Department of Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University, 2003), 169-183. Kahlile B. Mehr tracks missionaries in Hungary from the first in 1888 to 1989 in “The Eastern Edge: LDS Missionary Work in Hungarian Lands,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 24 (Summer 1991), 27-45. Numerous articles, including Mehr’s above, discuss Mischa Markow, the first Hungarian Mormon, including Richard O. Cowan, “Mischa Markow: Mormon Missionary to the Balkans,” BYU Studies, vol. 11 (1970), 92-99; Matthew K. Heiss, “’My Duty Was to Preach Every Where’: The Missionary Reminiscences of Mischa Markow and the Church’s Entry into Central and Eastern Europe” and “Life and History of Mischa Markow” in Kahlile B. Mehr’s Mormon Missionaries Enter Eastern Europe (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Brigham Young University Press, 2002), 341-349, 350-384. Colleen Whitley edited the diary of Dean Byrd who describes his experiences while doing humanitarian work amongst the Kosovars in “Mourn with Those That Mourn . . . Comfort Those That Stand in Need of Comfort: Dean Byrd’s Diary of the Kosovar Refugee Camps,” BYU Studies, vol. 39, no. 2 (2000), 6-55. Carmin Clifton focuses on post-1990 conversion experiences in Come Lord, Come: A History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Romania (Lincoln, NE: Writers Club Press, 2002).

Russia

Following the fall of communism, the first Soviet Union mission which included Russia and Estonia was organized in July 1990 with Gary L. Browing as mission president. Browning’s book about his experiences is entitled Russia and the Restored Gospel (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), a fairly balanced account looking a successes and failures. Other publications by Browning include “Out of Obscurity: The Emergence of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in ‘That Vast Empire’ of Russia,” BYU Studies, vol. 33, no. 4 (1993), 674-688; and “Russia and the Restoration” in Out of Obscurity: The LDS Church in the Twentieth Century (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 63-75.

Other mission presidents and missionaries wrote of their experiences in Russia. Thomas K. Rogers, president of the St. Petersburg Mission from 1993 to 1996 provided excerpts from his mission journal in several publications, including “On the Importance of Doing Certain Mundane Things,” Sunstone, vol. 21 (December 1998), 48-58; A Call to Russia: Glimpses of Missionary Life (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 1999); and “Vignettes of Temple-Bound Russians,” BYU Studies, vol. 39, no. 1 (2000), 90-105. Howard L. Biddulph, who served as president of the Ukraine Kiev Mission, wrote The Morning Breaks: Stories of Conversion and Faith in the Former Soviet Union (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1996), which is a faith-promoting account based on first-person conversion stories. Ruth Knight Bailey and Cherie K. Woodworth edited the missionary journal of Erika Knight who served in the Russia Rostove-on-the-Don Mission in 1996 and 1997 in “The Mission Journal of Cectpa Haut (Sestra Nait),” Dialogue: The Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 33 (Spring 2000), 135-156.

Several publications also look at Mormonism in Russia before 1990. Francis M. Lyman dedicated Russia for the preaching of the restored gospel in 1903, an event discussed in Kahlile B. Mehr’s “The 1903 Dedication of Russia for Missionary Work,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 13 (1986/87), 110-123. Leland Fetzer looks at the public image of Mormonism in Russia in the 19th century in “Russian Writers Look at Mormon Manners, 1857-72,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 13 (Spring 1980), 74-84. Russian familiarity with Mormons led to the use of the term “Mormon” as an epithet for indigenous Russian religious groups who practiced polygamy, and when missionary work began in Russia after the fall of Communism, missionaries encountered rumors about pre-1990 Mormons existing in Russia, which were apparently linked to these indigenous groups. Several studies investigate these rumors, including Tania R. Lyon, “The Discovery of Native ‘Mormon Communities in Russia,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 33 (Spring 2000), 1-24; Eric A. Eliason and Gary L. Browning, “Crypto-Mormons or Pseudo-Mormons? Latter-day Saints and Russia’s Indigenous New Religious Movements,” Western Folklore, vol. 61 (Summer 2002), 173-207; and Eric A. Eliason and Gary L. Browning, “Russia’s Other ‘Mormons’: Their Origins and Relationship to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” BYU Studies, vol. 40, no. 1 (2001), 6-34. An early Russian publication that discusses this native Russian religion with the nickname “Mormon” is S.M.M., Besiedy o tak Nazyvaemoi Mormonskoi Bierie (Discussions about the Named Mormon Faith) (Samara, Russia: A.I. Matrosova, 1904). Finally, Sergei Antonenko provides one of the most recent publications about Mormonism in Russia in his Mormony v Rossii Put Dlinoi V Stoletie (Mormons in Russia: A Century-Long Way) (Moskva: Rodina, 2007).

Turkey and Ukrain

In 1884, Jacob Spori opened the Turkish Mission, and an account of his labors there are found in James R. Christianson, “Jacob Spori: Nineteenth-Century Swiss Missionary, Educator, and Kingdom Builder” in Suporting Saints, ed. by David J. Whittaker and Donald Q. Cannon (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1985), 343-368. Rao H. Lindsay provides a survey of nearly fifty years of missionary activity in Turkey in “A History of Missionary Activities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Near East, 1884-1929” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1958). LaMar C. Berrett and Blair G. Van Dyke provide an excellent survey of missionary work in Turkey in Holy Lands: A History of the Latter-day Saints in the Near East (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2005).

Accounts of other missionaries and missionary activies in Turkey include: Joseph W. Booth, Turkish Mission Diary of Joseph W. Booth (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Library, 1947); Rao H. Lindsay, “The Dream of a Mormon Colony in the Near East,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 1 (Winter 1966), 50-67; Daniel J. Pingree, “’And Your Name Will Be Remembered . . .’: The History of John Alexander Clark’s Turkish Mission,” Thetean, vol. 24 (1995), 30-50; Secil Karal Akgun, “Mormon Missionaries in the Ottoman Empire,” Turcica, vol. 28 (1996), 347-357; James A. Toronto, “Early Missions to Ottoman Turkey, Syria, and Palestine” in Out of Obscurity: The LDS Church in the Twentieth Century (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 339-362; and David P. Charles, “The Day the ‘Brave Sons of Mohamed’ Saved a Group of Mormons,” BYU Studies, vol. 40, no. 4 (2001), 237-254. Tania Rands, a missionary in the Ukraine from 1992 to 1993 tells of her experiences in “Mormonism in a Post-Soviet Society: Notes from Ukraine,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 30 (Spring 1997), 71-96.

Conclusion

The overall coverage of Mormonism in Europe in the secondary literature is uneven. Most publications are in English and focused on American Latter-day Saint encounters with Europe (i.e. American Church leaders and American missionaries) or European Latter-Saint encounters with America (i.e. immigrants). More publications by far focus on the British Isles and Scandinavia, regions were Mormonism penetrated early and with greater success than in other European areas. Secondary sources listed herein tend to rely heavily on English-language primary sources located in repositories in the western part of the United States. Much of the scholarship and publishing efforts related to this topic are centered in Utah and particularly at Brigham Young University. Yet, there is a growing trend in the secondary literature of the 21st century wherein European scholars are writing about Mormonism in Europe from a European perspective using European sources and publishing in languages other than English. Hopefully this essay has provided students and researchers with a broad bibliographic background to the study of Mormonism in Europe and will aid them in their research as they produce further studies that stretch the current boundaries of the field.

STATISTICS FOR SELECTED EUROPEAN COUNTRIES, 1980–2015

1980-1989

1990-1994

1995-1999

2000-2004

2005-2009

2010-2015

Megjegyzések

[←1]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Facts and Statistics. Available at https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-statistics# (accessed 21 August 2017).

[←2]

William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. The Gifford Lectures on Natural Religion, given at Edinburgh, 1901–1902 (London and New York: Longman, Green & Co, 1920 [1902]), Lecture 9: “Conversion,” 189. Similarly Carl W. Christensen, “Religious Conversion,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 9 (1963), 207.

[←3]

Max Heirich, “Change of Heart: A Test of Some Widely Held Theories about Religious Conversion,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 83, no. 3 (November 1977), 674.

[←4]

Meredith B. McGuire, Religion: The Social Context (Belmont, CA: Wadworth Publishing, 1997), 71.

[←5]

The notion of “conversion careers” has been advocated largely in Conversion Careers: In and Out of the New Religions, ed. by James T. Richardson (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1978); and James T. Richardson, “Conversion Careers,” Society, vol. 17 (1980), 47–50.

[←6]

See Annual Reports of the British Mission, 1837–1930.

[←7]

Most have written of this from a more devotional perspective such as Richard L. Evans, A Century of Mormonism in Great Britain: A Brief Summary of the Activities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the United Kingdom (Salt Lake City: The Deseret News Press, 1937); Susan Easton Black, “A Profile of a British Saint 1837–1848,” in Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint History: British Isles, ed. by Donald Q. Cannon (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1990), 103; Truth Will Prevail: The Rise of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the British Isles 1837–1987 (Solihull: The Church of Jesus of Latter-day Saints, 1987); and Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint Church History: British Isles, ed. by Cynthia Doxey (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 2007).

[←8]

For a literature review see Steve Bruce, “Sociology of Conversion: The Last Twenty–Five Years,” in Paradigms, Poetics and Politics of Conversion, ed. by Jan N. Bremmer, Wout J. Van Bekkum and Arie L. Molendijk (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 1–12. Thomas Robbins also observes an increase of research and reasons that it was the period or “time of ‘counterculture’ of flamboyant political and aesthetic protest among educated American youth,” in his Cults, Converts and Charisma (London: Sage, 1988), 1–2. For more recent coercive conversion research see James T. Richardson and Brock Kilbourne, “Classical and Contemporary Brainwashing Models: A Comparison and Critique,” in The Brainwashing/Deprogramming Controversy: Sociological, Psychological, Legal, and Historical Perspectives, ed. by D. B. Bromley and J. T. Richardson (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1983).

[←9]

David A. Snow and Richard Machalek, “The Sociology of Conversion,” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 10 (1984), 167–190.

[←10]

John Lofland and Rodney Stark, “Becoming a World–Saver: A Theory of Conversion to a Deviant Perspective,” American Sociological Review, vol. 30 (1965), 862–875; James T. Richardson, “Conversion” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Society, ed. by William H. Swatos, Jr (Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press, 1998), 119–121.

[←11]

For example, J. C. Moloney, “Psychic Self–abandon and Extortion of Confessions,” International Journal of Psychoanalysis, vol. 36 (1955), 53–60; J. G. Miller, “Brainwashing: Present and Future,” Journal of Sociological Issues, vol. 13 (1957), 5–20; R. A. Bauer, “Brainwashing: Psychology or Demonology?” Journal of Sociological Issues, vol. 13 (1957), 41–47; W. Sargant, Battle for the Mind: A Physiology of Conversion and Brainwashing (London: Heinemann, 1957); R. J. Lifton, Thought Reform and the  Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China (New York: Norton, 1961); E. H. Schein, Coercive Persuasion: A Socio–Psychological Analysis of the "Brainwashing" of American Civilian Prisoners by the Chinese Communists (New York: Norton, 1967).

[←12]

Primarily, David A. Snow and Cynthia L. Phillips, “The Lofland–Stark Conversion Model: A Critical Reassessment,” Social Problems, vol. 27 (1980), 430–447. See also John Lofland and Norman Skonovd, “Conversion Motifs,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 20 (1981), 373–385; William Sims Bainbridge, “The Sociology of Conversion,” in Handbook of Religious Conversion, ed. by H. N. Malony and S. Southard (Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press, 1992), 178–191; Lewis Rambo, Understanding Religious Conversion (New Haven, CTt: Yale University Press, 1993); and John F. Seggar and Phillip Kunz, “Conversion: Evaluation of a Step–like Process for Problem Solving,” Review of Religious Research, vol. 13 (1972), 178–184.

[←13]

James A. Beckford, “Accounting for Conversion,” British Journal of Sociology, vol. 29, no. 2 (June 1978), 250, 255 and 257.

[←14]

Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge, “Of Churches, Sects, and Cults: Preliminary Concepts for a Theory of Religious Movements,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 18, no. 2 (June 1979), 117–131; Rodenty Stark and William Sims Bainbridge, “Towards a Theory of Religion: Religious Commitment,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 19, no. 2 (June 1980), 114–128; and Rodeny Stark and William Sims Bainbridge, “Networks of Faith: Interpersonal Bonds and Recruitment to Cults and Sects,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 85, no. 6 (May 1980), 1376–1395.

[←15]

David A. Snow and Richard Machalek, “The Sociology of Conversion,” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 10 (1984), 167–190.

[←16]

James T. Richardson, “The Active vs. Passive Convert: Paradigm Conflict in Conversion/Recruitment Research,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 24, no. 2 (1985), 163–169; Brock Kilbourne and James T. Richardson, “Paradigm Conflict, Types of Conversion, and Conversion Theories,” Sociological Analysis, vol. 50, no. 1 (Spring 1989), 1–21.

[←17]

Henri Gooren, “Reassessing Conventional Approaches to Conversion: Toward a New Synthesis,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 46, no. 3 (2007), 337–353. Gooren’s most recent work is particularly relevant as one of the very few studies that have focused on Mormon conversions, albeit in South America. Henri Gooren, “Conversion Careers in Latin America: Entering and Leaving Church among Pentecostals, Catholics, and Mormons,” in Conversion of a Continent: Contemporary Religious Change in Latin America, ed. by Timothy J. Steigenga and Edward L. Cleary (London: Rutgers University Press, 2007), 52–71.

[←18]

Armand Mauss, “Sociological Perspectives on the Mormon Subculture,” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 10 (1984), 437–460. Another notable Mormon study is by Seggar & Kunz, which sampled recent Mormon converts employing Lofland–Stark’s model, but found that only one out of 77 supported that model, and concluded therefore that it was empirically unsuitable. See John F. Seggar, and Phillip Kunz, “Conversion: Evaluation of a Step–like Process for Problem Solving,” Review of Religious Research, vol. 13 (1972), 178–184.

[←19]

Jan O’Bannion, “The Convert as Social Type: A Critical Assessment of the Snow–Machalek Conversion Typology as Applied to British Mormon Converts,” (Unpublished M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1988), 78, 83 and 86. It should be noted that Snow and Machalek’s original study focused on conversion to a Buddhist movement, 84–85.

[←20]

Italics retained from original. See Max Heirich, “Change of Heart: A Test of Some Widely Held Theories about Religious Conversion,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 83, no. 3 (November 1977), 673.

[←21]

See Michael R. Watts, The Dissenters, Vol. 2: The Expansion of Evangelical Nonconformity (Oxford: Oxford Univerity Press, 1995); James Obelkevich, Religion and Rural Society: South Lindsey, 1835-1875 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976); and Kenneth D. Brown, A Social History of the Nonconformist Ministry in England and Wales, 1800–1930 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).

[←22]

David Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Routledge, 1988), 3.

[←23]

David Hempton, Methodism: Empire of the Spirit (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 25.

[←24]

See Douglas J. Davies, Mormon Spirituality: Latter Day Saints in Wales and Zion (Nottingham and Logan, UT: Utah State University, 1987), 21; and Douglas J. Davies, The Mormon Culture of Salvation: Force, Grace and Glory (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2000), 160.

[←25]

Bryan Wilson, Religious Sects (Toronto: McGraw–Hill, 1970), 37–38. See also Bryan R. Wilson, “Migrating Sects: A Review Article,” British Journal of Sociology, vol. 18 (1967), 303–317.

[←26]

Davies, The Mormon Culture of Salvation, 159.

[←27]

Pamela J. Walker, Pulling the Devil’s Kingdom Down: The Salvation Army in Victorian Britain (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 2001), 88.

[←28]

Walker, Pulling the Devil’s Kingdom Down, 88–89.

[←29]

Wilson, Constrained by Zeal, 73.

[←30]

Hempton, Methodism: Empire of the Spirit, 187.

[←31]

Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, 46.

[←32]

Millennial Star, vol. 20 (27 March 1858), 202-203.

[←33]

James, The Varieties of Religious Experience; Lofland and Stark, “Becoming a World–Saver”; Heirich, “Change of Heart,” 664. This is supported by Julia Werner, who observes that religious conversion was particularly common when “individuals felt despair or were in straitened circumstances.” Julia Stewart Werner, The Primitive Methodist Connexion: Its Background and Early History (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984), 154.

[←34]

Alfred Cordon Diary, 9.

[←35]

Alfred Gordon Diary, 9.

[←36]

Alfred Cordon Diary, 10. This is a reflection and forms an introduction with page numbering.

[←37]

Julia Stewart Werner, The Primitive Methodist Connexion, 154.

[←38]

Millennial Star, vol. 16 (26 October 1854), 767; Millennial Star, vol. 28 (11 August 1866), 505–506. This was not only for converts but the Millennial Star highlighted on–going healings under such articles as “Healing of the cholera by the power of the Lord” and “Cholera healed,” Millennial Star, vol. 11 (30 May 1849), 189, 268–269. The Millennial Star reports that Cholera came to London and Hull in 1848 and between September and December there were 72,180 deaths in the United Kingdom. “The cholera,” Millennial Star, vol. 16 (26 October 1854), 567.

[←39]

Davies, Mormon Spirituality, 9.

[←40]

Joseph Argyle, Reminiscences and Journal of Joseph Argyle (MS 340, LDS Church Archives), 63; History of Joseph Argyle: Handcart Pioneer (original source unknown; Argyle: The Argyle Family Association), n.p.

[←41]

George Morris Autobiography, 1816–1849 (M270.1, Typescript, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library; Provo, UT, Brigham Young University), 12. Morris also lost his mother in October 1839 following a two week sickness, thus within a two year period he had lost three generations of immediate female relatives.

[←42]

Alfred Cordon Diary, 10. While Cordon does not identify the name of his daughter, through examination of local registration records, two girls under one year of age died, both with the surname of Cordon between 1837 and 1839, both in the March 1838 Quarter of registration for Stoke and Wolstanton, helpfully both girls were named Elizabeth.

[←43]

Alfred Cordon Diary, 11.

[←44]

Richard Steele, Richard Steele Diary. Unfortunately Steele does not actually recall which doctrine he was attracted to. Sarah Anne Steel Shelley, Sketch of the Life of Richard Steele, n.d. Letter from Thomas Steele to Richard Steele (25 March 1842, photocopy of original).

[←45]

Thomas Day, The Journals and Letters of Elder Thomas Day, 1814–1894, comp. and ed. by Clifford L. Stott and Ronald D. Dennis (BX 8670.1 .D333s, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University), n.p. See also Thomas Day Journal (MS d 1182, LDS Archives). John F. C. Harrison identified several occupations of Day such as a “machine blacksmith,” “button maker,” “carpet maker” and a worker in a needle factory, see John F. C. Harrison, “Popular History of Early Victorian Britain,” in Mormons in Early Victorian Britain, ed. by Malcolm Thorp and Richard L. Jensen (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1989), 11. For a more full account of Day’s life see “Elder Thomas Day,” Deseret Weekly News (UT, 21 January 1893).

[←46]

Day, The Journals and Letters of Elder Thomas Day, 1814–1894, n.p. See also John Cotterill, Midland Saints: The Mormon Mission in the West Midlands, 1837–1877 (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation; Keele: Keele University, 1985). Cotterill observes that at that same time he was also living “a wayward life” which also contributed to his need for organised religion, “Midland Saints,” 285.

[←47]

William O. Crowther, “Sketch of the Life of Thomas Crowther,” in The Crowthers of Fountain Green, Utah (Independence, MO: Zion’s Printing & Publishing Co., 1944), 12–13.

[←48]

Crowther, “Sketch of the Life of Thomas Crowther,” 12.

[←49]

Crowther, “Sketch of the Life of Thomas Crowther,” 12–13.

[←50]

Crowther, “Sketch of the Life of Thomas Crowther,” 12–13.

[←51]

Crowther, “Sketch of the Life of Thomas Crowther,” 12.

[←52]

Journal of John Needham, 13.

[←53]

Journal of John Needham, 1.

[←54]

Journal of John Needham, 1.

[←55]

Journal of John Needham, 1.

[←56]

Journal of John Needham, 2.

[←57]

Argyle, Reminiscences and Journal, 63. According to City of Birmingham’s vital records, the local register office shows that William was born 21 February 1849 in Birmingham and died in 1851.

[←58]

Argyle, Reminiscences and Journal, 63. Occupation has been drawn from British Mission Records, 75, at the time of Joseph and Jane’s emigration with their six children in 1856 on–board the Enoch Train.

[←59]

History of Joseph Argyle: Handcart Pioneer, n.p.

[←60]

Argyle, Reminiscences and Journal, 63.

[←61]

Argyle, Reminiscences and Journal, 63.

[←62]

Manfred Klaiber and Walter Marquardt, Living Grace: An Outline of United Methodist Theology (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), 223–227 and 263–267.

[←63]

This theological debate was one that Millennial Star editors regularly address the Mormon position of, for example see extracts from Elder H. Whittall’s “Treatise on Baptism,” Millennial Star, vol. 21 (1859), 754–755; vol. 22 (1860), 44–46, 142–143, 491–493.

[←64]

Theodore Turley Journal (5 June 1840, copy of transcribed version by Richard Turley and in author’s possession).

[←65]

They were first cousins on account of family history group sheets as detailed on new.familysearch.org. Mary’s father was Nicholas whose brother was John, the father of George.

[←66]

George Wood, Autobiographical Sketch (LDS Church Archives).

[←67]

Theodore Turley Journal, 1839–1840, entry 5 June 1840.

[←68]

David Smilde, “A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Conversion to Venezuelan Evangelicalism: How Networks Matter,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 111, no. 3 (November 2005), 758.

[←69]

Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1996), 16–17.

[←70]

Edwin Rushton, Edwin Rushton Journal (Typescript, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University), 1.

[←71]

Edwin Rushton, in “Journal Selections: Edwin Rushton: Bridge Builder and Faithful Pioneer” (L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University), 2. Author unknown.

[←72]

Alfred Cordon Diary, 29 March 1840.

[←73]

Edwin Rushton, in “Journal Selections,” 2.

[←74]

Alfred Cordon Diary, 7 October 1840. Italics added for emphasis of plurality of “Elders.”

[←75]

Fred E. Woods, “Cemetery Record of William D. Huntington, Nauvoo Sexton,” Mormon Historical Studies, vol. 1 (Spring 2000), 142.

[←76]

“Elder Thomas Day,” Deseret Weekly News (UT, 21 January 1893).

[←77]

Thomas Day, The Journals and Letters of Elder Thomas Day.

[←78]

Thomas Crowther, Autobiography, 1820s–1896 (MS d 2050 bx 1 fd 5, #6, Typescript, LDS Church Archives).

[←79]

Alfred Cordon Diary, 26 July 1839.

[←80]

Alfred Cordon Diary, 29 June 1839.

[←81]

Robert Aitken had developed several congregations prior to his leaving them when he returned on 20 December 1840 to the Church of England. For a more complete biographical account see: “Robert Aitken 1799–1973,” in Dictionary of National Biography; D. A. Gowland, Methodist Secessions: The Origins of Free Methodism in Three Lancashire Towns (Manchester: Chetham Society, CS26, 1979); and E. V. Chapman, Rev. Robert Aitken (Manx Methodist Historical Society, 1982).

[←82]

Alfred Cordon Diary, 2 July 1839.

[←83]

Alfred Cordon Diary, 26 July 1839.

[←84]

Alfred Cordon Diary, 18 August 1841. As early as August 1841 Cordon visited for three days as well as several subsequent visits in the remaining 1841. On 26 February 1842, Cordon left for Doncaster and spent three weeks in missionary labours and then again from 18 May 1842 for a further month. The society was around twenty persons according to the Cordon diaries.

[←85]

Edward Parker was baptised on 18 November 1839; Elizabeth Parker on 19 January 1840; and Harriet Parker 20 February 1840. Each baptism is listed under Cordon’s diary entry for the relevant day.

[←86]

Alfred Cordon Diary, see 2 and 18 January 1840.

[←87]

In the mid–1830s, a group of approximately 600 Primitive Methodists led by Thomas Kington established an independent religious organization which they called the United Brethren in 1834; see David J. Whittaker, “Harvest in Herefordshire,” Ensign, vol. 17 (January 1987), 46.

[←88]

Millennial Star, vol. 1 (October 1840), 165; Wilford Woodruff, “Elder Woodruff’s Letter,” Times and Seasons (Nauvoo, Illinois), vol. 2, no. 9 (1 March 1841), 327–334; Tim B. Heaton, Stan L. Albrecht and J. Randal Johnson, “The Making of British Saints in Historical Perspective,” Brigham Young University Studies, vol. 27, no. 2 (Spring 1997), 119–135; James B. Allen and Malcolm R. Thorp, “The Mission of the Twelve to England, 1840–1841: Mormon Apostles and the Working Classes,” Brigham Young University Studies, vol. 15, no. 4 (Summer 1975), 1–23.

[←89]

Alfred Cordon Diary, 18 January 1840.

[←90]

David W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989), 11.

[←91]

In 1842, Smith encapsulated the most important teachings in a letter to John Wentworth, the editor of the Chicago Democrat, and promptly published it in Times and Seasons (1 March 1842), see ”Wentworth Letter,” Church History, vol. 3 (n.y.), 706–710. The Wentworth letter has more commonly become known as the Articles of Faith and remains the basis of Mormon history and teachings today.

[←92]

“First Principles of the Gospel,” Millennial Star, vol. 1 (25 June 1840).

[←93]

Millennial Star, vol. 20 (27 March 1858), 202-203.

[←94]

Doctrine and Covenants 20:37.

[←95]

Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, 9. See also Moore, Religion in Victorian Britain, Vol. 3: Sources, 14–19.

[←96]

Doctrine and Covenants 20:73–74.

[←97]

The practice of raising ones hand to the square remains an act performed by those acting in authority or by one undertaking an oath, or making legal covenants particularly in courts of justice.

[←98]

“Letter from Thomas Bullock to Elder John O. Angus,” Millennial Star, vol. 14 (3 July 1852), 299.

[←99]

“Letter from Thomas Bullock to Elder John O. Angus,” Millennial Star, vol. 14 (3 July 1852), 299.

[←100]

George Morris Autobiography, 1816–1849 (M270.1, Typescript, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University), 14.

[←101]

George Morris Autobiography, 15.

[←102]

George Morris Autobiography, 16.

[←103]

James Craig Holte, The Conversion Experience in America: A Sourcebook on Religious Conversion (New York: Greenwood Press, 1992), x. This is also supported by Andrew Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transition of Faith (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), 5.

[←104]

Alfred Cordon Diary, 15 July 1839.

[←105]

Doctrine and Covenants 46:24–25.

[←106]

Manuscript History of the British Mission, 6 November 1840.

[←107]

Manuscript History of the British Mission, 25 September 1840.

[←108]

Alfred Cordon Diary, 7 December 1840.

[←109]

Perhaps an exception to this was an 1848 editorial in the Millennial Star submitted by Thomas Smith, a convert writing to the editor providing a two page question and answers styled lesson for LDS children, resembling a traditional catechism, Millennial Star, vol. 10 (15 June 1848), 183–184.

[←110]

Manuscript History of the British Mission reports that on 29 March 1846 Sunday schools had been organised at Stratford and Barford, from 1846 at Birmingham, and on 29 December 1850 at Willenhall. (Each detail is listed under the relevant branch history.)

[←111]

Millennial Star, vol. 15 (19 November 1853), 756.

[←112]

Millennial Star, vol. 15 (19 November 1853), 762–763. Fourteen chapters by Jaques were published in the Millennial Star between November 1853 and February 1854, at which point he stopped intending to publish it as a complete book. See Peter Crawley and Chad J. Flake, A Mormon Fifty: An Exhibition in the Harold B. Lee Library in Conjunction with the Annual Conference of the Mormon History Association (Provo, UT: Friends of the Brigham Young University Library, 1984), 32, item 44. Before the close of the nineteenth century, Catechism for Children went through ten editions in English, totaling 35,000 copies. It was also translated into Danish, Dutch, German, Hawaiian, and Swedish.

[←113]

“Willenhall”; “Hockley”; “Smethwick,” Manuscript History of the British Mission. According to the branch histories, Willenhall established a Sunday School on 2 February 1851 with a full set of officers, namely, Charles Prince was appointed president of the Sunday School with Joseph King as superintendent and John Clark as secretary. Nearby Hockley’s Sunday School was established on 5 October 1852 with Priest John Williams appointed to superintend, while Smethwick branch organised a Sunday School on 10 August 1853, supported by a public collection to buy books.

[←114]

“Smethwick Branch,” Manuscript History of the British Mission. It is noted within the branch history that Sister Olivia Stokes was assigned with a room on 30 May 1853 to teach a Sunday School although it was formally established on 10 August 1853. Stokes was released from that assignment on 23 January 1859, having served in this capacity for six years. Interestingly the branch history records “Alice Stokes” assumes the position between January 1853 and March 1853.

[←115]

Millennial Star, vol. 6 (24 August 1845), 108; Letter from Robert Aveson to Juvenile Instructor (1 May 1899).

[←116]

Journal of David Coombs, 2–5, 8. Microfilm copy in author’s private possession.

[←117]

Doctrine and Covenants 25:11–12.

[←118]

History of the Church, Vol 4, 120; Letter to Editor, Evening and Morning Star (Kirtland, OH), vol. 1, 222.

[←119]

Chadwick, The Victorian Church, Vol. 1, 397; The American based Mormon Church itself was compiling tailored hymns, one notice appeared in the Times and Seasons advising Saints that “Persons having hymns adapted to the worship of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are requested to hand them, or send them to Emma Smith, immediately.” Times and Seasons (Nauvoo, IL, 1 February 1843).

[←120]

Manuscript History of the British Mission, 4 May 1840, as cited in Helen Hanks Macare, The Singing Saints: A Study of The Mormon Hymnal, 1835–1950 (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation; Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, 1961), 182.

[←121]

Michael Hicks, Mormonism and Music: A History (Urbana & Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1989), 26–29.

[←122]

“Preface,” A Collection of Sacred Hymns (Manchester, 1840).

[←123]

Macare, The Singing Saints, 181.

[←124]

Don B. Castleton, ”The Concept of Zion as Reflected in Mormon Song” (Unpublished M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1967), 14. The History of the Church states that the contribution £250 also supported the printing of the Book of Mormon in England, History of the Church, Vol. 4, 88.

[←125]

Howard S. Swan, “The Music of the Mormons, 1830–1865,” Huntington Library Quarterly, vol. 12, no. 3 (May 1949), 226.

[←126]

Fanny Stenhouse, “Tell It All:”The Story of a Life’s Experience in Mormonism (Hartford, CT: Worthington & Co, 1875), 45.

[←127]

Hicks, Mormonism and Music: A History, 18.

[←128]

Journal of John Needham, 9 August 1840 (MS d 4221, Transcribed copy of original, LDS Church Archives), 11.

[←129]

Michael Hicks, “What Hymns Early Mormons Sang and How They Sang Them,” Brigham Young University Studies, vol. 47, no. 1 (2008), 95–118.

[←130]

“Hockley Branch Records,” in Manuscript History of the British Mission, 2 June 1867.

[←131]

Letter from William Bramall to George Q. Cannon (8 June 1863), as reproduced in the Mormon Immigration Index CDROM (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2000).

[←132]

William Mulder, Homeward to Zion: The Mormon Migration from Scandinavia (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), 7. Chapter one in Homeward to Zion has also been published in Norwegian-American Studies, vol. 19 (1956), under the title ”Norwegian Forerunners Among the Early Mormons.” Some of the early Norwegian immigrants who came over to America on the sloop the Restoration settled down in Rochester, N.Y. and in Morris and Kendall counties, N.Y. before moving westward to the Norwegian settlement at Fox River, Illinois. Fædrelandet og Emigrantens norske Almanak for 1880 (La Crosse, WI), 100-101; Theodore C. Blegen, Norwegian Migration to America: The American Transition (Northfield, MN: The Norwegian-American Historical Association, 1940), 515.

