It’s a message you’re likely to hear every Fourth of July, and many times throughout the year as well: The Restored Church could only have been restored in America, the land of religious liberty. The Founders were inspired to create a land of freedom and liberty, where freedom of conscience would be respected, where freedom of religion is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Only in such a land could Joseph Smith have brought forth the restored gospel.
It’s all false, of course.
The religious liberty promised by the Constitution proved illusory. The freedom of conscience promised by America did not extend to Mormons at all. The Supreme Court went so far as to affirm — in a case brought by Mormons — that the First Amendment gave church members no protection at all in their exercise of beliefs. The Congress of this enlightened nation passed legislation dissolving the restored church and seizing its property. And then American soldiers marched on the Mormons.
It strains reason to suggest that only in America, with its promise of freedom to worship, could the church have been restored . . . and then seen its members killed, robbed, mobbed, raped, pillaged — often with the aid of government leaders — and eventually driven all the way out of the country. That’s not the sort of freedom that a fragile young religion might use to grow. Truth is, America ignored stated principles of religious liberty and gave the church a barbaric reception — one that any nation on earth could have matched or bettered.
One nation eventually did better the reception. When the church eventually found a safe haven, it was not in America at all. It was in the unsettled territory of northern Mexico. Only there — without the aegis of an ineffective promise of religious freedom, but with the much more effective benefit of a desert barricade — did the church flourish. (And once that land reverted to American control, problems began anew).
There are doubtless reasons why God chose to restore the church where He did. They may include the vast expanse of land and resources available to the nation. But the now-popular idea that the church could “only be restored in a land of religious freedom like America” seems completely contradictory to the facts.
Kaimi,
I ask (and not rhetorically): the disparities between constitutional promises and governmental practices notwithstanding, how did early 1800s America stack up to the rest of the world in terms of religous freedom?
Kaimi –
You need to read “The Viper on the Hearth” by Terryl L. Givens. It doesn’t address your point directly, but it deals with how Mormonism was treated in the popular media of the day. The main problem: The USA was comitted to religous pluarlism – which is why, Givens argues, most of the arguments and attacks on Mormons became ethnic and cultural in character rather than religous.
It seems that the ideal of religous liberty, while not perfected or all-sweeping, was still an ideal taken seriously.
You make some good points, Kaimi; the ideal of religious liberty as it has actually been and is now lived out in this country doesn’t always live up to the hype. But I think you go too far. I think it may be that the U.S. was the best, or even only feasible place, even despite the serious problems the church encountered.
a) The church was allowed to be legally organized, and didn’t encounter violence until the Saints started gathering in large groups;
b) Wasn’t the violence pretty much extra-legal until after the Saints were set up in Utah? And we’re talking frontier America here, not Boston or Philadelphia. There were lots of places without proper rule of law in any sense at the time.
c) It can be argued that nearly all the violence the Saints experienced before Utah became part of the U.S. was politically, not religiously motivated. In particular, the Saints were a voting block opposed to slavery, which was a divisive issue in the U.S. throughout the early days of the church.
d) It’s easy to complain about the U.S. since we know it so well, but if we look at the 20th Century, seriously what country would likely have been more welcoming than the U.S.?
e) What country is more welcoming today?
Think, for example, of Wilfried’s stories . . .
I would say this wouldn’t I, but the Mormon experience in Victorian England did not include extermination orders. And 19th century England was home to plenty of non-conformist sects who did pretty well, thank-you-very-much.
But if Kaimi is broadly right, why America, at all? Well, one thing America does have (arguments over religious freedom aside) is space, ideal if you want to establish a Zion.
Why America, at all? I would say, foremost, because there was a hill Cumorah.
Someone needs to re-read their history books and then they need to take off their 21st century hindsight.
Ha, Wilfried! Forgot about that!
Glad you got that off your chest. I’m feeling better.
For the weak minded among us, where would you have restored the gospel? And be prepared to show the many religious sects that have grown up in those places.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Whose chest, Dan? I’m confused.
Given the location of the Nephites, America really was the only option, unless we consider Canada, to which Hill Cumorah is dangerously close, possibly for this exact reason. Otherwise, the plates would have been located in Catholic South/Central America, where the ability to practice would not have existed.
