View PDF

I 

“And she shall be an ensign unto the people, and there shall come unto her out of every nation under heaven” (D&C 64:42). 

In recent decades, the LDS Church has moved out of the security of the “ever lasting mountains” to fulfill its prophetic dream of becoming a worldwide organization. Each year 225 thousand or more Saints are added to the fold. Over seventy percent are converts, recruited by a veritable army of full- and part-time missionaries. As of 1979, the Church numbered over 4.2 million. At a 6.4 percent annual growth rate, it will double every eleven years or so.[1]

New Mormon populations exist in Mexico, in Central and South America and in the Caribbean. Spanish could supplant English as the majority tongue if the high rate of new converts continues in these Latin lands. Numbers continue to grow in the older missionary areas of the South Seas—including New Zealand and Australia. Pacific Rim Asia is lined with small but flourishing communities of Saints—Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia. Much of the growth stems from the United States military presence where LDS servicemen and United States government officials take seriously the motto “every member a missionary.” Before the tragic fall of South Vietnam, the Church was taking root in that exotic land, along with a polyglot of other Western and non-Western religions. Pockets of Mormons are scattered elsewhere throughout Asia’s vast land masses—India, Iran, Lebanon. The message is being carried to black Africa, expanding be yond the white strongholds. Communist-controlled territories are being observed carefully for mission penetration. Missionary inroads have been made into such historic European Catholic nations as Spain, France and Italy. 

To many Mormons this presages a “universal church.” The General Authorities so indicate, with recent doctrinal changes, new organizational forms and new stakes throughout expanding domains. The Church is in fact no longer a small, isolated body. It is strong in membership, resources, zeal and organization. 

Where does this strong international impulse come from? We should ask the question against the first 120 years of history, until the year 1950 when the results of Deseret Zion were ever present. The inward-looking policy, so well espoused by J. Reuben Clark, Jr.—international lawyer, career diplomat and Church authority—had merit. In his forceful language he stressed the destiny of America: 

A destiny to conquer the world—not by force of arms, not by purchase and favor, for these conquests wash away, but by high purpose, by unselfish effort, by uplifting achievement, by a course of Christian living; a conquest that shall leave every nation free to move out to its own destiny; a conquest that shall bring, through the workings of our own example, the blessings of freedom and liberty to every people, without restraint or imposition or compulsion from us; a conquest that shall weld the whole truth together in one great brotherhood in a reign of peace to which we shall lead all others by the persuasion of our own righteous example.[2]

Clark’s position, however, was antiquated. America, emerging victorious from World War II and stronger than ever was secure in her destiny and dedicated to the spreading of humanitarian virtues, waging worldwide campaigns against the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse—poverty, ignorance, war, disease. President Truman’s Point 4 Program, initiated in 1949, captured the imagination of the American people, and many Mormon professionals were soon involved in this adventure. 

Probably no single occurrence within the last thirty years has accounted more for the dissemination of the gospel on such a wide scale as American foreign aid programs, government and private. Conscientious and dedicated members took to this work with much the same zeal as in their earlier missions. In exotic and isolated villages, towns and cities, in nations never a significant part of America’s past, they propagated the gospel. They were sowers, indiscriminantly throwing the seeds of truth to the winds. Most of these seeds fell on infertile soil, but a surprising number took root. 

The Church abroad owes much to those sowers of the 1950s who used their Mormon heritage to build new Zions in disadvantaged regions. They were often criticized by their American superiors and associates for their missionary activities as well as for their peculiar lifestyle. Many of these individuals went the way of the Gentile; others saw their careers terminated because of their peculiar views. With typical Mormon tenacity, they continued their efforts and their works in many instances are now appreciated if not memorialized in dynamic Mormon communities abroad.[3] They, along with the institutional support of the Church, worked together in preparing the outlines of a new world organization—moving an old dream forward to a new semblance of reality.

II 

“Woe be unto him that sayeth: We have received, and we need no morel . . . know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the sea . . . and I bring my word unto. . . . all the nations of the earth? Know ye not that I remember one nation like another?” (2 Nephi 28:27; 29:7-8.) 