[←133]

Theodore C. Blegen, Norwegian Migration to America: The American Transition, 114-115; Ingrid Semmingsen, Veien mot Vest: Utvandringen fra Norge til Amerika, 1825-1865 (Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co., 1942), 331-332; William Mulder, Homeward to Zion, 7-8; and E. Clifford Nelson, ed., A Pioneer Churchman J. W. C. Dietrichson in Wisconsin, 1844-1850 (New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc., 1973), 127, 249.

[←134]

Johnnie Glad, The Mission of Mormonism in Norway 1851-1920: A Study and Analysis of the Reception Process (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2006), 59, footnote 62.

[←135]

William Mulder, Homeward to Zion, 8, 10; Theodore C. Blegen, Norwegian Migration to America: The American Transition, 115; Johnnie Glad, The Mission of Mormonism in Norway, 1851-1920, 227-234; and Carlton C. Qualey, Norwegian Settlement in the United States (Northfield, MN: Norwegian-American Historical Association, 1938), 196-197.

[←136]

Theodore C. Blegen, Norwegian Migration to America: The American Transition, 115.

[←137]

Theodore C. Blegen, Norwegian Migration to America: The American Transition, 117.

[←138]

See chapters 5 and 6 dealing with the Conventicle Law and the Dissenter Law in Johnnie Glad, The Mission of Mormonism in Norway, 1851-1920; and Aage Skullerud, Bondeopposisjonen og religionsfriheten i 1840-årene (Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 1971), 63.

[←139]

Theodore C. Blegen, Norwegian Migration to America: The American Transition, 115.

[←140]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 2, 4; Carl M. Hagberg, Den Norske Misjons Historie, 5; and William Mulder, Homeward to Zion, 29, 34.

[←141]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 4, 411.

[←142]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 501.

[←143]

Hilmar Freidel, Jesu Kristi Kirke i Norge: Den Norske Misjons Historie, 1851-1966, 26.

[←144]

Karl Sandvin, Mormonisma i Norge: Med utsyn over samfunnet si amerikanske historie, 24-25; Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 33; Carl M. Hagberg, Den Norske Misjons Historie, 5-6; and Hilmar Freidel, Jesu Kristi Kirke i Norge: Den Norske Misjons Historie, 1851-1966, 26-27.

[←145]

Carl M. Hagberg, Den Norske Misjons Historie, 11; and Gerald Myron Haslam, Clash of Cultures: The Norwegian Experience with Mormonism, 1842-1920, 25.

[←146]

Arne Hassing, Religion and Power: The Case of Methodism in Norway (Waynesville: The Mountaineer, 1980), 21-23.

[←147]

Arne Hassing, Religion and Power: The Case of Methodism in Norway, 34.

[←148]

Hilmar Freidel, Jesu Kristi Kirke i Norge: Den Norske Misjons Historie, 1851-1966, 34, 36, 38.

[←149]

Not all branches and places are included in this summary. See Hilmar Freidel, Gren og Misjon, II-III, where reference is made to the many places in the country where the Mormons established branches and when it happened.

[←150]

Carl M. Hagberg, Den Norske Misjons Historie, 11.

[←151]

Hilmar Freidel, Gren og Misjon, 179.

[←152]

Hilmar Freidel, Gren og Misjon, 185-187.

[←153]

Hilmar Freidel, Jesu Kristi Kirke i Norge: Den Norske Misjons Historie, 1851-1966, 121-122.

[←154]

Hilmar Freidel, Jesu Kristi Kirke i Norge: Den Norske Misjons Historie, 1851-1966, 102.

[←155]

Hilmar Freidel, Jesu Kristi Kirke i Norge: Den Norske Misjons Historie, 1851-1966, 102.

[←156]

Hilmar Freidel, Jesu Kristi Kirke i Norge: Den Norske Misjons Historie, 1851-1966, 102-103.

[←157]

Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 212-213; and James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), 279.

[←158]

D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994), 571.

[←159]

Skandinaviens Stjerne, vol. 11 (1857), 162.

[←160]

Skandinaviens Stjerne, vol. 11 (1857), 169.

[←161]

Skandinaviens Stjerne, vol. 11 (1857), 170-171; and Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 118.

[←162]

Hilmar Freidel, Jesu Kristi Kirke i Norg: Den Norske Misjons Historie, 1851-1966, 103.

[←163]

James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 298-303; and Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 165-167.

[←164]

Hilmar Freidel, Jesu Kristi Kirke i Norge: Den Norske Misjons Historie, 1851-1966, 103-105.

[←165]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 123.

[←166]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 132.

[←167]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 124.

[←168]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 135.

[←169]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 124.

[←170]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 138.

[←171]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 189.

[←172]

Hilmar Freidel, Jesu Kristi Kirke i Norge: Den Norske Misjons Historie, 1851-1966, 82-84; and Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 209.

[←173]

Anthon L. Skanchy, a native of Norway, immigrated to America in 1868, but returned several times to Norway as a missionary. In 1901 he became president of The Scandinavian Mission. While on a mission Skanchy one day paid a visit to the well-known Norwegian clergyman Honoratus Halling who started the publication of the Sunday paper For Fattig og Rik. Skanchy lived for a short while at a friend’s place in the vicinity of where Halling lived and conducted many well attended meetings. Halling who was a conscientious clergyman warned people against Skanchy’s false doctrines. The encounter between Halling and Skanchy did not turn out to be very cordial. Halling asked the Mormon missionary to leave. In order to demonstrate what he meant Halling took the hat and cane of the Mormon missionary and threw them out of the open door. A few months later when Halling spoke to a friend of Skanchy Halling referred to the previous encounter with Skanchy. According to Halling, they had both been angry that day. Halling must have regretted his behaviour, because he made it clear, that he would have done a lot to meet Skanchy again and talk to him once more. Halling died in 1886. Skanchy on his part did not get peace before he had performed substitutional temple-work on behalf of Halling. Hilmar Freidel, Jesu Kristi Kirke i Norge: Den Norske Misjons Historie, 1851-1966, 109.

[←174]

Hilmar Freidel, Jesu Kristi Kirke i Norge: Den Norske Misjons Historie, 1851-1966, 84, 109.

[←175]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 322-323. For Pastor Andreas Mortensen and the Mormons see Johnnie Glad, The Mission of Mormonism in Norway, 1851-1920, 354-379.

[←176]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 344.

[←177]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 351.

[←178]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 384-385.

[←179]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 384.

[←180]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 386.

[←181]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 271-272. See also John A.Widtsoe, In the Gospel Net: The Story of Anna Karine Gaarden Widtsoe (Salt Lake City: The Improvement Era, 1942), 104-105; and Albert L. Zobell, Jr., Under the Midnight Sun: Centennial History of Scandinavian Missions (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1950), 131.

[←182]

Einar Jansen, ed., Norsk Biografisk Leksikon, Vol. 6 (Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co.), 411-416.

[←183]

John A. Widtsoe, In the Gospel Net: The Story of Anna Karine Gaarden Widtsoe, 107-108.

[←184]

John A. Widtsoe, In the Gospel Net: The Story of Anna Karine Gaarden Widtsoe, 63-68; Hilmar Freidel, Jesu Kristi Kirke i Norge: Den Norske Misjons Historie, 1851-1966, 119; and Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 271.

[←185]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 409-410.

[←186]

See here the travels of Presidents Anthon H. Lund, Charles W. Penrose and Andrew Jenson to Christiania, Bergen, Trondheim, Vardø and the Artic Circle in 1909. Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 425.

[←187]

Joseph F. Smith was the son of Hyrum Smith who was murdered with his brother the Prophet Joseph Smith. Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 428-429.

[←188]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 435.

[←189]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 439.

[←190]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 438.

[←191]

Hilmar Freidel, Jesu Kristi Kirke i Norge: Den Norske Misjons Historie, 1851-1966, 111,115.

[←192]

Skandinaviens Stjerne, vol. 15 (August 1914), 248-251; and Hilmar Freidel, Jesu Kristi Kirke i Norge: Den Norske Misjons Historie, 1851-1966, 114.

[←193]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 441.

[←194]

Hilmar Freidel, Jesu Kristi Kirke i Norge: Den Norske Misjons Historie, 1851-1966, 122-123.

[←195]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 503-504; and Hilmar Freidel, Jesu Kristi Kirke i Norge: Den norske misjons historie, 1851-1966, 119-120.

[←196]

Hilmar Freidel, Jesu Kristi Kirke i Norge: Den Norske Misjons Historie, 1851-1966, 15. D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, 698-700; and Johnnie Glad, The Mission of Mormonism in Norway, 1851-1920, 104-108.

[←197]

As examples of missionaries who went on several missions see August S. Schou, ”Albert Richard Peterson and James Erickson,” in History of the Scandinavian Mission, by Andrew Jenson, 501, 504, 506.

[←198]

Johnnie Glad, The Mission of Mormonism in Norway, 1851-1920, 154-156, 166-168.

[←199]

Gerald Myron Haslam, Clash of Cultures: The Norwegian Experience with Mormonism, 1842-1920, 117.

[←200]

Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 536.

[←201]

Gerald Myron Haslam, Clash of Cultures: The Norwegian Experience with Mormonism, 1842-1920, 119-120.

[←202]

See Table 10 in Jeffrey L. Anderson, “Mormons and Germany, 1914-1933: A History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Germany and its Relationship with the German Governments from World War I to the Rise of Hitler” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1991), 214-215.

[←203]

Douglas F. Tobler and Alan F. Keele, “The Saints and the Reich: German Mormons under Hitler” (Unpublished essay, copy in author’s possession), 3-4.

[←204]

Douglas F. Tobler, “The Narrow Line: The Experiences of the American Mormon Missionaries in Hitler’s Germany, 1933-1939” (Unpublished essay, copy in author’s possession), 12.

[←205]

For the text of the respective responses to the Gestapo, see Oliver Budge letter to State Secret Police office, 8 September 1933, in German-Austrian Mission Quarterly Reports, 1930-1937 (Archives; Salt Lake City: Historical Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), entry for “Visit of Secret Service Agent; and “Ein Aufklärender Brief,” Der Stern, vol. 65 (15 July 1933), 214-218.

[←206]

Tobler and Keele, “The Saints and the Reich,” 8.

[←207]

Or in other words, whatever regime was in power at the time. “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” Pearl of Great Price, Article of Faith 1:12.

[←208]

“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” Pearl of Great Price, Article of Faith 1:11.

[←209]

John A. Dahl, “Book Review of Building Zion” (Archive MS 15335; Unpublished manuscript, Archives; Salt Lake City: Historical Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), 10-11, comment 16. Here Dahl states that “Rudolph Noss…President of the Frankfurt am Main LDS district…after clearing with Francis Salzner…, armed with a briefcase full of all the pamphlets and the Standard Works then used in Germany met with the proper office of the Department of Culture and Education in Darmstadt, Hessen-Darmstadt. He invited them to study this material containing the principles of the gospel which our Elders were teaching freely to those interested in their message; and also to convince them that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were admonished to be law-abiding citizens. He further pointed out that these American Elders would bring in sorely needed US dollars” (Italics added).

[←210]

For the text of the respective responses to the Gestapo, see Oliver Budge letter to State Secret Police office, 8 September 1933, in German-Austrian Mission Quarterly Reports, 1930-1937, entry for “Visit of Secret Service Agent;” and “Ein Aufklärender Brief,” Der Stern, vol. 65 (15 July 1933), 214-218.

[←211]

Tobler and Keele, “The Saints and the Reich,” 6-7.

[←212]

Fay Ollorton, “A Visit to the German-Austrian Mission,” Deseret News (21 October 1933), Church Section, 3.

[←213]

Eric A. Johnson, Nazi Terror: The Gestapo, Jews, and Ordinary Germans (New York: Basic Books, 1999), 229; and John S. Conway, The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-1945 (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1968), 69.

[←214]

Many German Mormons have discussed visits to church meetings by the Gestapo. See, for example, Oral History: Karl-Heinz Schnibbe, Interview by Steve Carter (Holladay, UT, 2 May 1998), 1 (Tape recording/typescript; copy in author’s possession); Oral History: Inge Lang, Interview by Steve Carter (Bountiful, UT, 28 June 1998), (Tape recording; copy in author’s possession); Dahl, “Book Review,” 9-10, comment 14; Oral History: John A. Dahl, Interview by Steve Carter (Salt Lake City, 21 March 2000), 18 (Tape recording/typescript; copy in author’s possession); Oral History: Walter H. Speidel, Interview by Steve Carter (Provo, UT, 30 April 1998), 7 (Tape recording/typescript; copy in author’s possession). Gestapo monitoring of Mormon meetings varied from place to place. Usually, a plain-clothed agent slipped in and sat quietly in the back of the church. Occasionally, he might solicit information about upcoming “sermons.” In these cases, the branch president provided the agent with a list of scheduled speakers for the next couple of weeks. In some branches, Gestapo agents attended meetings on a regular basis, and a few showed some congeniality with Church members. In other areas, there were few Gestapo visits. One German branch president recalled only one encounter with the Gestapo and that the agent left satisfied with what he found.

[←215]

Both the “Swiss-German Mission Manuscript History” and “German-Austrian Mission Manuscript History” detail incidents where Gestapo agents interrogated missionaries and branch presidents as well as confiscated branch records. Agents usually seized the documents, examined them for a space of several weeks and returned them without explanation to the local LDS leader. See “German-Austrian Mission Manuscript History” (Archives; Salt Lake City: Historical Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). See also “Swiss-German Mission Manuscript History, 1904-1938” (Archives; Salt Lake City: Historical Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

[←216]

For instance, see “German-Austrian MSS History,” entry for September 1934. German-Austrian mission records state: “The president of the Zwickau District was requested by the police in Plauen to furnish them with a list of the members of his district, and to inform them as to the party membership of each political party.” (Italics added)

[←217]

Tobler and Keele, “The Saints and the Reich,” 15.

[←218]

Oral History: Walter H. Speidel, 2, 7.

[←219]

“Swiss-German MSS History,” entry for January 1934 reads: “The Police in Germany investigated our case in many branches but apparently did not come to any conclusions about us as no further steps were taken to stop out missionary activity.”

[←220]

One of Hitler’s goals was to indoctrinate German youth in Nazi values which meant control of education and youth organizations.

[←221]

In Germany, the Boy Scouts had grown rapidly after its founding in 1911, and by 1914, it numbered over 80,000 members. Scouting attracted many German Mormon youths in part because of the Church’s sponsorship of the organization in the United States. In 1911, the LDS Church endorsed Scouting in the US and shortly thereafter adopted it in Germany. Mormon authorities in Europe believed the Boy Scouts could strengthen the LDS youth and bring others into contact with their religion. By the 1930s, the Mormon Church had become a primary sponsor of the German Scout Association. By the end of 1933, the regime had eliminated all Scouting organizations except the two affiliated with the Mormon missions in Germany. At the time, according to mission records, there were 33 local Scout troops in the Swiss-German Mission alone. The German-Austrian Mission reported that over 150 teen-aged boys were registered in Scouts in that mission with another 100 youth who were involved in scouting activities but were not registered. See Lawrence D. Walker, Hitler Youth and Catholic Youth, 1933-1936: A Study in Totalitarian Conquest (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1970), 8; “The Story of Scouting in the LDS Church,” comp. by LDS Relationships Boy Scouts of America, http://www.boyacks.com/scouting/LDS%20Scouting%20Story.htm (accessed 28 June 2017); Tobler, “The Narrow Line,” 15; “German-Austrian Quarterly Report,” entry for 30 June 1934; “Swiss-German MSS History,” entry for May, 1934; and “German-Austrian Quarterly Report,” entry for 30 June 1934.

[←222]

“German-Austrian Quarterly Report,” entry for 30 June 1934. This report contains copies of the letter exchange of March and April, 1934.

[←223]

“German-Austrian MSS History,” entry for 30 March 1934. The Scout troops from Weimar and Erfurt held a four-day outing. This is the last recorded Scouting activity in Germany before the program was dissolved.

[←224]

“Swiss-German MSS History,” entry for May, 1934; “German-Austrian Quarterly Report,” entry for 30 June 1934.

[←225]

Although the LDS regretted the end of the Scouting program, many Mormon youngsters joined the Hitler Youth. Some became active participants in the Nazi organization and fondly recalled the experience. Other boys either did not participate or, under pressure, merely went through the motions. Of the latter, many found it difficult to attend Sunday church meetings; still others reported renewed harassment by the Hitler Youth. Mormon girls, too, joined the BDM (Bund Deutsche Mädel), the female counterpart to the Hitler Youth. And, as with the boys, they had mixed reactions to it. Some were active participants, others were not. See Tobler and Keele, “The Saints and the Reich,” 13; Oral History: Fred Gassner and Erich Bernhardt, Interview by Justus Ernst (8 June 1985), (Transcript, Archives; Salt Lake City: Historical Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), 26; and Rudi Wobbe and Jerry Borrowman, Before the Blood Tribunal (Salt Lake City: Covenant Communications, Inc., 1992), 7-8.

[←226]

Chonik der Gemeinde Karlsruhe, comp. by Karl Lutz (Karlsruhe, Germany: Gemeinde Karlsruhe, Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage, 1997), 92. On the German Christians and Jewish expressions in church hymns, see also Doris L. Bergen, Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1996), 165-171.

[←227]

Both mission presidents instructed members to avoid such terms in talks and to omit them from church hymns. See Oral History: John A. Dahl, 4-5; and Oral History: Walter H. Speidel, 4.

[←228]

“German-Austrian MSS History,” entry 11 July 1936; Gilbert W. Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany: A History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Germany (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1970), 85.

[←229]

Kriminalpolizei Blatt no. 1751/54, in “Swiss-German MSS History,” entry for January 1934. See also, “German-Austrian MSS History,” entry for 5, 25 and 29 January 1934. During the first week of January 1934 the police forbade any further distribution of “Göttliche Vollmacht” in Germany. In both missions, the mission presidents complied with the order and had all copies of the tract either sent to the respective mission offices, turned over to the government officials or destroyed.

[←230]

In the mid-1930s, for example, the regime banned the Christian Scientists from sending proceeds from the sale of their literature to the United States. Correspondence between the Christian Science Church and the United Stated diplomatic corps covering the period of 16 July 1936 to 28 July 1937, U. S. State Department Documents, 362.116; Christian Science Church/8-12 (National Archives; College Park, MD).

[←231]

The previous month, Finance Minister Hjalmar Schacht had launched a new economic policy that sought to impose “strict controls on the allocation of foreign exchange” for the purpose of building up currency reserves. See Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1999), 576.

[←232]

Registered Marks were more valuable than regular Marks and used for international trade. Mormon missionaries had had the privilege of purchasing Registered Marks since the Weimar era. See also “German-Austrian Quarterly Reports,” December 1934, entry for October.

[←233]

“Swiss-German MSS History,” entry for October 1934; “German-Austrian MSS History,” entry for 6 October 1934; Tobler, “The Narrow Line,” 17. The exchange rate for the Registered Mark was 3.31 per dollar, and for the regular Mark it was 2.48. According to Tobler, “the resulting loss of over 30% of the purchasing power of their $25 monthly check was difficult, if not devastating.”

[←234]

On 1 August 1934, Roy Welker replaced Oliver Budge as president of the East German Mission.

[←235]

Correspondence between the LDS First Presidency and the United State diplomatic corps covering the period of 3 April to 13 April 1935, U. S. State Department Documents, 362.116.M82/35, 36 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives); Correspondence between William E. Dodd and Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, and correspondence between U. S. State Department and LDS First Presidency covering a period between 28 May to 21 June 1935, U. S. State Department Documents, 362.116.M82/38 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives); “Swiss-German MSS History,” entry for July 1935. See also Tobler, “Narrow Line,” 17. The Benevolent Mark was an exchange rate which allowed missionaries to exchange fifty percent of their foreign currency for Registered Marks and fifty percent for Free Marks. “Swiss-German MSS History,” entry for March 1936; “German-Austrian MSS History,” entry under “During the month of March.” According to records, missionaries would have to apply for the privilege of buying Registered Marks. They received an exchange rate of about RM 4 per $1. They could purchase up to 200 Registered Marks per month.

[←236]

“Chronik der Gemeinde Karlsruhe,” 92-93. President Salzner and his co-worker had a conversation with two officials of the State Police. He reported: “The NS officials inquired about our work for the Church and requested that we should go to their office the next day for a discussion. I and my co-worker came as requested, were treated politely and thoroughly questioned. The officials had a pile of newspaper and magazine articles about the Church to which they often referred during the conversation. After we were there an hour, they requested that we write a short history of the Church and describe the organization, goals and dimensions of our work. We complied with the request and presented the document on the following day. The officials informed us they were satisfied and assured us that we had no reason to fear.” (Author’s translation.)

[←237]

William E. Dodd, Ambassador Dodd’s Diary, 1933-1938, ed. by William E Dodd, Jr. and Martha Dodd (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1941), 136.

[←238]

King, The Nazi State and the New Religions, chapter 3. See also King, “Strategies for Survival,” 225-228.

[←239]

Tobler, “The Narrow Line,” 2-3.

[←240]

“German-Austrian MSS History,” entry for Thursday, 8 August 1935.

[←241]

Tobler, “The Narrow Line,” 3.

[←242]

Tobler and Keele, “The Saints and the Reich,” 14.

[←243]

Anderson, “Mormons and Germany, 1914-1933,” 157.

[←244]

Tobler and Keele, “The Saints and the Reich,” 14.

[←245]

Joseph M. Dixon, “Mormons in the Third Reich: 1933-1945,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol 7. (Spring 1972), 74. Here Dixon argues that no “connection existed between the two […] but any parallels […] resulted from circumstance rather than plan.”

[←246]

For a thorough analysis of doctrinal common ground, see William D. Underwood, “Religions are Ordained of God: The Mormon Church in Nazi Germany” (M.A. thesis; Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, 1992), 40-48.

[←247]

Anderson, “Mormons and Germany,” 154-155.

[←248]

Tobler, “The Narrow Line,” 2-3.

[←249]

Oral History: Roy A. Welker, Interviewed by Richard Jensen (2-3 February 1973), (Archives; Salt Lake City: Historical Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), 28-29.

[←250]

Tobler and Keele, “The Saints and the Reich,” 13-14. Grant, more than likely, gave similar instructions to others who served as mission presidents during this period.

[←251]

Tobler and Keele, “The Saints and the Reich,” 15.

[←252]

Oral History: Roy A. Welker, 31.

[←253]

Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 86-87.

[←254]

“German-Austrian MSS History,” entry for “During the Month of July 1936”; “German-Austrian Quarterly Reports,” 30 September 1936; Oral History: Roy A. Welker, 62-64.

[←255]

Several times Elizabeth Welker, when meeting with Scholtz-Klink, found herself in the presence of Hitler. Nevertheless, she never had occasion to speak personally with the dictator, according to her account, because of the language barrier. See Oral History: Roy A. Welker, 23-25, 29-30.

[←256]

Tobler and Keele, “The Saints and the Reich,” 15.

[←257]

Such harassment on the local level did not affect only the Latter-day Saints. In fact, many groups including other Christian denominations, Communists and Socialists, and Jews faced increased local intimidation during the second half of 1934 going into 1935. See Ian Kershaw, Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich: Bavaria 1933-1945 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983) 82-3, 165-74, 195-96, 205-06 232-38.

[←258]

“Swiss-German MSS History,” entry December 1933, “General Summary of the Year”; “German-Austrian Quarterly Reports,” entry for 31 December 1933.

[←259]

“Swiss-German MSS History,” entry December 1933, “General Summary of the Year”; “German-Austrian Quarterly Reports,” entry for 31 December 1933.

[←260]

Both mission presidents suggest that the Catholic and Evangelical clergy were responsible for much of the action against the Mormons trying to halt their proselyting activities. “Swiss-German MSS History,” entry December 1933, “General Summary of the Year”; “German-Austrian Quarterly Reports,” entry for 31 December 1933.

[←261]

For example, see “Swiss-German MSS History,” entries for May and June 1933. In Minden, police interrupted a cottage meeting, holding all at gunpoint. After the missionaries explained the circumstances, the police left. See also “German-Austrian Quarterly Reports,” entry for 31 December 1933, “October”, on how a cottage meeting in Beuthen was disrupted and all participants were taken into custody.

[←262]

In April 1933, missionaries in Hindenburg were attacked by a uniformed Nazi who beat them with his belt. Party members also nearly beat Reed Bradford to death for refusal to salute a Nazi flag. See “German-Austrian Quarterly Reports,” entry for 30 June 1933, “April,” and Tobler, “The Narrow Line,” 12.

[←263]

For example, see “German-Austrian MSS History,” entry for Wednesday, 18 October 1933. See also “Swiss-German MSS History,” entry for December 1934, reporting: “The police summoned the appearance of all members of the Göppingen Branch between the 10 and 16 December. The officers apparently wanted to learn the meaning of our meetings, since Germany is at present in an anxious state of political agitation and all meetings are looked upon with suspicion.”

[←264]

See, for example “Swiss-German MSS History,” entries for January 1934, April 1934, September 1934.

[←265]

In Germany, Mormons rented meeting halls to hold their services. There were only one or two Church-owned chapels in the whole country.

[←266]

“Swiss-German MSS History,” entry for May 1933 reads: “The Hanau branch was denied the right to hold meetings in the ‘Hohelandschule.’ The reason being political suspicion.” “Swiss-German MSS History,” entry July 1933, says: “Branch Closed. … The Hanau branch was closed due to not having a meeting hall….” See also “German-Austrian Quarterly Reports,” entry for 30 June 1933, heading of “May.” On 9 May the use of public schools to hold meetings was refused in Stargard. In this case, no reason was given.

[←267]

In Karlsruhe, according to the branch president, John Dahl, Mormons were treated well by the Party. See Oral History: John A. Dahl, 18. Other Mormons and missionaries were able to maintain harmonious relations with local Party leaders or encountered little trouble.

[←268]

Efforts by President Welker, European mission president, Joseph Merrill, and the American diplomatic corps to get the expulsion rescinded failed. See Steven E. Carter, The Mormons and the Third Reich (Ph.D. dissertation; Fayetteville: University of Arkansas, 2003), 110-112.

[←269]

“Swiss-German MSS History,” entry July 1935, “Tracting Averages.”

[←270]

It was not uncommon for missionaries in Europe to be using basketball. Missionaries in Czechoslovakia, Great Britain and Sweden all participated in “basketball proselyting.” See Bruce C. Van Orden, Building Zion: The Latter-day Saints in Europe (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1996) 135.

[←271]

President Welker, himself, encouraged the use of basketball in proselyting activities and believed that it “did quite a bit of good.” Oral History: Roy A. Welker, 59.

[←272]

Les Goates, “Mormon Missionaries Train German Basketeers,” Deseret News (7 February 1936), 14.

[←273]

“German-Austrian MSS History,” entries for 8 August 1935 and 26 August 1935.

[←274]

Goates, “Mormon Missionaries Train German Basketeers,” 14; Glynn Bennion, “New Ways of Proselyting and the Reason Therefore,” Deseret News (25 January 1936), Church Section 1, 7. As German basketball officials, the official Olympic report listed Charles Perschon, Jerome Christensen, Edward Judd and Vinton Merrill. XI Olympiade Berlin 1936, Amtlicher Berricht, vol. II (Berlin: Organisationskomittee Für die XI. Olypiade Berlin 1936 e.V., Wilhelm Limpert-Verlag, 1936), 1078-1079.

[←275]

Bennion, “New Ways of Proselyting and the Reason Therefore,” 7. “In Germany Herr Hitler has sought the services of the Elders to teach basketball to the teams he hopes will achieve a Nordic victory at the Olympic Games to be held this year in Berlin.”

[←276]

Even within the LDS community there were few German Mormons who were aware that missionaries were involved in the Olympics. Oral History: John A. Dahl, 20.

[←277]

In Berlin and throughout the country, the Nazis relaxed much of their censorship and restrictions they had imposed and did their best to hide anti-Semitic programs, including the Jew-baiting publication, Der Stürmer, and other racial signs from public view. They also let up on their attacks against the Christian churches. For example, they halted the show trials of Catholic priests charged with immorality and currency smuggling. See Duff Hart-Davis, Hitler’s Games: The 1936 Olympics (New York: Harper & Row, 1986), 126, 129, and Ernst C. Helmreich, The German Churches under Hitler: Background, Struggle, and Epilogue (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979), 279.

[←278]

“Swiss-German MSS History,” entry for October 1936, “Missionary Activities.”

[←279]

Conway, The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 168.

[←280]

Oral History: Sanford M. Bingham, Interviewed by Douglas Tobler and Alan F. Keele (Provo, UT, 1974), (Typescript; Archives, The James Moyle Oral History Program; Salt Lake City: Historical Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), 5-6. Alwin Brey had been collecting names of Mormons in the military from the Hamburg district in order to send them copies of Church publications. Nazi officials believed he was gathering the information to turn over to American intelligence.

[←281]

“Swiss-German MSS History,” entries for “March 1937: Difficulties in Hamburg District”, “April 1937: Government wants Financial Report”, and “April 1937: Conferences.” The youth gathering was then moved to Switzerland where there was less oppression.

[←282]

For example, in the Breslau district, the Walthenburg Branch was closed “on account of so much difficulty in obtaining permission to hold meetings.” Moreover, “[p]olice refused the Saints permission to hold ‘open’ meetings in November the previous year, allowing only two outsiders to one gathering.” In April 1937, the Reich and Prussian Minister of Science issued a decree making it unlawful for any religious meeting to be held in public school buildings. This decree affected several branches in the Breslau and Berlin districts that met in schools. “German-Austrian MSS History,” entry for “During the Month of January 1936”; “Friday 29 April 1937.”

[←283]

Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 85.

[←284]

Wallace D. Montague, ”I was a ‘Political Prisoner’ of Hitler,” The Instructor (March 1963), 90-91.

[←285]

Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 90.

[←286]

“Swiss-German MSS History,” entry for “Missionary Imprisoned,” June 1937; Oral History: Sanford M. Bingham, 8-11; Tobler, “The Narrow Line,” 19-21.

[←287]

Oral History: Donald M. Petty, Interviewed by Douglas Tobler (Salt Lake City, 6 and 13 August 1985), (Typescript; Archives, The James Moyle Oral History Program; Salt Lake City: Historical Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), 50. According to Petty, the missionaries wrapped the flag around them like a “breech cloth.” Also, Oral History: M. Douglas and Evelyn N. Wood, Interview by Richard O. Cowan and Davis F. Boone (Typescript; Archives, The James Moyle Oral History Program; Salt Lake City: Historical Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), 3-5.

[←288]

Sonderbericht über die Lage der Protestantischen Kirchen und in den verschiedenen Sekten und deren Staatsfeindliche Auswirkung, 1935, (National Archives Microcopy No. T-175, Guide 39, Roll 409, National Archives).

[←289]

Sonderbericht über die Lage der Protestantischen Kirchen und in den verschiedenen Sekten und deren Staatsfeindliche Auswirkung, 1938, referenced in Tobler and Keele, “The Saints and the Reich,” 22, and Tobler, “The Narrow Line,” 9.

[←290]

Ian Kershaw, Hitler: Nemesis (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000), 41, 46.

[←291]

See Tobler’s comments in Oral History: Sanford M. Bingham, 26-27.

[←292]

A “positive” article, “A Visit with the Mormons”, that explained Latter-day Saint doctrine appeared in the Rheinische Zeitung in February 1933. The following July, the Herforder Zeitung ran an article about the Mormon pioneers in Utah and the “sea-gull miracle.” In contrast, a “slanderous” article, entitled “The Mormons Seek to Rule the World” appeared in the Wilhelmshaverner Zeitung in April 1934 and a 1938 Bremen Nachrichten article discussed Mormon “indulgence” in polygamy. See “Swiss-German MSS History,” entries for February 1933, “Printed Article”; July 1933, “Newspaper Print Favorable Article”; April 1934, “Newspaper Article”; and October 1938, “Opposition.”

[←293]

At a 1932 mission presidents’ conference held in Prague, then-European mission president, John Widtsoe, encouraged the European Church leaders to use “all forms of publicity” and to organize mission central publicity bureaus. “European Mission Presidents in Conference,” Millennial Star, vol. 25 (August 1932), 536-537.

