�鶹��ý

While doing family history on FamilySearch one day, my father was faced with the following feature associated with one of his distant cousins, Rasmine Christensen: “Your relative immigrated to America for religious freedom.” While this feature is clearly designed to get people engaged with their family history through highlighting key events in their ancestors’ lives, for him it was a very alienating experience. He felt this statement was incorrect, as Rasmine Christensen was born in Denmark 1859, ten years after the Danish Constitution granted Danish citizens many civil liberties, including religious freedom. In that light, “Your relative immigrated to America for religious freedom” was a false statement. My dad left this experience feeling that this was designed for an American audience of pioneer descendants intrigued by the trials of their ancestors rather than a Dane aware of his own constitutional history. He felt strongly enough about this that he sent an email to FamilySearch where he wrote, “My membership of the church means a lot to me, and if asked what defines me, it is more important than my nationality. But I’m also a proud Dane. . . . Maybe I’m being touchy, but the quoted sentence to me implies that ‘the country of your relative sucks, she had to come to America for real �ڰ�����dz�.’�ĝ

From a young age as a Latter-day Saint in Denmark in Sunday School and seminary lessons, I heard rhetoric about how the United States Constitution was inspired by God and how the US was the promised land. Yet I was never taught or had access to resources to celebrate the history of the Church in my own country. The US at the time of Joseph Smith in the early nineteenth century provided a unique environment that formed the foundation for the early Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to establish itself successfully. However, Denmark is also an example of a country arguably prepared at the right time and place for the Church of Jesus Christ to establish itself and enjoy huge success, in large part because of the timing of religious freedom’s inclusion in the Danish Constitution. This paper therefore has two aims:

1. To present some of the history that led to religious freedom’s inclusion in the Danish Constitution and the experiences of Danish Latter-day Saints in negotiating religious freedom in Denmark in the early 1850s.
2. To highlight that to be a truly global church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should be more culturally sensitive to how it presents global history, including constitutional history.

Peter Christian Mønster and the “Baptist Crisis”

Before the 1849 Danish Constitution, church and state in Denmark were one. Confirmation in the Danish Lutheran Church at age fourteen marked one’s Danish citizenship. Those who were not Lutheran were predominantly foreign immigrants, such as Jews and German Catholics. Before 1800 these groups were granted royal concession as recognized foreign religious groups but not full rights as Danish citizens.[1] To be a Danish citizen was to be Lutheran. However, in the 1830s and 1840s there began to be increasing public debate in Denmark about “freedom of conscience,” that the state should respect personal freedom in its people’s private spiritual and religious lives. Among others, Lutheran pastor N. F. S. Grundtvig (today considered the father of Danish Lutheranism and modern Danish national consciousness) was a key supporter of freedom of conscience, stating that it is “both the highest maxim of all religion and the irrevocable right of each upstanding citizen.”[2] This expanded into discussions on freedom of faith and religious practice, and the separation of church and state, inspired by what Danes described as English, French, and American models.

Discussions of religious freedom in Denmark became particularly relevant with the establishment of an illegal Baptist congregation in Copenhagen on October 30, 1839.[3] Peter Christian Mønster, the leader of Copenhagen’s Baptist congregation, became instrumental in demanding religious freedom in Denmark. At this time Denmark had four provincial assemblies that advised the king. These assemblies were a way for Danes to raise issues to the king through petitions to their provincial assembly. On July 16, 1840, Mønster sent his local provincial assembly in Roskilde a “petition for full Religious Freedom for Denmark.” Here he wrote, “When I dare make the present proposal of the representatives of the Danish people, the high provincial assembly, and ask for religious freedom for Denmark, as it has in England, then I dare hope that the Assembly will not see any other reason on my part for this proposal, than this: Love for my Fatherland, in that I desire all the Happiness and Blessing, temporal and spiritual, which true Freedom can bestow, develop, and establish.”[4] In his petition Mønster asked for Denmark to have religious freedom as modeled by England and the US. He argued that religious plurality brought great blessings, including “greatness, prosperity and opportunity for development” and greater religious engagement. Sadly, the provincial assembly decided to set the petition aside. This is not surprising when one considers that the secretary of the petitions committee was J. P. Mynster, the Lutheran bishop of Zealand. Bishop Mynster was a strong opponent of the Baptists in the 1840s and would also become an opponent of the Latter-day Saints in the 1850s. The provincial assembly therefore noted that no one found “reason to recommend it for reading.”[5]