The Church is embarking on a substantially different path than any in its past. Heretofore, the masses of the poor and the disadvantaged of the old worlds were drawn to the New Jerusalem in the American Zion. The vast underpopulated North American continent needed people. Land and cheap energy abounded. All that was required was a little ingenuity and a lot of hard work. The Lockean concept of enterprise and private property could prevail. Property was no more than the sweat of one’s brow, since everything else was God-given, and once in the hands of the “maker,” it was his. It is interesting to note that the Church’s historical efforts to build a few Zions elsewhere were essentially in the same milieu: Surplus economies with ample opportunities for social advancement. In other words, Calvinistic principles, within the Church’s interpretation and application, could be effectively put to work. 

The spread of the gospel represented economic sense. The Saints who ventured to Southern California in large numbers in the 1930s and 1940s, along with their fellow converts, prospered, and tithing receipts dramatically increased. The same thing happened where other large Mormon populations outside of the traditional Rocky Mountain region emerged: Washington, D.C. and the surrounding North Atlantic area, Florida, the Pacific Northwest. Since World War II the Church’s members have prospered economically, and in its ranks are now many wealthy individuals, a few even super-wealthy ones. The Church and its members have economic surplus. Together they have been economically blessed, largely by being situated in a rapidly growing, homogeneous economy—the United States, the great Zion. Where the Church has elected to expand abroad after World War II, much of its missionary activities have been in nations with astounding economic growth: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong in the Far East; Brazil in South America; and South Africa in Africa. Whether by design or by accident, spreading the gospel represented “good business.” Even Mexico, with its new-found oil and gas wealth, may become the best of all the business investments. 

But something else is happening. Church growth among the “poorest of the poor” could demand major financial changes in the operations of the Church along with wholesale behavioral modifications of its members. If this trend continues, Church members will be called upon to make true sacrifices, to become truly Good Samaritans. And if they respond, they will become true Christians.[4]

In this new territory, one billion or more persons suffer poverty of the most abject kind, a quarter of the world’s population. Perhaps a half million die of starvation each year. Poverty is rapidly increasing, both in absolute as well as in relative terms. Yet world population continues growing rampart like: 3.2 new human beings every second, 11 thousand every hour, 235 thousand every day and 85-90 million every year. Worldwide food supplies remain at hauntingly low levels—forty days or so. Two thirds of the population are beyond the reach of minimal health, nutrition, education and social services. Over seventy percent lack access to “pure” water. Tens of millions each year are struck down with such debilitating diseases as malaria, typhoid, hookworm, dysentery and cholera. 

Four billion human beings with rising expectations exert tremendous pressures on the global biological systems, often exceeding nature’s carrying capacity. While Malthus warned that population would tend to expand faster than food supplies, he failed to tell us that population growth can destroy productive capacity when it generates a demand for biological resources that exceeds regenerative capacity. In many places of the world tracts of valuable land for growing food are being destroyed by urban sprawl, soil erosion and desert encroachment. As life becomes too wretched to endure, millions of peasants abandon their farm plots and stream to the urban slums of already swollen cities, vainly seeking nonexistent jobs. Whether they are called favelas, ranchos, bustles, barriadas or bidonvilles, there is a tragic sameness about all of those hovels where millions live and die: the fragile shacks made of cardboard or rusting corrugated sheet metal or wooden boxes, the famished children’s distended bellies, the inescapable stench of human beings packed tightly together without access to water or toilets. Garbage disposal is nonexistent, and piles of rubbish are filled with rats and mice and covered with scavengers of all types—dogs, cats, birds and humans. 

Poverty is widespread throughout the world, but in certain nations solutions defy human comprehension. Scholars of development now divide eco nomic promise into five worlds. In the fifth world are found the “poorest of the poor.” Here are perhaps 175 million inhabitants who are doomed to remain on permanent dole—Mali, Chad, Ethiopia, Somalia, Rwanda and Bangladesh. In the fourth world the economic promise is slightly better, but nearly one billion people, or one-fourth of the world’s population, are struggling here for survival. Found in this category are the vast populations of the subcontinent—India, along with the island of Sri Lanka, and Pakistan, with 800 or more millions; parts of arid central Africa, with its expanding deserts; the island of Java, the size of Louisiana, with over 85 million; the small but densely populated islands of the Caribbean, with their boat people already clamoring for entrance into the United States, and pockets of abysmally poor people in Mexico, Central and South America, which have already supplied well over seven million illegal aliens to the United States. 

The third world offers economic hope, with some 620 million. Most of these countries have exploitable and marketable resources such as the oil of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria. However, several of these nations have already paid the high political-social costs of change. 