Dan,
I would have restored the Gospel in New York through Joseph Smith for the many reasons already outlined. But Kaimi was right to point out the (semi)myth of American religious freedom in the 19th century. Since you asked, and to repeat myself again, Victorian Britain is an example of a religiously plural country even despite its having an official state religion (Anglicanism). 19th century Christian churches and sects in Britain included:
Arminians, Evangelical Anglicans, High Church Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Baptists, Congregationalists, Methodists, Primitive Methodists, Moravians, Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterians, Quakers, Unitarians, and Mormons. And many more.
While I certainly can’t answer the question of whether or not it was absolutely necessary for the gospel to be restored in the United States, I appreciate the challenge Kaimi makes of a widely accepted notion among the church that may well be false. Although the presence of the New Jerusalem, the hill Cumorah, mountains upon which feet may look beautiful by those preaching the gospel, etc, are reasonable arguements, this idea seems to be one we have developed on our own. Previous posts have discussed other member-made ideas such as the Word of Wisdom being a truely unique health code of the time. These and other examples illustrate a problem we may have in the church with accepting what we don’t know. The restored gospel has no doubt answered many questions of our relationship to God and Jesus Christ and filled in countless gaps in the understanding of the plan of salvation and Christ’s central role therein. We also understand there are many things that have not yet been revealed. This doesn’t stop us from occasionally trying to fill in the gaps. Perhaps this is what we’ve done with this latest myth Kaimi points out.
To solve the problem these “gap fillers” create and start reconciling what we know with what we don’t know, I recommend we follow our father Adam’s example. Moses 5:6 “Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.”
Now this scripture is used for many different lessons in Sunday School. One thing I don’t think Adam gets credit for is his ability to admit when he doesn’t know the answer. I can’t imagine that Adam hadn’t thought about WHY he was commanded to offer sacrifices to the Lord. I’m sure he even came up with many plausible reasons himself. But when an angels comes asking, Adam knows best to lay speculation aside. Maybe it makes us feel better to create explanations that make sense in our minds or the minds of the world. Despite the horrendous persecution, I can see why it may have been necessary to restore the gospel in the United States. But that’s certainly not a selling point I’d want to use in explaining the Restoration. I think a part of Adam’s faith was a clear understanding of what had been revealed to him and what had not. We may run into trouble if new revelation runs contrary to explanations we have created ourselves.
Dan Barnes, a pretty good case can be made that England (or elsewhere in Europe) could have served, at least in the sense of adequate religious freedom, on the basis of the New Apostolic Church. From their FAQ:
“In the 1830’s faithful Christians from several denominations shared a longing that the Lord would restore to the church what had been so vital in the first church, the full activity of the Holy Spirit and the leadership of the Apostle ministry. They fervently prayed for the restoration of these divine gifts. In response to this intense longing and these sincere prayers, spiritual gifts of prophesy and healing were awakened. On October 31, 1832 the first Apostle of the second sending, John Bate Cardale, was called [in England] by divine prophesy. Over the next three years, eleven more men from various denominations, social positions and religious training were called to the Apostle ministry.”
Today they claim 9-10 million worldwide. My impression is that their strongest presence is in places where our church is relatively small. Since the New Aps made their church work in the religious climate of 19th-century Europe, I would think we could have made a go of it as well.
There are other considerations, of course: the golden plates weren’t in England, and neither was Joseph Smith. All it would have taken was a couple of well-placed ships to change that, however, so I assume that there were other reasons besides these for the Restoration to take place in the US.
Jonathan,
There was a New Apostolic Church next door to the LDS chapel in Wels, Austria where I served my mission. I really wanted to play a game of our-apostles-are-better-than-yours but never did. Your comment has reawakened me to a gap in my life.
P.S. Which Cumorah are we talking about here, BTW :)
Ben, while slavery was a big issue, and perhaps one of the biggest in Missouri, as was the lack of purchasing from gentiles, I think the religious issue was dominant. Also one really can’t neglect the effects of the Kirtland banking scandal. That’s not really religious, but it does point out that the issue is complex.
However none of the events in Kirtland or Missouri explain the earlier persecution. Further, I think a lot of the persecution was by ex-Mormons.
None of that really explains Utah though.
Kaimi: You seem to have forgotten that God inspired the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution. Seems like a direct relationship between the Founding and the Restoration.
but, what the heck. if we want to spend time jousting over ideas that “might” be false…what the hay…
Ronan: British religious liberty is the reason that which famous apostle was almost beaten up while a missionary?
lyle: American religious liberty is the reason that which famous apostle/missionary was shot in the American south?
And what’s the restoration? I thought we we’re pretty open-minded around here about what that meant.