However, Mønster in his petition had written that whether or not the assembly guaranteed religious freedom in Denmark, he would take it for himself and practice his religion as a Baptist. Over the next five years, Mønster would be imprisoned five times for his religious practice, serving a total of two years of imprisonment. From prison between 1840 and 1842, he wrote three letters to the king petitioning for religious freedom. As a result, in December 1842 a law titled “Baptist-Plakaten” was announced, providing the Baptists with broader religious tolerance. It declared that full religious freedom could not be granted to the Baptists, but certain allowances could be made for them to worship God in accordance with their own views.[6] These allowed the Baptists to have a congregation in Copenhagen and to hold church meetings but required that their children had to be baptized in the state Lutheran Church. This led to what is known as the “Baptist Crisis” of 1842 when the Danish Lutheran Church pursued the forced infant baptism of Baptist children. Bishop Mynster had a key role in the drafting of this law and wrote, “I for my part cannot abandon the conviction, that the Government is entitled to demand that every child must immediately be counted among one of the recognized religious communities, and therefore, as the Baptists firmly declare, that their children do not belong to their community before they as adults themselves can declare it, then our church must take them in, just as other abandoned children.”[7] However, several Lutheran pastors decided that forced infant baptism was against their conscience and refused to do so. The press in Denmark also sided with the Baptists.[8] The vocal criticism of “Baptist-Plakaten” led to “Amnesti-Plakaten” in June 1848, which stated “that an amnesty be granted to those who may be persecuted or convicted for holding religious services or performing baptisms.”[9] This was followed by other laws that provided greater religious tolerance in Denmark. These events were key to religious freedom being included in the drafting of the Danish Constitution. Mønster’s Baptist congregation would also be key to the success of the early Latter-day Saint missionaries in Denmark because many of his congregation were the first to join the Church of Jesus Christ in Denmark.

Erastus Snow and the Danish Constitution

On June 5, 1849, King Frederik the Seventh of Denmark signed the Constitution of Denmark, making Denmark a constitutional monarchy, a constitution which also granted religious freedom. The Danish Constitution’s articles regarding religion became articles 80–84:

§ 80. The Constitution of the Danish National Church is regulated by law.

§ 81. Citizens have the right to gather together in order to worship God in a way that is consistent with their beliefs, provided that nothing is taught or done that is contrary to moral or public order.

§ 82. No one is obligated to make personal contributions to any faith other than that which is his own; however, anyone who does not prove to be a member of a religious community recognized in the country must pay to the school system the personal fees prescribed by the Danish National Church.

§ 83. The circumstances of any faith community deviating from the Danish National Church are to be regulated by law.

§ 84. No one can be deprived of access to the full enjoyment of civil and political rights because of his faith, or evade the fulfilment of any ordinary civic duty.[10]

Just four months later in the Church of Jesus Christ’s October general conference in Salt Lake City, Erastus Snow and Peter O. Hansen were called to serve as missionaries in Scandinavia. They arrived the following year in 1850. Though the flow of information across the Atlantic was quite substantial, it seems Church leadership in Salt Lake City and the missionaries they sent were themselves unaware of the political and constitutional developments that had occurred in Denmark before they arrived. Brigham Young indicated to Peter O. Hansen as early as 1846 that he planned to send him on a mission to Denmark and encouraged him to translate the Book of Mormon into Danish.[11] Erastus Snow’s journal and letters suggest that Copenhagen was chosen as the base for the Latter-day Saint Scandinavian mission on the strength of his own feelings, and likely also as that was Peter O. Hansen’s home country. Latter-day Saint missionaries certainly didn’t shy away from preaching in other European countries that failed to promise religious freedom. The Scandinavian Mission regularly had problems with their missionaries in Sweden and Norway being imprisoned or kicked out of the country.