It is difficult to categorize Communist China, with its now one billion growing population. Is it third or fourth world? We do know that it is poor.

Let it not be forgotten that hard-core pockets of poverty are found in the first world, including the United States, in spite of its wealth, and in the second world, largely comprising the socialist nations struggling to redistribute their wealth. 

It can thus be concluded that as the Church expands into the poor nations, it will rapidly weaken its present economic and organizational strength through the dilution of numerous converts from these “poorest of poor” who have growing lifestyle expectations but virtually no resources. Equally important will be a loss of traditional organizational strength, since the Church will no longer be an homogeneous institution with its Calvinistic values inherently accepted. Minds will be opened and truth accepted, but tremendous amounts of organizational time and energy must be expended to socialize these converts into a lifestyle uniquely Mormon. As Jan Shipps writes: 

Mormons are not simply members of an unusual ecclasiastical corporation. They are a neo-Judaic people so separate and distinct that new converts must undergo a process of assimilation roughly comparable to that which has taken place when immigrants adopt a new and dissimilar nationality.[5]

Unquestionably, this socialization process will prove to be a most difficult aspect of the Church as it moves increasingly into non-Western societies. It is not a question of socio-cultural accommodation—certainly this must take place—but one of actually “retooling” people into a new lifestyle.[6] The perplexing problem will be how peoples of non-Western tradition interpret and apply the principles of the gospel in their daily lives. The early history of the Church reveals that maintaining the purity of the gospel is an uneasy organizational activity. It could well be that large populations will take the gospel in the terms of “uncircumcised Mormons.” Let’s then hope that there will be some Pauls around to resolve this dilemma.[7]

If one thing typifies the world today, it is rising expectations and declining resources, which are the chief ingredients for revolution and wholesale social change. This can be both an advantage for spreading the gospel or a disadvantage for weakening the gospel. The fullest expression of this current situation is probably found in the thinking and writings of the “New International Economic Order.” The “have not” nations are demanding that the “have” nations share, that they cut down their standard of living and give.[8] Why should six percent of the world’s population consume well over thirty-five percent of the world’s energy? For the American, the 1974 energy crisis represented the inconvenience of waiting at the gasoline pump. For the Indian peasant it represented loss of food and scarce supplies.[9]

A contemplative and sensitive mind must ponder how much longer the starving and the disadvantaged, living in a shrinking interdependent world, will tolerate the insolence of the United States whose people continue to pursue their materialistic appetites at rapacious rates when intense poverty prevails elsewhere.[10] The Church members residing in the United States and the other economically blessed Zions are just as guilty as their fellow Americans, if not more so, because of their predilection for families beyond a rea sonable replacement level. Simply stated, one American child consumes minimally thirty-two times as much as one subcontinent Indian child. Is this social justice in an increasingly interdependent and resource-short world?[11]

As the Church moves into regions abroad characterized by intense poverty, with non-Western (particularly non-North European) cultural patterns, it will have to reevaluate, if not rediscover, its basic body of ethics. It is suggested that this, in turn, will require the main body of the Church membership to change their behavior objectives—with soul-searching intensity. Members will be called upon, as never before in their past, to share and sacrifice material gains for spiritual rewards. This could include the reduction in absolute numbers of their own procreation and the adoption of those who are disadvantaged. This translates into the substitution of brown-eyed children for blue-eyed children. This could even go beyond the practice of adopting such disadvantaged children into the traditional family unit to the providing of material support for those persons never seen. A good example is the recent plea for money to cover the missionary costs of Mexican nationals. This could lead to the return of the nineteenth century practice of missionaries leaving their families and traveling without “purse or scrip.” 

Closely associated with the points already mentioned is the world-wide problem of civil liberties, an essential feature of Mormon doctrine and belief. The Constitution was divinely inspired, and men of great wisdom were ordained by God to establish the new republic. The first ten amendments to the Constitution are very much an ingrained part of Mormon life. But human rights, in spite of all the international effort over the last thirty years, are being violated and disregarded. How can the Church live abroad, let alone survive, in such areas? 