Another interesting tidbit about the New Apostolic Church: according to their FAQ, they have something called “service to the departed,” in which they offer the church’s sacraments (communion, baptism, and gift of the Holy Spirit, I presume) to living proxy in behalf of the deceased–Wow!
Another interesting tidbit about the New Apostolic Church: according to their FAQ, they have something called “service to the departed,” in which they offer the church’s sacraments (communion, baptism, and gift of the Holy Spirit, I presume) to living proxy in behalf of the deceased–Wow!
And offer it in duplicate, too.
Sam B:
The lack of American religious liberty is definitely not the reason that Parley Pratt was shot in the American south, if that is who you are referring to.
Nope, parley is not the answer. Think someone _currently_ a member, or within the last 20 years or so at least.
Jared (comment #9):
Are you suggesting the Nephites lived in what is now New York? Everything I’ve read (at least anything not thirty years old) suggests they lived in a relatively small area in what is now Mexico and didn’t extend much further.
Even if they did live in what is now New York, what would that have to do with where the Church was restored?
Lyle,
Your scraping the barrel, mate. “Almost” beaten up? OK, I’m dying to know. Who was it?
Lyle,
I was not attempting to answer your pop quiz. I was responding to Sam B’s post.
Ronan,
Victorian-era Britain may have been a fairly tolerant place for new churches, but apparently 17th century Britain was not, or some of the religious colonies in the Americas would never have been founded. So, did Britain become more tolerant because those who remained behind realized that they needed to change, or because the more strident and intolerant elements left with the Puritans, allowing Britain to become more lax in religious matters? To say that Britain would have been a more hospitable environment for the Restoration seems to be whitewashing previous centuries of religious hostility…
Er, Ms. Chick:
Who said that “Britain would have been a more hospitable environment for the Restoration”? Wasn’t me. Joseph Smith was a Yankee and, apparently, that’s just how God wanted it. We’re just playing a little game here, responding to Kaimi’s assertion that 19th century religious freedom had little to do with the Restoration. 17th century religious freedom is another matter, but not what has been on the table so far (BTW, 17th century American religious freedom was pretty one-sided, don’t you think? I mean, I wouldn’t have wanted to be a witch…) But, you are on to something. The attractions of America for Protestant Puritans allowed said Yankee Joseph to be where he was 150 years later. And as has been pointed out, it is Cumorah that probably looms largest in the equation being debated here.
God told Joseph Smith that he “established the Constitution of this land” to protect “the rights. . .of all flesh,” and it is natural to assume that if God cares about constitutional rights, the right to religious freedom is presumably among them.
If it was unusual of God to be involved in the formation of our constitution, as we believe it was, it makes sense to assume he established it because it would effect his impending restoration.
Kaimi and others appear to be making the implausible argument that, Yes, God established the US Constitution with rights, including the right to religious freedom, but his involvement was not related to the restoration he’d begin shortly.
Jard Jensen,
Of course it isn’t–I think the American South is a wonderful place. I was responding (albeit unsuccessfully, apparently) to lyle’s absurd claim that the attack of a Mormon missionary indicates that an area doesn’t have religious liberty. See comment 17. If the fact that, as lyle suggests, an apostle “nearly” got beaten up in England suggests that England has no religious liberty, I cringe to think what the brutal shooting of an apostle says.
Of course, Illinois isn’t the American south, and a prophet was shot there. So much, apparently, for our religious liberty. Groovy, huh?
Well, Matt, given that the promise of religious freedom turned out to be completely illusory as far as the Saints were concerned, I’m interested in your theory as to why it was important.
If God chose not to restore in a place without a promise of religious freedom, and instead chose to restore in a place _with_ a promise of religious freedom, but _only_ one that turned out to be so much worthless paper.
Let me thow the question back to you, Matt. God knew that, within a little over a century, much greater religious freedom would exist in America. And yet He chose to restore the church at a time when real religious freedom was lacking.
Why is it, do you think, that God considered a lack of true religious freedom to be a good condition to bring forth the restoration?
I don’t agree with Kaimi that the promise of religous freedom proved to be illusory. The saints were allowed to organize, and for many years have their own city in Illinois. I don’t see the failure of the government to live 100% up to an ideal as meaning the ideal is illusory.
Unless we want to start arguing that all rights and freedoms in America are illusory, since even today we could find exaples of people having their rights trampled on in the USA.