[←294]

For instance, when the article, “The Mormons Seek to Rule the World” appeared in the Wilhelmhavener Zeitung, the missionaries got permission to write a rebuttal that appeared on 20 May 1934. See “Swiss-German MSS History,” entry for April 1934, “Newspaper Article.”

[←295]

“Germany Shifting Her Foreign Policy: Reaction Abroad Criticized,” New York Times (21 November 1938), 4. “Chancellor Hitler’s own newspaper, the Voelkisher Beobacther, published what it called a history of the ejections of Mormons from the States of Missouri and Illinois, describing it as an “American parallel to the Jewish problem in Germany.” See also “West German MSS History,” entry for Tuesday, 22 November 1938.

[←296]

“West German MSS History,” entry for Tuesday, 22 November 1938.

[←297]

During the summer of 1937, Heber J. Grant announced that a third German-speaking mission would be created from the German-Austrian mission and the Swiss-German mission. The new missions, West German, East German and Swiss-Austrian missions would be organized on 1 January 1938. A third mission president, Alfred Rees was called at that time and arrived in Germany to help with the transition in the fall of 1937.

[←298]

Oral History: Ralph Mark Lindsey, Interviewed by Matthew Heiss (Oakmont, CA, 22 April 1990), (Typescript, Archives, The James Moyle Oral History Program; Salt Lake City: Historical Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), 1-2. Lindsey confirms that Rees had connections with the Propaganda Ministry. However, Lindsey states that the scandalous article was on Mormon polygamy. In searching mission records in late 1938 and early 1939, there is no mention of such an article.

[←299]

Oral History: Sanford M. Bingham, 25-26.

[←300]

Oral History: Sanford M. Bingham, 22.

[←301]

Roland Bleich, “Selling Nazi Germany Abroad: The Case of Hulda Jost,” Journal of Church and State 35 (Autumn 1993), 807-808. According to Blaich, “Concerned about the impact of a bad press on his foreign policy, Hitler realized that several small American-based denominations could be useful in influencing public opinion abroad. Methodists and Baptists, particularly, wielded considerable influence in America while posing little risk to Nazi totalitarian designs in Germany because of their small membership. These churches, on the other hand, had reasons of their own to collaborate; for in return they could expect toleration by the Nazi state.”

[←302]

Alfred C. Rees, “Im Lande der Mormonen,” Völkischer Beobacter (14 April 1939).

[←303]

After its publication Rees petitioned the Propaganda Ministry to reprint thousands of copies of the article in pamphlets for missionaries to use. The ministry obliged apparently believing that distribution of the pamphlet would also benefit the Party. See Oral History: Ralph Mark Lindsey, 2.

[←304]

This led to a heated debate between Wood and Rees. Tobler, “The Narrow Line,” 26-27.

[←305]

Tobler, “The Narrow Line,” 26-27.

[←306]

Dixon, “Mormons in the Third Reich, 1933-1945,” 72.

[←307]

Oral History: Ralph Mark Lindsey, 2.

[←308]

Tobler, “The Narrow Line,” 28.

[←309]

In attendance at the meeting were Wood and Rees, Franklin Murdock of the Netherlands Mission, Mark Garff of the Denmark Mission, Thomas McKay from the Swiss-Austrian mission and Wallace Toronto of the Czechoslovakia mission. “East German MSS History,” entry for 24 June 1938.

[←310]

Oral History: Douglas Wood, 2.

[←311]

Telegram from Cordell Hull to U. S. Embassy in Berlin, 13 September 1938, U. S. State Department Document, 362.116.M82/49A (National Archives). The telegram stated: “Pending developments wish you to move missionaries into Denmark and Holland. Please notify Wood same. Effect immediately. Signed First Presidency.” See also, “East German MSS History,” entry for 14 September 1938; “West German MSS History,” entry for 14 September 1938; Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, 80.

[←312]

All the missionaries from the East German mission evacuated to Copenhagen. 24 missionaries from the West German mission who were closer to Denmark than to the Netherlands, also evacuated to Copenhagen. The rest of the West German missionary force went to Rotterdam. See “West German MSS History,” entry for 14 September 1938.

[←313]

“West German MSS History,” entries for 14 and 16 September 1938; Oral History: Donald M. Petty, 33.

[←314]

“West German MSS History,” entry for 4 October 1938.

[←315]

Oral History: Donald M. Petty, 34.

[←316]

Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 91; Oral History: Douglas Wood, 10-11. In the months preceding the outbreak of World War II, Evelyn Wood worked 30 hours a week compiling lesson material and training manuals to leave for the German Mormons if and when the Americans were evacuated again.

[←317]

Tobler, “The Narrow Line,” 23.

[←318]

Scharffs, “Mormonism in Germany, 91; Oral History: Douglas Wood, 11.

[←319]

“West German MSS History,” entry for Saturday 27 May and Monday 29 May 1939.

[←320]

Oral History: John A. Dahl, 27.

[←321]

Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 91; Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, 80-81; Van Orden, Building Zion, 138.

[←322]

Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, 80-81.

[←323]

Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 92.

[←324]

Letter from Richard Poll to his family, 13 August 1939 (Richard Poll Collection, Special Collections; Salt Lake City: University of Utah).

[←325]

Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 91; Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, 81; Van Orden, Building Zion, 138.

[←326]

See documents relating to evacuation in U. S. State Department Documents, 362.116.M82/51-60 (National Archives).

[←327]

For a detailed account of the evacuation of the West German mission, see Terry Bohle Montague, Mine Angels Round About: Mormon Mission Evacuation from Western Germany, 1939 (Murray, UT: Roylance Publishing, 1989).

[←328]

Montague, Mine Angels Round About, 84.

[←329]

Terry Montegue, “The Vern Marrott Story,” Meridian Magazine Online (25 July 2002), http://ldsmag.com/article-1-3689/ (accessed 28 June 2017).

[←330]

“East German Mission Manuscript History, 1938-1959,” manuscript on file (Archives; Salt Lake City: Historical Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), entry for 31 December 1939; Gilbert W. Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 106. In the East German mission alone, 23 of the 65 branches had been under the leadership of American missionaries.

[←331]

Notes from Oral History: Douglas F. Tobler (Provo, UT, 30 April 1998); Tobler, “The Narrow Line”, 17-18. Apostles James Talmage and John Widtsoe both supported the proposal, while Richard Lyman, president of the European mission during the late 1930s, opposed it. See also “Chronik der Gemeinde Bielefeld, 1896-1996,” 1 Auflage 1-150 (Archives; Salt Lake City: Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), 44-45, 48.

[←332]

In Germany there were two missions: The West German Mission headquartered in Frankfurt am Main and the East German Mission headquartered in Berlin.

[←333]

Oral History: Ralph Mark Lindsey, 19-20. See also Oral History: Walter H. Speidel, 5-6. The American District President in Stuttgart designated his German Counselor to succeed him if and when the American missionaries were withdrawn again.

[←334]

“East German MSS History,” entry for 31 December 1939. “Quite a number of those people who are now in charge of the work have been born in the Church; they understand the Gospel and are well qualified to carry on….”

[←335]

Conference Report of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 5 April 1940), 49.

[←336]

Tobler and Keele, “The Saints and the Reich,” 22.

[←337]

“West German Mission Manuscript History, 1938-1968,” (Manuscript on file; Archives; Salt Lake City: Historical Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), entry for 25 September 1939; “Chronik der Gemeinde Karlsruhe,” comp. by Karl Lutz (Karlsruhe, Germany: Gemeinde Karlsruhe, Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage, 1997), (Archives; Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), 103.

[←338]

Ernst C. Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler, 347. Helmreich refers to a Gestapo report from 12 November 1939 in which the agent monitoring the Catholics noted that church attendance was better with many soldiers present.

[←339]

Letter from Ema Klopfer, wife of President Herbert Klopfer, to Heber J. Grant and Counselors, 16 April 1940, in “East German MSS History,” entry for 16 April 1940. “Our districts and branches are in good condition; meetings are being held regularly and are, as a rule, well attended. […] Spring conferences are being held in all districts of the mission. Those already conducted […] have without exception shown a wonderful spirit, perfect preparation and comparatively large attendances. A good number of friends have been visiting us for these conferences too.” See also “West German MSS History,” entry for 31 December 1939.

[←340]

Letter from Ema Klopfer to Heber J. Grant and Counselors, 16 April 1940, in “East German MSS History,” entry for 16 April 1940.

[←341]

“East German MSS History,” entry for 31 December 1939. In late 1939, the East German mission reported twelve natives still engaged in missionary work and the administration of the mission office in Berlin.

[←342]

Since 1933, both missions had used part-time “local missionaries” to supplement the full-time missionaries in their work. After the departure of the Americans, local missionaries shouldered much of the proselyting activities. See “German-Austrian Quarterly Reports, 1930-1937,” (Manuscript on file; Archives; Salt Lake City: Historical Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, September 1933), circular letter #7. See also Oral History: Walter H. Speidel, 8.

[←343]

Letter from Johanna Berger to Thomas E. McKay, 9 September 1940, in “East German MSS History,” entry for 9 September 1940.

[←344]

“Report Tells of Saints in Europe,” Church News (24 November 1945), 5.

[←345]

Letter from Thomas E. McKay to the East German Mission, c/o Johanna Berger, 10 April 1941, in “East German MSS History,” entry for 10 April 1941. “We congratulate you upon your splendid report of conditions in the East German Mission […] [The First Presidency and other General Authorities] were all very much interested in the progress being made and wish me to congratulate you on the splendid manner in which you are looking after the East German Mission […] They are especially pleased to know that all the meetings are being held as usual, especially your fall and spring conferences.”

[←346]

Thomas E. McKay, Conference Report (5 April 1940), 50.

[←347]

Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 105. Friedrich Biehl was killed in battle on the Russian Front on 3 March 1943. Christian Heck, wounded by the Russians, died on 19 April 1945.

[←348]

Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 106.

[←349]

Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 107-110.

[←350]

Klaus Hansen, “Growing Up in Hitler’s Germany,” Queen’s Quarterly, vol. 103, no. 1 (Spring 1996), 81; and Notes from phone conversation with Walter Kindt, 6 February 1999. See also Alfred P. Schultz Journal, in “East German MSS History,” entry for 31 December 1939 (original journal on microfilm in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Historian’s Office). Schultz wrote, “[m]any things have happened in politics in that year. Hitler had made several proposals to Poland which naturally had not been accepted. On the contrary, Poland made a military treaty with England and France, and drove Germans out of the country. Refugees reported of horrible persecutions so that the Fuhrer had to declare war to Poland.”

[←351]

Tobler and Keele, “The Saints and the Reich,” 22.

[←352]

In one letter, Erna Klopfer writes: “[h]undreds of LDS men are serving their country as loyal citizens true to the teachings of their religion. The Lord is with them […] All is well in the East German Mission. Everyone is doing his duty. God bless our leaders of this country and His Church.” See Letter from Erna Klopfer to Heber J. Grant and Counselors, 16 April 1940, in “East German MSS History,” entry for 16 April 1940. Johanna Berger wrote to Thomas E. McKay: “the prayers at the time of services are also for those who stand far away protecting the nation and fighting for the rights of our country.” See Letter from Johanna Berger to Thomas E. McKay, 9 September 1940, in “East German MSS History,” entry for 9 September 1940. Herbert Klofper wrote to Alfred C. Reese, former East German mission president: “[t]hanks to the bravery of the German army our land has been spared the ravages of war […] As long as this struggle of our nation at this time is for the protection of the German homeland and the German people, we believe that God will help us. This gives us peace at this difficult time.” Letter from Herbert Klopfer to Alfred C. Rees, 15 August 1941, in “East German MSS History,” entry for 15 August 1941.

[←353]

Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 101.

[←354]

“Report Tells of Saints in Europe,” 5. See also Sharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 101.

[←355]

Tobler and Keele, “The Saints and the Reich,” 7; Alan F. Keele and Douglas Tobler, “The Führer’s New Clothes,” Sunstone vol. 5 (November/December 1980), 28.

[←356]

“East German MSS History,” entry for Wednesday, 31 December 1941.

[←357]

Hansen, “Growing up in Hitler’s Germany,” 81.

[←358]

Keele and Tobler, “The Führer’s New Clothes,” 28.

[←359]

Helmuth Hübener has been recognized as a figure in the resistance movement. For example, see Annadore Leber, Willy Brandt and Karl Dietrich Brachter, eds., Revolt of Conscience (Berlin: Mosaik Verlag, 1954). In recent years, more attention has been paid to the Helmuth Hübener group. See, for example, Joseph M. Dixon, “Mormons in the Third Reich, 1933-1945,” 75; Rudi Wobbe and Jerry Borrowman, Before the Blood Tribunal (Salt Lake City: Covenant Communications, Inc, 1992); Karl-Heinz Schnibbe, When Truth was Treason, ed. and trans. by Blair R. Holmes and Alan F. Keele (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995); Robin K. Berson, Young Heroes of World History (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999), 135-143; Keele and Tobler, “The Führer’s New Clothes”; Truth and Conviction, Documentary DVD (Provo, UT: Covenant Communications, 2002). For a German perspective, see Ulrich Sander, Jugendwiderstand im Krieg: Die Helmuth-Hübener-Gruppe, 1941-1942 (Bonn: Pahl-Rugenstein Verlag Nachfolger GmbH, 2002).

[←360]

Those who knew Helmuth Hübener described him as exceptionally intelligent. He possessed an exquisite understanding of political issues and was well versed in Mormon theology and scriptures, often explaining complex ideas to friends and debating LDS dogma with branch members and missionaries. Some thought he was somewhat arrogant. See Wobbe and Borrowman, Before the Blood Tribunal, 18; statements by Karl-Heinz Schnibbe, Douglas Tobler, Alan Keele and Otto Berndt Jr. in Truth and Conviction, Tract 2; Schnibbe, When Truth was Treason, 29. See also Oral History: Marie Sommerfeld, Interview by Douglas Tobler (Transcript; Archives; Salt Lake City: Historical Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), 18.

[←361]

Schnibbe, When Truth was Treason, 29-30. According to Schnibbe, Helmuth believed German victory was impossible. “’Just think about it,’ he said. ‘England, France – it is strategically impossible! It just can’t be. Germany is cut off, has no raw materials, everything will collapse.’ He put two and two together and figured out what many had not. ‘Listen, an army needs so much gasoline every day, and this and that. It goes okay for a while, but then comes to a halt when nothing more is available.’” Commenting on Hitler’s invasion of Russia, “Helmuth also said to us, ‘It cannot succeed!’ He had thought about it a lot and was firmly convinced of it. Thus it came about that he invited me to visit him….” See also statements by Tobler, Keele, Schnibbe and Philip M. Taylor in Truth and Conviction, Tract 5.

[←362]

Schnibbe was 17 years old and Wobbe was 15 years old at the time.

[←363]

All three had been horrified by Kristallnacht in 1938 and the nortorious anti-Semitic film Jud’ Suess. Nazi brutality struck close to home when Heinrich Worbs, a member of their branch, was arrested and sent to a concentration camp for speaking out against the regime and when Solomon Schwarz, a Jewish friend who had converted to Mormonism was forced to wear the yellow star and live in a ghetto. See Tobler’s and Schnibbe’s statement in Truth and Conviction, Tract 3; Schnibbe, When Truth was Treason, 21-23, 45-46; and Wobbe and Borrowman, Before the Blood Tribunal, 18-19, 25-26.

[←364]

Branch president Arthur Zander and first counselor Freidrich Jakobi were both active Nazis and promoted National Socialist ideology at church. They wore their uniforms to meetings and forbade Jews (in particular Solomon Schwarz) from attending services. Zander frequently locked the doors of the chapel compelling members to listen to Hitler’s speeches on a radio. For the youth, this raised theological questions about what to do in the event of a conflict between God and Caesar. Keele and Tobler, “The Führer’s New Clothes,” 21-22; Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 102-103; and Wobbe and Borrowman, Before the Blood Tribunal, 31-32.

[←365]

Since Hübener possessed typing and shorthand skills, he was called to serve as an assistant branch clerk in the Hamburg-St. Georg branch. Because of his position, Helmuth had access to the branch typewriter and mimeograph machine which he utilized for his pamphlets.

[←366]

“West German MSS History,” entry for 31 December 1941.

[←367]

In 1946, Otto Berndt and Max Zimmer, acting mission president of the Swiss mission discovered Hübener’s membership record and wrote on it: “Excommunication was done by mistake.” In 1948, the First Presidency formally reinstated Hübener’s membership, overturning the spurious excommunication. Otto Berndt, district president in Hamburg, refused to countersign the excommunication, so Zander went above Berndt’s head and had Anton Huck, acting mission president of the West German Mission approve it. Berndt’s opposition to Hübener‘s excommunication did, however, prevent Schnibbe and Wobbe from being cut off from the Church as well. “West German MSS History,” entry for 31 December 1941. In particular, see Berndt Statement under the same entry.

[←368]

See records of the Volksgerichthof, “In Namen des Deutschen Volk in der Strafsache gegen […] Helmuth Günther Hübener, […] Rudolf Gustav Wobbe, […] Karl Heinz Schnibbe, […] Gerhard Heinrich Jacob Jonni Düwer,” photocopy on file in Helmuth Hübener papers (Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University). For an English translation, see Document 52, “Verdict of the People’s Court,” in Schnibbe, When Truth was Treason, 220.

[←369]

Decree Extraordinary Radio Measures, 1 September 1939, in Schnibbe, When Truth was Treason, 154-146.

[←370]

Berndt Statement in “West German MSS History,” entry for 31 December 1941.

[←371]

Keele and Tobler, “The Führer’s New Clothes,” 24.

[←372]

Klaus J. Hansen, “Foreward: History and Memory,” in Schnibbe, When Truth was Treason, xiii.

[←373]

See records of the Volksgerichthof, “In Namen des Deutschen Volk in der Strafsache gegen Hübener, Wobbe, Schnibbe, Düwer,” where their Mormon religion is only mentioned as part of their backgrounds.

[←374]

“It is regrettable that in the judgment of the People’s Court against Hübener the question remained open, whether and to what extent the religious sect to which Hübener belonged is to be ascribed as the intellectual originator of Hübener’s crimes.” Document 58, Letter from National Socialist German Worker’s Party, Hitler Youth/Youth Leadership of the Reich, Office of the Hitler Youth Jurisdiction to Chancellery of the Führer of the NSDAP, Central Office for Clemency Cases, RE: Clemency Case Helmuth Hübener, Hamburg, 15 September 1942, in Schnibbe, When Truth was Treason, 238.

[←375]

Berndt Statement in “West German MSS History,” entry for 31 December 1941.

[←376]

Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler, 350.

[←377]

The Church ignored the Hübener case and shunned the surviving members of the group, Schnibbe and Wobbe, for nearly fifty years and in 1976, as well as cancelled a play about Hübener produced at Brigham Young University. The Hübener case simply ran counter to the Mormon accommodation policy with secular governments. See Oral History: Karl-Heinz Schnibbe, 11 and David C. Nelson, “The Hübener Syndrome: How Mormons Remember Church History in Nazi Germany” (Unpublished paper presented at the Mormon Historical Association Conference, May 2000, Copenhagen, Denmark), 11. In recent years, however, the attitude toward Hübener has changed. In 1992, Brigham Young University again staged the play, Hübener, without interference. Hübener has also been performed in the greater Salt Lake City area. Finally, the Hübener Group was recognized at the 2003 Freedom Awards Gala at Brigham Young University. See also, Leigh Dethman, “America’s Freedom Festival: Nazi Resister Lives in S. L. and Love Liberty,” Deseret Morning News (3 July 2003).

[←378]

Keele and Tobler, “The Führer’s New Clothes,” 26.

[←379]

Oral History: Karl-Heinz Schnibbe, 3.

[←380]

Jay M. Todd, “The Church among the German Speaking People,” Improvement Era (March 1969), 7-8.

[←381]

Otto Berndt, Letter to the Editor, Improvement Era (May 1969), 100-101.

[←382]

See “Chronik der Gemeinde Bielefeld,” 51; “Chronik der Gemeinde Karlsruhe,” 103.

[←383]

“West German MSS History,” entry for 3 August 1943.

[←384]

For example, the Königsberg branch reported that thirty-five families had been bombed-out after an attack. See “East German MSS History,” entry for 31 December 1943.

[←385]

Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 117.

[←386]

“East German MSS History,” entry for 31 December 1944. See also Hansen, “Growing Up in Hitler’s Germany.”

[←387]

Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 105, 114. In Hamburg, for example, by 1944, three of the four branch meeting halls had been destroyed and the fourth was badly damaged. In April 1945, it too was finally destroyed.

[←388]

“East German MSS History,” entry for Monday, 22 November 1943. According to Erna Klopfer, “Mission office was temporarily moved into the home of the second counselor, [Paul] Langheinrich. […] After a few days, both of us went into the ruins of the destroyed mission office to see whether or not we could find anything there. Everything was burned. At last, we discovered the safe. It had to be removed from its position. It was hard work, and in vain. The heat had penetrated through the metal, the papers were burned, and the coins were melted into one piece.” For the duration of the war, mission headquarters were located in the home of Paul Langheinrich of the mission presidency.

[←389]

“West German MSS History,” entry for 7 February 1941.

[←390]

“West German MSS History,” entry for 31 May 1943.

[←391]

“West German MSS History,” entry for 29 November 1942.

[←392]

Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 104.

[←393]

Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler, 306-308, 352-354. By 1943, over 41 percent of ordained and 78 percent of non-ordained ministers in the Evangelical Church had been drafted. Such depletion of clergymen took its toll on that denomination. In contrast, most Catholic clergymen in accordance with the Concordat were immune to conscription.

[←394]

“East German MSS History,” entry for Wednesday, 31 December 1941.

[←395]

Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler, 354. According to the provision, however, a clergyman was subject to the draft if he held another job. Since the LDS Church relies on a lay ministry and most of those serving in ecclesiastical positions held other employment, the 1943 military exemption technically would not be extended to LDS officials. Though subject to the draft, no mission leaders in either mission were called up after 1943. Apparently, governing authorities, at least for the time being, were content to allow Mormons the same privileges.

[←396]

For example, see Hansen, “Growing up in Hitler’s Germany.”

[←397]

Branches such as Bielefeld, Wuppertal and Karlsruhe experienced a drastic decline in attendance at church meetings. See “Chronik der Gemeinde Bielefeld,” “Chronik der Gemeinde Karlsruhe” and “Entwicklung der Wuppertaler Gemeinde der Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage” (Microfilm; Archives; Salt Lake City: Historical Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

[←398]

Garold and Norma Davis, “Behind the Wall: The Church in Eastern Germany,” Ensign (April 1991), 22.

[←399]

“Chronik der Gemeinde Bielefeld,” 49-50. The branch president also alternated the meetings: one week Sunday School was held, the next week a Sacrament meeting.

[←400]

“West German MSS History,” entry for 3 August 1943.

[←401]

Davis and Davis, “Behind the Wall,” 22.

[←402]

Oral History: Fred Gassner and Erich Bernhardt, 28. See also “Chronik der Gemeinde Bielefeld,” 49-50; “Chronik der Gemeinde Karlsruhe,” and “Entwicklung der Wuppertaler Gemeinde.”

[←403]

Tobler and Keele, “The Saints and the Reich,” 32. For example, the Stettin branch, before the war, boasted an average attendance at meetings of approximately one hundred persons. By 1942, this number had shrunk to around forty. In March 1945, the branch president, with only six members in attendance dissolved the branch completely. See also Douglas Tobler, “Before the Wall Fell: Mormons in the German Democratic Republic, 1945-89,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 25, no. 4 (1992), 14.

[←404]

“West German MSS History,” entry for 1 January 1943.

[←405]

Ernst C. Helmreich, The German Churches under Hitler: Background, Struggle and Epilogue (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979), 334, 446. Bishop Theophil Wurm assembled a group of leading Protestant churchmen who created an Evangelical church aid society to oversee relief efforts. The German Association of Catholic Charities (Deutsche Caritasverband), which had not been dissolved by the Nazis, coordinated Catholic relief during and after the war.

[←406]

The locations for the warehouses were Breslau, Spreewald, Berlin, Kreuz and one in the Erzgebirge. See Memorandum, RE: Statement by Paul Langheinrich to Justus Ernst, in “East German MSS History,” entry for 31 December 1942.

[←407]

Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 111.

[←408]

“Report Tells of Saints in Europe,” 5.

[←409]

Erna Klopfer comments on her husband, Herbert Klopfer, in “East German MSS History,” entry for 19 March 1945. According to Erna Klopfer, her husband had won the respect of his commanding officers who allowed him this privilege.

[←410]

“East German MSS History,” entry for 19 March 1945.

[←411]

Oral History: Walter H. Speidel, 6.

[←412]

Oral History: John A. Dahl, 23. “My commander for the detachment said […] ’Hans, […] Why did you have to tell them you fulfilled a mission for the Mormon Church? You were the top on our list.’ But the commander, they feared I was an agent, a spy. That’s why I was never promoted.” See also Saints at War: Experiences of Latter-day Saints in World War II, ed. by Robert C. Freeman and Dennis A. Wright (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications Inc., 2001), 83. Dahl states, “But any expected promotion was not granted. I found out much later from one of the lieutenants of our regiment the reason why I was not promoted. Here are his words, as far as I remembered them: ‘Why did you mention in your vita that you are a member of an American church? This made you suspect of being an agent for America.’”

[←413]

“West German MSS History,” entry for 31 December 1941. Erich Leis and Friedrich Peters received the Iron Cross second class and Leis was promoted to “Unteroffizier (sergeant).”

[←414]

Oral History: Walter H. Speidel, 12.

[←415]

Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 107; “East German MSS History,” entry for Thursday, 31 December 1942. Alfred Schultz reported that “[a] colleague, who knew the Mormons, made it very hard for me on my job, and had told the officials that I was preaching against the Party. I was asked to come to the Gestapo where I was questioned. I could produce evidence that this was not true. Nevertheless, I was told to resign from all offices held. I was also told to leave this religion alone. I discussed these matters with the District President, who said it would be the best to release me from all my offices which was done at the fall conference.”

[←416]

“East German MSS History,” entry for 31 December 1942.

[←417]

Commenting on this, historian Joseph Dixon writes, “[s]ome local church authorities had instructed the members to rise whenever Church officers came into the service, a practice generally reserved to show respect for the president of the Church. In meetings, however, the members continued to testify to the divinity of the Mormon Church and did not repudiate the divine call of the General Authorities in the United States.” Dixon, “Mormons in the Third Reich: 1933-1945,” 74.

[←418]

“Report Tells of Saints in Europe,” 5.

[←419]

Doctrine and Covenants 98:16, 33-37. Tobler and Keele, “The Saints and the Reich,” 9.

[←420]

Frederick Kempe, Father/land: A Personal Search for the New Germany (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1999), 92-96, 175-191, 269-282. The name Kramer is an alias Kempe used to hide the identity of his relative at the request of his family.

[←421]

Hansen, “Growing up in Hitler’s Germany,” 81.

[←422]

Conversation with Kindt.

[←423]

Oral History: Walter H. Speidel, 8.

[←424]

Hansen, “Growing up in Hitler’s Germany,” 82. In this capacity, he not only avoided having to kill, but also helped to save many lives. He even helped deliver babies while he was in Poland.

[←425]

Oral History: Karl-Heinz Schnibbe, 4.

[←426]

Dahl, who was serving in Lithuania in 1942, was greatly disturbed when a group of soldiers invited him to see a mass grave. Dahl flatly refused to do so. Gassner had a similar experience. En route to the front, Gassner saw women and children working on the railroad tracks. When he inquired who they were, the guard informed him that they were Jews who would soon be “sent to Byalistok and there they are to be gassed.” See Oral History: John A. Dahl; and Oral History: Fred Gassner and Erich Bernhardt, 13.

[←427]

Dixon, “Mormons in the Third Reich: 1933-1945,” 74.

[←428]

Oral History: Fred Gassner and Erich Bernhardt, 13.

[←429]

Walter Speidel, who was a POW in a camp in Alabama, recalled seeing several films documenting the horrors of Buchenwald before his release in 1946. Initially he discounted these films as mere propaganda, but after viewing them several times, he came to the horrifying conclusion that such crimes had been committed by his fellow countrymen. Oral History: Walter H. Speidel, 9.

[←430]

Oral History: Fred Gassner and Erich Bernhardt, 12.

[←431]

Douglas F. Tobler, “German Mormons as ‘Righteous Gentiles’: Trying to Save a Few Jewish Friends” (Unpublished essay, photocopy in author’s possession), 3. See also Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler, 375.

[←432]

Oral History: Walter H. Speidel, 9-11.

[←433]

Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 116.

[←434]

Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany, 116. Acting mission presidents, Friedrich Biehl and Christian Heck of the West German mission and Herbert Klopfer of the East German mission. Other local leaders who lost their lives during the conflict were district presidents Martin Hoppe of Breslau, Carl Goeckeritz of Chemnitz and Erich Behrndt of Stettin.

[←435]

An earlier version of this article has been published by the same title in the International Journal of Mormon Studies, vol. 4 (2011), 119-184.

[←436]

Michael W. Homer, “Like the Rose in the Wilderness: The Mormon Mission in the Kingdom of Sardinia,” Mormon Historical Studies, vol. 1, no. 2 (2000), 34.

[←437]

Millennial Star, vol. 23 (1861), 510, 524, 711 and 760.

[←438]

Anthony Cardoza, ‘Cavour and Piedmont’, in Italy in the Nineteenth Century, 1796–1900, ed. by John A. Davis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 118.

[←439]

Michael W. Homer, “LDS Prospects in Italy for the Twenty-first Century,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 29 (Spring 1996), 151–52.

[←440]

Massimo Introvigne, I Mormoni (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993), 195–97; Homer, “LDS Prospects in Italy,” 153; Franco Garelli, Religione e chiesa in Italia (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1991), 12–15.

[←441]

See for example, A. Bryan Weston, “Europe,” in Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History, ed. by Arnold K. Garr, Donald Q. Cannon and Richard O. Cowan (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2000), 344–45; Richard G. Wilkins, “All’Italiana – The Italian Way,” New Era (March 1978), 30; Ralph L. Cottrell Jr., ”A History of the Discontinued Mediterranean Missions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” (M.A. thesis; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1963), 69.

[←442]

The most perceptive analysis of the shortfall of the first mission is in James R. Moss, et al., The International Church (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Publications, 1982), 32.

[←443]

Giorgio Tourn, You Are My Witnesses: The Waldensians across 800 Years (Turin: Claudiana, 1989), 215.

[←444]

“At one time or another, Hawthorne, Cooper, Melville, Longfellow, Tichnor, Emerson, Bryant, Lowell, and Whittier paid tribute in prose or verse to the cause of the Risorgimento.” John P. Diggins, Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), 7.

[←445]

Valdo Vilnay, Storia dei valdesi, Vol. 3 (Turin: Claudiana, 1980), 75; Tourn, You Are My Witnesses, 203.

[←446]

David I. Kertzer, “Religion and Society, 1789–1892, “ in Italy in the Nineteenth Century, 1796–1900, ed. by John A. Davis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 193–94; Michael W. Homer, “Discovering Italy: The Mormon Mission and the Reaction of the Kingdom of Sardegna, The Catholic Church, and Her Protestant Rivals” (Unpublished paper), 9, 13 and 20; Homer, “LDS Prospects in Italy,” 140–41.

[←447]

Kertzer, “Religion and Society,”202; Cardoza, “Cavour and Piedmont,” 119; Guido Verucci, L’Italia laica prima e dopo l’Unità, 1848–1876: Anticlericalismo, libero pensiero e ateismo nella società italiana (Rome and Bari: Laterza, 1981).

[←448]

Tourn, You Are My Witnesses, 181; D.A. Binchy, Church and State in Fascist Italy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1941), 581–83.

[←449]

Anne Freemantle, The Papal Encyclicals in Their Historical Context (New York: New American Library, 1956), 134–55; Kertzer, “Religion and Society,” 190.