The nineteenth century Mormons knew about institutionalized violence from their dreadful experience in Missouri and Illinois. Out of their own poverty they learned that “it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin” (D&C 49:20). For unpopular political and religious views they were harassed, disfranchized, imprisoned and exiled. They finally found security in a desert no one else wanted. Today, however, Mormons tend to identify divine approbation not with persecution, but with prosperity. Other religious groups have carried the “cross” to the distant lands, suffering in many instances much like Christ. Some of these groups are now willing to become involved in social change, even liberation, and are willing to pay the supreme cost in Christ’s name. For the Utah-based church this could readily translate into the exciting exportation of the American revolution;[12] but this could again lead to the historical implication of the experiences in Missouri and Illinois. And if not to these, then to other Saigons of April 1975 and to other boat peoples of 1978 and 1979. 

Those with little charity for the millions being crushed by forces not of their own making should ponder the words of King Benjamin: 

And also ye yourselves will succor these that stand in need of your succor; yet will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish. 

Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery: therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him my food, nor impart to him of my substance that he may not suffer, for nis punishments are just. But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this, the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done, he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the Kingdom of God.

For behold, are we not all beggars? (Mosiah 4:16-19.) 

III

“A wise Hebrew proverb says, ‘The soul of man is the lamp of God.’ Man is a weak and miserable animal until the light of God burns in his soul. But when that light burns (and it burns only in souls enlightened by religion) man becomes the most powerful being in the world. Nor can this be otherwise, for what then acts in him is no longer his strength, but the strength of God. 

So this is what religion is, and in what its essence consists.” 

—Leo Tolstoy, February 1902 

I now turn to the most painful part: The new ethics of directly intervening in the affairs of others abroad. Ethics deal with value and meaning, the principles governing the mode of life. The Church is now unreservedly exporting its institutions abroad. This statement cannot be lightly dismissed; too much is at stake. Large numbers are daily called to trek abroad. In their minds is the mission clear? Do they understand its portent? 

In Gustave Thibon’s intriguing novel, You Shall Be Like Gods, death is abolished, thanks to an operation which confers immortality. Each person is free to decide whether he or she wishes to live forever. After struggling emotionally, the heroine of the novel, a Christian, chooses to accept death in order to imitate Christ. She sacrifices prolongation of happy earthly existence in favor of the risky plunge into eternal life. She makes the astounding discovery that supreme meaning relates ultimately to gratuity—what is done, not because it needs to be done, but because it can be done. 

What an interesting twist to the account found in the Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 28. In the novel as well as in the account of the Three Nephites is found the supreme ethical issue of development. This is what the Church abroad is all about—how to achieve development results while fostering the power of the people to act with gratuity.[13] In other words, “How to do what needs to be done without rendering (people) impotent to do what they can do.”[14]

This leads to another important consideration, human value. As Duncan Williams writes: 

If man is induced to regard himself as merely a trousered ape, or ‘a walking bag of sea water .. . or a complex but predictable collection of reactions to various stimuli. . . . , then he is simply an exceptionally extravagant, predatory, and messy mammal, and apart from a natural but sentimental loyalty to one’s own species, his disappearance from the scene would ecologically be no disaster.[15]

I suggest that, with certain limitations, Mormon theology on the nature of man and his relationship to God can contribute much to the modernization of the human soul. The concept of free agency brings a touch of divinity along with that drive to be free so essential to human progress, to “becoming.” In this perspective the belief in self-imposed destiny and individual responsibility is reaffirmed by Dostoyevsky: 

The Lord gave you your fair share of intelligence. Think it out yourself; as soon as you have the mental strength to ask the question: ‘Am I responsible or not responsible for my acts?’ It means for certain that you’re responsible.[16]

Although Mormonism in theological content has much to offer abroad, to date the Church has followed the strategy of withdrawing as a constituent part within a larger ecumenical whole. This is a sensible course of action in a highly pluralistic society. Its integrity has been preserved but at some cost of diversity and variety and, some would say, human freedom or choice. Nevertheless, the Church survived and prospered. The question is now to be asked: Can it follow the same strategy in large aggressive cultures and still survive? 

Expansion abroad will create a host of new organizational questions, and will bring into the forefront the preservation of the truth, or possibly better stated, prevention of the corruption of truth. Apostasy could occur in wholesale numbers as converts, not fully understanding the principles of the gospel, embark on their own individualistic religious ways. 