In Copenhagen Erastus Snow and Peter Hansen rented a room from a young woman. Erastus Snow wrote in his journal on June 16, 1850,

Capt. Sympson father of the young lady beforementioned, called and spent the afternoon with us. Being an old and experienced officer in the Government service, he had acquired a sufficient knowledge of the English language to carry on a conversation, and we found him to be a gentleman, quite candid and liberal in his views and feelings and from him we obtained much desirable information relative to the state of affairs in this country. During the recent Revolutions in Europe, an important Political change had taken place in Denmark in favour of democratic principles—The King had granted a Constitution or “Ground Law” which was proclaimed June 5th 1849. . . . The New Constitution also provides for the extension of the Liberty of the People and religious toleration, under certain regulations and restrictions to be hereafter defined by the legislature. Thus we saw that the Lord had been preparing the way before us in a manner that we knew not of.[12]

A month later Erastus Snow wrote in his first report on the Scandinavian Mission to the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “The spirit of the Lord seemed to lead me to this city, to commence my labours. From my first appointment my mind rested upon Copenhagen, as the best place in all Scandinavia to commence the work, and every thing has since strengthened my convictions. . . . It is the seat of learning for all the north of Europe; and, I might add, of priestcraft, infidelity, and politics; and in my opinion, it possesses more of the spirit of freedom than any other place in this part of the world notwithstanding.” [13] He further explained the political developments in Denmark that had culminated in the constitution and what he observed this meant for religious freedom in the country. Elder Snow took the development of religious freedom in Denmark as confirmation of his inspiration to base the headquarters of the Scandinavian Mission in Copenhagen.

Peter Hansen had arrived shortly before Erastus Snow and attended the Baptist congregation in Copenhagen, befriending several of them. When Erastus Snow arrived Peter Hansen introduced him to Peter Mønster. Erastus Snow came to admire Mønster. Most converts to the Church of Jesus Christ in the first month in Denmark were members of Mønster’s Baptist congregation, fifteen of them being baptized on August 15, 1850. Erastus Snow did have hopes that Mønster himself would join the Latter-day Saints, writing to the First Presidency, “Mr. M. himself, who received us at first, and opened the way for us to form acquaintances with his people, now stands as it were upon a pinnacle, undecided whether to forsake his people or the truth.” Mønster never did join the Latter-day Saints.[14] But Mønster’s experiences with the Danish Lutheran Church influenced how Erastus Snow himself regarded the national church. On July 19, 1850, Erastus Snow attended the ordination of a Lutheran Priest at “Vor Frue Kirke” (Our Lady’s Church). This is the church in Copenhagen where you will find the original Christus statue and statues of the twelve apostles, which are much celebrated today in the Church of Jesus Christ. Snow wrote that he admired these statues of Christ and the apostles. He then recorded,

While the chief Bishop, surrounded by his clergy, in sacerdotal robes, was engaged in the services of the occasion, I asked myself these questions; If these were living figures, what would be their language to these men and this assembly? Were they to give utterance to the doctrines they taught while living, how long would they be permitted to grace this building? I reflected that by the influence of these clergy, and at the instigation of this Bishop, was P. C. Mönster repeatedly imprisoned for preaching to the people that they must follow Jesus down into the water and be baptized. This was the Bishop that thought it the duty of the government to protect the people from this “dangerous sect”—the Latter-day Saints.[15]

Here Erastus Snow cast himself and Mønster in the role of the apostles of the New Testament, who he believed would have also have been treated poorly by the Lutheran clergy. Sadly for Mønster, the Latter-day Saints’ popularity among Baptists, especially in his own congregation in Copenhagen, severely weakened the Baptist movement in Denmark. Nationalistic tensions between Danish-German Baptists, the Slesvig-Holstein War in 1848-1851, and variations in theology caused further schisms in the Baptist community. Alienated from the Baptist community, Mønster eventually rejoined the Danish Lutheran Church before his death in 1870.[16]