Kaimi, you seem to know so very little about European history to paint so broadly as to claim that “it’s all false” with regards to the Lord preparing the ground in the United States for the Restoration of the Gospel. If you think that it was bad for the Saints here, it was nothing compared to the officially sanctioned persecution that the Saints would have faced under the systems and cultural contexts of the European countries of the day.
Also, America wasn’t destined for the Restoration of the Gospel just because of the Constitution, which you are right did not protect the Saints against the bigotry of the state governments, but rather because this is where the Church could take hold and incubate. Nowhere in Europe could the Saints have left and gone more than 1000 miles to the west, in complete isolation, to build their Zion. Nowhere in Europe was immigration such that thousands of immigrants could simply relocate and make a new home in a completely new place. These are only a couple of examples of why your post is inaccurate and merely reveals something about your beliefs rather than states something useful.
Kaimi asked Why is it, do you think, that God considered a lack of true religious freedom to be a good condition to bring forth the restoration?
How about a couple of questions for you: why do you think that Church leaders have been feeding us a load of #$% all these years in praising the Lord for His foresight in establishing the Church in this land to be carried out into the entire world? Why does the BoM speak of the American continent as the land of promise and include prophecies about the Restoration in it? Inspired fiction? Pious fraud? Those are the only two answers that are really adequate if we buy into your debunking of the uber-patriotism-of-the-Church-masquerading-as-gratitude-for-a-land-prapared-for-the-Restoration position of the Church.
I’ve said it many times before: members of the Church in other countries need feel no threat whatsoever from the fact that the Lord called Joseph Smith in a land chosen for the Restoration to effect that Restoration. I suppose the Church might have been restored in Guatemala–wait, no, I don’t really believe that would have been possible (and neither should you if you really do have insight and knowledge into the history of that place).
Suddenly Kaimi makes a premise of his argument something that he seems to have questioned earlier: that the experience of the early Saints was horrendous, that they were persecuted, unjustly, and that they were driven out of the United States against their will.
Kaimi, the United States had sufficient religious freedom for the restoration, and more than it would have in any other country. (I strongly disagree with your claim that Mormon persecution would have been less in any other nation on earth.) Ronan may be right that England would have been more hospitable, but Ireland in the 20th century doesn’t give hope for the British Isles a century earlier, and unfortunately we don’t know the counter-factuals since Joseph Smith never claimed to build a kingdom that would outlast England, and never gathered thousands of followers from around the world to their island. Because Mormons were powerless in Europe, and most of them were leaving for the US, it’s hard to compare their treatment there.
Similarly, I believe the colonists prized religious freedom more than any other people; that’s why they were the first to formally protect religious freedom. Of course relgious freedom wasn’t valued universally, and was easier to accept in abstract than practice in theory, but I believe Mormon persecution would have been even greater had we been in a country that didn’t offically recognize religious freedom. And if we believe the early saints, Satan was behind the persecution anyway, and would have stirred up conspiring agitators anywhere.
The problem, Kaimi, with your theory is it examines the question of religious freedom on a national level, which I’m quite sure you understand to be a problematic approach given the federal government’s Constitutional (in)ability to enforce the Bill of Rights at the relevant periods (Hence, President Van Buren’s famous, “Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you.”). The question of religious freedom for those of Joseph Smith’s day was was clearly for the individual states to answer, and while Missouri failed miserably on this count, the same complaint cannot be as easily made against New York, Ohio, or Illinois. Isn’t one of the accepted causes of the eventual downfall of the church in Nauvoo the fact that the city charter granted by the state legislature granted the religious city-state too much power? This doesn’t sound like a government bent on curtailing religious freedom.
Kaimi,
Northen Mexico? For how long again? One year you say! That had nothing to do with what nation had claim to the territory. It was the fact that it was unsettled (by Mexicans or Americans anyhow), geographically isolated and nobody was interested in it even after the USA took it in 1848.
While I agree that the Church has perhaps invested too heavily in US patriotism I don’t find any or your arguements compelling. Yes the reception was at times barbaric, but the Church survived and flourished. It is possible that the persecution and eventual isolation was a necessary part of the Church gaining a foothold in this dispensation.
As for the arguements that the Church had to be restored in New York, because the plates were there, that seems to deny any foreknowledge on the part of Moroni and other BoM prophets. Certainly Nephi had some concept of what Joseph would do since he recapped the Book of Lehi knowing that it would be lost. In other words, the Book of Mormon was changed in the past based on foreknowledge of what Joseph would do. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume that Moroni put the plates where Joseph would be on purpose. It also doesn’t seem unreasonable to think that Moroni never put the plates in New York, but that they were placed there miraculously.