Then, legitimately so, one needs to examine the social will of the late twentieth century Church. The words of Ephraim E. Ericksen should be pondered: 

What Mormonism needs today is the vitalization of its institutions, which need to be put to use rather than merely contemplated. . . . When Mormonism finds more glory in working out new social ideals than in contemplating past achievements or the beauty of its own theological system, it will begin to feel its old-time strength.[17]

Historically, and especially in the middle part of the nineteenth century, the Church was an “incredible engine” for social and economic change and development.[18] Tolstoy reportedly said to the American Ambassador to Russia, Andrew D. White, “The Mormons teach the people not only of heaven . . . but how to live so that their social and economic relations with each other are placed on a sound basis.”[19]

Much of the social and economic innovation pioneered in the nineteenth century has been disregarded. The Church is very much a participant in the American capitalistic system, but experience following World War II shows that this system has little relevancy for large numbers of the poor found in old societies and now in new nations.[20] It could well be that this system will soon have rapidly declining utility for the United States. Thus the Saints in the Great Zion should now be rediscovering their nineteenth century socio economic idealism that led to such great organizational accomplishments and so much social promise. 

One lesson emerges from the last thirty years of development efforts in abysmally poor societies, both abroad and at home: Neither infusion of capital nor imported expertise has improved their situations. The missing or weak ingredient in all instances, and this is well understood, is the social capacity to establish and maintain complex organization.[21] It was this quality which won the historical Church so much acclaim. Latter-day Saints take great pride in quoting one of America’s early twentieth century economists, Professor Richard T. Ely, who wrote over three-quarters of a century ago: 

So far as I can judge from what I have seen, the organization of the Mormons is the most nearly perfect piece of social mechanism with which I have ever, in any way, come into contact, except the German army.[22]

The point to ponder is how much of this organizational strength can be exported. This is exactly what the societies in which the Church is now expanding require—superior social organization. 

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the principal dynamic shaping western society has been the growth ethic, and Mormons have unreservedly accepted growth as good. O’Dea writes that for a Mormon 

Life is more than a vacation, more than a calling; it is an opportunity for deification through conquest, which is to be won through rational mastery of the environment and obedience to the ordinances of the church.[23]

If material growth cannot continue, then a new ethic—an ethic of accommodation—must take its place. Manifested through the “accommodation” process will be the emergence of new values. 

If Mormons can curtail their materialistic appetites (campers, boats, skis, summer homes, rifles, five-bedroom homes, three automobiles, two television sets, four radios), they have something to offer new societies in the process toward the ethic of accommodation. Mormons have traditionally emphasized intellectual, cultural and moral development, a form of growth that lasts not only for a lifetime but for eternity. A change in the nature of growth, or better still, a rediscovery of growth as espoused by Church leaders and found in Church doctrine (once incorporated into teacher development courses) could well be a blessing instead of disaster. 

The basic choice will pit voluntary simplicity and enforced austerity against the now affluent lifestyle. The Church has a useful lesson for the world in the form and the dynamics of voluntary organization—with its aspect of sacrificing for the future. 

A return to voluntary simplicity in lifestyle will be required to counteract the effects of overconsumption and to cope with the organizational demands of a much larger population. A related lesson is clear: Large scale, centralized organizations are not capable of meeting basic human needs. Again the socio-cultural organization of Mormons has much to offer, or to quote a bumper sticker: “Live simply that others may simply live.” Those advocating voluntary simplicity and urging a more simple lifestyle often achieve a per sonal maturity and sophistication that leads to an inner richness. The doctrine of the Church is clear on this point. 

An associated social strand is the desire for greater self-reliance, a Mormon tradition, vegetable gardening, canning and storage of foods, physical fitness. Frugality, conservation and recycling of materials are part of the emerging new ethic. Rural Mormons have been notorious for their frugal nature; their homesteads are cluttered with old wood, poles, farm equipment, even junk—a useful habit for the future. 

Beyond this basic but broad social transformation, it is necessary to return to some considerations about ecological limits. On the one side are the “catastrophists,” such as Garrett Hardin, who claim that continued aid to the abysmally poor now in famine conditions would not only “bail out” those who had not protected their own resources (thus encouraging or rewarding irresponsibility) but also deplete potentially renewable resources for the rest of the world, thereby leading to world-wide starvation. Hardin’s ethic likens the world to a lifeboat with room for only a few people. If too many climb on board, the boat will sink, and everyone will be lost. But if some lives are sacrificed, the passengers in the boat will be saved.[24] On the other side are those who contend that people are not the perpetrators but the victims of their plight. Anthropologists particularly note that many societal forms and traditions have been disrupted by purposeful outside interventions such as modern medicine and new technologies. If treated properly, and given considerable responsiblity, such societies will reach a population/resource equilibrium. Just leave them alone! 