On September 15, 1850, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized in Copenhagen, consisting of fifty members. The missionaries presented the church to the Danish minister of culture and a board of magistrates, obtaining permission to procure a place of worship and hold meetings.[17] Erastus Snow initially had a rosy view of the religious freedom and tolerance the constitution would grant them. This would prove to be somewhat naïve. Even the Danish minister of culture disabused Erastus Snow of this notion when they obtained permission to hold meetings, informing them that they were likely to encounter obstruction from the police.[18] Many scholars on religious freedom acknowledge that there are significant gaps between formal constitutional promises and the actual protection extended to religious groups, especially new and marginal religions.[19] This was certainly the case in Denmark, where the Latter-day Saints experienced hostility from the police, as predicted by the minister of culture, uneven protection and enforcement, and hostility from the Danish Lutheran Church. The constitution stated, “The circumstances of any faith community deviating from the Danish National Church are to be regulated by law.” However, what these laws would look like was up for debate in parliament. Erastus Snow clearly stayed up to date on these debates, mentioning them in his letters and expressing his frustration with their lack of progress. He wrote in August 1850, “There is a number of priests in the legislature, and they will stave off any action on the subject as long as they can.”[20] In July 1851 he wrote, “During the winter a bill relating to dissenting religious parties, with very liberal provisions, was introduced into the legislature, but met with such powerful opposition from the bishops and their clergy in all parts of the state, that it was finally ruled out.”[21] While religious freedom sounded nice in theory and on paper in the constitution, learning what this meant in practice was a gradual uphill learning curve, with resistance along the way. For example, one newspaper wrote on December 21, 1850, “[We] could not possibly accept the issuance of a law which grants an unlimited freedom of religion, or liberty to have absolutely no faith, which grants the abolition of religious customs, which for a thousand years have been sacred and precious to our Forefathers and us.”[22] A few years later, in 1854, a Lutheran pastor also demonstrated his anxiety and resistance to religious freedom in Denmark when he wrote the bishop of Zealand, “It is lamentable, that a Constitution in a Christian State can favor the spread of such detrimental delusions.”[23] The “detrimental delusions” referred specifically to the Church of Jesus Christ, which the Danish Lutheran Church saw as a threat not only to religious life in Denmark but to Danish national identity and unity.

Erastus Snow came to recognize this uphill learning curve toward religious freedom in practice in a letter he wrote to a fellow Danish missionary: “Denmark is not England nor America—religious liberty is not grounded in the hearts of the people.”[24] In another letter to the First Presidency in December 1851, Erastus Snow wrote, “The Danish Constitution guarantees the right, but . . . when you except Copenhagen and the principal merchant towns, it is scarcely known that such a right exists. . . We have to preach the constitution to prepare the way… for the Book of Mormon.”[25] Just as the Baptists had played a key role in making the Danes develop religious tolerance, I would argue that the Latter-day Saints would play a key role in making the Danes discuss and debate what religious freedom looked like in practice.

Persecution and an Open Letter to the Danish Government

As the Church of Jesus Christ grew in Denmark in the early 1850s, so did persecution in the form of mobs who attacked missionaries, Church meetings, and Latter-day Saints’ homes. These early persecutions have been discussed in detail by Jørgen Würtz Sørensen in Danish publications in the late 1980s.[26] The Latter-day Saints appealed to the police, who occasionally stepped in, mostly when mobs caused destruction of property. However, for the most part such appeals were ignored. Inaction from the police was partially a result of confusion about the definition of religious freedom in the constitution and how this right was to be practiced and implemented. In his journal Erastus Snow wrote, “The ‘Rigsdagen’ have not yet enacted the laws necessary for carrying into execution the liberal provisions of the Constitution with regard to religion, and the Old laws are still liable to be enforced.”[27] Historian William Mulder suggested that, “The Mormons knew their rights better than many local prosecutors, who, while often sincere enough, did not always know what the new religious freedoms were or to whom they might be extended.”[28]

The persecution of Latter-day Saints was worst in Aalborg, Denmark, in 1851, where both the local Lutheran bishop Nikolai Fogtmann and Chief of Police Johnsen actively worked against the Latter-day Saints. In July 1851, Aalborg Saints submitted a formal letter of complaint to the Danish government, listing their complaints against Johnsen, including that he had banned the Saints from holding public meetings, prevented them from establishing a school, and that he had not acted to protect them against violent persecution and mobs. Apparently Johnsen had said he didn’t feel the Latter-day Saints were worth protecting, and that their constitutional right to religious freedom was not yet in force.[29] The Latter-day Saints objected that their constitutional right of freedom of religion was indeed in force. Bishop Mynster, who had also actively worked against the Baptists, said, “In North America, as is well known, all sects have unlimited freedom; how then did one protect oneself against this dangerous Sect? In the same way as usual, where the legislation has not had enough foresight to arrange appropriate means of prevention: by arbitrary violence. ”[30] Here he justified those who persecuted the Latter-day Saints, both in the US and in Denmark, as a natural response to the consequences of “unlimited” religious freedom. This was victim shaming at its finest, as he further suggested that the Latter-day Saints inspired violence that was “contrary to moral and public order” and that therefore their religious freedom should not be protected by the constitution and that laws should be instated to curb the spread of the Latter-day Saints.