Perhaps the most important reason why religious liberty was a precondition for the Restoration in America is because religious liberty is in large part what drove immigration to this country in its early days, even before the Constitution. Sure, Ronan can criticize the intolerance against witches in the early colonies. So be it. England was much better in the 1600s–oh wait, no it wasn’t, hence the need for Locke’s 1689 Letter Concerning Toleration (written anonymously while Locke sought political asylum in Holland so bad was the situation in England at the time), among many other such treatises.
In other words, America was a destination of choice for immigration because of the notion of religious liberty (even that proved to be illusory in some cases) and because it was a country that accepted such large-scale immigration and where immigrants could actually settle in and begin a life, unencumbered by the fact that they were “newcomers” because their family hadn’t been their for hundreds of years. True, there was an aristocracy, but there was also much more equality by nature in this land where nearly everyone was a transplant and where thousands more immigrants could come to fill the ranks of their chosen religion.
Interesting comments, but I would have to agree more with the arguments posted. Are you really saying that America was the WORST place the restoration could have taken place as far as persecution goes? I’ll have to agree more with Ezra Taft Benson (http://tinyurl.com/bekfu) rather than Kaimi Wenger.
Oh, John, John, John. I don’t know where this 1600s lark comes from. And I must keep on correcting the notion that I have been arguing that the Restoration would have been better placed in England. Rubbish! I have never said that. I simply said that notions of religious liberty IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY in England were not much better or worse than in America. Gold plates aside, I believe that America provided one simple freedom: the space to organise Zion. We should never underestimate the draw of Zion for early converts. I doubt very much if said English religious tolerance would have lasted long had thousands of Mormons congregated in, say, Hampshire, and set up their own city. America offered Mormons Zion; and when they withdrew it, the Mormons were free to find their own Zion. An “English” Restoration would really have struggled on that score.
Ronan wrote I doubt very much if said English religious tolerance would have lasted long had thousands of Mormons congregated in, say, Hampshire, and set up their own city.
This is exactly, precisely, my point. The New Apostolic example is completely inapposite because of this fact of the gathering to Zion. This could only happen in America. And this could only happen in America as a result of the immigrant mentality of the nation that stems, to a degree that simply cannot be ignored in a discussion such as this, from the religious freedom offered by these shores. It is true that the principle failed in practice as regards the LDS, but it was there and even established in the Constitution.
The 1600s lark stems from your comment 29 about the intolerance towards witches in America in the 1600s. I would not have made any reference to the situation regarding religious toleration or freedom in England in the 1600s absent that comment.
Nineteenth-century England, as I have written elsewhere, was absolutely essential, arguably just as essential, as the physical land of America was for the Restoration. It was a relatively pluralistic society by then, and the absolutely horrendous conditions of the lower classes made them prime candidates for conversion and emigration. But you are right in noting that a gathering to Zion such as that that the Lord commissioned in the American West of the day (Ohio, Missouri, Illinois) would likely have been impossible in Victorian England. I actually regard England today, in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, to be perhaps the most pluralistic and open, and desirable, societies in the world. It is much more pluralistic and tolerant than other European countries today, with their state mandated two hours of classtime a year devoted to why Mormonism (and two hours devoted to other sects such as Seventh-Day Adventists, JWs, Scientologists) is a pernicious institution that brainwashes and engages in irrational, destructive behaviors.
Don’t we have to separate out the country where the revelations and organization could be developed and the country where people would join the church? It seems that Wilford Woodruff and Brigham Young were quite successful in Britain on their missions, as were many missionaries to the Scandinavian countries. (Thus the rather common blonde appearance here in Utah)
However even if the Saints faced persecution in America, there were many diverse religions here. Perhaps that diversity is what was needed. And that diversity came about because of religious liberty. To assert, as I think some are, that the liberty needed was an absolute one, need not be correct.
“It’s a message you’re likely to hear every Fourth of July …”
Yes, and generally it comes from an Apostle or two. People often get carried away, it is true, but that shouldn’t stop us from believing that the U.S. was simply the ideal place for the Church to put down roots, grow, and flourish. I rarely hear the idea stated as simplistically as Kaimi has it, anyhow. I was always taught that a host of factors, including geography, were involved. It is easy to pop balloons filled with patriotic gas (such as we see floating about on the 4th), but when real discussions of the matter ensue the Saints (including their leaders) are generally more amenable to complexity.