Regardless of which position is taken, the conscientious Mormon abroad must undergo considerable soul-searching, since both depart substantially from his established growth ethic. It will be a traumatic experience, but for many it will mean rediscovering basic principles of the gospel. 

Of all the tensions mentioned, possibly the most difficult will be political. Pope Paul VTs notable encyclical Populorutn Progressio wisely referred to “peoples” instead of nations and to “progress” instead of economic growth. It views development (becoming) in a wider and more valid perspective than has been customary.[25] There lies the promise as well as the dilemma. Reli gious spokesmen have in the recent past raised their official voices and at tempted to speak with moral authority to the rich and the powerful in the hope of converting them to enhanced political altruism, justice and concern for social equity.[26]

Exhortation alone has proved inadequate. As accounts of the Book of Mormon well illustrate, some leaders and societies become so corrupt that there is no alternative but revolutionary violence to achieve religious and social justice. 

And now it came to pass that after Helaman and his brethren had appointed priests ana teachers over the churches that there arose a dissension among them, and they would not give heed to the words of Helaman and his brethren. 

But they grew proud, being lifted up in their hearts, because of their exceeding great riches; therefore they grew rich in their own eyes, and would not give heed to their words, to walk uprightly before God. (Alma 45:23-24.) 

The Mao Tse-Tungs, the Che Guevaras and the Khomeinis all find their counterparts in the Book of Mormon. While some may consider this disturbing, Mormonism can readily formulate an ethic for revolutionary violence applicable for all oppressed peoples wherever they may be found (Populorum Progressio). In this sense Mormonism has some of the traditional advantages of the Islamic religion, only minimally restricted by the more traditional Chris tian ethics. There can be a justification for killing and for war, satanic and evil as these may be. But here is found the most haunting of all the dilemmas thus noted, and as so well spoken by Albert Camus: “Violence is at the same time unavoidable and unjustifiable.” 

As the Church pushes its way abroad, into more sick societies with sick leaders, will those involved be adequately conditioned and prepared to cope? It has been some time since the Church has lived and worked in evil environments, severely tested. Those who venture into those worlds will need to be religious men and women, for when they act they will need “the strength of God.” 

IV 

“It is provided in the very essence of things that from any fruition of success, no matter what, shall come forth something to make a greater struggle necessary.” 

—Walt Whitman 

As a sharp departure from its past, the Church has ventured into the international world. Since the earliest of its days, this “instruction” has been present. “Thence shall the gospel roll forth unto the ends of the earth . . . until it has filled the whole earth” (D&C 66:2). “His purposes fail not, neither are there any who can stay his hand” (D&C 76:3). 

Yet for vast numbers, Zion is embodied in Charles W. Penrose’s “O Ye Mountains High.” The desire of the Jews to return to Jerusalem, after two thousand years of scattering, becomes completely understandable. It is so easy for people who enter into the convenant to experience diaspora. The portent of the emerging times, contrary to hymns extolling the gathering in the mountains high, was initiated seven decades ago (1910) when President Joseph F. Smith told the European converts: “At present we do not advise you to emigrate.” Zion’s economy was not developing rapidly enough to absorb large numbers from abroad. The same situation now exists for the whole United States economy. New immigrants are neither welcomed nor needed. In fact they are advised not to emigrate. 

Since President Smith’s instruction, many Mormons have already experienced a diaspora—Saints have increasingly had to seek business and education opportunities elsewhere. Yet out of this experience many won rich re wards because the new havens offered ample opportunities to prosper. The gospel spread with spiritual and material success. Let it not be forgotten that much of the present economic strength of the Church is a consequence of venturesome Mormons who sought new territories and prospered. This ac quired wealth and dispersion have not necessarily corrupted either individuals or the Church, but have provided means to carry out activities beyond the wildest expectations of the earlier time. 

Nor has spreading the gospel to distant lands following World War II constituted an undue economic burden, since the church’s missionary activities have benefited greatly from the United States’ international humanitarian programs and national security efforts. Mormons employed in sizeable numbers in postwar overseas programs took the opportunity to propagate and diffuse the gospel. Those roaming bards did their work well as the Church is now widely known on a face-to-face basis. 