[←450]

Alice A. Kelikan, “The Church and Catholicism,” in Liberal and Fascist Italy, 1900–1945, ed. by Adrian Lyttelton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 45–58; Harry Hearder, Italy in the Age of the Risorgimento, 1790–1870 (London and New York: Longman, 1980), 288–89; Kertzer, “Religion and Society,” 183, 193–94; Martin Clark, Modern Italy, 1871–1982 (London: Longman, 1984), 81–88. On education, see Beatrice Pisa, “Cesare Correnti è il dibatito sulla laicità dell’insegnamento,” Rassegna Storica del Risorgimento, vol. 62 (1975), 212–32; Vincenzo Paglia, “I Programmi Governativi nel Ginnasio-liceo dell’apollinare (1870–1904),” Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia, vol. 35 (1981), 40–73; Fabrizia Gurreri, “Il “Visconti”: Un liceo romano in età liberale (1870–1911),” Roma Moderna e Contemporanea, vol. 3 (1995), 727–58.

[←451]

Vilnay, Storia dei valdesi, vol. 3, 75–79; Kertzer, “Religion and Society,” 201; also Michael W. Homer, “The Church’s Image in Italy from the 1840’s to 1946: A Bibliographic Essay,” BYU Studies, vol. 31 (1991), 87; Binchy, Church and State in Fascist Italy, 594.

[←452]

Tourn, You Are My Witnesses, 172, 207; Giorgio Spini, Italia liberale e protestanti (Turin: Claudiana, 2002), 40.

[←453]

Homer, “The Church’s Image in Italy,” 88; The History of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Vol. 4 (Independence, MO: Herald House, 1906), 16–17, 22, 59–60, 73.

[←454]

See the very detailed discussion of this in Vilnay, Storia dei valdesi, vol. 3, 79–173; also Spini, Italia liberale e protestanti, 151–220.

[←455]

Vilnay, Storia dei valdesi, vol. 3, 241; Tourn, You Are My Witnesses, 208, 210, 222.

[←456]

Spini, Italia liberale e protestanti, 85; Clark, Modern Italy, 31.

[←457]

Tourn, You Are My Witnesses, 206, 213.

[←458]

James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), 397–98.

[←459]

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1879 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1879), 601–604.

[←460]

B.H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 4 (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1940), 124; Leonard J. Arrington, “Historical Development of International Mormonism,” Religious Studies and Theology, vol. 7 (1987), 14; Allen and Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 322, 344; The Deseret Morning News Church Almanac (Salt Lake City: Deseret Morning News, 2005), 635.

[←461]

Thomas G. Alexander, Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 1890–1930 (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1996), 5, 216–17.

[←462]

Arrington, “Historical Development of International Mormonism,” 14–15; Allen and Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 322, 343–44, 396, 426, 460; Church Almanac (2005), 635.

[←463]

Alexander, Mormonism in Transition, 5, 217–18; Moss, The International Church, 71; Allen and Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 506.

[←464]

Eliza R. Snow Smith, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow: One of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1884; reprint: Salt Lake City: Zion’s Book Store, 1975), 496–97; Allen and Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 322–23.

[←465]

Alexander, Mormonism in Transition, 216–17; Allen and Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 441–42, 459–60.

[←466]

David J. Whittaker, “Mormon Missiology: An Introduction and Guide to the Sources,” in The Disciple as Witness: Essays on Later-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, ed. by Stephen D. Ricks et al. (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2000), 463–64; Allen and Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 396, 426, 459–60; R. Lanier Britsch, “Missions and Missionary Work,” in Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History, 760; Alexander, Mormonism in Transition, 212; F. LaMond Tullis, “Reopening the Mexican Mission in 1901,” BYU Studies, vol. 22 (1982), 441.

[←467]

Whittaker, ”Mormon Missiology,” 463–64; R. Lanier Britsch, “Missions and Missionary Work,” in Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History, 760; Alexander, Mormonism in Transition,  235–36; Maureen Ursenbach Beecher and Paul Thomas Smith, “Snow, Lorenzo,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 3, ed. by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1370.

[←468]

Alexander, Mormonism in Transition, 235; Richard O. Cowan, The Church in the Twentieth Century (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1985), 102; Allen and Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 508–509, 531; Gilbert Scharffs, Mormonism in Germany (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1970), 88, 99.

[←469]

Gordon Irving, “Mormonism and Latin America: A Preliminary Survey,” Task Papers in LDS History, no. 10 (Salt Lake City: Historical Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1976), 7–20; A. Delbert Palmer and Mark L. Grover, “Hoping to Establish a Presence: Parley P. Pratt’s 1851 Mission to Chile,” BYU Studies, vol. 38, no. 4 (1999), 115–38.

[←470]

Smith, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, 209–10, 217–18.

[←471]

Smith, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, 169–70.

[←472]

See Millennial Star, vol. 12 (1850), 370–74; vol. 13 (1851), 25–26, 89–90, 107–108, 186, 252–53, 301–302; vol. 14 (1852–53), 107–108, 282, 461–62, 555–58, 670–71; vol. 15 (1854), 9, 61–62, 110–11, 155, 191–92, 204–206, 350–51, 457, 707; vol. 16 (1855), 46, 53–58, 454–56; vol. 17 (1856), 154–56, 490–91, 666–67; vol. 18 (1857), 218–20, 634–36; and vol. 19 (1858), 655.

[←473]

Cottrell, “History of the Discontinued Mediterranean Missions,” 25.

[←474]

Homer, “The Church’s Image in Italy,” 86.

[←475]

Guglielmo Giosue Rossetti Sangiovanni, Letter to Susanna Mehitable Rogers Sangiovanni, 21 December 1864 (MS 2986; Sangiovanni, Susanna Mehitable Rogers, 1813–1905, Collection 1825–1905; LDS Church Archives).

[←476]

Guglielmo Giosue Rossetti Sangiovanni, Letter to Susanna Mehitable Rogers Sangiovanni, 8 May 1865 (MS 2986; Sangiovanni, Susanna Mehitable Rogers, 1813–1905, Collection 1825–1905; LDS Church Archives).

[←477]

Guglielmo Giosue Rossetti Sangiovanni, Letter to Susanna Mehitable Rogers Sangiovanni, 31 July 1865 (MS 2986; Sangiovanni, Susanna Mehitable Rogers, 1813–1905, Collection 1825–1905; LDS Church Archives).

[←478]

Grant Underwood, The Millenarian World of Early Mormonism (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1993), 43, 50–51.

[←479]

William Mulder, “’Mormonism’s Gathering’: An American Doctrine with a Difference,” Church History, vol. 23, no. 3 (1954), 248–64.

[←480]

D. A. Delafield, Ellen G. White in Europe, 1885–1887 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1975), p. 138; Tourn, You Are My Witnesses, 164–66.

[←481]

Marie Madeleine Cardon Guild, Letter “To My Children and to Whom it May Concern,” 12 January 1903 (MS 894; Guild, Marie Madeleine Cardon, 1834–1914, Correspondence 1898–1903; LDS Church Archives).

[←482]

John Henry Smith, 6 April 1885, Journal of Discourses, vol. 26 (London and Liverpool: LDS Booksellers Depot, 1854–86), 177.

[←483]

Diggins, Mussolini and Fascism, 6–8; Richard H. Brodhead, “Strangers on a Train: The Double Dream of Italy in the American Gilded Age,” Modernism/Modernity, vol. 1, no. 2 (1994), 2, 3–4.

[←484]

Brodhead, “Strangers on a Train,” 13; Alexander DeConde, “Endearment or Antipathy? Nineteenth Century American Attitudes toward Italians,” Ethnic Groups, vol. 4 (1982), 132–33; Carl Maves, Sensuous Pessimism: Italy in the Work of Henry James (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973), 5.

[←485]

DeConde, “Endearment or antipathy,” 138–39; Brodhead, “Strangers on a Train,” 2 and 6.

[←486]

Angelo Principe, “Il Risorgimento visto dai Protestanti dell’alto Canada, 1846–1860,” Rassegna storica del risorgimento, vol. 66 (1979), 152; Diggins, Mussolini and Fascism, 6 and 8.

[←487]

DeConde, “Endearment or Antipathy,” 137–38; Maves, Sensuous Pessimism, 48–49; Diggins, Mussolini and Fascism, 11.

[←488]

Diggins, Mussolini and Fascism, 10.

[←489]

Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons, ed. by Dean C. Jessee (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1974), 47.

[←490]

William Bowker Preston, Journal, January-October 1890 (MS 7557; LDS Church Archives).

[←491]

Jill Mulvay Derr, Janath Russell Cannon and Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, Women of Covenant: The Story of Relief Society (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1992), 107 and 134; Janet Peterson and LaRene Gaunt, Elect Ladies (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1990), 55–56; Claire Wilcox Noall, “Utah’s Pioneer Women Doctors,” Improvement Era (1939).

[←492]

Ellen B. Ferguson, “Scenes in Italy,” The Contributor, vol. 6 (Dec 1884), 12–14.

[←493]

Millennial Star (2 July 1894), 423; (9 July 1894), 446; (27 August 1894), 551; (3 September 1894), 567.

[←494]

Hyrum Washington Valentine, Letter to Brother Call, 4 September 1912 (MS 1340; Papers, 1911–1940; LDS Church Archives).

[←495]

The Year of Jubilee: A Full Report of the Proceedings of the Fiftieth Annual Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 4 April 1903 (Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1903), 18.

[←496]

Arthur Gaeth, “If Christ Came to Italy: A Student of World Affairs and Religion Views Mussolini’s Regime and Finds Black Shirts Shut Out Light,” Millennial Star, vol. 103 (1941), 347.

[←497]

Diggins, Mussolini and Fascism, 10.

[←498]

On this see Jenny Franchot, Roads to Rome: The Antebellum Protestant Encounter with Catholicism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).

[←499]

John Tracy Ellis, American Catholicism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969), 159.

[←500]

Howard R. Marraro, “Il problema religioso del Risorgimento italiano visto dagli americani,” Rassegna storica del risorgimento, vol. 43 (1956), 463–72, 463–64, 468.

[←501]

Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad (Hartford, CT: American Publishing Company, 1869), 599.

[←502]

Matthew J. Grow, “The Whore of Babylon and the Abomination of Abominations: Nineteenth-Century Catholic and Mormon Mutual Perceptions and Religious Identity,” Church History, vol. 73 (2004), 139–67, 141–43; Thomas J. Carty, A Catholic in the White House: Religion, Politics, and John F. Kennedy’s Presidential Campaign (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 11–25; Gary L. Bunker and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Graphic Image, 1834–1914: Cartoons, Caricatures, and Illustrations (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1983), 82–86.

[←503]

Francis J. Weber, “The Church in Utah, 1882: A Contemporary Account,” Records of the American Catholic Historical Society, 81 (1970), 199–208, 202; Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960), 59; Thomas F. O’Dea, The Mormons (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 34; Whitney R. Cross, The Burned-Over District: The Social and Intellectual History of Enthusiastic Religions in Western New York, 1800–1850 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1950), 232–33.

[←504]

Joseph F. Smith, September 30, 1877, Journal of Discourses, vol. 19, 194.

[←505]

Alexander, Mormonism in Transition, 253; Weber, “The Church in Utah,” 200; Bernice Maher Mooney and Jerome C. Stoffel, Salt of the Earth: The History of the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City, 1776–1987 (Salt Lake City: Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City, 1987), 40–47; Bishop Scanlan, The Catholic Church in Utah (Salt Lake City: Intermountain Catholic Press, 1909), 330–34; Allen and Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 349; Bernice Maher Mooney, “The Cathedral of the Madeleine: The Building and Embellishment of a Historic Place,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 49 (Spring 1981), 110–32, 110–12; Francis J. Weber, “Father Lawrence Scanlan’s Report of Catholicism in Utah, 1880,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 34 (1966), 283–89, 289.

[←506]

Mark L. Grover, “The Maturing of the Oak: The Dynamics of LDS Growth in Latin America,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 38, no. 2 (2005), 79–104, 82; Irving, “Mormonism and Latin America,” 7.

[←507]

Joseph Smith–History 1, 19. See also Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ed. by Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 15.

[←508]

Grow, “The Whore of Babylon,” 143–44.

[←509]

1 Nephi 6:12; 10:16; 13:6; 13:32; 14:9; 22:13. The persistence of Mormon anti-Catholic ideas is evidenced in the controversy over the repeated identification of “the church of the devil” and “the great and abominable church” of 1 Nephi 13–14 with Roman Catholicism in the first edition of Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine (1958). These references were subsequently expurgated from the second edition (1966). Compare Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1958), 108, 129–30 (among many similar references) with the second edition, 1966. See also David John Buerger, “Speaking with Authority: The Theological Influence of Elder Bruce R. McConkie,” Sunstone, vol. 9 (March 1985), 8–13, 9; Gregory A. Prince and Wm. Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005), 49–53. For a very early example of the conflation of Catholicism with the “great and abominable church,” see Winchester, History of the Priesthood, 79–82.

[←510]

“Grapes from Thorns, and Figs from Thistles,” Millennial Star, vol. 1 (January 1841), 235.

[←511]

Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 375.

[←512]

Smith, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, 116, 134 and 120.

[←513]

Grow, “The Whore of Babylon,” 146.

[←514]

Samuel Francis, Journal, 69–70, cited in Homer, “Discovering Italy,” 29. This voyeuristic fascination with the Inquisition was shared by many travelers, including Mark Twain, Innocents Abroad (1869), Chapter 26, http://publicliterature.org/pdf/3176.pdf (accessed 7 July 2017).

[←515]

John A. Widtsoe, Letter to First Presidency, July 2, 1932 (MS 5417; Widtsoe Family Papers, LDS Church Archives).

[←516]

John A. Widtsoe, In a Sunlit Land (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1952), 206.

[←517]

Kenneth W. Godfrey, “Moses Thatcher and Mormon Beginnings in Mexico,” BYU Studies, vol. 38 (Winter 1999), 139–55, 139–40; Grow, “The Whore of Babylon,” 144–45.

[←518]

Millennial Star, vol. 29, 652.

[←519]

J.M. Sjodahl, “Signs of the Times,” Juvenile Instructor (March 1929), 145–46.

[←520]

Armand L. Mauss, “In Search of Ephraim: Traditional Mormon Conceptions of Lineage and Race,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 25, no. 1 (1999), 131–73.

[←521]

Report of the Semi-Annual Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 4–5 April 1936 (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1936), 87.

[←522]

Report of the Semi-Annual Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1–2 October 1948 (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1948).

[←523]

Malcolm R. Thorp, “The Religious Background of Mormon Converts in Britain, 1837–52,” Journal of Mormon History, 4 (1977), 51–65, 52–54, 58–60; also Tim B. Heaton, Stan L. Albrecht and J. Randal Johnson, “The Making of British Saints in Historical Perspective,” BYU Studies, vol. 27 (1987), 121–22.

[←524]

Cottrell, “History of the Discontinued Mediterranean Missions,” 42; John DeLon Peterson, ”The History of the Mormon Missionary Movement in South America to 1940” (M.A. thesis; Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1961), 5–6.

[←525]

Moss, The International Church, 40–41; Millennial Star, vol. 29, 605.

[←526]

Tullis, “Reopening the Mexican Mission,” 446; Alexander, Mormonism in Transition, 235; Peterson, “The History of the Mormon Missionary Movement in South America,” 44–102.

[←527]

Arrington, “Historical Development of International Mormonism,” 12–13.

[←528]

Homer, “Like the Rose in the Wilderness,” 32; Michael W. Homer, “Seeking Primitive Christianity in the Waldensian Valleys: Protestants, Mormons, Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses in Italy,” Nova Religio, vol. 9, no. 4 (2006), 5–6, 10–11.

[←529]

Grover, “The Maturing of the Oak,” 80.

[←530]

Doctrine and Covenants 29:7-8. The date of this conference was 26 September 1830; the date of the organization of the Restored Church was 6 April 1830. Although it was known as the Church of Christ at the time of its organization, the official name of the Church was given on 26 April 1838 as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by which it has been known ever since. (See Doctrine and Covenants 20:1; 115:4).

[←531]

Doctrine and Covenants 29:7-8. For a general overview of the Latter-day Saints’ call to gather see, Fred E. Woods, “Gathering to Zion;” and Chapter 3 of The International Church, ed. by Donald Q. Cannon and Richard O. Cowan (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003), 43–58.

[←532]

“Important from America: Interesting Letter from Elder Moon who Lately Emigrated from England to America,” The Latter-day Saints Millennial Star, vol. 1 (February 1841), 252 (hereafter cited as Millennial Star).

[←533]

“Epistle of the Twelve,” Millennial Star, vol. 1 (April 1841), 310.

[←534]

Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. by Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 307–308.

[←535]

See Doctrine and Covenants Section 110.

[←536]

In Doctrine and Covenants 20:2–3, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were designated by revelation as the first and second elders of the Restored Church.

[←537]

Church History in the Fullness of Times (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1989), 171–172. See also James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 111-114.

[←538]

Milt Backman Jr., “A Warning from Kirtland,” Ensign (April 1989), 30, estimates that about 13 percent, or 50 out of 475 families left the Church at this time in the Kirtland region. Yet he also notes that about 40 percent of this number later returned to the Church.

[←539]

Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 2, ed. by B. H. Roberts (2nd rev. ed.), (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1964), 489, notes that during this turbulent era, the Prophet Joseph Smith received revelation that “something new must be done for the salvation” of the Church.

[←540]

Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1978), 103–104. The uneducated Kimball was initially overwhelmed by the thought of going to the learned country of England to preach the gospel. Nevertheless, he was determined to carry out what he knew to be the will of heaven.

[←541]

Six years later, missionaries were also sent to the Pacific to gather converts. In the spring of 1843, Joseph Smith called Addison Pratt, Benjamin Grouard, Noah Rogers and Knowlton Hanks to take the message of the restored Gospel to the Pacific Islands. They had intended to go to the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii), yet when they found no vessels leaving New Bedford, Mass. for the Hawaiian Islands, they decided to join a whaling voyage and ended up proselyting in the region of Tahiti, landing first on the island of Tubuai. Although Elder Hanks died at sea on the voyage over and Elder Rogers returned to America, encountering much opposition in his field of labor, Pratt and Grouard remained. By the fall of 1846, they had baptized 866 natives and organized ten branches, finding their greatest success in a small portion of the Tuamotus Islands, east of Tahiti. Due to the exodus from Nauvoo which commenced in this same year and their unique cultural circumstances, these natives did not gather to America, but rather built Zion in the Pacific. See Fred E. Woods, Gathering to Nauvoo (American Fork: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2002), 23–24.

[←542]

History of the Church, Vol. 2, 492. Apostles Kimball and Hyde left Kirtland for New York City with Willard Richards and Joseph Fielding. There they met Isaac Russell, John Snyder, and John Goodson who had journeyed from Toronto. See V. Ben Bloxham, James R. Moss, and Larry C. Porter, eds. Truth Will Prevail: The Rise of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the British Isles, 1837–1987 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1987), 38–39.

[←543]

Allen, James B., Ronald K. Esplin, and David J. Whittaker. Men With A Mission, 1937–1841: The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the British Isles (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), 52–53. Apostles Kimball and Hyde left England on 20 April 1838.

[←544]

For excellent reading on this subject see James B. Allen and Malcolm R. Thorp, “The Mission of the Twelve to England, 1840–41: Mormon Apostles and the Working Class,” BYU Studies, vol. 15, no. 4 (Summer 1975), 499–526; Allen, Esplin and Whittaker, Men With A Mission.

[←545]

History of the Church, Vol. 4, 119 notes that on 14 April 1840, in a council meeting of the Twelve in England, the following decision was made: “Moved by Elder Brigham Young, seconded by Elder Heber C. Kimball, that the Saints receive a recommend to the Church in America to move in small or large bodies, inasmuch as they desire to emmigrate to that new country.” Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, 278 indicates that on the second day of this council meeting, the total membership of the Church in the British Isles was reported as 1,631, including 132 priesthood holders.

[←546]

During this year (1840), both Britain and the United States were on the move. In the spring, Britain had published the world’s first adhesive postage stamp to be used commercially. This invention benefitted the converts and their friends and families, who corresponded frequently amidst the vast Atlantic separation. It was at a time when the population of the United States had swelled to over seventeen million, increasing over four million in just a decade. Some 76,000 English and 207,000 Irish immigrants embarked for the United States. Immigrants, looking for a new life in America, were willing to risk their lives by crossing the perilous Atlantic. The timing for such an endeavor seemed to be right. (See Fred E. Woods, Gathering to Nauvoo, 34, note 16. For more information on the Britannia, see Sonne, Ships, Saints and Mariners, 30–31.)

[←547]

Fred E. Woods, Gathering to Nauvoo, 51–52, points out that in addition to the thirty-four Mormon company voyages which left Great Britain during the Nauvoo years, at least thirteen additional independent voyages (not chartered by the Church) were launched, which consisted of small groups of families or individuals. For a complete listing of each chartered voyage, see Appendix A. of Gathering to Nauvoo, 153–54. For more information on the British gathering to Nauvoo, see Fred E. Woods, “The Gathering of the British Saints,” in Joseph: Exploring the Life and Ministry of the Prophet ed. by Susan Easton Black and Andrew C. Skinner, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005), 331-39. For a more comprehensive study of British LDS emigrants to America, see Phillip A. M. Taylor, Expectations Westward: The Mormons and the Emigration of Their British Converts in the Nineteenth Century (Edinburgh, Scotland: Oliver & Boyd, 1965, and also Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1966).

[←548]

History of the Church, Vol. 4, 186.

[←549]

“Epistle of the Twelve,” Millennial Star, vol. 1, no. 12 (April 1841), 311.

[←550]

Of the thirty-four chartered LDS voyages noted above, 31/34 were launched from Liverpool, while three embarked from Bristol. All three of the Bristol voyages disembarked at Quebec. The main reason the primary port of embarkation was Liverpool was that this was where the British Mission was located during most of the years the British Saints emmigrated to Nauvoo and during all of the years the European Saints gathered to Utah throughout the nineteenth century. Woods, Gathering to Nauvoo, 153–154. For a complete treatment of Liverpool as a port of embarkation for European Mormon converts voyaging to both Nauvoo and Salt Lake City, see Fred E. Woods, “The Tide of Mormon Migration Flowing Through the Port of Liverpool, England,” British Journal of Mormon Studies, vol. 1, no. 1 (Spring 2008), 64-91.

[←551]

History of the Church, Vol. 4, 230.

[←552]

“Epistle of the Twelve,” Millennial Star, vol. 1 (April 1841), 311.

[←553]

Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1978), 313.

[←554]

Robert Crookston, Autobiography of Robert Crookston (Typescript; LDS Church Archives), 6.

[←555]

For an excellent article on the Maid of Iowa, see Donald L. Enders, “The Steamboat Maid of Iowa: Mormon Mistress of the Mississippi,” BYU Studies, vol. 19, no. 3 (Spring 1979), 321–335.

[←556]

History of the Church, Vol. 5, 354.

[←557]

Autobiography of William Adams (Typescript; LDS Church Archives), 4.

[←558]

Tullidge, Edward W. The Women of Mormondom (1877; reprint, Salt Lake City: n.p., 1975), 291.

[←559]

Woods, Gathering to Nauvoo, 87.

[←560]

See chapter 9, “The Mormon Halfway House,” in John D. Unruh Jr., The Plains Across: The Overland Emigrants and the Trans-Mississippi West (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1979) for an excellent treatment on the 49er’s experience as they passed through Salt Lake City. On the impact of emigration/immigration and colonization resulting from the gold rush, see Leonard J. Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958), 64-108.

[←561]

It is estimated that about 55,000 British converts immigrated to Utah in the 19th century and nearly 25,000 Scandinavian Mormon immigrants. In addition, several thousand Swiss-German Latter-day Saint immigrants also gathered to America in the nineteenth century.

[←562]

Brigham Young to Elder Franklin D. Richards, “Foreign Correspondence,” Millennial Star, vol. 16, no. 43 (28 October 1854), 684.

[←563]

See Fred E. Woods, “The Knights at Castle Garden: Latter-day Saint Immigration Agents at New York,” in Regional Studies in Church History: New York, Vol. 3, ed. by Alexander L. Baugh and Andrew H. Hedges (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2002), 103–24, for more information on this topic.

[←564]

James R. Clark, ed., Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965), 108.

[←565]

William Mulder, Homeward to Zion: The Mormon Migration from Scandinavia (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1957), 107. Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 533, provides statistical evidence that over twenty thousand Saints emmigrated from the Scandinavian Mission between 1852 and 1894. As noted above, William Mulder, Homeward to Zion, 107, maintains that 22,653 of the 46,497 Scandinavia converts immigrated to America between 1850 and 1905. These two estimates are less than the total of 24,431 Scandinavian migrants which we estimated. Our figure was based on several sources including the following: The “Mormon Immigration Index CD” (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2000); Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission; local Grimsby newspapers (1854-1868); Grimsby Library Customs Bills of Entry in Hull, Hull Central Library Customs Bills of Entry (Hull), 1852-1860; Hull City Archives Master’s Declaration, HO/3/1-120, Public Record Office, Kew. For a complete treatment on Mormon transmigration through Hull, see, Fred E. Woods and Nicholas Evans, “LDS Migration through Hull, England,” BYU Studies, vol. 41, no. 4 (2002), 75–102.

[←566]

See Gordon Jackson, “The Ports,” in Transport in Victorian Britain, ed. by Michael J. Freeman and Derek H. Aldcroft (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988), 218-252. The city of Hull is officially styled Kingston upon Hull, which is derived from the fact that Hull was founded by King Edward I and was situated upon the River Hull. Transmigrant Scandinavians who did not use the port of Hull, used Grimsby. Those arriving via the Port of Grimsby, as well as those who had arrived at Hull and then traversed the River Humber to Grimsby, had the added advantage of staying in the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Emigrants’ Home that opened in 1854 in a former dockside passenger station. The shelter provided a single mixed-sex dormitory-cum-dining room where the migrants slept overnight under the supervision of Isaac Freeman, the railway’s interpreter. From immediately outside this dockside shelter, migrants boarded the train that took them to Liverpool. Freeman and his wife provided a high level of service for migrants arriving at the port. In 1871, The Grimsby Observer noted, “Mr. Freeman, the port interpreter, who speaks several languages, is the manager of this important establishment, and it speaks well for its conduct that we have never heard a complaint against it, but very many instances of kindness, sympathy, and consideration for the strangers have reached us.” The Grimsby Observer (25 October 1871), 4.

[←567]

. Most of the Scandinavian converts embarked from Copenhagen, headquarters for the Latter-day Saint Scandinavian Mission. This information has been culled from the Mormon Immigration Index CD, British and Scandinavian Mission Records as well as Customs Bills of Entry in the City of Hull. For information concerning vessels carrying Mormon Scandinavian converts from Copenhagen, see Shauna C. Anderson, Ruth Ellen Maness and Susan Easton Black, Passport to Paradise: The Copenhagen “Mormon” Lists, Vols. 1-2 (West Jordan, UT: Genealogical Services, 2000), covering the years 1872-1894.

[←568]

. Mulder, “Mormons from Scandinavia,” 237 notes that Scandinavian converts from Norway sometimes voyaged directly across the North Sea from Christiana or Stavenger to Liverpool, whereas the Swedes and especially the Danes came primarily through the port of Hull and secondarily through Grimsby. The Saints from Iceland were an exception, as evidence reveals that some voyaged from their homeland via Leith, Scotland and others voyaged direct to Liverpool. See Fred E. Woods, “A Sesquicentennial Sketch of Latter-day Saint Icelandic Emigration and Conversion,” 8.

[←569]

. Copenhagen was the headquarters of the Scandinavian Mission. For more information concerning the Scandinavian Mission, see Andrew Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission.

[←570]

. William Mulder, “Mormons from Scandinavia, 1850–1900: A Shepherded Migration,” Pacific Historical Review, vol. 23 (1954), 237. According to the 1997–1998 Church Almanac (Deseret News: Salt Lake City, 1996), 162–63, during the years of embarkation from Hamburg (1862, 1865, and1866), over three thousand Latter-day Saint converts voyaged on eight sailing vessels to gather to Zion. Mormon embarkation from the Hamburg port was discontinued in 1866. The primary reason for this stems from the fact that the following year, the Church decided to no longer send LDS immigrants via sailing vessels. Commencing in 1867 all Mormon migrants were to be transported by steamers. It was also decided in this same year that Church teams would not be sent to the frontier. See “Church Emigration to Utah in 1867,” in Church Emigration Book, 1862-1881 (LDS Church Archives.) Furthermore, Sonne, Saints on the High Seas, 187, points out that in a letter dated 23 May 1868, Brigham Young reaffirmed this decision by providing the following directive to British Mission President Franklin D. Richards: “To enable our immigration to avail themselves of the healthiest portion or portions of the year [. . .] employ none but steamships.” Thus, the port of Hamburg seems to have been discontinued due to the decision to no longer use sailing vessels. Apparently it was advantageous to take the indirect route to Liverpool wherein different steam shipping lines were employed. Vessels from the port of Liverpool transporting passengers to New York were of a higher caliber than those provided by Morris and Co. in Hamburg. Furthermore, vessels from Liverpool were filled with British and European Latter-day Saints which would provide more bargaining power and enable cheaper rates when the Church chartered trans-Atlantic vessels. Finally, shipping was cheaper from Liverpool due to greater competition. Hundreds of Swiss-German Latter-day Saints transmigrated through Hull in the nineteenth century, which represents a small portion of the total number of European foreign converts. These migrants were similarly conveyed via Britain, essentially as their numbers were so insignificant that there was no fiscal advantage for the Swiss-German Mission to charter a trans-Atlantic vessel for their sole use. For information on the Swiss-German emigrants, see Douglas D. Alder, ”The German-Speaking Migration to Utah, 1850–1950” (Unpublished M.A. thesis; Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1959).

[←571]

. Statistical analysis of immigration to America is provided by numerous scholars and their publications. E. A. Ross, The Old World in the New: The Significance of Past and Present Immigration to the American People (New York: The Century Co., 1914), 307–10, states that the total number of immigrants for the period 1835–1914 was 30,245,034. LDS British and Scandinavian mission records reveal that over 100,000 European Mormon converts gathered to America from 1840-1914, of which at least one fourth were Scandinavians, while the majority were British.

[←572]

Conway Sonne, Saints on the High Seas: A Maritime History of Mormon Migration, 1830-1890 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1983), 118. Herein, Sonne further notes that the name of the first Guion vessel which transported the LDS immigrants in 1867 was the Manhattan.

[←573]

British Mission Manuscript History, vol. 24 (1869-1871), (LDS Church Archives), entry May 13, 1869.

[←574]

British Mission Manuscript History, vol. 24 (1869-1871), enrty June 1, 1869. However, the Guion Line did not provide food at Hull for their passengers as other shipping lines did. This is one way the Guion Line was able to cut the cost of the trip.

[←575]

Furthermore, when the Guion Company was liquidated in 1894, Ramsden helped Lund with arrangements for the Saints to transfer their business to the Allan Line, which ran its operations out of Glasgow. See the “British Mission Manuscript History,” entry June 30, 1894. Although the Anchor Line is mentioned herein, not only for the date of 30 June, but also for the dates of 5-6 July and 20 September 1894, it is most probable that it is rather the Allan Line which was the shipping company run from Glasgow at this time. This change rerouted the Mormon converts from the Scandinavian and Swiss-German missions through the port of Leith to Glasgow, where they began the trans-Atlantic voyage to New York. For a complete treatment of Ramsden and his relationship with the Mormons, see Fred E. Woods, “George Ramsden, the Guion Line, and the Mormon Immigration Connection,” International Journal of Mormon Studies, vol. 2, no. 1 (Spring 2009), 83-97.

[←576]

The Guion Line shortened the length of the Atlantic crossing from 32–36 days to 10–16 days. Though the Morris and Co. of Hamburg was instrumental in providing good service for the European Mormon migrants from 1852 to 1869, its sailing vessels could not compete with the faster, more elaborate Guion steam vessels; furthermore, its base was farther away from Liverpool than was Guion’s. Sonne, Saints of the High Seas, 117, indicates that the Guion Line carried over forty thousand Latter-day Saint converts across the Atlantic, which amounted to about 98 percent of all Mormon steamship emigrants who voyaged from Liverpool to New York. The Latter-day Saints used the Guion Line consistently from 1869 to 1894, at which time the company was liquidated. For more information on the Guion Line, see “Rise and Fall of the Guion Line,” Sea Breezes 19 (1955), 190–216. The Journal of Anthon H. Lund for the dates 30 June and 2, 5–7 July 1894 (LDS Church Archives) notes that arrangements were made by British Mission President Anthon L. Lund for the European converts to travel with the Anchor Line, based in Glasgow. Converts were thus rerouted through Glasgow before going on to New York. President Lund made these new arrangements known to President Sundwall of the Scandinavian Mission, President Naegle of the Swiss German Mission and President Wilford Woodruff.