5, 14, 25:
I am not sure that the proximity of the “Hill Cumorah” where the plates were buried to Joseph Smith was necessarily a reason for the restoration to occur in America. Were the plates placed near Joseph’s home or did Joseph happen to live near the plates? It seems the Lord could have arranged either for (a) Joseph to be born elsewhere or (b) the plates to be delivered wherever he was. I mean, is there any reason he had to actually dig the plates out of the ground? Could not Moroni have brought the plates with him and delivered them wherever Joseph happened to be?
I disagree with the notion that the Restoration could have happened elsewhere. The geographical location, political climate, and religious fever created an environment wherein (1) a vision/visitation of restoration wouldn’t be too out of the ordinary [folk magic, visions, peep stones, etc., were the norm]; (2) a state-sponsored church wouldn’t crush outright any fledgling sect; (3) Christianity and its secularization were like a fever [the Second Great Awakening]; (4) the power of the individual [Jeffersonian Democracy], ie. the teenage Joseph Smith, lent to the lay-person hierarchy of the Church; etc.
All the elements necessary for a restoration were in place at that specific time at that specific place. There is nothing ethnocentric or U.S.-centric in that simple-yet-brilliant truth.
Lots of responses.
I don’t disagree that God chose America for some reason. The restoration occurred here, it must have been with a purpose. And it’s possible that religious freedom was indirectly involved in that calculus.
However, Mormon history makes awfully clear that there is no direct connection. The statement that you’re likely to hear from members — “the church could only be restored in a land of religious freedom” and the implication that this is because the church actually _enjoyed_ religious freedom — is counter to the church’s history.
It could have played a role, indirectly, in ways such as these:
1. Perhaps it was necessary for Joseph to believe that he would enjoy freedom to worship, although ultimately that was a false promise. I.e., perhaps Joseph would only be willing to take the risks of establishing a new religion, if he (wrongly) believed that America would tolerate his religion, rather than drive it out and kill its founder.
We can call this the “celestial bait-and-switch” theory. God let Joseph believe (erroneously) that he would be free to worship in America, because only then would Joseph be willing to do what he had to do.
I’m not entirely comfortable with this theory, but it is coherent and compatible with history.
2. Perhaps religious freedom was a required ingredient to start Joseph’s mind wondering (and ultimately praying) about which church to join. This argument would be that, although the church did not benefit as an entity from religious freedom, that freedom was a required catalyst for the church’s foundation.
I’m doubtful of this one. People in many other religious climates sought God in prayer and ultimately established their own sects. (e.g., Martin Luther). I think that Joseph could have been inspired to seek the Lord through prayer, whether he grew up in Vermont/New York or elsewhere.
(And in any case, this is not a case of the church benefiting from religious freedom qua religious freedom.)
3. Perhaps the benefit came not in Joseph’s time, but today. Two centuries later, there is much broader religious freedom in the U.S. Perhaps this was long-term strategic planning — start out in a place that offers a promise (if illusory) of religious freedom, knowing that the church will eventually, 100 years down the road, benefit from that freedom finally becoming something real.
Matt (37),
I didn’t say it would have been better in any nation. I said that any nation could have matched or bettered America.
I stand by that. Frankly, I don’t think it’s so hard to believe that any nation, no matter how opposed to the church, could have matched or bettered America’s track record of burned temples, extermination orders, Congressional seizure of church property, and so on.
Not that the reception would necessarily have been wonderful elsewhere. But let’s be honest — America established an extremely low bar.
Kaimi,
What was the case you alluded to above (the one that the court denied members protection to exercise their religion)?
Two other reasons for America:
1. “America” was an awfully attractive ideal for the thousands of European converts who really became the backbone of the Church in the 19th century. I have argued that “space” was a factor, but, Outer Mongolia or the Australian Outback may not have been equally as attractive.
2. The growth and prosperity of the Church in the 20th century largely mirrored the strength of America as a nation. Our bombastic missionary programme and can-do attitude is very American. The American cultural empire has helped the Church. I would argue, however, that the tide may be turning on this score, but at precisely the moment when the international Church can or ought to stand on its own two feet.
APJ,
A series of anti-Mormon bills were passed over a 30-year period, including the Morrill Act and the Edmunds-Tucker Act. They were all blatantly anti-Mormon, and did things like disincorporate the church, seize church property, impose harsh penalties on polygamists, and make it easy to imprisom church leaders and members.