As persecution continued, in February 1852 the Danish Latter-day Saints held a general conference in preparation for Erastus Snow’s departure from Denmark. At the conference Elder Snow asked the Danish Church leaders to write a petition to appeal to the Danish parliament “to give us recognition for our worship of God and secure for us the rights and freedoms which the constitution provides. Write it in powerful language, but in humility and submissiveness of heart.”[31] While there is not specific evidence that the Danish Latter-day Saints were purposefully following the pattern of the Saints in Missouri in how they responded, in the prior months Erastus Snow had been organizing the translation of the Doctrine and Covenants into Danish. Snow’s response was likely inspired by the pattern laid forth in section 101, “It is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you—according to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:76–77). The translated Doctrine and Covenants was published in Denmark the same month as the conference, February 1852, so it is quite plausible that during the translation process this section had gained particular meaning to Snow and the Danish Saints, and they chose to apply it to their own situation. Just as the Saints in Missouri sought redress by petitioning Missouri governor Daniel Dunklin and US president Andrew Jackson, the Danish Saints wrote a petition addressed to the Danish parliament and the king, signed by 850 Saints, sent on March 15, 1852. The petition opens, “As faithful subjects of Denmark we humbly address ourselves with loving trust to our beloved King and his noble Council, as a representative for the Latter-day Saints and undersigned subjects, we ask to be heard on the following subject: That our persons, estates, and property may be protected in our worship of God, according to the freedom granted us in articles 80 and 81 of the constitution.”[32]

The Danish Saints clearly aimed to follow Erastus Snow’s advice that they “write it in powerful language, but in humility and submissiveness of heart.” The Latter-day Saints here emphasized their constitutional rights as Danish citizens repeatedly. In this petition they detailed incidents of persecution they had suffered, including their experiences in Aalborg and their complaints against Chief of Police Johnsen, and continued to list similar violent persecutions and destruction of property they had suffered in other areas of Denmark.[33] They emphasized the lack of protection from authorities, that none of their attackers had been arrested or property damage financially compensated, and that those who had gone to the authorities were often treated as the guilty party. Much as the Missouri petitions were unsuccessful, this petition was never formally acknowledged by the Danish parliament. Some records suggest that some members of parliament did promise to address the Saints petition and cause; shortly after the submission of the petition parliament broke for recess for Easter, but the petition was never raised again after the break.[34]

This, however, did not mean the parliament failed to discuss the Latter-day Saints. In the early 1850s the “Mormon issue” was raised in parliament on several occasions, often with the desire to curb its spread or to discuss whether constitutional religious freedom applied to them. For example, one newspaper reported a parliamentary meeting on July 16, 1853, “At the Folketing’s Saturday meeting on 16 July, Councillor of Justice Hjorth asked the Minister of Culture whether the Government had taken or intended to take measures against the spread of Mormonism. . . . The Minister of Culture’s answer seemed to be approximately the following: The government was not empowered to prevent the preaching of Mormonism, but merely to control that its followers did nothing against order and morality.”[35] In this the minister of culture was essentially quoting the wording of article 81 of the Danish Constitution. The line here “nothing is taught or done that is contrary to moral or public order” was oft quoted, yet “moral or public order” was in many ways up for interpretation.

The teaching and practice of polygamy was one area that many felt was “contrary to moral or public order” after 1853 when it was announced in the Latter-day Saint publication Skandinaviens Stjerne. In fact, the above-mentioned parliamentary meeting regarding the Latter-day Saints freedom to practice and preach their religion also developed into a debate concerning polygamy: “Hass’ opinion was that Mormons must have complete freedom in practice and teachings, even to take several wives; this last was also granted to the Muslims. Should not a Muslim have the right according to the Constitution to live here in this country with his several wives[?]”[36] However, Hass’s liberal opinion regarding the practice of polygamy in Denmark was not widely shared. In January 1854 Ditlev Gothard Monrad, the Lutheran bishop of Lolland-Falster, wrote a memorandum on the Latter-day Saints to the minister of church and school affairs.[37] Before becoming bishop, Monrad had had a key role in composing the draft of the Danish Constitution, to the extent that he is widely regarded as the father of the Danish Constitution and was himself a supporter of religious freedom. However, in the conclusion of his 1854 memorandum on the Latter-day Saints, he suggested that their teachings on polygamy excluded them from the protection of the constitution, including copies of Skandinaviens Stjerne as evidence of polygamous teachings. In April 1854 pastor H. C. Rørdam wrote an article stating that the Latter-day Saints boldly defended polygamy and accusing some Latter-day Saints in Vendsyssel of living polygamously.[38] The Latter-day Saints reacted to this accusation with an article in their publication Skandinaviens Stjerne, writing,