[←577]

In 1866, increasing alarm at the standard of accommodation provided for third-class or steerage passengers prompted the Hull Town Council to interview Charles Wilson, who was a Member of Parliament representing Hull and the Managing Director of the Wilson Line. This action led to an improvement in the standard of accommodation provided for passengers carried by the Wilson Line but not by other European shipping operators.

[←578]

The 1881 British census describes Maples as being born in Thorne, a town thirty miles west of Hull. Since his wife and daughter were born in Australia, it can be assumed that Maples gained his knowledge of the emigration business through his own personal experiences in immigrating to Australia during the late 1840s or early 1850s. Maples had returned during the early 1850s and established himself as an emigration agent working alongside Richard Cortis, Hull’s leading emigration agent who had been used by the Scandinavian Mission since the very first pioneers arrived in December 1852. Later, Cortis and Maples would combine their business, with Maples taking sole control upon the death of the former.

[←579]

Latter-day Saint migrant Jesse N. Smith recalled, “Mr. Maples on behalf of the forwarding company furnished a meal for the emigrants and sent all forward the same evening to Liverpool.” Autobiography and Journal of Jesse N. Smith, (LDS Church Archives), 259. Another passing migrant noted, “Mr. Maples, the Guion Agent, came on board and got the list of emigrants.” Reminiscences and Journal of Hans Jorgenson, (LDS Church Archives), 174.

[←580]

Apparently this line had many staff members who also provided excellent service. Another Guion agent who is praised in several Latter-day Saint immigrant accounts is a Mr. Gibson. See, for example, Letter of L. F. Monch, Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star, vol. 50 (24 December 1888), 829; Letter of George Romney Jr., Millennial Star, vol. 51 (23 December 1889), 811; Letter of E. L. Sloan, Millennial Star vol. 51 (25 November 1889), 749. However, the agency was apparently not without some criticism by the British government. According to government inspector W. Cowie, while other Atlantic passenger lines provided temporary lodging and meals for passing emigrants at Hull, the Guion Line transferred its passengers directly to the rails “so that those people are the greater portion of the day without a meal.” See Reports Received by the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board Relating to the Transit of Scandinavian Emigrants through the Port of Hull, 11 July 1882, 9. Yet for those traveling to Utah, such speed was often welcomed, because it shortened the long journey time needed to transport converts from their homelands in mainland Europe to a new life in the Salt Lake Basin.

[←581]

Letter of P. O. Hansen, Millennial Star, vol. 17 (3 February 1855), 71.

[←582]

Journal of Heinrich Hug, original in possession of Kent Hug, translated from German by Brooks Haderlie. According to his journal entry, Hug arrived with a company of Swiss Latter-day Saint immigrants in Hull on 13 August 1859. Although Hansen and Hug are the only known European migrants to mention the reception provided by the Hull Saints, these local Saints were probably instrumental in assisting other LDS companies who passed through.

[←583]

Albert L. Zobell, Jr., Under the Midnight Sun: Centennial History of Scandinavian Missions (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1950), 48–9.

[←584]

Leonard J. Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints 1830–1890 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958), 64. John D. Unruh, Jr., The Plains Across: The Overland Emigrants and the Trans-Mississippi West, 1840-1860 (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1993), 253 maintains that “at least 10,000 forty-niners detoured via the Mormon oasis.”

[←585]

Fred E. Woods, “Perpetual Emigrating Fund,” in Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History, ed. by Arnold K. Garr, Donald Q. Cannon and Richard O. Cowan (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2000), 910. Leonard J. Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830–1890 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958), 98-99, explained that there were three types of immigrants who came to Zion in the 19th century. One group was the PEF, who were the poor that needed their entire way paid. Another, was known as Ten Pound Companies, which paid a portion of their transportation. A third group, known as “cash companies” paid all of their costs to Utah.

[←586]

See Leonard J. Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830–1890, 108-112, on public works in Salt Lake City.

[←587]

Over one thousand first person European Mormon accounts are readily available on-line at http://www.lib.byu.edu/mormonmigration/ (accessed 28 June 2017). The information on this website was compiled and edited by Fred E. Woods who also is the contact person for this site.

[←588]

Arnold K. Garr, Donald Q. Cannon, and Richard O. Cowan, eds., Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2000), 337-338, 343-345.

[←589]

D. Michael Quinn, “The Mormon Succession Crisis of 1844,” BYU Studies, vol. 16, no. 2 (Winter 1976), 187-233.

[←590]

In this context, “original church” refers to the denomination founded by and under the leadership of Joseph Smith, Jr. during his lifetime.

[←591]

Devery S. Anderson and Gary James Bergera, eds., Joseph Smith’s Quorum of the Anointed, 1842-1845: A Documentary History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2005).

[←592]

Steven L. Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, 4th ed. (Los Angeles: Restoration Research, 1990), lists about 200 different expressions of the original church. However, there are now about 400 different expressions of the original church that have been cataloged from 1830 to the present. See also Newell G. Bringhurst and John C. Hamer, eds., Scattering of the Saints: Schism within Mormonism. (Independence, Missouri: John Whitmer Books, 2007).

[←593]

The main focus of the current volume is the European history of that part of the original church which followed Brigham Young in exodus from Nauvoo, so this chapter will not discuss the European missionary efforts of that denomination. Brigham Young, as president of the twelve apostles at the time of Smith’s death, successfully argued that the apostles should lead the church in their own right. Late in 1847, Young organized a newly constituted “first presidency” with himself as president. Readers should note that the spelling of the name of the denomination was in flux for some years, before the current spelling was formalized. During the final years of the original church, both American and British spelling conventions were alternatively and inconsistently used for the last part of the name (e.g., Latter Day Saints vs. Latter-day Saints). In more recent times, denomination public styling also includes the prefix “The” in front of the name.

[←594]

Strang claimed angelic ordination as the Prophet Joseph Smith’s successor. He also produced a “letter of appointment” reportedly written by the Prophet. This claim appealed to many members of the original church, including several members of Smith’s family. For a brief summary of this denomination see Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, 40-46.

[←595]

Cutler was a prominent church leader at Nauvoo, was a member of the “anointed quorum,” and the Nauvoo Stake High Council. Cutler claimed that the Prophet Joseph Smith ordained him as one of seven “high priest apostles” with power to reorganize the church. For a brief summary see Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, 60-65.

[←596]

The movement that eventually coalesced under the leadership of the Prophet’s son was often referred to as the “New Organization” of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In 1872, the denomination formally amended the name by adding “Reorganized” as a prefix, to distinguish it from the church of the same name in Utah that was infamous for its practice of polygamy. In 2001, the denomination adopted the name “Community of Christ.” For a brief history of the denomination, see Richard P. Howard, The Church Through the Years, Vol. 1 (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1992); and vol. 2 (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1993).

[←597]

Hedrick’s group was comprised of several congregations of the original church located in central Illinois, which rejected all claimants as “pretenders” to the leadership of the church. Like most other groups of the era, they, too, initially called themselves “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” Eventually, they reverted to the 1830 name of the denomination, with the suffix “temple lot” as an unofficial part of the name to distinguish themselves from other churches of Christ. For historical background, see R. Jean Addams, “The Church of Christ (Temple Lot), Its Emergence, Struggles and Early Schisms,” in Scattering of the Saints: Schism within Mormonism, ed. by Newell G. Bringhurst and John C. Hamer (Independence, MO: John Whitmer Books, 2007), 206-223. See also, Jason R. Smith, “Scattering of the Hedrickites,” in Bringhurst and Hamer, Scattering of the Saints, 224-246. See also Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, 76-85.

[←598]

Bickerton was baptized into Sidney Rigdon’s organization in 1845, and was ordained to the priesthood. Bickerton preached and established congregations mainly in southwestern Pennsylvania, where he lived. After the demise of Rigdon’s church organization in the late 1840s, Bickerton and his congregation at West Elizabeth, Pennsylvania briefly associated with Brigham Young’s organization, but formally separated in early 1852 over the issue of polygamy. Continuing to preach and establish congregations throughout the 1850s, the group formally organized in 1862. The new denomination’s first periodical was called “The Ensign.” Originally using the name “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,” this was soon shortened to “The Church of Jesus Christ.” See Larry Watson, “The Church of Jesus Christ (Headquartered in Monongahela, Pennsylvania), Its History and Doctrine,” in Scattering of the Saints, ed. by Bringhurst and Hamer, 190-205. See also Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, 89-98.

[←599]

James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976), 314-315; History of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Vol. 3 (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1979 [1896]), 380-396. The first mission to Europe by Strang’s denomination in 1846 is noted in The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star, vol. 8, no. 8 (15 November 1846) and vol. 8, no. 9 (20 November 1846).

[←600]

Julian Whiting, The Church of Jesus Christ (Independence, MO: Church of Jesus Christ, 1978); Danny L. Jorgensen, “Back to Zion: The Emergence of the Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite) and Its Return to Independence, Missouri,” in Scattering of the Saints, ed. by Bringhurst and Hamer, 161-176; and Michael S. Riggs, “The Cutlerite Migration to Minnesota: An Epic Perilous Journey into Diaspora,” in Scattering of the Saints, ed. by Bringhurst and Hamer, 177-189.

[←601]

Zion’s Advocate, vol. 5, no. 5 (May 1928) reports the appointment Apostle Samuel Wood as the “very first from the Church of Christ [Temple Lot] to take a foreign mission.”

[←602]

Church historian Robert A. Watson’s letter to author (30 April 1987).

[←603]

History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 3 (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News, 1961), 343-344.

[←604]

LeBaron opted for the variant spelling “Fulness.”

[←605]

“Fundamentalist Mormons” generally believe they have a special priesthood authority that can function outside the administrative lines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Brigham Young), but very often acknowledge or claim membership in that church. They assert this special priesthood authority permits the continued practice of plural marriage. Other beliefs, such as Adam being God the Father, and Joseph Smith, Junior being the third member of the Godhead, are also common. See Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, 104-106. See also, Anne Wilde, “Fundamentalist Mormonism: Its History, Diversity and Stereotypes, 1886-present,” in Scattering of the Saints, ed. by Bringhurst and Hamer, 258-289.

[←606]

Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, 159-162.

[←607]

Stephen M. Silver, An Account from the Journal of a French Missionary (Colonia LeBaron, Chihuahua, Mexico: Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times, n.d.); Why We Are Leaving the LDS Church (N.P.: Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times, n.d.); J. Bruce Wakeham, Dear Brothers and Sisters (N.P.: Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times, 1959).

[←608]

Verlan M. LeBaron. The LeBaron Story (Lubbock, Texas: author, 1981).

[←609]

Personal interview with Robert Taylor (April 1986).

[←610]

Wilde, “Fundamentalist Mormonism,” 274-280.

[←611]

Alan and Marian Munn, letters to author (7 March 1988, 5 June 1989); and Truth Will Prevail, 2 parts, n.p., n.d.

[←612]

Nathan Taylor, letter to author (14 October 1991); Truth Seeker, vol. 1, no. 1 (October 1991); Messenger of the Fullness of the Gospel (United States Edition), vol. 1, no. 1 (October-November 2003); Messenger of the Fullness of the Gospel, vol. 3, no. 17 (Autumn 2008); and Messenger of the Fullness of the Gospel, vol. 3, no. 18 (Winter 2008).

[←613]

For more information see their home page at http://www.nccg.org/intro.html (accessed 2 July 2017).

[←614]

On revelation, see, for example, http://www.nccg.org/OB-HP.html (accessed 2 July 2017).

[←615]

Christopher C. Warren, letter to author (1996). See also http://www.nccg.org/mlt/introduction.html (accessed 2 July 2017).

[←616]

Common Ground, vol. 1 (December 1990); Common Ground, vol. 2 (May 1991); Personal interview with David C. Martin (12 June 1992).

[←617]

https://www.latterdaymormon.co.uk/about_us (accessed 2 July 2017).

[←618]

Eugene V. Gallagher, Reading and Writing Scripture in New Religious Movements: New Bibles and New Revelations (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2014).

[←619]

https://www.latterdaymormon.co.uk/book-of-jeraneck (accessed 2 July 2017).

[←620]

http://thelatterdaychurchofchrist.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html (accessed 2 July 2017).

[←621]

http://ldchurchofjesuschrist.org/qandal.html (accessed 15 June 2010).

[←622]

Matthew Philip Gill. Book of Prophecies and Revelations (Derbyshire, United Kingdom: Times and Seasons Press, 2008).

[←623]

In some circles, this edition of the Bible is referred to as the “Joseph Smith Translation.”

[←624]

https://www.latterdaymormon.co.uk/about_us (accessed 2 July 2017).

[←625]

For historical background, see Robin Scott Jensen, “Mormons Seeking Mormonism: Strangite Success and the Conceptualization of Mormon Ideology, 1844-50,” in Scattering of the Saints, ed. by Bringhurst and Hamer, 115-140. See also Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, 40-46.

[←626]

Voree Herald, vol. 1, no. 9 (September 1846).

[←627]

The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star, vol. 8, no. 8 (15 November 1846), 124. This periodical, although begun in England during the time of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s original church, by 1846 was published by those loyal to Brigham Young.

[←628]

The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star, vol. 8, no. 8 (15 November 1846), 124.

[←629]

The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star, vol. 8, no. 8 (15 November 1846), 125.

[←630]

Vickie Cleverly Speek. God Has Made Us a Kingdom: James Strang and the Midwest Mormons (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2006).

[←631]

Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, 251-252.

[←632]

Stanley L. Johnston, The Call and Ordination of Alexandre R. Caffiaux (N.p., 1966); The Gospel Informer (Lansing, MI: Stanley L. Johnston and Lille, France: R. Y. Caffiaux). Bruce Flanders, letter to author (1983).

[←633]

Paul M. Edwards, Our Legacy of Faith (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1991), 127-133.

[←634]

Kees Compier, email to author (18 June 2010).

[←635]

Richard James and Derek Judd, “History of the Community of Christ in Wales, 1920-1983” (Research project, Master of Arts program) (Lamoni, IA: Graceland University, 2004); Joey Williams, “Development of the Community of Christ in the Netherlands” (Term paper, Master of Arts program) (Lamoni, IA: Graceland University, undated [2005]).

[←636]

History, vol. 4 (1896), 22.

[←637]

Inez Smith Davis, The Story of the Church (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1985), 461-474.

[←638]

Davis, The Story of the Church, 480; History, vol. 3 (1896), 320-321, 326-329, 380-406; and Herald, vol. 157, no. 6 (June 2010), 9, 22.

[←639]

Joey Williams, “Development of the Community of Christ in the Netherlands,” 8-23.

[←640]

Davis, The Story of the Church, 507-515; and History, vol. 3 (1896), 694, 702, 708-709, 712.

[←641]

History of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Vol. 4 (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1979 [1896]), 27.

[←642]

Chrystal Vanel, “The History of the RLDS Church/Community of Christ in France” (Paper presented to John Whitmer Historical Association, 5 April 2010), 2-12.

[←643]

Vanel, “The History of the RLDS Church/Community of Christ in France,” 13-16.

[←644]

Davis, The Story of the Church, 535-540; and History, vol. 4 (1896), 74, 105, 125.

[←645]

Personal interview with Lawrence W. Tyree (29 June 2010). Leonard Young, email to author (5 July 2010).

[←646]

Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, 76-77.

[←647]

B. C. Flint, An Outline History of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), 2nd ed., (Independence, MO: Board of Publications, the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), 1953), 102.

[←648]

Flint, An Outline History of the Church of Christ, 109-111.

[←649]

David Whitmer, Address to All Believers in Christ. (Richmond, MO: author, 1887), 55.

[←650]

Flint, An Outline History of the Church of Christ, 119-120.

[←651]

Flint, An Outline History of the Church of Christ, 140.

[←652]

Flint, An Outline History of the Church of Christ, 141.

[←653]

“General Conference Notes,” Zion’s Advocate, vol. 5, no. 5 (May 1928), 67.

[←654]

“Gloucester Saints Approve Conference Action,” Zion’s Advocate, vol. 7, no. 2 (15 January 1930), 19.

[←655]

Otto Fetting, The Word of the Lord, (Independence, MO: Church of Christ, 1933).

[←656]

Flint, An Outline History of the Church of Christ, 142.

[←657]

Occasional mention is made in the pages of Zion’s Advocate of the missionary efforts in other lands.

[←658]

Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, 1990, 131.

[←659]

Thomas B. Nerren, letter to Brother and Sister Humphrey, Voice of Warning, vol. 2 (15 January 1931).

[←660]

William A. Daniel, letter to author (14 April 1987). Also, Voice of Warning, vol. 49, no. 8 (August 1978), 1 (57). The Voice of Warning for November 1978 reported the visit of two apostles to the family of Jan Schut in the Netherlands, but nothing came of the contact.

[←661]

Voice of Warning, vol. 49, no. 8 (August 1978), 1 (57). Also, Gospel Herald, vol. 14, no. 9 (September 1985); and Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, 135.

[←662]

Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, 143-144; and Otto Fetting and W. A. Draves, The Word of the Lord (Independence, MO: Church of Christ, the Church with the Elijah Message, 2000).

[←663]

Voice of Peace, vol. 6, no. 10 (March 1950).

[←664]

Voice of Peace, vol. 12, no. 2 (September 1955).

[←665]

Message, no. 85 (4 August 1967), 27.

[←666]

Voice of Peace, vol. 23, no. 7 (March 1968), 104-105.

[←667]

Message, no. 86 (31 July 1968), 82-83; Message, no. 87 (24 September 1968), 26.

[←668]

Message, no. 101 (11 March 1983), 22-24.

[←669]

Message, no. 107 (16 June 1990), 10.

[←670]

Personal interview with Apostle Paul Savage (22 June 2010).

[←671]

Richard S. Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994; and Thomas J. Gregory, “Sidney Rigdon: Post Nauvoo,” BYU Studies, vol. 21, no. 1 (Winter 1981), 51-67.

[←672]

See footnote 11.

[←673]

Church historian Robert A. Watson’s letter to author (30 April 1987). See also Larry Watson, ed., A History of the Church of Jesus Christ, Vol. 2 (Monongahela, Pennsylvania: The Church of Jesus Christ, 2002), 679.

[←674]

Watson, A History of the Church of Jesus Christ, Vol. 2, 494.

[←675]

Watson, A History of the Church of Jesus Christ, Vol. 2, 483.

[←676]

Watson, A History of the Church of Jesus Christ, Vol. 2, 493.

[←677]

Watson, A History of the Church of Jesus Christ, Vol. 2, 679.

[←678]

An earlier version of this article has been published by the same title in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 38, no. 4 (Winter 2005), 3-36.

[←679]

See Mark P. Leone, The Roots of Modern Mormonism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979), 6-10, 225-26, which also uses the conceptualization of the colonizers and colonized, though somewhat differently. I am indebted to Ethan Yorgason and Armand Mauss for their constructive remarks and bibliographical assistance.

[←680]

My narrative device has of course been inspired by the classic example of Horace Miner’s, “Body Ritual among the Nacirema,” American Anthropologist, vol. 58, no. 3 (1956), 503-07.

[←681]

Historically, the notion of tribe originated in large measure from this colonization project. Most of the local groups habitually called “tribes” are a product of the interaction of local groups of uncertain status with the foreign colonizer that had its own ideas about how African groups should be and behave.

[←682]

Armand L. Mauss, All Abraham’s Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003) 58-70, 114-21.

[←683]

Thomas F. O’Dea, The Mormons (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957); Richard N. and Joan K. Ostling, Mormon America: The Power and the Promise (New York: HarperCollins, 1999).

[←684]

Armand L. Mauss, “In Search of Ephraim: Traditional Mormon Conceptions of Lineage and Race,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 25, no. 1 (Spring 1999), 131-73; Arnold H. Green, “Gathering and Election: Israelite Descent and Universalism in Mormon Discourse,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 25, no. 1 (Spring 1999), 195-228.

[←685]

Jesse L. Embry, Mormon Polygamous Families: Life in the Principle (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1987).

[←686]

Embry, Mormon Polygamous Families, 34-35; Kathryn M. Daynes, More Wives than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840-1910 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 111-12.

[←687]

These taboos, characteristically, would be more rigidly enforced at a later stage, when the differences with the surrounding population would diminish.

[←688]

John L. Sorenson, Mormon Culture: Four Decades of Essays on Mormon Society and Personality (Salt Lake City: New Sage Books, 1997), 244-246.

[←689]

Jan Shipps, Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985), 84; Richard S. Van Wagoner, “The Making of a Mormon Myth: The 1844 Transfiguration of Brigham Young,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 28, no. 4 (Winter 1995), 1-24. In African myths founding heroes often are blacksmiths. The founding hero of Deseret bears the same name, a curious coincidence. The explicit mythology that sprang up after his violent death is very tribal.

[←690]

For an overview of the commonalties between Mormon and African religions see Dennis L. Thomson, “African Religion & Mormon Doctrine,” in Religion in Africa: Experience and Expression, ed. by Thomas D. Blakely, Walter E.A. van Beek, and Dennis L. Thomson (Portsmouth, Heineman, 1994), 89-99.

[←691]

John M. Janzen, “Drums of Affliction: Real Phenomenon or Scholarly Chimaera?” Religion in Africa, 160-81.

[←692]

D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998); John L. Sorenson, “Ritual as Theology and as Communication,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 33, no. 2 (Summer 2000), 117-28.

[←693]

Hugh Nibley, Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass: The Art of Telling Tales about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991).

[←694]

Walter E.A. van Beek and Thomas D. Blakely, “Introduction,” in Religion in Africa, 1-20.

[←695]

H.U.E. “Bonno” Thoden van Velzen and Walter E.A. van Beek, “Purity, a Greedy Ideology,” in The Quest for Purity: Dynamics of Puritan Movements, ed. by Walter E.A. van Beek (The Hague: Mouton, 1987), 3-35.

[←696]

Thomas G. Alexander, Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 1890-1930 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986); Ethan R. Yorgason, Transformation of the Mormon Culture Region (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003).

[←697]

John L. Sorenson, “Mormon Folk and Mormon Elite,” Horizons, vol. 1, no. 1 (1983), 4-18; Yorgason, Transformation of the Mormon Culture Region, 40, 212-23.

[←698]

Armand L. Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation (Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1994).

[←699]

Donald W. Meinig, “The Mormon Culture Region: Strategies and Patterns in the Geography of the American West, 1847-1964,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 55 (June 1965), 191-220; Donald W. Meinig, “The Mormon Nation and the American Empire,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 22 (Spring 1996), 33-51.

[←700]

James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1992), 499.

[←701]

Ronald D. Dennis, “Gathering,” and A.D. Sorensen, “Zion,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1992), 536-37, 624-26.

[←702]

Douglas J. Davies, An Introduction to Mormonism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 29-33; Yorgason, Transformation of the Mormon Culture Region, 165-68.

[←703]

Van Velzen and van Beek, “Purity a Greedy Ideology,” 8-9.

[←704]

In anthropological terminology women rose to the forefront in liminal times, when the values of communitas for a short time gained the upper hand over structure, communitas referring to the experience of relating to others as fellow-humans in contrast to relations through structural differences. Linda King Newell, “A Gift Given, a Gift Taken: Washing, Anointing, and Blessing the Sick among Mormon Women,” Sunstone, vol. 6 (September/October 1981), 16-25.

[←705]

Maxine Hanks, ed., Women & Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992); Marie Cornwall, “The Institutional Role of Mormon Women,” in Contemporary Mormonism: Social Science Perspectives, ed. by Marie Cornwall, Tim B. Heaton, and Lawrence A. Young (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 239-64.

[←706]

Hugh Nibley, “Leaders to Managers: The Fatal Shift,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 16, no. 4 (Winter 1983), 12-21; Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive, 156-76.

[←707]

Alexander, Mormonism in Transition, 239-57; Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive, 21-59.

[←708]

John L. Sorenson, “Mormon World View and American Culture,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 8, no. 2 (Summer 1973), 17-29.

[←709]

John L. Sorenson, “Mormon Folk and Mormon Elite,” Horizons, vol. 1, no. 1 (1983), 4-18.

[←710]

Thomas G. Alexander, Mormonism in Transition.

[←711]

Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive.

[←712]

Garth L. Mangum and Bruce D. Blumell, The Mormons’ War on Poverty: A History of LDS Welfare, 1830-1990 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1993).

[←713]

Basil Davidson, The Black Man’s Burden: Africa and the Curse of the Nation-State (London: James Currey, 1992).

[←714]

Andre G. Frank, Dependent Accumulation and Underdevelopment (London: MacMillan, 1978).

[←715]

“LDS ‘Headquarters Culture’ and the Rest of Mormonism: Past and Present,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 24, no. 3 and 4 (Fall and Winter 2001), 135-64.

[←716]

Lowell C. Bennion and Lawrence A. Young, “The Uncertain Dynamics of LDS Expansion, 1950-2020,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 18, no. 4 (Winter 1996), 119-29.

[←717]

Mauss, All Abraham’s Children.

[←718]

Armand L. Mauss, “The Fading of the Pharoahs’ Curse: The Decline and Fall of the Priesthood Ban against Blacks in the Mormon Church,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 14, no. 3 (Fall 1981), 10-45. For an account of one scholar’s negotiations with LDS leaders and scholars as he was preparing to publish on the doctrine, see Lester E. Bush, “Writing ‘Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview’ (1973), Context and Reflections, 1998,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 25, no. 1 (1999), 229-71.

[←719]

Douglas J. Davies, The Mormon Culture of Salvation (Burlington: Ashgate, 2000), 162-163.

[←720]

Ronald D. Dennis, “Gathering,” and A.D. Sorensen, “Zion.”

[←721]

Davies, An Introduction to Mormonism, 29-33.

[←722]

Walter E.A. van Beek, “Chiliasme als Identiteit: De Heiligen en hun Aller Laatste Dagen,” in Maar Nog is het einde Niet. Chiliastische Stromingen en Bewegingen bij het Aanbreken van een Millennium, ed. by Lammert G. Jansma and Durk Hak (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2001), 117-138.

[←723]

D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994), and The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997).

[←724]

Davies, An Introduction to Mormonism. It seems to be the CES (Church Educational System) that sets the theological tone in the Church.

[←725]

Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (New York: Free Press, 1964 [1947]), 363-70.

[←726]

I concur with Stark’s recent critique on “ancestor worship,” which should fade away; Rodney Stark, “Putting an End to Ancestor Worship,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 43, no. 4 (2004), 465-75. Though Mormonism closely fits the Weberian type (work, frugality and capitalism) the ‘Weber thesis’, as it is usually referred to, is historically debatable. Nevertheless, Weber’s insights on the development of bureaucracies are still important, including the notion of charisma and its subsequent routinization. Here, again the LDS church provides a very good example.

[←727]

They are sects in the sociological sense because they are small, religiously isolated groups with a definite tension between their own and the surrounding cultures; Rodney Stark and William S. Bainbridge, The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult Formation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 21-24, 245-47.

[←728]

The author was president of Rotterdam stake in the 80’s, and had several meetings with his Dutch and Belgian colleagues on this issue.

[←729]

Davidson, The Black Man’s Burden.

[←730]

Jan Shipps, Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985); “Difference and Otherness: Mormonism and the American Religious Mainstream,” in Minority Faiths in the American Protestant Mainstream, ed. by Jonathan D. Sarna (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1998), 81-109; “Surveying the Mormon Image since 1960,” Sunstone, vol. 118 (April 2001), 58-72; David C. Knowlton, “Mormonism in Latin-America: Towards the Twenty-First Century,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 29, no. 1 (Spring 1996), 159-76; Philip L. Barlow, Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991); Walter E. A. van Beek, “Ethnization and Accommodation: Dutch Mormons in Twenty-First-Century Europe,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 29, no. 1 (Spring 1996), 119-38; Rodney Stark, “The Basis of Mormon Success: A Theoretical Application,” in Latter-Day Saint Social Life: Social Research on the LDS Church and Its Members, ed. by James. T. Duke (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1998), 29-70; Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive.

[←731]

Quinn, “LDS ‘Headquarters Culture.’”

[←732]

He judged the new translation too colloquial; he also thought the new text deviated too much from the Biblical text (especially in the Isaiah chapters). But he checked against the wrong Bible translation (the obsolete Statenvertaling, which long has held the same position as the King James translation does for the English language area) instead of the currently used NBG translation (Nederlands Bijbel Genootschap). Still, as a General Authority, his voice prevailed, and the text had to be changed.

[←733]

This revision had a long history. The author has participated in the process as member of the review committee of the translations, and has spoken to the translators in question, who happen to be close friends. In 1986 many new translations (from the English original) were planned into a series of languages, Dutch among them. For six years a carefully selected and officially called group of members, led by the Dutch Translation Branch, worked on a new text. The result initially was met with great enthusiasm, especially by the Dutch members who were called upon to comment. Later, the text ran into hot water in evaluations at the central level (see previous note). The whole project had to be redone because of remarks from on high. A new translation was made, which had to position itself between the recently produced text and the older version, published together with the new translations of Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price, plus a study guide in a triple combination in 2005. This enjoyed an enthusiast reception from the Dutch members, some of which wondered why the newest official Dutch Bible translation (NBV) had not been used; but the two translation projects had run parallel by coincidence so the new Bible translation could not be integrated yet.

[←734]

The official letter, signed by the First Presidency (20 January 1995), stresses the pioneer heritage and the positive effect that homage to the pioneer spirit and legacy can have. The guidelines identify anyone who stands for what is right, lives the commandments, follows the commandments, preaches the gospel and is an example of a Christian way of life, as a pioneer.

[←735]

On this issue a letter of mine to Sunstone (vol. 20, no. 1, 2) generated some flak from Dietrich Kemski, Germany (Sunstone, vol. 20, no. 2, 2). He argued that German members had enthusiastically embraced the pioneer celebrations. Indeed, so had some Dutch members, but the results of both were quite pathetic. Television coverage showed some members, both in Holland and Germany, towing handcarts through a forest; the commentaries were scathing in their friendly condescension: the “Mormons” were portrayed as people not from this world, imitating American customs totally unrelated to European reality. If those celebrations did anything, it was to reinforce the image of Mormons as a sect. Eliason is correct in assuming that German culture asserts more links to the Wild West than does Dutch culture; Eric A. Eliason, “The Cultural Dynamics of Historical Self-Fashioning: LDS Pioneer Nostalgia, American Culture and the International Church,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 28, no. 2 (2002), 160. But I severely doubt his assumption that pioneer nostalgia could be a productive symbol worldwide.

[←736]

For an incisive description converts’ isolation from a strongly Catholic culture, see Wilfried Decoo, “Feeding the Fleeing Flock: Reflections on the Struggle to Retain Church Members in Europe,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 29, no. 1 (Spring 1996), 97-118.

[←737]

Leonard J. Arrington, Dean L. May, and Feramorz Y. Fox, Building the City of God: Community and Cooperation among the Mormons, 2nd ed. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1976). The United Order was an experiment in communitarian economy that is now considered by the Church as an ideal, but presently unfeasible, way of life.

[←738]

Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive.

[←739]

Yorgason, Transformation of the Mormon Culture Region.

[←740]

Stark and Bainbridge, The Future of Religion, 21.

[←741]

Gary C. Lobb, “Mormon Membership Trends in Europe among People of Color: Present and Future Assessment,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 33, no. 4 (Winter 2000), 55-68.

[←742]

A small survey over a selected number of wards and branches in The Netherlands has produced this observation, to be used in a later paper.

[←743]

Karel Dobbelaere and Lillian Voyé, “From Pillar to Postmodernity: The Changing Situation in Belgium,” Sociological Analysis (recently renamed Sociology of Religion), vol. 51 (Supplement 1990), S1-S13.