Against these gains outside of traditional Zion, the Church is now embarking on a major “push” in cultures never a significant part of its history— mainly non-Western peoples who are abysmally poor. Paradoxically, the Church leaders chose to expand, as well as consolidate gains, at a time the United States is trying to constrain and restrict its wide and direct international involvement. Since the Vietnam debacle, the United States has reap praised its international “policy” capabilities—facing up to some stark realities of its power limitations. 

This fact is significant. The Church, for the first time in its history, will find itself in territories beyond the comfortable confines of the “Great Zion” and dealing with peoples whose orientations to the United States are quite different—even hostile and embittered. Yes, this new set of international circumstances will unquestionably try the Church’s leadership and organizational capacities beyond any encountered in the twentieth century, if not ever in its past. However, this new circumstance offers possibilities to build in a permanent way that did not exist before. Christianity spread in the nineteenth century mainly under the protection of European imperial governments. As a consequence in many nations, Christianity and Christians themselves are suspect! Many of these converts and their children have innocently suffered for their religious beliefs which in the eyes of their fellow nationals constitute a traitorous and insidious adoption of a foreign culture. They are openly assailed as puppets of “Christian imperialism.” Once they embraced Christianity, they and their children were prohibited from participating in the important socio-economic-politico circles of their countries. They are “pariahs,” untouchables of the worst kind.

In much of the emerging interdependent world, the Church to survive abroad must win its place solely on its own strengths. For its leaders and members, there will undoubtedly be lonely vigils. Even a conscientious Mormon working as a professional in a United Nations’ agency will find it increasingly difficult to follow the admonition “every member a missionary.” The days of the “Johnny Appleseeds” are numbered. Diffusion of the gospel by propagation and by contagion is limited; but possibly this approach is no longer needed. 

Unlike just two short decades ago, the gospel is heard. In large and growing numbers, peoples from diverse cultures wish to receive the gospel blessings. “Mormonism, A Faith for All Cultures”[27] has been elevated by the Church leadership to a major organizational goal. Time and resources in substantial measure are being invested, but much more will be required to make the prophetic dream come true. The Church’s recent successes have brought “forth something to make a greater struggle necessary.” The expanding Church abroad will compound “old realities.” Personal conduct of independence and self-reliance will be demanded by the Lord (D&C 29). Elder Bruce R. McConkie, at the April 1979 General Conference, reminded us: “We are here to work—to work long, hard arduous hours, to work until our backs ache and our tired muscles knot; to work all our days.”[28] Should those that are already tired ask: Why? Rather we should heed Amulek’s words: “If ye turn away the needy, and the naked, and visit not the sick and afflicted, and impart of your substance, if you have, to those who stand in need” (Alma 34:28). 

For the first time in many years, those of the faith will be required to share and to sacrifice. A choice is available now as never before as to what matter of men and women “ought ye to be?”. 

Thoughtful comments on earlier drafts by Marvin D. Loflin and Joseph S. Merrill are gratefully acknowledged. 

---

[1] For a fuller treatment, see Church News, 5 January 1980, entire issue. 

[2] Martin B. Hickman and Ray C. Hillam, “J.Reuben Clark, Jr., Political Isolationism Revisited,” Dialogue 4 (Spring 1972):45. Emphasis added.

[3] Little history on this era appears in print. I think of the overseas activities of Utah State University in irrigation and agricultural development. Much of the growth in South America is traceable to this institution’s years of involvement. The gospel in Indonesia is largely the consequence of fortunate circumstance put into place by three persons on United States government aid programs and their families, a story which has not yet been written. For one human interest account, see J. Donald Bowen, “The Church Abroad,” Dialogue 5(Winter 1970):66-70. 

[4] The Church’s efforts in this direction have been minimal. The health missions began in 1971 and were replaced by the Welfare Services Missions in 1978. There are only about 400 such missionaries in the field compared to 26 thousand proselyting missionaries. See “Welfare Service Missions,” Sunstone 3(July/August 1978):6. Brigham Young University initiated in 1973 an effort to improve living conditions in Mexico and Guatemala. Each year some forty students trained in nutrition, agriculture, home improvement and literacy work with families and small groups. Attention should be called to Cordell Andersen’s private Peace Corps effort which has apparently received Church endorsement. See Elizabeth Shaw, “Alone in a Valley,” Sunstone 1:43-52. 

[5] Jan Shipps, “The Mormons Looking Forward and Outward,” The Christian Century 95 (16-23 August 1977): 764. For an excellent discussion, see Arturo De Hoyos and Genevieve De Hoyos, “The Universality of the Gospel,” Ensign l(August 1971):9-17. 