The church sought shelter in the First Amendment. In Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld the anti-Mormon legislation, ruling that (in a nutshell) the first amendment protected only mental beliefs, not any physical actions. So the Mormons were out of luck, and it was just fine for Congress to continue to lass anti-Mormon legislation.
Kaimi,
The Morrill Act and the subsequent line of legislation that nearly crushed the Church in the late 1800’s was more a federal response to the practice of polygamy than an outright infringement of LDS religious rights. The federal hand was heavy indeed, and nearly snuffed out the Church; but with the official renouncement of polygamy in 1890, the escheated property was returned and other stranglehold policies were rescinded. The Acts applied to territories of the US, and with statehood, Utah was no longer subject to them. You are correct that the Reynolds case upheld the prohibition of polygamy within the United States; however, I don’t see this as indication that the United States was not, at that time, a place of religious freedom; more specifically, it does not indicate that at the specific time and specific place of the Restoration, the climate of religious freedom has been and will continue to be misconstrued by past, present, and future Church leaders.
Matt H. (53),
Reynolds itself isn’t a strong indication that the U.S. isn’t a place of religious freedom.
Reynolds + extermination order + assassination of Joseph Smith + battle of Nauvoo + Haun’s Mill + burned temples + tarred and feathered church leaders + Morrill and Edmunds-Tucker + etc, etc, etc — that’s a different story.
Canada would’ve worked at the time. The people were much as they are now—laid back, very mind-your-own-business-ish. They were not as anal as the Missourians, etc, who were always so concerned about politics on the county level. Not an issue in Canada.
Stref, that’s not entirely true. (And Canada was considered) Canada at the time was controlled by the British. Even after independence there was a lot of British influence and Canada was pretty much British-like. To say Canada has a mind your own business kind of libertarianism is quite incorrect. For certain issues they are very much in your business and I’m confident that polygamy and a large influx of Mormons would have done it. The British/Canadian government was already very concerned about what they viewed as the Americanization of the Canadian west. I suspect a large influx of Mormons would have severely aggravated that situation.
Note that the Canadian railway, while somewhat later than the era we’re discussing, was primarily aimed at limiting the influence of American settlers in the Canadian west.
Sam: nice rejoinder; yet my point was merely that Great Britain _would not_ have been hospitable to the restoration and would have produced far worse massacres than the U.S. did. Your comment re: the South is also a good data point.
answer: Pres. Hinckley…whose companion was beaten up and which he narrowly escaped himself.
The restoration wouldn’t have meant very much if the church had become extinct not too long after it’s inception. The fact that it has flourished since the westward expansion of the U.S. ought to shed light on the importance of religious freedom being crucial to the church’s overall survival–unless we are to view the restoration as one little blip on the screen.
It would’ve worked in Canada, despite what Clark says. In any case, there would not have been rapes, murders, wars of extermination, etc. Canada was “controlled” by the British but they had their own government and for the most part controlled their own affairs. And remember, we’re not talking about a “large influx” of Mormons from the US, we’re asking if the Church could have been restored in Canada. It could have, and it would have done just fine.
And I’m Canadian so don’t tell me what my country is like. It’s EXTREMELY mind-your-own-business-ish, and always has been. That doesn’t mean libertarian—we still like to help our own when they need it. But we don’t tell people how to live their lives, and never have.
Stref: That’s why another apostle was denied promotion to general because he was “mormon,” right? Since that, and Pres. Hinckley’s experience, are relevant British/Canadian, experiences, and of the 20th Century to boot, I have a very hard time seeing anything better coming from either country 100 years or so earlier.
Seriously: Why second guess what the revelations themselves seem to indicate? Nate’s post at least points in the right direction.
Lyle,
So let me get this straight:
No Mormon has ever been discriminated against in the US. No Mormon missionary has ever been roughed-up in the US. That’s amazing! Truly, this is a celestial land.
answer: Pres. Hinckley…whose companion was beaten up and which he narrowly escaped himself.
Sounds like an incident that occurred following a street meeting during President Benson’s mission. A British policeman came through the unruly and inebriated crowd before anything could happen and escorted Benson toward home. Benson’s companion, however, was carried off and hit in the head. The same policeman escorted Benson’s companion toward home.
Stref, Clark’s Canadian too, if I’m not mistaken.
Yeah, but he’s from Alberta in all likelihood. That is the most American part of Canada, and it’s a pretty small percentage of the country. Most Canadians live in Ontario and Quebec, which is a far cry from the wanna-be Americans in Alberta.