We have recently received a small tract in our hands titled “New Contribution to information about the Mormons.” . . . Dr. H. C. Rørdam claims, “What is thus evidently taught and preached has now also begun to be put into practice, specifically in Vendsyssel, where the Mormon messenger is now living, and where men and women supported by their new Prophets authority, have begun to live with one another.” It would be contrary to the laws of the Church, as no one has the authority to administer in these holy ordinances, except who is president of the whole church and he is not here, nor has he authorised anyone here to administer these ordinances, moreover it would also be a violation of the law in this country.[39]

The Danish Latter-day Saints here again emphasized their status as law-abiding citizens. As a result of these reports, the police in Copenhagen and the local Lutheran bishop and government officials responsible for Vendsyssel were asked to investigate the Latter-day Saints for the practice of polygamy. They reported that there was no such conduct occurring in Denmark.[40]

There were also occasions where those who opposed the Latter-day Saints attempted to circumnavigate the right to religious freedom in the constitution. For example, in the late 1850s police occasionally arrested missionaries for vagrancy.[41] Lutheran provost Raaschou from Søborg reported to the bishop of Zealand in 1854, “Lately the Police, when they were told where the Mormon preachers were staying, had them apprehended and taken to their homes as vagrants.”[42] In March 1855 the Randers County newspaper reported that the an Elder Eriksen in Århus was arrested for vagrancy and was sentenced to some days in prison on bread and water.[43] In the 1880s and 1890s, Denmark instituted a Foreigner’s Law to keep anarchists out of Denmark, and it was used to deport half a dozen Latter-day Saint missionaries who local officials felt fit the definition.[44] This first occurred in 1885 when August Valentine was deported from Denmark, despite being a Danish citizen, for his missionary activities in Bornholm. Elder Valentine reported that the magistrate had received an order from the Danish prime minister for him to be banished from the kingdom.[45] Julie Allen argues that this also occurred in response to pressure from the US government to contain Danish Latter-day Saint emigration.[46]

Despite these examples, and though the Latter-day Saints did not receive protection from or compensation for persecution, the Danish Constitution in many ways did work in their favor and protected their right to religious freedom. The minister of culture made it clear that the Danish government would not obstruct or restrict the Latter-day Saints on religious grounds. He instructed Chief of Police Johnsen in Aalborg to restore the Saints their privileges to hold Church meetings and proselytize. While various investigations were made into the Latter-day Saints, none of this produced evidence that was used to exclude them from practicing their religion. Despite calls from some to ban or otherwise restrict the activities of the Church of Jesus Christ by law, many in the parliament, the press, and the Lutheran Church spoke and wrote in favor of religious freedom and argued that to do so would be unconstitutional. Erastus Snow himself made note of this, writing, “There are a few honorable exceptions among the Danish clergy, whose voices have been heard in favour of religious freedom.”[47] When in 1856 the chamberlain esquire of Lolland and Falster diocese had several hundred sign a petition to the king to ban the Latter-day Saints, liberals declared such an intervention was against the interest of the citizens, was unconstitutional, and threatened religious freedom.[48] Regarding polygamy, the Danish government adopted an attitude that as long as polygamy wasn’t actively practiced in Denmark, then they could talk and write about it all they liked. This was exemplified when in 1879 the US secretary of state asked Denmark to prevent the emigration of Latter-day Saints because of polygamy. Otto Rosenørn-Lehn, the Danish minister for foreign affairs, refused to do so and wrote that “joining the Mormon community can in no wise be likened to the resolution to contract polygamous alliances.”[49] Erastus Snow, in his letter to the First Presidency on August 17, 1850, wrote that if the missionaries had arrived before the constitution, the law “would have been against us, in all probability.”[50] He reiterated this in a letter to Brigham Young on July 10, 1851, noting, “Probably an earlier mission to that country would have proved a failure.”[51] To Erastus Snow it was clear that while the concept of religious freedom in the Danish Constitution was a fledgling thing, with gaps between its promises and its actual enforcement and protection, it was also what enabled the Church to take root, grow, and succeed in Denmark.