[6] See, for illustration, Vera Micheles Dean, The Nature of the Non-Western World (New York: A Mentor Book, 1959), especially the last two chapters and James Clark Maloney, Understanding the Japanese Mind (Rutland, Vt.: Charles E. Luttle Co., 1960). 

[7] Apparently this has happened. Congregations calling themselves Mormons were organized in both Ghana and Nigeria during the 1960s. For an account see David Long, “LDS Church Sees Growth in Black Africa,” Daily Universe, Brigham Young University, 10 May 1979, p. 2. 

[8] A large literature has suddenly emerged on the new economic order which rests much on the similar basis as the demands of the blacks and other minorities in the United States who feel that the living should now be economically rewarded the past socio-economic exploitation. 

[9] See Denis Hyde, Energy for Development: Third World Options, Worldwatch Paper 15 (Washington, D.C.: WorldWatch Institute, 1977). 

[10] The United States populace spends more for dog and cat food than for foreign aid. There are more horses in Colorado for recreation purposes than before the advent of the automobile. 

[11] The interested reader may find useful the report of the Aspen Interreligious Consultations, Global Justice and Development (Washington, D.C.: Overseas Development Council, 1974). 

[12] In the early 1950s and 1960s, especially under the Kennedy administration, this was a cardinal feature of the United States foreign policy. See, for example, ‘”Exporting the American Revolution,” Saturday Review 49 (7 October 1961): 52. This virtually ended with the fall of Saigon in April 1975. 

[13] I am indebted to Dennis A. Goulet, “Ethical Issues in Development,” Review of Political Economy 26 (September 1968): 115, for this penetrating idea. 

[14] Ibid. 

[15] Contained in Duncan Williams, Trousered Apes: Sick Literature in a Sick Society (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1971), p. 159. 

[16] Response of the Monk Tikhon to Stavrogin’s confession contained in Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Possessed (New York: Dell Publishing Co., Garnett translation, 1961), p. 727. 

[17] Found in Scott Kenney, “E. E. Ericksen, Loyal Heretic,” Sunstone 3 (July/August 1978): 18. 

[18] See Leonard J. Arlington, Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958). In 1959, Muhammed Hatta, former VicePresident of Indonesia and a cofather of his country along with Sukarno, also an economist of international reputation, requested me to secure a copy of Arlington’s book. He read it and reported that it Contained valuable lessons for Indonesia. 

[19] Quoted by Gustave O. Larsen, Prelude to the Kingdom: Mormon Desert Conquest, A Chapter in American Cooperative Experience (Francetown, N.H.: Marshall Jones Co., 1947) p. 309. 

[20] Now it is nearly heresy to even suggest this in LDS circles. However, what I have in mind, which embraces unconsciously some of the nineteenth century Church idealism and practice, is contained in particularly the writings of E. F. Schumacher. See his Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered (New York: Harper and Row, 1975) and Guide for the Perplexed (New York: Harper and Row, 1977). 

[21] Nothing so differentiates societies as the ability to maintain large scale organizations. For an excellent study which contrasts St. George, Utah, with a comparable Italian city, see Edward C. Banfield, The Moral Basis of a Backward Society (Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1958), especially the preface and introduction.

[22] Richard T. Ely, “Economic Aspects of Mormonism,” Harpers Magazine 51 (April 1903): 668.

[23] Thomas O’Dea, The Mormons (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957) p. 143. 

[24] See particularly his Exploring New Ethics for Survival: The Voyage of the Spaceship Beagle (New York: The Viking Press, 1972) and The Limits of Altruism: An Ecologist’s View of Survival (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977). Specifically, three premises underlie the lifeboat ethic: first, that certain nations are beyond being saved; second, the resources of the entire world are not adequate and cannot be made adequate to meet the needs of all, and third, that the sacrificed nations will disappear and cease to be world problems. 

[25] See Neil H. Jacoby, The Progress of People, A Center Occasional Paper (El Segundo, Calif.: Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, The Fund for the Republic, 1969). 

[26] See Dennis A. Goulet, The Cruel Choice: A New Concept in the Theory of Development (New York: Atheneum, 1973), pp. 292ff. 

[27] Title of a book edited by F. LaMond Tullis (Brigham Young University Press, 1978).

[28] See his remarks on “Self-Reliance Stressed,” Church News, 7 April 1979, p. 20.