[←744]

For a comparison with other “satellites,” see Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 29, no. 1 (Spring 1996), especially contributions from Ian G. Barber and David Gilgen, “Between Covenant and Treaty: The LDS Future in New Zealand,” 207-22; Michael W. Homer, “LDS Prospects in Italy for the Twenty-first Century,” 139-58; Thomas W. Murphy, “Reinventing Mormonism: Guatemala as Harbinger of the Future?” 177-92; Marjorie Newton, “Toward 2000: Mormonism in Australia,” 193-206; and Jiro Numano, “Mormonism in Modern Japan,” 223-35. See also Henri Gooren, “Analyzing LDS Growth in Guatemala: A Report from a Barrio,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 33, no. 2 (Summer 2000), 97-116; Jörg Dittberner, “One Hundred Years of Attitude: The History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Free and Hanseatic City of Bremen,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 36, no. 1 (Spring 2003), 51-70; Lamond F. Tullis, Mormons in Mexico: The Dynamics of Faith and Culture (Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1987);  and “Mormon Colonies in Mexico,” in Historical Atlas of Mormonism, ed. by S. Kent Brown (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), 110-11; Marc A. Schindler, “The Ideology of Empire: A View from ‘America’s Attic’,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 17, no. 1 (Spring 2004), 50-74. The Haiti example, with its creative syncretism deserves special attention here: Jennifer Huss Basquiat “Embodied Mormonism: Performance, Vodou, and the LDS Faith in Haiti,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 37, no. 3, (Winter 2004), 1 – 34.

[←745]

The Dutch “notary” is a more official, legal and authoritative version of the American “notary of public.”

[←746]

Or even a church on the road to fundamentalization, see Van Beek “Pathways of Fundamentalisation: The Peculiar Case of Mormonism,” The Freedom to Do God’s Will: Religious Fundamentalism and Social Change, ed. by G. Ter Haar and J.J. Busuttil (London: Routlegde, 2002), 111-143.

[←747]

See Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wynn Davies, Why Do People Hate America? (Cambridge: Icon Books, 2002).

[←748]

Sardar and Davies, Why Do People Hate America? 201-202.

[←749]

I found the following generally well-reasoned and convincing: M. Diane Kranz, “Reflections on War of a Liberal Catholic in Mormon Utah,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 37, no. 1 (Spring 2004), 136-45; Patrick Q. Mason, “The Possibilities of Mormon Peacebuilding,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 37, no. 1 (Spring 2004), 12-45; Robert M. Hogge, “War is Eternal: The Case for  Military Preparedness,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 37, no. 1 (Spring 2004), 165-79; Michael E. Nielsen, “Peace Psychology and Mormonism: A Broader Vision for Peace,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 37, no. 1 (Spring 2004), 109-32; Robert Rees, “America’s War on Terrorism: One Latter-day Saint’s Perspective,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 36, no. 1 (Spring 2003), 11-30; Richard Sherlock, “Rooted in Christian Hope: The Case for Pacifism,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 37, no. 1 (Spring 2004), 95-108; Bradley Cook, “The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict Reconsidered,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 36, no. 1 (Spring 2003), 1-7. But the voice of Church officials was nowhere heard.

[←750]

I have the impression that this redirection towards a Dutch identity is also found when members in The Netherlands become “inactive,” as Mormon parlance goes, representing the large majority of European church members of record (about 75%!); see Decoo, “Feeding the Fleeing Flock;” a comparison with the American patterns of inactivity would be interesting, see Stan L. Albrecht, Marie Cornwall, and Perry H. Cunningham, “Religious Leave-Taking: Disengagement and Disaffiliation among Mormons,” in Falling from the Faith: Causes and Consequences of Religious Apostasy, ed. by David G. Bromley (Newbury Park: Sage, 1988), 62-80; Stan L. Albrecht and Howard M. Bahr, “Patterns of Religious Disaffiliation: A Study of Lifelong Mormons, Mormon Converts and Former Mormons,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 22, no. 4 (1983), 366-79; Howard M. Bahr and Stan L. Albrecht, “Strangers Once More: Patterns of Disaffiliation from Mormonism,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 28, no. 2 (1989), 180-200. But this issue is complicated and merits a separate treatment.

[←751]

George-Henri Bousquet, Les Mormons (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France Les Mormons, 1949), 5.

[←752]

They are, in chronological order: “Le Mormonisme contemporain (Contemporary Mormonism),” in Outremer, 1935; “L’Église mormone et ses livres sacrés (The Mormon Church and its sacred books),” Revue d’Histoire des Religions, 1936; and “Une théocratie économique: L’Église mormone (The Mormon Church: An economic theocracy),” Revue d’Économie Politique, 1936.

[←753]

Bousquet, Les Mormons, 122.

[←754]

http://www.eglisedejesuschrist.fr/a-propos-de-l-eglise/l-eglise-en-france/les-debuts-de-l-eglise-en-france.html (accessed 8 September 2011).

[←755]

Bousquet, Les Mormons, 5.

[←756]

Bousquet, Les Mormons, 13.

[←757]

Les Mormons, 14. By comparison, in Twain’s language that gives: “The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so ‘slow,’ so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print” (Roughing It, 1891 [1872], 127). Twain goes on to postulates, in irony, that if Joseph Smith did indeed translate the book, then it is a miracle.

[←758]

Bousquet, Les Mormons, 24.

[←759]

Bousquet, Les Mormons, 26.

[←760]

Bousquet, Les Mormons, 16.

[←761]

Bousquet, Les Mormons, 17.

[←762]

Bousquet, Les Mormons, 17.

[←763]

Rodney Stark, “The Rise of a New World Faith,” Review of Religious Research, vol. 26, no. 1 (1984), 18-27, available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3511039 (accessed 12 July 2017).

[←764]

Thomas F. O’Dea, “Mormonism and the Avoidance of Sectarian Stagnation: A Study of Church, Sect, and Incipient Nationality,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 60, no 3 (1954), 285-293, available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2772686 (accessed 12 July 2017).

[←765]

Bousquet, Les Mormons, 125.

[←766]

Note that in French, the words “secte” and “culte” cannot be translated easily into English. Administratively speaking, a “secte” is dangerous group, the equivalent of a “cult” in English; and a “culte” is a Church or religious worship, depending on the context. For instance, France’s Minister of the Interior, who also oversees religious matters, is also the “Ministre des cultes”.

[←767]

Bousquet, Les Mormons, 5.

[←768]

Bousquet, Les Mormons, 6.

[←769]

(Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer).

[←770]

Email exchange with Bernard Blandre on the state of “Travaux sur le mormonisme (Research on Mormonism),” 12 September 2011.

[←771]

In Mouvements religieux: Bulletin de l'Association d'étude et d'information sur les mouvements religieux (A.E.I.M.R.), no. 120-121 (1990).

[←772]

Jean-François Mayer is known for his work Les mormons et la polygamie: Trois textes mormons du XIXe siècle en langue française; précédés d'une introd. à l'histoire et à la pratique du mariage plural chez les saints des derniers jours (Fribourg: Les Trois Nornes, 1986).

[←773]

Jacques Chouleur, “Le mormonisme: De la secte américaine à la religion universelle,” (Ph.D. dissertation; Paris: Université Paris-Sorbonne, 1978), 233.

[←774]

See See also Douglas J. Davies, “World Religion: Dynamics and Constraints,” BYU Studies Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 4 (1 December 2005), available at http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3743&context=byusq (accessed 2 July 2017).

[←775]

Bernadette Rigal-Cellard, “Inculturation of Mormonism in France,” a paper presented at the CESNUR International Conference (Salt Lake City, 2002), available at http://www.cesnur.org/2002/slc/rigal.htm (accessed 2 July 2017). A French version of the paper was published under the title “Être Français dans une Église d’origine américaine: Les Mormons de France (Being French in an American religion: The case of Mormons in France)” in Les mutations transatlantiques des religions, ed. by Christian Lerat and Bernadette Rigal-Cellard (Pessac: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux, 2000), 279-308.

[←776]

Rigal-Cellard, “Inculturation.”

[←777]

Some theses are written in English because they have been prepared and defended in Anglophone studies departments, which usually require graduates to produce their first major work in English as a test of language proficiency.

[←778]

Paper presented at the INFORM/CESNUR International Conference (The London School of Economics, Apil 2008), available at http://www.cesnur.org/2008/london_rigal.htm (accessed 28 November 2017).

[←779]

Bernadette Rigal-Cellard’s most important contributions include: “La presse des Mormons et l'histoire immediate (Le Facteur Religieux en Américan du Nord, Vol. 6. Talence: MSHA, 1985), 73-108; “Etre français dans une Église d'origine américaine: Les Mormons de France,” in Les mutations transatlantiques des religions, ed. by Christian Lerat and Bernadette Rigal-Cellard ((Pessac: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux, 2000), 279-308; “Inculturation of Mormonism in France,” (CESNUR; Salt Lake City, June 2002), available at http://www.cesnur.org/2002/slc/rigal.htm (access: 27 November 2017); “Les cérémonies des mormons de nos jours: Mystère et initiation dans le temple,” in Fastes et cérémonies: L’expression de la vie religieuse, XVIe-XXe siècles, ed. by Marc Agostino, François Cadilhon and Philippe Loupès (Pessac: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux, 2003), 163-186; “L’expansion territoriale des mormons et l’espace sacré de la Nouvelle Sion, hier et aujourd’hui,” Matériaux pour l’histoire de notre temps: Revue  de la BDIC, no. 75 (July/September 2004), 65-75; “’Et vous ferez fleurir le Grand Désert de Sel, et règnerez sur la Vallée sans Ombre !’ La mission colonisatrice des mormons de l’Empire de Déséret au territoire symbolique de la Nouvelle Sion,” in Missions extrêmes en Amérique du Nord: des Jésuites à Raël, ed. by Bernadette Rigal-Cellard (Bordeaux: Pleine Page, 2005), 221-256; “Le baptême des morts: Une transmission retroactive,” in Médium, no. 8 (July, August and September 2006), 107-122; and La religion des mormons (Paris: Albin Michel, 2012).

[←780]

Carter Charles, Bernadette Rigal-Cellard, Régis Dericquebourg, “‘Mormonisme, États et Sociétés’- Colloque international (Mormonism, State and Society - International Colloquium),” Transatlantica (2 February 2010), available at http://transatlantica.revues.org/4543 (accessed 27 November 2017).

[←781]

The article is also available online at http://ipr.univ-paris1.fr/spip.php?article274 (accessed 27 November 2017).

[←782]

In addition, a volume based on Christian Euvrard’s dissertation was also published by the title Louis Auguste Bertrand (1808-1875), Journaliste socialiste et Pionnier Mormon (Le Mans, France: Imprim'Ouest, 2005).

[←783]

(Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes).

[←784]

I may in fairness say that she was for months, years even, a household name in Mormon circles in Bordeaux and in Paris: she was more active than members of the Church in terms of attendance of Sunday and weekly meetings such as Primary classes, Sunday School, Relief Society, Sacrament Meeting, Seminary, Institute, temple trips, and socials like playing football (soccer) with the missionaries.

[←785]

Pierre Vendassi, Chrétiens de Chine: Affiliations et conversions au XXIe siècle (Chinese Christians: Affiliations and Conversions in the Twenty-First Century) (Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2014).

[←786]

FCT’s website: http://www.fct.abes.fr/FCT-APP/index.jsp. SUDOC’s website: http://www.sudoc.abes.fr/.

[←787]

“Les Mormons (The Mormons),” email correspondence with Fabrice Cellier (5 May 2007).

[←788]

I have referred to its content in several papers, especially in my article “Des Mormons et des chiffres (Mormons and Numbers)” published in Religioscope. Another illustration that French-speaking people referred it when researching Mormonism is an article published in the magazine Le Monde des Religions entitled “24 H dans la vie de… une jeune mormone (24H as a… Young Mormon Woman),” in which the medias res is a quotation from “10 Things to Know About Mormonism” published in the website.

[←789]

To my great surprise, the online store that Fabrice Cellier in created association with a German-based partner is still accessible online at the following address: http://294313.spreadshirt.fr/ (accessed 27 November 2017). A WHOIS search indicates that the website is hosted in Germany.

[←790]

A WHOIS search indicates that the domain mormonisme.com was purchased in 2011 by the LDS Church.

[←791]

This is the translation and adaptation of a chapter I published in 2000 (in Les Mutations transatlantiques des religions) on a study I conducted in 1999 among French LDS. It was presented at The 2002 CESNUR International Conference on Minority Religions, Social Change, and Freedom of Conscience (Salt Lake City: University of Utah and Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 21 June 2002).

[←792]

Jean Lemble, Dieu et les Français (Paris: Liahona, 1986), 161.

[←793]

Jean Lemble, Dieu et les Français, 184.

[←794]

Faye Morgan, “The Missionary Work of the Mormons with a Particular Emphasis on the French Mission” (TER de maîtrise, sous la direction de B. Rigal-Cellard; U.F.R. des pays Anglophones; Bordeaux: Université de Bordeaux III, 1998), 62.

[←795]

Jean Lemble, Dieu et les Français, 222-223.

[←796]

Bernard Blandre, Les recherches généalogiques des Mormons. Sarreguemines: AEIRM, no. 120 (April-May 1990), 9.

[←797]

Jean Lemble, Dieu et les Français (Paris: Liahona, 1986), 227.

[←798]

Bruce A. van Orden, Building Zion: The Latter-Day Saints in Europe (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1996), 243.

[←799]

Michael W. Homer, “‘Similarity of Priesthood in Masonry:’ The Relationship Between Freemasonry and Mormonism,” Dialogue, vol. 27, no. 3; and Michael W. Homer, Joseph’s Temples: The Dynamic Relationship between Freemasonry and Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2014).

[←800]

I wish to thank here Monsieur Salarnier and his family who then lived in Cestas, near Bordeaux, for their help in formulating questions, as well as all the saints who took time to answer my long questionnaire; Massimo Introvigne for his constant support and the resources of his CESNUR library; Grant Underwood from BYU in Hawaii for his explanations on different doctrinal points; Mike Homer for his friendship and work on the link between Mormonism and Free Masonry that I refer to here.

[←801]

A few studies of French LDS have followed my own, notably Christian Euvrard’s major Ph.D. dissertation in which one can find all the statistical references on the French saints. Euvrard did pursue my own questioning to try and define the specificities of French Mormons, or their lack of. He analyzed over 1400 questionnaires covering all kinds of characteristics and social and political behavior.

[←802]

Bruce A. van Orden, Building Zion: The Latter-Day Saints in Europe, 243.

[←803]

See the article of Carter Charles who addresses the issue of the impact of missions on missionaries themselves.

[←804]

Review (2 March 1996).

[←805]

Mathijs Pelkmans, “Introduction: Post-Soviet Space and the Unexpected Turns of Religious Life,” in Conversion after Socialism: Disruptions, Modernisms and Technologies of Faith in the Former Soviet Union, ed. by Mathijs Pelkmans (Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2009), 6.

[←806]

For a summary of the history of the LDS Church in Hungary, see Irén Annus, “Az Utolsó Napok Szentjeinek Jézus Krisztus Egyháza (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints),” in Vallásosság változatok: Vallási sokféleség Magyarországon (Varieties in Religion: Religious Pluralism in Hungary) ed. by András Máté-Tóth and Gábor Dániel Nagy (Szeged: JatePress, 2008), 185-7.

[←807]

“Church News: Country Introduction: Hungary,” at http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/58585/country-information-Hungary.htmm (accessed 2 July 2017). Just for comparison, this ratio in the same year was 51 in the US.

[←808]

In addition to a few articles in less-known papers, only one monograph has been published so far on the Latter-day Saints in Hungary. It is by Tamás Zala, Az aranytáblák népe (The People of the Golden Plates) (Budapest Gondolat, 1985).

[←809]

Vilmos Lenhardt, “A 2001. évi népszámlálás vallási adatai (Data on Religions in the 2001 Census),” http://web.axelero.hu/kesz/jel/04_01/szemle2.html (accessed 2 July 2017). The tendency described above seems to be an undercurrent in a more recent series of struggles over religious freedom and equality under the current center-right coalition government of the Young Democrats (FIDESZ) and the Christian Democrats (KDNP). It began in 2011, with the enactment of a new law on the legal status of the churches in Hungary, which limited the number of legally recognized churches in the country to fourteen. After a series of court rulings, political decisions and resultant changes, the government continues to distinguish between various types of religious communities, and new religious groups with no substantial history and a relatively small membership by definition may not rank among the most distinguished “incorporated churches” and will most likely remain “religious associations.” For more information, see “International Religious Freedom Report for 2015,” https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/256409.pdf (accessed 8 July 2017).

[←810]

Lewis R. Rambo, Understanding Religious Conversion (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993), 6.

[←811]

William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992 [1902]).

[←812]

Edwin Starbuck, The Psychology of Religion (New York: Scribners, 1911).

[←813]

Diane Austin-Broos, “The Anthropology of Conversion: An Introduction,” in The Anthropology of Religious Conversion, ed. by Andrew Buckster and Stephen D. Glazier (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 2.

[←814]

Austin-Broos, “The Anthropology of Conversion,” 2.

[←815]

Pierre Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992), 12.

[←816]

Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).

[←817]

Like all life stories, these accounts would not refer to unconscious motivation of action, or elements of self-tailoring.

[←818]

Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Later Modern Age (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991), 54.

[←819]

Austin-Broos, “The Anthropology of Conversion,” 2.

[←820]

Richard Jenkins, Social Identity (London: Routledge, 1996), 20.

[←821]

Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity, 75.

[←822]

Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity, 72.

[←823]

This term was borrowed from Trigeaud, who used it to designate church members who were not born into a Mormon family or socialized to become an LDS at a young age. Sophie-Helene Trigeaud, “Making the Convert: Conversion in the LDS Community Today,” in Conversion in the Age of Pluralism, ed. by Giuseppe Giordan (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2009), 263-86.

[←824]

Cited in Raymond F. Paloutzian, James T. Richardson and Lewis R. Rambo, “Religious Conversion and Personality Change,” Journal of Personality, vol. 67, no. 6 (December 1999), 1053.

[←825]

The common saying “He preaches water but drinks wine” with its hidden reference to clergymen captures this quite distinctly.

[←826]

Of the Saints interviewed, only three had immediate family members who had also been baptized. One had a baptized mother, and two of them had spouses who had also converted.

[←827]

Paloutzian, Richardson and Rambo, “Religious Conversion and Personality Change,” 1053.

[←828]

An excellent fieldwork-based analysis of the situation is provided in Barbara West, The Danger Is Everywhere! The Insecurity of Transition in Postsocialist Hungary (Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2001).

[←829]

The Alliance of the Young Democrats, or FIDESZ, the party that headed the coalition government between 1998 and 2002, has been infamous in this regard.

[←830]

Magyar lelkiállapot (Hungarian Psychological Condition), ed. by Mária Kopp (Budapest: Semmelweis Tudományegyetem, 2008).

[←831]

A discussion of the findings is available in Hajnal Kulcsár, ”Mit nyerünk, ha hiszünk? (What Do We Gain if We Believe?)” HVG (29 September, 2009), http://hvg.hu/egeszseg/20090928_vallas_egeszseg_kutatas (accessed 2 July 2017).

[←832]

Cited in Paloutzian, Richardson and Rambo, “Religious Conversion and Personality Change,” 1055.

[←833]

Paloutzian, Richardson and Rambo, “Religious Conversion and Personality Change,” 1060.

[←834]

Pelkmans, “Introduction,” 2.

[←835]

Jack Solomon, The Signs of Our Times: The Secret Meanings of Everyday Lives (New York: Harper and Row, 1990), 216.

[←836]

Márta Szenes, ”Új vallási mozgalmakba belépett fiatalok életút-jellemzői a megtérést megelőzően (Characteristics of Pre-Conversion Life Stories by Young People Converted to New Religious Movements),” in Vallásosság változatok: Vallási sokféleség Magyarországon (Varieties in Religion: Religious Pluralism in Hungary), ed. by András Máté-Tóth and Gábor Dániel Nagy (Szeged: JatePress, 2008).

[←837]

Gordon Shepherd and Gary Shepherd, A Kingdom Transformed: Themes in the Development of Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1984).

[←838]

Irén Annus. “Surveilling the Body and the Soul: Commitment/Retain Mechanisms and the Constitution of Mormon Identity,” British and American Studies, vol. 12 (2005), 103.

[←839]

Shepherd and Shepherd, A Kingdom Transformed, 129.

[←840]

Pelkmans, “Introduction,” 2.

[←841]

Milton Gordon, Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion and National Origin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964).

[←842]

Irén Annus, “Mormons or Americans: A Proposed Identity Model of the American Latter-day Saints,” Acta Ethnographica Hungarica, vol. 42, no. 1 (1997), 35-44.

[←843]

An earlier version of this article has been published by the same title in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 40, no. (Winter 2007), 71-106.

[←844]

Jan Shipps, “No More ‘Mormon’ Church?” (Washington, DC: Sunstone Symposium, 2001). Audio online at http://www.mormonstories.org/21/ (accessed 2 July 2017).

[←845]

Data from the chronological listing on the LDS Church’s website, http://www.ldschurchtemples.com (accessed 2 July 2017).

[←846]

I sincerely thank all those individuals who have helped me compile the database of material that served as the basis of this study and without which it would not have been possible to conduct the study. The English translations of most of the quotations from Finnish or Swedish in this article are mine. I have also provided English translations of newspaper article headings in parentheses and of newspaper names or broadcast program names in brackets on first usage.

[←847]

The temple district consists of the countries of Belarus, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Russia (partly). I have limited my material to items published in Finland, although there was some publicity in at least neighboring Estonia.

[←848]

I have collected much of the material by monitoring media outlets closely, especially during the public open house, assisted by several interested individuals located around Finland. Additionally, I have been in contact with Mormon Church Public Affairs in Finland in order to benefit from that office’s findings. The resulting database seems more than sufficient, especially as the purpose of this article is not to give a full overview of all media attention to the new Mormon temple, but rather to give examples of certain types of discourses related to the Mormons.

[←849]

Martti Junnonaho, “On Religious Otherness in Finnish Discourse,” in Beyond the Mainstream: The Emergence of Religious Pluralism in Finland, Estonia, and Russia, ed. by Jeffrey Kaplan (Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, 2000), 191–99.

[←850]

Tuomas Martikainen, “The Houses of Foreign Gods,” in Urbanism and Globalization, Vol. 2, ed. by Frank Eckardt and Dieter Hassenpflug (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2004), 180.

[←851]

Grace Davie, Religion in Modern Europe: A Memory Mutates (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 3.

[←852]

Kimmo Kääriäinen, Kati Niemelä, and Kimmo Ketola, Religion in Finland: Decline, Change and Transformation of Finnish Religiosity (Tampere, Finland: Church Research Institute, 2005), 79.

[←853]

Kim B. Östman, “The Mormon Espionage Scare and Its Public Coverage in Finland, 1982–84,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 34, no. 1 (Winter 2008), 82-117.

[←854]

Walter E. A. van Beek, “Mormon Europeans or European Mormons? An ‘Afro-American’ View of Religious Colonization,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 38, no. 4 (Winter 2005), 3–36.

[←855]

Rodney Stark, “Why Religious Movements Succeed or Fail: A Revised General Model,” in Cults and Religious Movements: A Reader, ed. by Lorne L. Dawson (Malden, England: Blackwell, 2003), 259–70.

[←856]

For a theoretical discussion of the concept of sociocultural tension, see, for example, Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge, The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult Formation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 19–24.

[←857]

Martikainen, “The Houses of Foreign Gods,” 175–89.

[←858]

Pia Karlsson, “Making Room for Islam: Mosques in Sweden,” in Islam and Christianity in School Religious Education: Issues, Approaches, and Contexts, ed. by Nils G. Holm (Åbo, Finland: Department of Comparative Religion, Åbo Akademi University, 2000), 183–202.

[←859]

“Kirkko valittiin mallikirjasta (Church Chosen from a Model Book”), Helsingin Sanomat (Helsinki Gazette) (21 July 2006), A10.

[←860]

Gordon B. Hinckley, “A Time of New Beginnings,” Ensign (May 2000), 87.

[←861]

In addition to the public open house, tours were also organized for construction workers and their families on September 16, for VIPs and the media on September 19-20, and for workers at the Stockholm Sweden Temple and their families on October 8. I include the number of visits from these days in the total number of visits. The temple was closed on Sundays, which is interesting, considering that Temple Square and the Museum of Church History and Art in Salt Lake City are open on Sundays.

[←862]

Kääriäinen, Niemelä, and Ketola, Religion in Finland, 79.

[←863]

Sami Myllyniemi, “Nuorisobarometri,” in Uskon asia: Nuorisobarometri 2006, ed. by Terhi-Anna Wilska (Helsinki: Nuorisoasian neuvottelukunta, Nuorisotutkimusverkosto ja Nuorisotutkimusseura, 2006), 79.

[←864]

Sari Pietikäinen and Heikki Luostarinen, “Vähemmistöt suomalaisessa julkisuudessa,” in Vähemmistöt ja niiden syrjintä Suomessa, ed. by Taina Dahlgren et al., (Helsinki: Yliopistopaino, 1996), 172.

[←865]

Junnonaho, “On Religious Otherness in Finnish Discourse,” 196.

[←866]

Pietikäinen and Luostarinen, “Vähemmistöt suomalaisessa julkisuudessa,” 178.

[←867]

See Markku Ihonen, “Mediakummajainen? Herätysliikkeen julkisuusongelmien äärellä,” Tiedotustutkimus, vol. 23, no. 4 (2000), 68–78, for the case of Laestadians in Finland.

[←868]

“Open Hearts Abound: Some 56,000 Finns Attend Open House of New Temple,” Church News (28 October 2006), 7.

[←869]

Pietikäinen and Luostarinen, “Vähemmistöt suomalaisessa julkisuudessa,” 175, 184.

[←870]

“Uskonystäviä syytetään naisen surmanhypystä parvekkeelta Kangasalla (Faith Friends Accused of Woman’s Death Jump from Balcony in Kangasala),” Aamulehti (Morning Paper) (7 November 2006), A7.

[←871]

Stephen Harold Riggins, “The Rhetoric of Othering,” in The Language and Politics of Exclusion: Others in Discourse, ed. by Stephen Harold Riggins (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997), 25.

[←872]

“Mormonitemppelin rakentaminen on kolmen vuoden urakka: Temppelin työmaalla ei kiroilla eikä tupakoida (Building of Mormon Temple is a Three-Year Job: No Swearing or Smoking on Temple Work Site),” Länsiväylä (Western Route) (25 May 2005), 4.

[←873]

“Millintarkka temppeli (A Millimeter-Precise Temple),” Rakentavasti (In a Constructing Manner) (Summer 2005).

[←874]

“Mormonitemppelin rakentaminen on kolmen vuoden urakka.”

[←875]

“IHAN vähän amerikkalaista (JUST a little American),” Vartti (Quarter) (24 September 2006), 6.

[←876]

“Helsingin uuteen temppeliin tutustuu tuhansia ihmisiä: Lars Gröndahlilla fantastinen tunnelma (Thousands of People Getting to Know New Helsinki Temple: Lars Gröndahl Feeling Fantastic),” Loviisan Sanomat (Loviisa Gazette) (29 September 2006), 12.

[←877]

Horisontti (The Horizon), Yle Radio 1 (24 September 2006), emphasis added.

[←878]

Ylen aikainen, Yle Radio Suomi (3 October 2006).

[←879]

“IHAN vähän amerikkalaista,” 6.

[←880]

Ylen aikainen, Yle Radio Suomi (3 October 2006).

[←881]

“Tung utanpå, prålig och glittrig inuti (Heavy on the Outside, Fancy and Glittery on the Inside),” Hufvudstadsbladet (Capital City Paper) (20 September 2006), 4.

[←882]

“IHAN vähän amerikkalaista,” 6.

[←883]

“Valoa kansalle Amerikan malliin: Suomen ensimmäinen mormonitemppeli häikäisee prameudellaan (Light for the People in the American Way: Finland’s First Mormon Temple Dazzles with Its Glitter),” Iltalehti (Evening Paper) (20 September 2006), 12–13. In contrast are other glowing descriptions of the interior that make no reference to American architecture. See for example “Kirkko kuin koru (Church like a Piece of Jewelry),” Seura (Company), vol. 72, no. 39 (29 September 2006), 14.

[←884]

“Valoa kansalle Amerikan malliin,” 12. “Rapakon takana”, meaning “beyond the puddle,” is a Finnish saying sometimes used when referring to the United States on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

[←885]

Seitsemän uutiset (Seven o’clock News), MTV3 (19 September 2006).

[←886]

Ylen aikainen, Yle Radio Suomi (3 October 2006).

[←887]

“Vainajia kastetaan pian täällä (The Deceased Will Soon Be Baptized Here),” Ilta-Sanomat (Evening Gazette) (17 April 2004), 12–13.

[←888]

“Vainajakaste (Baptism of the Deceased),” Satakunnan Kansa (The People of Satakunta) (23 April 2004), 1.

[←889]

“Kastettavana vastoin tahtoaan (Baptized against One’s Will),” Metro (Metro) (29 April 2004), 6.

[←890]

“MAP-kirkko pystyttää temppeliä Espooseen: Esi-isämme kastetaan mormoneiksi (LDS Church Erecting Temple in Espoo: Our Forefathers Are Baptized as Mormons),” Nykyposti (Modern Post), vol. 27, no. 5 (2004), 14–18.

[←891]

Maria Ollila, “Käsin kopioinnista mormonien rahoittamaan mikrofilmaukseen: Suomalaisten kirkonkirjojen jäljennystyö, 1924–1955” (M.Th. thesis; Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 2003).

[←892]

“Sex gånger döpt (Baptized Six Times),” Vasabladet (The Vaasa Paper) (23 September 2006), 11.

[←893]

“MAP-kirkko pystyttää temppeliä Espooseen: Esi-isämme kastetaan mormoneiksi,” Nykyposti, vol. 27, no. 5 (2004), 16.

[←894]

“Mormonien kasterekisteri arveluttaa tietosuojavaltuutettua (Data Protection Ombudsman Iffy about Mormon Baptism Register),” Ilta-Sanomat (20 April 2004), 11.

[←895]

“Vainajia kastetaan pian täällä.”

[←896]

Pietikäinen and Luostarinen, “Vähemmistöt suomalaisessa julkisuudessa,” 184.

[←897]

Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley, 1979), 444–57.

[←898]

“Laaja keskus palvelee myös Venäjää ja Baltian maita: Espooseen kohoaa mormonitemppeli (Large Center also Serves Russia and Baltic Countries: Mormon Temple Rising in Espoo),” Kotimaa (Homeland), vol. 101, no. 28 (14 July 2006), 3. A new parish minister has also been positive. Quoted in “Miten seurakuntaan lisää jäseniä Leppävaarassa? (How to Get More Members in Leppävaara Parish?),” Länsiväylä (17 January 2007), 4.

[←899]

Espoo city planning board minutes, September 11, 2002. Nonetheless, in comparison with many other planned Mormon temples (e.g., Boston), the Helsinki Temple project seems to have proceeded with minimal protest-related problems.

[←900]

“Laaja keskus palvelee myös Venäjää ja Baltian maita: Espooseen kohoaa mormonitemppeli,” 3.

[←901]

“Mormonien ja kristinuskon erot (The Differences between Mormons and Christianity),” Verkko-Esse (Net-Esse), http://www.esse.fi. (accessed October 3, 2006).

[←902]

“Emävale-ekumeniaa (Duplicitous Ecumenism),” Sanansaattaja (The Messenger), vol. 131, no. 40 (5 October 2006), 2.

[←903]

“Laaja keskus palvelee myös Venäjää ja Baltian maita: Espooseen kohoaa mormonitemppeli,” 3; “Kirkko ei hyväksy (The Church Does Not Accept),” Aamulehti (30 October 2006), A4; “Opetusministeriön edustaja mormonien sijaiskasteesta: Kuolleiden puolesta kastaminen ei ole lainvastaista (Ministry of Education Representative on Mormon Proxy Baptism: Baptizing in Behalf of the Dead Is Not Illegal),” Kotimaa, vol. 101, no. 40 (5 October 2006), 3; “Menestyykö mormonismi meillä? (Does Mormonism Thrive Here?),” KD Kristillisdemokraattinen viikkolehti (Christian Democrat Weekly), vol. 40, no. 41 (12 October 2006), 3.