The US Constitution and a Global Church

We now fast-forward to the present day. At the April 2021 general conference, President Dallin H. Oaks said, “I have felt to speak about the inspired Constitution of the United States. This Constitution is of special importance to our members in the United States, but it is also a common heritage of constitutions around the world.”[52] As a Latter-day Saint in Europe, I must confess that I mentally switched off and felt this talk wasn’t aimed at me. Having subsequently reread it, it is an excellent talk, and I recognize that the US Constitution does form a common heritage of constitutions around the world, including the Danish Constitution. However, if you search the word “constitution” on churchofjesuschrist.org, one would be tempted to believe that there only exists the US Constitution. In 1976, Ezra Taft Benson gave a general conference talk titled “The Constitution—A Glorious Standard,” and I would like to emphasize the constitution, because it rather makes it sound like it is the only constitution that matters.[53] President Oaks’s recent general conference address was titled “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution.” I confess that I have never thought of the US Constitution as being mine, and to some extent I feel excluded from the “Our” that was evidently meant to represent all Latter-day Saints.

The challenge is that this narrative of the US Constitution creates an environment of exclusion and alienation, one in which international Latter-day Saints feel that their culture and nationality is portrayed as inferior to American culture. When my father described his experience with FamilySearch, his experience was not unique. Australian member Marjorie Newton recalled her experience in the United States: “I was fortunate—or unfortunate—to be able to spend July 1987 in Utah. . . . [It] came as a distinct shock to go to sacrament meeting each Sunday to worship the Lord and find, instead, congregations worshipping America. The Fourth of July, the approaching bicentennial of the American constitution, Pioneer Day—for five weeks I sat in sacrament meetings and listened to sermons and testimonies that celebrated America and the blessing of being American. . . . The corollaries were plain to see. My country is inferior in every way, and the Lord does not love me and my family and my fellow Australians as much as he loves Americans.”[54] I recently had another experience with FamilySearch, where I was informed that that one of my ancestors, Maren Hansdatter, another distant cousin who joined the Church of Jesus Christ and emigrated from Denmark to Utah, “left her homeland to build a better life.” What concerned me is how the wording here ascribed value, with the US cast as the better choice. Newton further expanded, “No Latter-day Saint would argue with the premise that America is a choice land, a promised land. Problems arise when American Latter-day Saints assume that America is the only choice land.”[55] This problem was also acknowledged in a chapter on the Church’s cultural challenges in Europe in a previous Church History Symposium volume from 2016 by Gerald Hansen Jr., Hans Noot, and Medlir Mema, who wrote of “a sometimes excessive allegiance by the Church’s membership and some of its leaders to American culture, tradition, and politics [which] often generates counterproductive reactions—ranging from bemusement to frustration and even to spiritual confusion—in the souls of some Latter-day Saints.”[56]

I would suggest that if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints truly wants to create an identity as a global Church, it must consciously be more culturally sensitive in how it narrates global, constitutional, and American history. In some ways this could be easily fixed by considering choice of language more carefully. President Benson’s talk could be titled “The American Constitution,” recognizing that it is not the only one. Maren Hansdatter could be building a “new” or a “different” life, thereby not attributing value judgments to her decision-making process. Though my father was informed that Rasmine Christensen “immigrated to America for religious freedom,” we can recognize that she in fact already had religious freedom, and the decision to emigrate to Utah was both simpler and more complicated than such a narrative suggests. It is important to recognise that such steps must be taken not only in a global context, but in discourse at pulpits and in Missionary Training Center classrooms in the US to have a meaningful effect worldwide. Hansen, Noot, and Mema described how “Europeans can and generally do politely listen to the occasional sacrament talk by U.S. missionary couples promoting good government—complete with extensive quotes from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.”[57] And Newton in her article wrote that while most General Authorities visiting Australia at elections times refrained from expressing political positions, “one or two have uttered careful cautions about ‘liberal’ parties, not realizing that Australia’s Liberal Party is its conservative party and the Other Party is the one composed of the dreaded ‘small l’ liberals. Not a few unthinking Australians subsequently voted for the socialist party, quite content that they were doing what ‘the Church’ wanted.”[58] While there have been changes leading to a broader representation of nationalities in Church leadership, it is still predominantly American, which is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Leadership training should include cultural sensitivity, including an awareness of their own American-centric understanding of politics and history.