As John said, I’m Canadian and go there rather frequently. The comments I made are pretty straightforward history. You can read in a lot of accounts of the history of polygamy Canada’s response to a possible Mormon influx. Likewise the history of the Canadian/British view of the west is very well known. I suspect the Mormons would have been treated far worse than Louis Riel.
The issue isn’t what Canada is like now. The Canada of the 19th century was dramatically unlike what the post-Trudeau Canada is like. As for telling people how to live their lives, I strongly disagree. Indeed that get-in-your-business by the government is one of the main reasons I immigrated to the States. But this isn’t the place for a debate about Canadian government paternalism.
Stref, I’m from Nova Scotia.
Stref said, #59
In any case, there would not have been rapes, murders, wars of extermination, etc
How can you, or anybody else, possibly make that assertion? We simply have no way of knowing.
Justin: My bad; thanks for the correction.
Ronan: Of course not. It’s just representative of how the other ‘candidate’ countries would have been worse than the U.S.
Re: 68
Because I am all-knowing.
Re: 66
Sounds like a bitter right-winger to me.
Mark (#68) I think Stref’s merely a victim of the whitewashed history that the Canadian government has been guilty of foisting upon young Canadians. Canada was hardly the pure alternative to the United States that modern Canadians like to think. That’s not in the least to deny that Canada had a very different perspective – going back at least to the Loyalists but also the difference over not having a “Manifest Destiny” mindset behind expansion. But I also think Canada’s government has had the kind of elitist paternal mindset that one saw for so many years in the British house of commons. There wasn’t simply the populism that one finds in the US, with a few exceptions which tended to arise in the Canadian west. (While Central Canadians don’t realize it, a lot of Canada’s health plan arose out of western populism – Saskatchewan’s Cooperative Commonwealth Federation was a populist socialist government and instituted socialized health care, which then expanded to the rest of the country)
Stef, (70), I’d hope you’d be able to respond to my comments with more than “bitter right-winger.” (grin)
Oh, I could. But what would it accomplish? Would I convince you? No, you seem pretty set in your views.
How representative the California legislature is, is a question, which is why having an independent redistricting panel has been such a big issue there lately. Not my particular bugaboo, but for some that might be another reason to prefer the referendum to the legislature’s vote.
Did you mean to post that here Adam?
Why, no. Thanks.
I think that the pluralism that Americans in general subscribe to allowed the church to get a foothold here in US. Remember the people who originally opposed Joseph were the ministers of the established churches. In England, or most other countries at that time, they would have had standing with the governement more so than here. Here the pluralism let the church grow until it became an economic and political liability then common religious resentment could be fanned into flames. (The Catholics also suffured in this period where they congregated to openly in protestant areas.) When this resentment flared there was space to move to like there wasn’t in England, or other european countries. Even though other countries had vast open areas, and still do, they didn’t have an infrustructure to support the immigration that was so important to the survival of the church.
Look at the timing of the influx of the English and Scandinavian(?) immigrants. Could they have been absorbed at any other time than in Nauvoo? I don’t think so. Could the Church survived the settling of the American West without them (Remember, at one time there were more members in England than in America, so the question of was there tolerance in England is somewhat mute, but could an English based church have withstood the influx of immigrants like the US, I can’t imagine that happening in any fashion.). But regardless of what we think, the fact is that the restoration took place here, and the Constitution was devinely inspired (now if we could only follow it!!!).
Looking back is part of history, but I wish I could understand where you are going with most of thes comments. Perhaps the various sides could make clear why it is important that the myth be dropped or maintained.
My first companion in France was French, and I realized that my Americaness was celebrity. The oldtimers were interested because of WWII, the youth wanted to talk about California and hip-hop, some just hated me for it, but that was still something to talk about. As much as I am ashamed of US imperialism, I see that it has opened doors. To the extent that many missionaries in fledgling (as well as developed) missions are American, I saw how the US fits into the plan. It helped me appreciate America better to see that with its good and bad the Lord can use it’s reputation and its wealth (a county able to support hundreds of young-adults scattered across the world producing no income). This applies not only to missionaries but exported mission presidents and temple presidents.
Because so many have offered up their speculations in the matter, this persuades that Kaimi’s original supposition has
significance. With respect to so many writers here, I say there is none. Certainly not to the degree we attempt here. We look beyond the mark. The simple fact that the general authorities have not provided any light on this issue confirms there can be no value in speculating about it……… We strain at a gnat and swallow an elephant. Our Father sees no value in answering the request.