[←904]

“Mormonismi kiinnostaa Espoossa (Mormonism Interests in Espoo),” Uusi Tie (New Road), vol. 42, no. 39–40 (28 September 2006), 4.

[←905]

“Menestyykö mormonismi meillä?” 3.

[←906]

“Mormonikirkko ei ole kristillinen kirkko (The Mormon Church Is Not a Christian Church),” Länsiväylä (22 October 2006), 16.

[←907]

“Mormonit uskovat Kristuksen julistaneen Pohjois-Amerikassakin (Mormons Believe Christ Preached in North America Too),” Esse (Espoon Seurakuntasanomat, Espoo Parish Gazette), vol. 34, no. 36 (28 September 2006), 10.

[←908]

“Menestyykö mormonismi meillä?” 3.

[←909]

“Emävale-ekumeniaa,” 2.

[←910]

“Jos olisin mormoni (If I Were a Mormon),” Vantaan Lauri (The Vantaa Lauri), vol. 11, no. 34 (5 October 2006), 12.

[←911]

“Missförstånd? Nej! (Misunderstandings? No!),” Kyrkpressen (The Church Press), vol. 36, no. 40 (6 October 2005), 5.

[←912]

“Melkein kuin Vapaamuurarien lahko (Nearly Like a Sect of Freemasonry),” Ristin Voitto (Victory of the Cross), vol. 95, no. 38 (20 September 2006), 13.

[←913]

“Mormonismi kiinnostaa Espoossa,” 4.

[←914]

“Menestyykö mormonismi meillä?” 3.

[←915]

“Melkein kuin Vapaamuurarien lahko,” 13.

[←916]

“Opetusministeriön edustaja mormonien sijaiskasteesta,” 3.

[←917]

“Kuolleiden kaste repii perhepiiriä (Baptism of the Dead Tears Family Circle),” Kotimaa (Homeland), vol. 101, no. 49 (8 December 2006), 31.

[←918]

“MAP-kirkko pystyttää temppeliä Espooseen,” 17.

[←919]

“Haudan häpäisemistä ja vainajiin kajoamista (Desecrating Graves and Tampering with the Deceased),” Ilta-Sanomat (21 April 2004), 10.

[←920]

“Kirkko ei hyväksy,” Aamulehti (30 August 2006), A4.

[←921]

“Opetusministeriön edustaja mormonien sijaiskasteesta,” 3.

[←922]

Two particularly strong examples of promoting otherness are “MAP-kirkko pystyttää temppeliä Espooseen,” 14–18, and “Vainajia kastetaan pian täällä,” 12–13.

[←923]

“Avoimien ovien suosio yllätti mormonitemppelin väen (Open House Popularity Surprised Crew of Mormon Temple),” Turun Sanomat (Turku Gazette) (8 October 2006), 11. This brief piece by the Finnish News Agency was published in varying lengths in several newspapers around the country on the same day.

[←924]

Aamu-TV (Morning TV), Yle TV 1 (24 July 2006).

[←925]

“Mormonitemppeli valmistui Espooseen: Avoimet ovet kaksi ja puoli viikkoa (Mormon Temple Completed in Espoo: Open House for Two and a Half Weeks),” Pohjolan Sanomat (Gazette of the North) (20 September 2006), 7.

[←926]

“Helsinki Finland Temple Media Kit” (n.p.: Myöhempien Aikojen Pyhien Jeesuksen Kristuksen Kirkko, n.d.).

[←927]

Rick Phillips, “Rethinking the International Expansion of Mormonism,” Nova Religio, vol. 10, no. 1 (August 2006), 52–68.

[←928]

Quoted in “Saarnaaja kulkee myös hameessa (Preacher Walks also in Skirt),” Helsingin Sanomat (21 July 2006), A10.

[←929]

Interview, Aamu-TV, Yle TV 1 (24 July 2006).

[←930]

“Pyhien profeettojen polulla: Suomen ensimmäinen mormonitemppeli vauhdittaa MAP-kirkon sanomaa (On the Path of Holy Prophets: Finland’s First Mormon Temple Speeds up the LDS Church’s Message),” Helsingin Uutiset (The Helsinki News) (22 September 2006), 4.

[←931]

Juha Itkonen, Myöhempien aikojen pyhiä (Helsinki: Tammi, 2003).

[←932]

“Pukumiehet pois ovilta (Men in Suits away from Doors),” Iltalehti (20 September 2006), 13.

[←933]

“Saarnaaja kulkee myös hameessa,” A10.

[←934]

“Mormontemplet färdigt i Helsingfors (Mormon Temple Ready in Helsinki),” Östra Nyland (Eastern Uusimaa) (3 October 2006), 14, and ”Emävale-ekumeniaa,” 2.

[←935]

“Pyhien profeettojen polulla,” 4.

[←936]

On early Mormon thoughts concerning Christian identity and boundary maintenance, see my “Kristillisen identiteetin ongelma varhaisen mormonismin aatemaailmassa,” Teologinen Aikakauskirja, vol. 111, no. 2 (2007), 123-134. Also “The Problem of Christian Identity in Late Nineteenth-Century Mormon Thought,” part of The 2006 Summer Seminar Working Papers, available at https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=3525&index=6 (accessed 2 July 2017).

[←937]

Kathleen Flake, “‘Not to be riten:’ The Mormon Temple Rite as Oral Canon,” Journal of Ritual Studies, vol. 9, no. 2 (1998), 1–21.

[←938]

This person is usually the senior stake president in Finland, in this case, the Helsinki Finland Stake president.

[←939]

Uutiset (News), Yle TV 2 (19 September 2006).

[←940]

Aamu-TV, Yle TV 1 (24 July 2006).

[←941]

“Släktforskaren fick en chock: Mormonkyrkan hade döpt och vigt döda anhöriga (Genealogist Got Shocked: Mormon Church Had Baptized and Married Dead Relatives),” Kyrkpressen, vol. 36, no. 24 (16 June 2005), 7.

[←942]

“Några missförstånd (Some Misunderstandings),” Kyrkpressen, vol. 36, no. 38 (22 September 2005), 5.

[←943]

“Vainajia kastetaan pian täällä,” 13.

[←944]

See, for example, “Kuolema ei ole raja (Death Is Not a Border Barrier),” Ilta-Sanomat (3 May 2004), 4, and “Sijaistyöllä on suuri merkitys (Proxy Work Has Great Significance),” Metro (5 May 2004), 17.

[←945]

“LDS Struggle to Keep Proxy Baptisms Appropriate,” Salt Lake Tribune (9 October 1999), C1.

[←946]

“Vainajakaste,” Satakunnan Kansa (23 April 2004), 1, and “Oikaisu (Correction),” Satakunnan Kansa (8 May 2004), 6.

[←947]

“Släktforskaren fick en chock,” 7, and “Sex gånger döpt (Baptized Six Times),” Kyrkpressen, vol. 36, no. 36 (8 September 2005), 5.

[←948]

“Kuolema ei ole raja,” 4.

[←949]

Interview, Päivän Peili (The Day’s Mirror), Yle Radio 1 (19 September 2006).

[←950]

“Uusi mormonitemppeli palvelee Venäjää myöten (New Mormon Temple Serves All the Way to Russia),” Kirkko ja Kaupunki (Church and City), vol. 64, no. 36 (27 September 2006), 5.

[←951]

Interview, Uutiset, Yle TV 2 (19 September 2006).

[←952]

“Pyhien profeettojen polulla,” 4.

[←953]

Aamu-TV, Yle TV 1 (24 July 2006).

[←954]

van Beek, “Mormon Europeans or European Mormons?” 3–36.

[←955]

Quoted in “Open Hearts Abound,” 7.

[←956]

“Helsingin uuteen temppeliin tutustuu tuhansia ihmisiä,” 12.

[←957]

Radiohuset (The Radio House), Yle Radio Vega (13 October 2006).

[←958]

Armand L. Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994).

[←959]

Fyodor M. Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, transl. by Constance Garnett, http://faculty.webster.edu/corbetre/philosophy/existentialism/dostoevsky/grand.html (accessed 2 July 2017). All Dostoevsky quotes in this article are from this text.

[←960]

History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 6, ed. by B. H. Roberts, 2nd ed., rev. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1971), 41.

[←961]

The Church and its members are often referred to as Mormons based on their scripture called the Book of Mormon.

[←962]

Hedrick Smith, The Russians (New York: Ballantine Books, 1977), 330.

[←963]

Wright Miller, Russian as People (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1960), 107.

[←964]

Gary Browning, “Russia and the Restoration,” in Out of Obscurity: The 29th Annual Sperry Symposium (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2000), 68.

[←965]

History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 5 (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1902-1932), 417. See also Gary Browning, Russia and the Restored Gospel (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1997), 3-5.

[←966]

Gary Browning, Russia and the Restored Gospel (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1997), 10-12.

[←967]

Severin Norman Lee Journal, 1896-1898 (Church Archives; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) (hereafter LDS Church Archives).

[←968]

Francis M. Lyman Letter dated 9 August 1903 (27 July 1903 in Russian old style date) in Moscow, Russia, to the First Presidency, Salt Lake City; retained copy, Francis M. Lyman Letterpress Copybooks, 1901-1903 (LDS Church Archives).

[←969]

Francis M. Lyman Letter dated 7 September 1903 in Liverpool, England, to the First Presidency, Salt Lake City (LDS Church Archives).

[←970]

Kate B. Carter, comp., Heart Throbs of the West, Vol. 4 (Salt Lake City: Daughters of Utah Pioneers, 1939-1951), 299.

[←971]

“Apostles Recall Historical Sermon by Ezra Taft Benson at Moscow Baptist Church,” (Newsroom, 5 June 2009), http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/apostles-recall-historic-sermon-by-ezra-taft-benson-at-a-moscow-baptist-church (accessed 2 July 2017).

[←972]

Andre K. Anastasion’s Letter to the Council of the Twelve dated 8 November 1970, 2-4 (A copy available in LeGrand Richards Files, LDS Church Archives).

[←973]

Shaun D. Stahle, “Kiev members revere historic moment,” Church News (5 June 2004), http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/45658/Kiev-members-revere-historic-moment.html (accessed 2 July 2017).

[←974]

See Oral History: J. Henry Burkhardt (1991), (LDS Church Archives); and J. Henry Burkhardt, “Interessante Kirchengeschichte im Bereich des Freiberg-Tempels (LDS Church Archives, ca. 1985).

[←975]

Scott Taylor, “LDS Official Calls German Temple Catalyst for ‘Cataclysmic Change’ in Europe,” Deseret News (7 September 2010), http://www.ldsliving.com/LDS-official-calls-German-temple-catalyst-for-cataclysmic-change-in-Europe/s/6158 (accessed 2 July 2017).

[←976]

Oral History: Bruce A. Wheeler (16 October 1992), (LDS Church Archives).

[←977]

Don Thornton, “The Beginnings of the Moscow Branch” (LDS Church Archives); also Oral History: Galina I. Goncharova (13 May 1995), (LDS Church Archives).

[←978]

Oral History: Hans B. Ringger (4 October 1997), (LDS Church Archives); also Gary Browning, Russia and the Restored Gospel, 18-19. See also Oral History: Beverly Campbell (1990-1992), (LDS Church Archives). Campbell names the minister as ”Karpov.” However, upon checking the internet, Kharchev, who was head of the USSR’s Council for Religious Affairs from 1984 to 1989, seems the likely person. It would be easy to confuse or mispronounce the names Karpov and Kharchev.

[←979]

Oral History: Beverly Campbell. Campbell describes in great detail how she built a relationship of trust and a friendship with the Dubinins beginning on page 24 of the oral history.

[←980]

Robert H. Woody, “Reliving ‘LDS Question,’” Salt Lake Tribune (15 October 1995), A-1, A-4.

[←981]

Carina Mahoney, telephone conversation with Kahlile Mehr followed by email exchanges (2-15 September 2003), author’s notes.

[←982]

See Oral History: Steven R. Mecham (1991-1994), (LDS Church Archives); Oral History: Kevin A. Dexter (1992), (LDS Church Archives); and Oral History: David S. Reagan (1992, 1995), (LDS Church Archives).

[←983]

Oral History: David S. Reagan, Inerview by Kahlile Mehr (West Jordan, UT, 17 February 1991).

[←984]

He later became the first to serve a full-time mission from Russia, arriving at the Missionary Training Center, in Provo, UT, on July 26, 1991, and serving in the Utah Ogden Mission.

[←985]

Gary Browning, Russia and the Restored Gospel, 24. These missionary couples were Jussi and Raija Kemppainen, Aimo and Nellie Jäkkö, Vesa-Pekka and Minna Kirsi, Arto and Katri Lammintaus, Antti and Leena Riihimäki Laitinen.

[←986]

Gary Browning, Russia and the Restored Gospel, 87-88.

[←987]

See Russell M. Nelson, “Drama on the European Stage” (Talk delivered at Ricks College, 13 November 1990), 15 (LDS Church Archives); also Gary Browning, Russia and the Restored Gospel, 151, 156-57.

[←988]

Mikhail Gorbachev, ”10th annual W. Averell Harriman Lecture,” (Columbia University, the School of International and Public Affairs' Harriman Institute, 11 March 2002), http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/vforum/02/russia_today_future/ (accessed 3 July 2017).

[←989]

Wright Miller, Russians as People (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1960), 114.

[←990]

“Oil and Gas is Our Drug,” SPIEGEL Interview with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (9 November 2009), http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/spiegel-interview-with-russian-president-dmitry-medvedev-oil-and-gas-is-our-drug-a-660114.html (accessed 3 July 2017).

[←991]

“Russians recall ‘a bloodless revolution’,” USA Today (20 August 2001), 11A.

[←992]

Douglas Birch, “Putin’s defiance signals a bold new Russia” (Associated Press release),  Deseret Morning News (29 April 2007).

[←993]

Benjamin Bidder, “Long Wait Rattles Nerves in Moscow,” SpiegelOnline (17 May 2011), http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/political-limbo-over-2012-election-long-wait-rattles-nerves-in-moscow-a-762897.html (accessed 3 July 2017).

[←994]

Gary Browning, Russia and the Restored Gospel, 311-312.

[←995]

Thomas Rogers Response to papers at the 2000 Mormon History Association Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark; unpublished manuscript in author’s possession, 9.

[←996]

Wright Miller, Russian as People, 50.

[←997]

Shaun D. Stahle, “Members in Europe East Area view Nauvoo temple dedication,” Church News (13 July 2002), http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/42117/Members-in-Europe-East-Area-view-Nauvoo-temple-dedication.html (accessed 3 July 20170. According to Europe East Area President Douglas L. Callister, “Only the hand of the Lord – intervening in the last crucial moment – could have made the transmission possible to nearly 6,000 members who had gathered in meetinghouses across Eastern Europe.”

[←998]

Shaun Stahle, “LDS Russians rejoice in visit,” Deseret News (11 September 2002), http://www.deseretnews.com/article/936366/LDS-Russians-rejoice-in-visit.html (accessed 3 July 2017).

[←999]

Shaun D. Stahle, “Scenic gardens site of Russia celebration,” Deseret News (16 August 2003), http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/44184/Scenic-gardens-are-site-of-Russian-celebration.html (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1000]

Oral History: Paul B. Pieper (28 July 2009), 3-4, 7, (LDS Church Archives).

[←1001]

“Lebed Vows to Cleanse Russia of Religious ‘Filth,’” Deseret News (27 June 1996),  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/498207/LEBED-VOWS-TO-CLEANSE-RUSSIA-OF-RELIGIOUS-FILTH.html?pg=all  (accessed 3 July 2017).

[←1002]

“Clinton Taking Offense at Remarks again LDS,” Deseret News (30 June 1996).

[←1003]

“Lebed Sorry for Picking on Mormons – Sort of,” Deseret News (2 July 1996). http://www.deseretnews.com/article/499372/LEBED-SORRY-FOR-PICKING-ON-MORMONS---SORT-OF.html (accessed 3 July 2017).

[←1004]

Douglas Callister, Fireside Address (Salt Lake City, 6 October 2003), author’s notes.

[←1005]

Thomas Rogers, Response, 10.

[←1006]

“What residents of Russia Believe,” Mir religii (7 September 2001).

[←1007]

Thomas Rogers, Response, 10.

[←1008]

“On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations,” http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/freedomofconscienceeng.html (accessed 3 July 2017); it covers subsequent quotes in this paragraph.

[←1009]

“On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations.”

[←1010]

John O’Mahony, “Russia’ Religion Law May Still Threaten LDS Church,” Manchester UK Guardian (22 January 2000), 1.

[←1011]

Kent Larsen, “Leader’s Statement May Be New Threat to LDS in Russia,” Mormon News (10 October 2000), http://www.mormonstoday.com/001013/T1RussiaReligFreedom01.shtml (accessed 3 July 2017).

[←1012]

“Sects and Religions in Russia Face Day of Reckoning,” Russia Today (30 December 2000), http://www.network54.com/Search/view/84302/978208637/Sects+and+Religions+in+Russia+Face+Day+of+Reckoning--US+can+keep+their+sects+we+don%27t+want+them?term=%22100T%22&page=99799  (access 3 July 2017).

[←1013]

“Sects and Religions in Russia Face Day of Reckoning.”

[←1014]

Mikhail Edelstein, “Russia: Pressure on Penza Pentecostals Intensifies,” Keston News Service (15 December 2000), www.keston.org.uk/kns/2000/001215RU.htm (accessed 3 July 2017). Quoting from the article: “The church's secretary, Sergei Strokov, told Keston on 4 December that it had had no significant problems with the authorities until the middle of this year. However, relations worsened on 19 July, when the head of the department for religious faiths in the governor's office, Vladimir Popkov, grabbed several copies of the Living Faith newspaper from distributors and ripped them up. The following day, on Popkov's orders, several distributors were arrested and taken to the regional police department. The newspaper's editor, Aleksei Chekushin, then arrived. After a discussion between Popkov and Chekushin, all those arrested were set free and no police report was drawn up. Similar incidents took place in the following days. The Penzpechat Corporation halted distribution of the paper through its kiosks. At the same time, the regional justice administration launched an `anti-sect' campaign in the state media.”

[←1015]

David Stewart and Matt Martinich, "Russia," in Taking the Gospel to the Nations: Challenges and Opportunities for International LDS Growth, http://cumorah.com/index.php (accessed 3 July 2017).

[←1016]

“Poll shows Russians view West as hostile, unfriendly”  (Reuters News Service release), Deseret News  (23 November 1999), A-4.

[←1017]

[←1017]

Julie A. Dockstader, ”Kidnapped missionaries safe; two arrested,” Church News (28 March 1998); see also ”Suspects arrested in Mormon missionary abduction in Russia,” https://lasvegassun.com/news/1998/mar/23/suspects-arrested-in-mormon-missionary-abduction-i/ (accessed 3 July 2017).

[←1018]

Sarah Jane Weaver, “Whole Church will feel, mourn loss of missionary,” Church News (24 October 24 1998).

[←1019]

Douglas Callister, ”Fireside Address,” in Mormons in Russia, by Sergey Antonenko (Moskwa: Rodina, 2007).

[←1020]

“Rodina (magazine),” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodina_(magazine) (accessed 3 July 2017).

[←1021]

”Russia adopts new visa regulations,” Deseret News (15 August 1998).

[←1022]

David Stewart and Matt Martinich, "Russia."

[←1023]

Douglas Callister, ”Fireside Address.”

[←1024]

Tad Walch, “LDS Church halts sending North American missionaries to Russia” (14 July 2008), http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700243183/LDS-Church-halts-sending-North-American-missionaries-to-Russia.html (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1025]

David Stewart and Matt Martinich, "Russia," source for rest of the paragraph. The Chelyabinsk effort is reported in "Russia," International Religious Freedom Report, 2002 (www.state.gov), cited in Stewart and Martinich.

[←1026]

"Russia," International Religious Freedom Report, 2008 (www.state.gov), cited in David Stewart and Matt Martinich, "Russia."

[←1027]

Douglas Callister, ”Fireside Address.” He was of the opinion that twenty-two percent of a person’s wages goes toward bribes.

[←1028]

I.S. Makarov to LDS-Eurasia (12 December 2000), www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lds-eurasia/, (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1029]

David Stewart, “The Church and the Chapel: Meetinghouse Construction in the Former Soviet Union,” Cumorah News Service (15 December 2001); source for rest of the paragraph.

[←1030]

Nick Paton Walsh, “Russians fume as Mormons ‘buy souls,” The Observer International (23 November 2003), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/23/religion.russia  (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1031]

Family History Department, internal reports accessed by Kahlile Mehr.

[←1032]

Thomas Rogers, Response, 8, reporting from his personal experience as President of the Russia St. Petersburg Mission.

[←1033]

Shaun Stahle, “LDS Russians rejoice in visit.”

[←1034]

Douglas Callister, ”Fireside Address;” source for the rest of the paragraph.

[←1035]

Russia ranked 196 out 222 countries with a birth rate of 1.42 in 2011 according to the CIA World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html (accessed 5 July 2017). See also Matt Rosenberg, “Population Decline in Russia: Russia's Population Set to Decline From 143 Million Today to 111 Million in 2050,” About.com Geography, http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/russiapop.htm (accessed 5 July 2017). Rosenberg wrote: “Russia's population peaked in the early 1990s (at the time of the end of the Soviet Union) with about 148 million people in the country. Today, Russia's population is approximately 143 million. The United States Census Bureau estimates that Russia's population will decline from the current 143 million to a mere 111 million by 2050, a loss of more than 30 million people and a decrease of more than 20%.”

[←1036]

Michael Wines, “For all Russia, Biological Clock is Running Out,” New York Times (28 December 2000), http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/28/world/for-all-russia-biological-clock-is-running-out.html (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1037]

Michael Specter, “The Devastation,” The New Yorker (15 October 2004), http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/10/11/the-devastation (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1038]

Abigail Zuger, “Infectious Diseases Rising Again in Russia,” New York Times (5 December 2000), http://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/pop/001206wodwednesday.html (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1039]

Michael Wines, “An Ailing Russia Lives a Tough Life That’s Getting Shorter,” The New York Times (3 December 2000), http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/03/world/an-ailing-russia-lives-a-tough-life-that-s-getting-shorter.html (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1040]

“Russian Life Expectancy at Birth,” Index Mundi, http://www.indexmundi.com/russia/life_expectancy_at_birth.html (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1041]

See Matt Rosenberg, “Population Decline in Russia,” https://www.thoughtco.com/population-decline-in-russia-1435266 (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1042]

Michael Wines, “An Ailing Russia Lives a Tough Life That’s Getting Shorter.”

[←1043]

David Stewart and Matt Martinich, "Russia."

[←1044]

“Members by Country, 10 Years, 2009,” (Document, Internal Membership Department); also, telephone conversation with Membership Department (23 May 2011).

[←1045]

David Stewart and Matt Martinich, "Russia." Source for this and the next four paragraphs unless otherwise cited.

[←1046]

“2010 Report of Jehovah's Witnesses Worldwide,” Jehovah’s Witnesses Offical Website, http://www.watchtower.org/e/statistics/worldwide_report.htm (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1047]

Tatiana Gavrilova in an e-mail to author (8 June 2011).

[←1048]

Shaun Stahle, “LDS Russians rejoice in visit.”

[←1049]

“What President Hinckley Told the Russian Saints,” Meridian Magazine (10 September 2002).

[←1050]

Shaun D. Stahle, “LDS Russians rejoice in visit.”

[←1051]

Shaun D. Stahle, “Temple dedicated in Helsinki, Finland,” Church News (28 October 2006), http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/49687/Temple-dedicated-in-Helsinki-Finland.html (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1052]

Personal observation of Kahlile Mehr, attendee at all events in connection with the dedication of the temple.

[←1053]

Oral History: Paul B. Pieper, 18-19.

[←1054]

Scott Taylor, “Future of LDS Church in Russia seen as very bright,” Deseret News (13 October 2010), http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705362163/Future-of-the-LDS-Church-in-Russia-seen-as-very-bright.html (accessed 5 July 2017). The Europe East Area is a geographically defined area of the Church, included Russia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Bulgaria. 2011 Deseret News Church Almanac (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011), 170.

[←1055]

Oral History: Paul B. Pieper, 25.

[←1056]

Thomas F. Rogers, “Mormonism’s First Decade in the Former USSR,” 6.

[←1057]

David Stewart and Matt Martinich, "Russia."

[←1058]

Joe Everett to LDS-Eurasia (26 February 2000), www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lds-eurasia (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1059]

"New mission presidents for 105 missions," Church News (8 March 2003), http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/43323/New-mission-presidents-for-105-missions.html (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1060]

Oral History: Paul B. Pieper, 14-16.

[←1061]

Scott Taylor, “Future of LDS Church in Russia seen as very bright.”

[←1062]

Tad Walch, “LDS Church halts sending North American missionaries to Russia,” Deseret News (14 July 2008), http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700243183/LDS-Church-halts-sending-North-American-missionaries-to-Russia.html (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1063]

Oral History: Paul B. Pieper, 12.

[←1064]

"New leadership changes," Deseret News (5 April 2009).

[←1065]

David Stewart and Matt Martinich, "Russia."

[←1066]

“Church Leaders Visit Growing Church Membership in Eastern Europe,” Newsroom (3 June 2009), http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-leaders-visit-growing-church-membership-in-eastern-europe (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1067]

Gerry Avant, “Elder Russell M. Nelson dedicates meetinghouse in Voronezh, Russia,” Church News (20 October 2009), http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/58110/Elder-Russell-M-Nelson-dedicates-meetinghouse-in-Voronezh-Russia.html (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1068]

Athelia Woolley, “Wondrous history,” Church News.

[←1069]

Handbook 1: Stake Presidents and Bishops (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2010), 88. The Melchizedek Priesthood is one of two priesthoods in the LDS Church. Mormons believe that the priesthood is God’s power given to man, whereby man has the authority to function in the offices of the Church and perform ordinances the LDS believe are necessary for salvation, such as baptism and marriage in the temple.

[←1070]

David Stewart and Matt Martinich, "Russia.”

[←1071]

Oral History: Paul B. Pieper, 16.

[←1072]

Jason Swensen, “Moscow Russia Stake Organized June 5, 2011, Church News (11 June 2011), http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/61032/Moscow-Russia-Stake-organized-June-5-2011.html (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1073]

Matt Martinich, “First LDS Stake in Russia to be Organized in Moscow on June 5th, 2011,” LDS Church Growth (8 May 2011), http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.hu/2011/05/first-lds-stake-in-russia-to-be.html (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1074]

Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 855.

[←1075]

Alan Edwards, “Fruits of prayer taking hold in Russia,” Church News (6 September 2003), http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/44277/Center-Stage-Fruits-of-prayer-taking-hold-in-Russia.html (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1076]

“Russia Moscow Mission Historical Report, 1995” (Salt Lake City: LDS Church Archives, 1995).

[←1077]

An earlier version of this article has been published by the same title in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 41, no. 4 (Winter 2008), 1-54.

[←1078]

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, as quoted from a 1995 seminar for stake and mission presidents in Paris by Hoyt W. Brewster, Jr., The Promise: The Prophesied Growth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Netherlands and Belgium and All of Western Europe (Amsterdam: Netherlands Mission, November 1998). Brewster, then President of the Netherlands Mission, also quotes a comparably optimistic prediction by Elder Henry B. Eyring made two years later at a similar meeting in Rome, and still another made by President Hinckley himself in 2000 about a “second harvest” soon to come in Sweden, in Erik Nilsson, “Göteborg, Sweden: A Second Harvest,” Ensign vol. 30, no. 7 (July 2000), 77.

[←1079]

Peter Berger, “Epistemological Modesty: An Interview with Peter Berger,” Christian Century, vol. 114 (29 October 1997), 974. In the 1960s, Berger had been among the most confident social theorists predicting the final decline and fall of religion in Europe and elsewhere in the face of the inevitable onslaught of modernism and secularism; see, e. g., his The Sacred Canopy (New York: Doubleday, 1967), 107-08.

[←1080]

Massimo Introvigne and Rodney Stark, “Religious Competition and Revival in Italy: Exploring European Exceptionalism,” Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, vol. 1, no. 1 (2005), 14, http://www.massimointrovigne.com/ijrr.pdf (accessed 5 July 2017).

[←1081]

I have in mind here primarily Stark’s predictions during the past two decades of gigantic Church growth, compiled and updated most recently in his The Rise of Mormonism (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), ed. by Reid L. Neilson, as well as certain other observations in that same book.

[←1082]

The series ran for several issues in the SLT during the summer of 2005. See, e. g. Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Keeping Members a Challenge for the LDS Church,” Salt Lake Tribune (26 July 2005), http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/search/ci_2890645 (accessed 6 July 2017).

[←1083]

Both the website (www.cumorah.com) and the book have been produced by Dr. David G. Stewart, Jr., a pediatric orthopedist, and also an indefatigable researcher and compiler of all kinds of data on contemporary Mormons. His book, privately published, is Law of the Harvest: Practical Principles of Effective Missionary Work (Henderson, NV: Cumorah Foundation, 2007).

[←1084]

I want to acknowledge with deep appreciation how much I have benefitted by the consultation, information and advice offered by many colleagues as I was preparing this paper, and especially by those who provided more formal critiques of earlier versions. Deserving of special mention in this regard are Drs. Wilfried Decoo, Henri Gooren, Bruce C. Hafen, George K. Jarvis, O. James Stevens, Walter E. A. van Beek, and Ethan Yorgason. I alone am responsible, of course, for whether and how I have made use of their suggestions.

[←1085]

As I explain later, the term “cost,” as used here, does not refer primarily to financial cost.

[←1086]

See, e. g., Walter Van Beek, “Ethnization and Accommodation: Dutch Mormons in Twenty-First Century Europe,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 29, no. 1 (Spring 1996), 119-27; and his  “Mormon Europeans or European Mormons,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 38, no. 4 (Winter 2005), 27-32; also Gary C. Lobb, “Mormon Membership Trends in Europe among People of Color: Present and Future Assessment,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vo. 33, no. 4 (Winter 2000), 62. Incidentally, I do not mean to insist that religious disbelief and moral permissiveness are always causally connected, though historically the moral strictures of a culture have usually been “enforced” by some sort of supernatural beliefs. A recent Pew survey found that many people in the U. S., and most people in the rest of the industrialized world, do not believe that morality is necessarily connected to religion. Of course, public opinion is not the same as empirical reality, and in any case such opinion in secularized societies could be expected to deny a connection between religion and morality. Also, much depends on how “morality” is defined, and, in particular, on whether the issue is civic morality or personal (especially sexual) morality. See the article about this survey (and about secularism in general), Nathan Black, ”Wealthier Nations Less Religious,” The Christian Post (5 November 2007), http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071105/29971_Survey:_Wealthier_Nations_Less_Religious.htm (accessed 7 July 2017). I am grateful to Dr. Wilfried Decoo for calling this article to my attention.  On the other hand, Stark and Bainbridge have found empirically that in a society with high religious participation, rates of crime, delinquency, and other deviance are lower even among those who are not religious or do not attend church. See Rodney Stark and William S. Bainbridge, Religion, Deviance, and Social Control (New York: Routledge, 1997).

[←1087]

See, e. g., the discussion in Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 220-23; and the analysis by Edward A. Tiryakian, “American Religious Exceptionalism: A Reconsideration,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 527 (1993), 40-54.

[←1088]

In the preparation of this paper, I wish to acknowledge gratefully the informative documents shared with me by two scholars connected with the International Center for Law and Religion Studies at Brigham Young University: Dr. W. Cole Durham, Director of the Center, and Dr. O. James Stevens, Fellow of the Center, and currently working in Brussels with his wife Joan as a church service couple.

[←1089]

Grace Davie, Religion in Britain since 1945: Believing without Belonging (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).

[←1090]

Comprehensive reviews of the contemporary religion-state relationships around the world will be found in Regulating Religion: Case Studies from Around the Globe, ed. by James T. Richardson (New York: Springer-US, 2003); and in New Religious Movements in the Twenty-First Century: Legal, Political, and Social Changes in Global Perspective, ed. by Phillip Charles Lucas and Thomas Robbins (New York and London: Routledge, 2006). Religious freedom for the individual had varied in extent among European nations for more than a century. The ECHR had the effect of bringing all member nations under one juridical “umbrella,” legitimating such personal freedom where it was already established and pressing for change in nations where it was minimal. For current information on the social and legal status of religions in various countries, see the newsletters of EUREL at http://www.eurel.info (accessed 7 July 2017).

[←1091]

Lasia Bloss, “European Law of Religion: Organizational and Institutional Analysis of National Systems and Their Implications for the Future European Integration Process” (New York: NYU School of Law, Jean Monnet Working Paper 13/03, 2003). This is among the many sources cited here that Dr. O. J. Stevens brought to my attention.

[←1092]

See the OSCE website at http://www.osce.org; also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/osce#history (accessed 7 July 2017).

[←1093]

Silvio Ferrari, “New Religious Movements in Western Europe” (Milano: University of Milan, 23 October 2006), published online by Religioscope: http://religion.info/pdf/2006_10_ferrari_nrm.pdf (accessed 7 July 2017).

[←1094]

W. Cole Durham, “Re-Evaluating Foreign Evaluations of the 1997 Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Organizations: The Perspective after Ten Years” (Unpublished paper presented at a conference of the J. Reuben Clark Law Society; Provo, UT: BYU International Center for Law and Religion Studies, 16 February 2007).

[←1095]

Ferrari, “New Religious Movements.”

[←1096]

Marco Ventura, “Equality in the Regulation of Religion,” in Religious Pluralism and Human Rights in Europe: Where to Draw the Line? ed. by M. L. P. Loenen and J. E. Goldschmidt (Antwerp/Oxford: Intersentia, 2007). The intertwining of religious and ethnic prejudice is another complicating factor. See, e. g., Fact Sheet No. 34, “Religious Discrimination and Legal Protection in the European Union,” (Brussels, October 2007), http://enarireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ENAR_Factsheet_ReligiousDiscrimination_oct2007_en.pdf (accessed 7 July 2017), issued jointly by the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), www.enar-eu.org , and the Jewish Contribution to an Inclusive Europe (CEJI), www.ceji.org, both based in Brussels. ENAR is a network of some 600 European NGOs working to combat racial and religious discrimination throughout the European Union. The Fact Sheet concludes that much remains to be done in establishing equality even in individual freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, to say nothing of legal entity status for religious organizations (22). Once again, I am grateful to Dr. O. James Stevens for calling my attention to these and many other documents referenced in this paper.

[←1097]

W. Cole Durham, Jr., “Re-Evaluating Foreign Evaluations.”

[←1098]

W. Cole Durham, Jr., “Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief through Religious Association Laws,” in Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, ed. by Tore Lindholm, W. Cole Durham, Jr., and Bahia Tahzib-Lie (Leyden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004), 321-405.

[←1099]

Karel Dobbelaere and Lillian Voyé, “From Pillar to Postmodernity: The Changing Situation in Belgium,” Sociology of Religion (formerly Sociological Analysis), vol. 51 (Supplement 1990), 1-13; Walter Van Beek, “Ethnization and Accommodation,” 121-24, and “Mormon Europeans or European Mormons,” 27.

[←1100]

Van Beek, “Mormon Europeans or European Mormons,” 27-31.

[←1101]

Grace Davie, Religion in Modern Europe: A Memory Mutates (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

[←1102]

Van Beek, “Ethnization and Accommodation,” 124-28.

[←1103]

A knowledgeable Church spokesman in the Europe Central Area office finds my characterization of the LDS plight here to be somewhat exaggerated or outdated, at least in the northwest part of the Continent.

[←1104]

Eileen Barker, New Religious Movements: A Perspective for Understanding Society (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1982); and Sects, Cults, and New Religions, ed. by Carole M. Cusack and Danielle Kirby (Oxford: Routledge, 2007).

[←1105]

Willy Fautré, Alain Garay, and Yves Nidegger, “The Sect Issue in the European Francophone Sphere,” in Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, ed. by Tore Lindholm et al. (Amsterdam: Springer, 2004), 595-618.

[←1106]

This organization is successor to an earlier one (MILS = Interministerial Mission on Sects) established with a similar purpose. See information about both in MIVILUDES at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_interminist%C3%A9rielle_de_vigilance_et_de_lutte_contre_les_d%C3%A9rives_sectaires (accessed 7 July 2017).

[←1107]

Note that in using the term “contested religious movements” (CRMs), these psychologists used a more neutral term than the usual government designation “sectes” (or “cults”), but not as neutral as the term “new religious movements” (NRMs) preferred by most sociologists, at least in the U. S. and the U. K.

[←1108]

Vassilis Saroglou, Louis-Leon Christians, Coralie Buxant, and Stefania Casalfiore, Mouvements Religieux Contestés: Psychologie, Droit et Politiques de Précaution (Gent: Academia Press, 2005); see summary by the same authors: Contested Religious Movements: Psychology, Law, and Policies of Precaution (Louvain: University of Louvain, Center for the Psychology of Religion and Faculty of Law, 2006), http://www.cesnur.org/2006/belgium.pdf (accessed 7 July 2017). On the consequences of such marginalization for Belgian Mormons, in particular, even in quite recent years, see Wilfried Decoo, “Feeding the Fleeing Flock: Reflections on the Struggle to Retain Church Members in Europe,” Dialogue, vol. 29, no. 1 (Spring 1996), 101-04.

[←1109]

One German scholar considers this factor as one of the three most important reasons for the continuing difficulty in keeping a “typical” German ward going (the other two being emigration and internal dissension). See Jörg Dittberner, “One Hundred Eighteen Years of Attitude: The History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Free and Hanseatic City of Bremen,” Dialogue, vol. 36, no. 1 (Spring 2003), 51-69.

[←1110]

As I read the consensus of historians about the social origins of 19th century Mormon converts from Europe, they would have been predominantly of the working class. The precise forms and degrees of religious freedom varied considerably in 19th-century Europe. Mormon missionaries had no trouble with public preaching and meetings when they arrived in the British Isles in 1837, but such was not permitted in Scandinavia until after 1850. For a useful summary of the changing relations between church and state in 15 European countries across time, see “La Laïcité dans la Construction Européenne,” (Caen: University of Caen, La Ligue de l’Enseignement du Calvados, 2000). See www.fol14.asso.fr for access to the site for this organization. (Some expansion [“élargissement”] in religious rights apparently occurred in May, 2004, after this report was issued).

[←1111]

Interestingly enough, some knowledgeable critics who have read this paper have found my assessment in this section to be unduly pessimistic and somewhat outdated, while others have found it quite appropriate.

[←1112]

This observation about European Saints might be an overstatement, but most of my European informants concur with it as a generalization. For the more fluid situation in the U. S., see Tim B. Heaton, “Vital Statistics,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 4, ed. by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan Co., 1992), 1525-27.

[←1113]

See reports from census data in Austria, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Chile, and Mexico in Rick Phillips, “Rethinking the International Expansion of Mormonism,” Nova Religio, vol. 10, no. 1 (2006), 52-6; and David C. Knowlton, “How Many Members Are There Really? Two Censuses and the Meaning of LDS Membership in Chile and Mexico,” Dialogue, vol. 38, no. 2 (Summer 2005), 53-78.

[←1114]

Many examples have been recounted in the work of other scholars who have written on the LDS in Europe. See, e. g., articles by Decoo, Dittberner, and Van Beek cited earlier. I should concede that these generalizatons are nevertheless being offered in the absence of systematic comparative data for European vs. North American members, which (if available) might show that I have exaggerated some of the differences, despite the reports cited here from European scholars.

[←1115]

A similar situation obtains, of course, in some of the more remote regions of the U. S. and Canada, but not for the great majority of church members in these countries.

[←1116]

Since Sunday is also the preferred day in Europe for most activities of clubs, sports teams, and even volunteer civic organizations, an active LDS member is likely to be isolated as much from the local community as from the family itself. For an engaging and comprehensive historical review of the cultural varieties in Sunday sabbatarian observances, see Sunday: A History of the First Day from Babylonia to the Super Bowl (New York: Doubleday, 2007), by BYU Professor Craig Harline, and the subsequent review and commentary on this book by Wilfried Decoo and others on the Times and Seasons blogsite, www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3854 (accessed 7 July 2017). The influence of Puritanism on LDS conceptions of sabbath uses is readily apparent from this study.

[←1117]

Gordon Shepherd and Gary Shepherd, “Membership Growth, Church Activity, and Missionary Recruitment,” Dialogue, vol. 29, no. 1 (Spring 1996), 33-57, especially 45-52.

[←1118]

Departures still occur also from a continuing urge on the parts of faithful LDS Europeans to emmigrate to locations where the Church is stronger. Though European emigration in total is not large, it can severely weaken an already struggling European ward or branch. See Dittberner, “One Hundred Eighteen Years,” 63-65, and Van Beek, “Mormon Europeans or European Mormons,” 19.

[←1119]

See Gary C. Lobb, “Mormon Membership Trends in Europe among People of Color,” cited earlier. In the Europe Central Area, at least, according to a spokesman there, two-thirds of those joining the Church during 2006 had been baptized in the country of their birth, so a third had not been. There is no separate record of converts from the second generation of immigrant families, who might constitute many of those in the native two-thirds. Immigrant converts have tended to come from southern Europe and from Africa, and have proved both highly mobile and difficult to assimilate. They are also stigmatized by the local Europeans, so their conversions do not help to make LDS congregations seem any more “normal” by local standards.

[←1120]

See, e. g., the following articles in Dialogue, vol. 29, no. 1 (Spring 1996), some already cited: Decoo, “Feeding the Fleeing Flock;” Van Beek, “Ethnization and Accommodation;” Marjorie Newton, “Towards 2000: Mormonism in Australia,” 193-206; Ian G. Barber and David Gilgen, “Between Covenant and Treaty: The LDS Future in New Zealand,” 207-222; and Jiro Numano, “Mormonism in Modern Japan,” 223-235. See also more recent articles by some of the same authors: Van Beek, “European Mormons or Mormon Europeans,” and Jiro Numano, “Perseverance Amid Paradox: The Struggle of the LDS Church in Japan Today,” Dialogue, vol. 39, no. 4 (Winter 2006), 138-55; and Lobb, “Mormon Membership Trends in Europe.”

[←1121]

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Preach My Gospel (Salt Lake City: Intellectual Reserve, 2004).

[←1122]

David G. Stewart, Jr., Law of the Harvest: Practical Principles of Effective Missionary Work; see also this author’s website (cited earlier here), where he has compiled an enormous collection of worldwide data on LDS Church growth, retention, and many other matters. A rich, data-driven overview of his findings appears in his “Growth, Retention, and Internationalization,” in Revisiting Thomas F. O’Dea’s The Mormons: Contemporary Perspectives, ed. by Cardell K. Jacobson, John P. Hoffmann, and Tim B. Heaton (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2008), 328-61.

[←1123]

Wilfried Decoo has come to believe that readiness for baptism is not a function merely of the length of time since the first contact with missionaries but rather varies from one investigator to another. It seems important to Decoo that the individual investigator should be self-motivated enough to ask for baptism, rather than responding mainly to prodding from the missionaries (personal communication, 2 December 2007).

[←1124]

Similar activity figures for LDS converts in Romania were reported to me by George K. Jarvis, who was mission president there during 1999-2002 (personal communication, 14 January 2008).

[←1125]

These data from the Europe Central Area were graciously provided me by an Area office spokesman.

[←1126]

Any doubt about this extension of institutional stigmatization to the individual should be resolved by a study of the 2007-08 presidential campaign of Mitt Romney in the United States, which was constantly on the defensive from the flurry of misperceptions and canards about the LDS Church, stirred up by Romney’s detractors in this campaign (thereby giving LDS Americans a taste of what European members encounter with regularity!).  See the article by Suzanne Sataline, “Mormons Dismayed by Harsh Spotlight,” Wall Street Journal (8 February 2008), A-1.

[←1127]

In working on the second and third of these topics, I benefitted greatly from consultations with Elder Bruce C. Hafen, President of the Europe Central Area, and with Elder Marlin K. Jensen, formerly president of the same area and currently Church Historian, both of whom generously entertained a number of probin questions from me during the summer of 2007 and responded expansively. However, I alone am responsible, of course, for the accuracy of my understanding and interpretation of the information they provided.

[←1128]

See, for example, O. Tschannen, “The Secularization Paradigm: A Systematization,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 30, no. 4 (Winter 1991), 395-415.

[←1129]

P. Heelas, L. Woodhead, B. Seel, B. Szerszynski, and K. Tusting, eds., Detraditionalization: Critical Reflections on Authority and Identity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995). I see “detraditionalization” as the equivalent, on the individual level, of “desacralization” on the institutional level, as defined by Stark and Finke, Acts of Faith, 200-201.

[←1130]

Dick Houtman and Stef Aupers, “The Spiritual Turn and the Decline of Tradition: The Spread of Post-Christian Spirituality in 14 Western Countries, 1981-2000,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 46, no. 3 (September 2007), 305-320.

[←1131]

K. J. Gergen, The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life (New York: Basic Books, 1991), 19, as quoted by Houtman and Aupers, “The Spiritual Turn.”

[←1132]

Much of this paragraph is either directly quoted or slightly rephrased from Houtman and Aupers, “The Spiritual Turn,” 307. These paragraphs only sample the Houtman and Aupers explication of Post-Christian spirituality. Readers should consult the entire theoretical description which they offer (306-09) to appreciate their argument fully.

[←1133]

W. J. Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 519, as quoted in Houtman and Aupers, “The Spiritual Turn” (italics in the original).

[←1134]

Houtman and Aupers, “The Spiritual Turn,” 310-313.

[←1135]

Houtman and Aupers, “The Spiritual Turn,” 313-316. Though this “post-Christian” orientation is sometimes subsumed under “New Age” spirituality, the authors also point out that the former has a more coherent, socialized, and less atomized quality than the fragmented variety of New Age thinking in general (306-07, 316-17).

[←1136]

This is one of the themes prominent in Terryl L. Givens, People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), articulated especially in Chapter 2.

[←1137]

Elsewhere I have pointed to evidence that the LDS membership in recent decades has found greater salience in subjective, affective evidence (feelings), with less reliance on rationalistic discourse. See my The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 146; and my “Feelings, Faith, and Folkways: A Personal Essay on Mormon Popular Culture,” in “Proving Contraries:” A Collection of Writings in Honor of Eugene England, ed. by Robert A. Rees (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2005), 23-38.

[←1138]

Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service, 39.

[←1139]

Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service, 90 (italics added).

[←1140]

Houtman and Aupers, “The Spiritual Turn,” 316-17.

[←1141]

I recognize the conjectural nature of the parallel that I am drawing here between LDS and “post-Christian” spiritual orientations. Ultimately there is no way to determine the validity of such a parallel. I can only leave it to the reader to judge whether or not I have reached too far. Walter van Beek (personal communication, Jan. 24, 2008) emphasizes Bruce’s point that so-called “New Age” thinking does not lend itself readily to the formation of church-like communities. Van Beek finds Mormon proselyting in the Netherlands, particularly, as too church-oriented for Dutch taste (as contrasted with redemptive doctrines).

[←1142]

See the earlier application in my “Mormonism in the Twenty-First Century: Marketing for Miracles,” Dialogue, vol. 29, no. 1 (Spring 1996), 236-49.

[←1143]

The fullest and most recent presentation of this model will be found in Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, Acts of Faith,  Chapters 2, 4, and 5.

[←1144]

This not so different from what people do in life more generally. We all put our faith in some unfalsifiable promises about future happiness or prosperity even in this world.

[←1145]

Whether one takes this conceptualization literally or only analogically will probably depend on one’s appreciation, or lack of it, for the world of commerce!

[←1146]

Defined as a “new paradigm” by R. Stephen Warner, “Work in Progress toward a New Paradigm for the Sociological Study of Religion in the United States,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 98 (1993), 1044-93.

[←1147]

To the extent that this theory implies the rise and fall of secularized cultures, it parallels, interestingly enough, the cyclical theory underlying the historiography of the Bible and of the Book of Mormon.

[←1148]

And this is by no means to ignore the continuing competition from meaning systems of the usual worldly and hedonistic kinds, which seem to permeate western Europe for the time being.

[←1149]

Quoted directly from Introvigne and Stark, “Religious Competition and Revival in Italy,” 2.

[←1150]

Introvigne and Stark, “Religious Competition,” 8.

[←1151]

Critics have most notably included Steve Bruce from the UK, Karel Dobbelaere from Belgium, and Frank Lechner, writing on the Netherlands. Stark offered a rather stern rebuttal to these critics in his “Secularization, R. I. P.,” Sociology of Religion, vol. 60 (1999), 249-73, updated as Chapter Three in Stark and Finke, Acts of Faith.

[←1152]

The argument of Stark et al. is not that secularization and a religious market cannot coexist. Indeed, it is the secularization process that helps to create the demand for religious (and/or other-worldly) “products.”

[←1153]

Andrew Higgins, “In Europe, God Is (not) Dead,” Wall Street Journal (14 July 2007), A-1. Indeed, Higgins explicitly quotes Stark and others. This article appeared just after I had finished the original draft of the present paper. I am grateful to Dr. Hafen for bringing it to my attention.

[←1154]

Introvigne and Stark, “Religious Competition and Revival in Italy.” Stark has previously offered various recent examples, from his own work and from that of other scholars, to argue that the total religious activity in a given society is inversely related to the extent and severity of government regulation. See Stark and Finke, Acts of Faith. Chapter 9.  Some of those examples are cited again in this essay on Italy.

[←1155]

Introvigne and Stark, “Religious Competition,” 5-10. The figures on religious commitment come from the 1999 European Values Survey.

[←1156]

Introvigne and Stark, “Religious Competition,” 10-13.

[←1157]

Introvigne and Stark, “Religious Competition,” 13.

[←1158]

See www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de (accessed 7 July 2017), especially the Religion and Society link. Some results from this foundation’s 2007 Religion Monitor survey of some 21,000 European respondents are reported in WorldWide Religions News (WWRN) for 17 December 2007. I am grateful to Dr. O. James Stevens for calling these sources to my attention. See also Armand L. Mauss, ”Seeking a ’Second Harvers:’ Controlling the Costs of LDS Membership in Europe,” Dialogue, vol. 41, no. 4 (Winter 2008), 13-66, http://wwrn.org/article.php?idd=27206 (accessed 7 July 2017).

[←1159]

See Kennedy’s biography by Martin B. Hickman, David Matthew Kennedy: Banker, Statesman, Churchman (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1987), especially Chapter 19. Kennedy had been U. S.  Secretary of the Treasury and Ambassador at Large under President Nixon.

[←1160]

It must be emphasized that both President Henry J. Burkhardt of the Dresden Mission, and President Thomas S. Monson of the First Presidency, were also important players in the drama that eventuated in the construction of this temple. See articles by Raymond M. Kuehne, “The Freiberg Temple: An Unexpected Legacy of a Communist State and a Faithful People,” Dialogue, vol. 37, no. 2 (Summer 2004), 95-131; and “How Missionaries Entered East Germany: The 1988 Monson-Honecker Meeting,” Dialogue, vol. 39, no. 4 (Winter 2006), 107-37.

[←1161]

See statement on this Center’s website at www.iclrs.org (accessed 7 July 2017).

[←1162]

This brief overview of the activities, past and current, of the BYU Center for International Law and Religion Studies has been taken from its website, https://www.iclrs.org/ (accessed 7 July 2017) and Newsletters.

[←1163]

Kim B. Östman has provided a fascinating review of the struggle of the LDS media in Finland with different segments of the print media there to define the image of the Church during the weeks prior to the dedication of the Helskinki Temple in 2006. See his “ ‘The Other’ in the Limelight: One Perspective on the Publicity Surrounding the New LDS Temple in Finland,” Dialogue, vol. 49, no. 4 (Winter 2007), 71-106.

[←1164]

See Durham, “Re-Evaluating Foreign Evaluations,” which deals mainly with the situation in Russia and eastern Europe.

[←1165]

See various reports on eastern Europe in the archives of Forum 18, available at www.forum18.org (accessed 7 July 2017), for the first half of 2006. The Oslo-based Forum 18 promotes religious freedom throughout the world. Its regular news reports provide an ongoing record of gains and losses for religious freedom in various countries.

[←1166]

A number of such instances were provided me in a personal communication (14 January 2008), from George K. Jarvis, who was LDS mission president over Romania and Moldova during 1999-2002, and since then has been stationed with his wife in Geneva under auspices of the BYU Kennedy Center, the BYU CLRS, and the LDS General Counsel.

[←1167]

Both the Slovakian and the Moldovan situations were described to me in communications from a spokesman in the Europe Central Area office.

[←1168]

See Peggy Fletcher Stack, “LDS Church Wants to be Official in Italy,” Salt Lake Tribune (9 September 2000).

[←1169]

This information comes to me from Michael W. Homer, long an informed observer of LDS affairs in Italy and a close colleague of Massimo Introvigne of CESNUR (personal e-mail message, 12 July 2007). This is Mike’s interpretation of the LDS dilemma in the Italian situation. He has been advising LDS leaders there to accept the otto mille if and when it is offered. Apparently even the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the most apolitical of all new religions, have seen fit to do so.

[←1170]

This would include “religious capital.” See discussion in Stark & Finke, Acts of Faith, 120-25.

[←1171]

“Standing for something” is a key concept in more than one of the president’s sermons. For a book-length treatment, see Gordon B. Hinckley, Standing for Something: Ten Neglected Virtues That Will Heal Our Hearts and Homes (New York: Random House/Three Rivers Press, 2000), with a Foreword by Mike Wallace. The ten virtues he discusses are not uniquely LDS virtues, of course, though in Part Two of the book he has a lot to say about LDS teachings and strictures about marriage and family.

[←1172]

Rosabeth M. Kanter, Commitment and Community: Communes and Utopias in Sociological Perspective (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972). In somewhat different terminology, cognitive consistency theory makes the same claim; see Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1957), the theoretical basis for which has been extensively critiqued and sustained for half a century.

[←1173]

Laurence R. Iannaccone, “Why Strict Churches are Strong,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 99 (1994), 1180-1211. See also R. D. Perrin & A. L. Mauss, “Strictly Speaking . . . Kelley’s Quandary and the Vineyard Christian Fellowship,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 32, no. 2 (1993), 125-35.

[←1174]

Laurence R. Iannaccone, “Sacrifice and Stigma: Reducing Free-Riding in Cults, Communes, and Other Collectives,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 100, no. 2 (1992), 271-92.

[←1175]

For a creative theoretical analysis of  “strictness” in the American LDS Church, with special reference to  “free riders,” see Michael McBride, “Club Mormon: Free-Riders, Monitoring, and Exclusion in the LDS Church,” Rationality and Society, vol. 19, no. 4 (2007), 395-424.

[←1176]

That Latter-day Saints should embrace a “gospel culture” in preference to national or worldly cultures is a recurrent theme in Elder Dallin H. Oaks’s sermons, whatever their main topics. See, e.g., his “Give Thanks in All Things” (April 2003), https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2003/04/give-thanks-in-all-things?lang=eng (accessed 7 July 2017) and “Priesthood Authority in the Family and the Church” (October 2005), https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/10/priesthood-authority-in-the-family-and-the-church?lang=eng (accessed 7 July 2017), both also published in Ensign (May 2003 and November 2005, respectively). In the former, he describes the gospel culture as a culture of “commandments, covenants, ordinances, and blessings,” expressed, for example, by the principles in the ”Proclamation on the Family.”

[←1177]

R. Val Johnson, “South Africa: Land of Good Hope,” Ensign (February 1993), 33-34.

[←1178]

Charles Didier, in response to “I Have a Question,” Ensign (June 1976), 62.

[←1179]

See “Approaching Mormon Doctrine” (4 May 2007), http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine (accessed 7 July 2017). The same statement concedes that the Mormon vocabulary and terminology are different in some ways from those of other religions, sometimes creating misunderstandings.

[←1180]

“Fundamental Principles,” a statement from the First Presidency at a meeting of the All-Church Coordinating Council, 26 April 1994. Copy on file among my papers in the archives of the Utah State Historical Society.

[←1181]

Douglas J. Davies, The Mormon Culture of Salvation (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Co., Ltd, 2000). See especially Chapter 3.

[←1182]

Elsewhere I have argued that LDS doctrines can quite easily be placed into four separate categories: canonical, official, authoritative, and folklore. See my “The Fading of the Pharoahs’ Curse,” Dialogue, vol. 14, no. 3 (Autumn 1981), 32-34.

[←1183]

I am not in a position to estimate the frequency with which such Americanisms appear in European LDS literature or sermons. Anecdotally, several European church members have mentioned this issue to me in conversations, but on the other hand, Elder Hafen, currently presiding in the Europe Central Area, told me that he had never encountered these Americanisms during many years of attendance at LDS sacrament meetings and conferences throughout Europe. George K. Jarvis (mentioned earlier) told me the same.

[←1184]

This doctrine was advocated as recently as in the 1998 pamphlet by President Brewster cited in Footnote 2. According to Wilfried Decoo (personal communication, 2 December 2007), the efforts by some local leaders (at least in the Netherlands) to effect a fulfillment of the prophecies about a “second harvest” among  these modern European Israelites involved special pressures on the Saints to use certain proselyting tactics, along with specific promises of success with those tactics. When the promises were not fulfilled, a backlash of guilt and frustration occurred for a later mission president to deal with. Like so many other well-intentioned but ill-advised proselyting tactics in 20th-century Church history, this one simply added an artificial and avoidable cost for faithful and compliant members.

[←1185]

This is, of course, a major theme in some of my earlier work, particularly in All Abraham’s Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003).

[←1186]

See www.lds.org, Newsroom link for 8 November 2007. See also two articles in the Salt Lake Tribune by Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Single Word Change in Book of Mormon Speaks Volumes” (8 November 2007), and “The Book of Mormon: Minor Edit Stirs Major Ruckus” (9 November 2007).

[←1187]

Here I have reference to the controversies generated since 1980 by the work of FARMS, where scholars such as John L. Sorenson have advocated the “limited geography” argument that the entire Book of Mormon story probably took place within a radius of a few hundred miles in what is now southern Mexico; so that the overwhelming majority of aboriginal peoples in this hemisphere never were Lamanites. For an assessment of the implications of this controversy, see my All Abraham’s Children, Chapter 5.

[←1188]

Choices and policies about dress and grooming tend to be guided by symbolic meanings that are culture-specific, and an exporting firm (in this case, an American church) might not always be aware of the meanings conveyed to the local populace by the grooming standards of the Headquarters. On the other hand, such standards might carry a deliberately didactic function from Headquarters. The main thing is for all parties to understand the intended meanings.

[←1189]

A practice which can be a mixed blessing, of course, depending on the leadership skills and style of the long-term “resident prelate.”

[←1190]

Of course, nothing bespeaks a permanent LDS presence as much as a temple, of which there are now ten in Europe, more than in the entire United States in 1950.

[←1191]

See, for example, Van Beek’s account of his work on translation committees in the Netherlands in “Mormon Europeans or European Mormons,” 20-22; and the account of the revisions of the Spanish hymnal in John-Charles Duffy and Hugo Olaiz, “Correlated Praise: The Development of the Spanish Hymnal,” Dialogue, vol. 35, no. 2 (Summer 2002), 89-113. While he was a stake president in the Netherlands, Van Beek says (Personal communication, 4 January 2008), visiting general authorities with “puritanical” musical tastes frequently criticized his stake choirs, presumably for their choice of more contemporary music. Interestingly enough, BYU Professor Roger R.  Keller has raised the question of why LDS hymns even in non-Western countries should have to employ American LDS melodies, harmonies, and instruments. See his “India: A Synopsis of Cultural Challenges,” in Mormon Identities in Transition, ed. by Douglas J. Davies (London, UK: Cassell, 1996), 87-90.

[←1192]

See www.bycommonconsent.com for June 9, 2007, followed by comments, some of which recognized the danger of “edgy theology” if there were too much “decentralization” but also pointed out that local “wackiness wardens” would not necessarily have to be in the headquarters of either the Church or the Area.

[←1193]

[←1193]

Walter van Beek (personal communication, 24 Janury 2008) mentions a LDS book company in the Netherlands also, called the Mosterdzaad (mustard seed), which translates LDS literature and produces original works as well.  In January 2008, FAIR (Foundation for Apologetics Information and Research) began publishing its monthly e-journal in German. See www.fairlds.org (accessed 7 July 2017).

[←1194]

See, for example, earlier citations to the work of Barber, Decoo, Newton, Numano, and Van Beek.

[←1195]

However, in some European countries, the Church’s legal status might well be jeopardized if it takes disciplinary action against members seeking homosexual marriages. This is a very “sticky wicket.”

[←1196]

The policy of requiring the lapse of a year between a civil and a temple marriage – a continuing irritant for non-Mormon relatives of American members – is not an issue in Europe, where all marriages must be “civil,” and LDS  temple marriages are not recognized.

[←1197]

Wilfried Decoo, “Feeding the Fleeing Flock,” 115-16, is among those who have commented on this problem. Indeed, in this essay he offers a number of useful suggestions for adapting the Church program to the European cultural setting.

[←1198]

Such is the gist of the information provided me by the Europe Central Area office. These are not all new ideas, of course, but apparently they have been more widely implemented lately as formal policy.

[←1199]

Opportunities for these kinds of contacts, and receptivity to a subsequent visit from missionaries, are greatly enhanced whenever a new temple is dedicated in a country. My granddaughter, who returned in 2007 from a mission in Finland, continues to rave about the opportunities that were opened to her from the publicity surrounding the open-house and dedication of the Helsinki Temple in the fall of 2006 – about which Kim B. Östman has written cogently. See his “‘The Other’ in the Limelight: One Perspective on the Publicity Surrounding the New LDS Temple in Finland.”

[←1200]

For a discussion of this matter by a well-known social scientist, see Rodney Stark, “Extracting Social Scientific Models from Mormon History,” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 25, no. 1 (Spring 1999), 178-83; and Rodney Stark and William S. Bainbridge, “Networks of Faith: Interpersonal Bonds and Recruitment to Cults and Sects,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 85 (1980), 1376-95.

[←1201]

Walter van Beek (personal communication, 24 January 2008) finds that in the Netherlands new forms of evangelical and pentecostal Christian expressions offer strong competition to the LDS religion for the youth demographic. The young Mormon missionaries might be more effective in this competition, he suggests, if they were dressed more informally, rather than looking like “junior management trainees.”

[←1202]

This information about the mobilization of YSAs comes from a spokesman in the Europe Central Area office.

[←1203]

See www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom articles: “‘Mormon Studies’ and the Value of Education,” (5 November 2007), http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695225034/Mormon-Studies-and-the-value-of-education.html?pg=all (accessed 7 July 2017); and the even more upbeat “Academic Interest in Mormonism Rises,” (22 February 2008), http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/academic-interest-in-mormonism-rises (accessed 7 July 2017).

[←1204]

CESNUR = Center for Studies on New Religions, based in Torino. INFORM = Information Network Focus on Religious Movements, based at the London School of Economics. I consider these organizations “respectable” because they are run by scholars who reflect the modern consensus in the sociology of religion – namely, that new religious movements (or NRMs, pejoratively termed “cults” in the U. S.) cannot be distinguished from traditional religions on scientific grounds, but only on political grounds. That is, the NRMs are not considered legitimate by the political and religious establishments in a given society. Of course, CESNUR, INFORM, and cognate organizations are opposed by thriving “anti-cult” movements in Europe and in the U. S., which tend to include Mormons among the dangerous “cults” that they target. As an example of an anti-cult ministry, see the Apologetics Index, available at www.apologeticsindex.org (accessed 7 July 2017), based in Amsterdam and operated by Anton and Janet Hein-Hudson and Ruud Hein. I am grateful to Wilfried Decoo for calling my attention to this website.

[←1205]

Quoted from a personal communication received by the author on 5 June 2007, from Dr. O. James Stevens, Brussels-based spokesman for LDS Public Affairs.