In the Book of Mormon in 2 Nephi 29:7 we read, “Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea?” When the Church of Jesus Christ speaks of global history, including constitutional history, it too should “remember those who are upon the isles of the sea” and reflect and represent that “there are more nations than one.” Julie K. Allen has written, “Mormon history writing about Europe has not reflected the scale of early Mormon convert-immigrants’ contributions” to their adopted religion.[59] This is problematic, causing European Latter-day Saints to feel they do not have a Church history, or that early European Church history is relevant only in the context of immigration to the US. Allen further suggests that this causes European Latter-day Saints to feel a “two-fold alienation,” both from their national home culture and from an American-centric Latter-day Saint community and culture. The Church has over the last several years begun to include more global narratives in its histories, curricular materials, and general conference talks. Then-Church historian Elder Marlin K. Jensen recognized this in an interview for the Church publication Ensign in 2007, stating, “There are other great stories in our history that deserve to be known and taught at Church and at home. . . . There are equally moving stories about the rise and progress of the Church and the impact of the gospel in the lives of ordinary members in every nation touched by the restored gospel. These need recording and preserving as well.”[60] The writing teams for Saints, especially in volumes 2 and 3, have made a dedicated effort to be representative of the Church’s global membership and heritage.[61] While this may seem to some like unnecessary pandering to political correctness, to international Latter-day Saints this makes a difference in how they view themselves in relation to Church headquarters in Utah. The Church History Department has in recent years posted online the Global Histories of the Church, and feedback from Latter-day Saints outside the US demonstrates the importance of these historical narratives. Consider the comment they received from a member in Congo: “Good day! Thank you for your good work. I was thinking that, we were ignored by the church. Let our Savior bless you. Thanks.”[62] And note another response from a member in Ecuador, “What a blessing. It’s especially beautiful. I’m reading it and feel the Holy Spirit. It’s great. Thank you. It’s very exciting to see ourselves in something from Salt Lake. I want to shout to the four winds. We have a legacy. What a blessing.”[63]

There is a wealth of global Latter-day Saint history that can, and should, be more consistently incorporated into the Church of Jesus Christ’s traditional historical narrative, including its approach to constitutional history. Such efforts will only enrich the narrative and create a space of inclusion for the Church’s international members so that they too may feel part of its legacy. As Church historian Elder Jensen said, “Someone once said that a people can be no greater than its stories.”[64] In a similar vein, historian Paul Reeve more recently said, “The Latter-day Saint story isn’t complete until all its members are included.”[65] Denmark’s constitutional history and its story of the rise of religious freedom is one example of how we may enrich traditional narratives. Elder Erastus Snow certainly felt that the Danish Constitution was a “divinely inspired constitution” (to borrow language used about the US Constitution). In one of his early letters to the First Presidency on August 17, 1850, he wrote, “How truly can we behold in these things, as in every other move among the nations, the fulfilment of the words of Jesus in the Book of Mormon, that ‘when these things shall come forth among the Gentiles, the work of the Father shall commence among the nations, in preparing the way for the restoration of thee, O House of Israel.’”[66] As the Church of Jesus Christ continues to see a global “gathering of the House of Israel” as their purpose, a global Church history and culturally sensitive language should be an inclusive part of that process.

Notes

[1] Jens Rasmussen, Religionstolerance Og Religionsfrihed: Forudsætnigher Og Grundloven i 1849 (Copenhagen: Syddansk Universitetsforlag, 2009), 261.

[2] Johan Borup, N. F. S. Grundtvig (Copenhagen: Reitzels Forlag-Axel Sandal, 1944), 249.

[3] Jesper S. Paulsen, De danske mormoners historie, 13.

[4] Peter Christian Mønster, “Andragende Om Fuld Religionsfrihed for Danmark Til Den Frie Stænderforsamling i Roeskilde,” July 16, 1840, reprinted in Kirkehistoriske Samlinger (1999), 124–27.

[5] “Bent Hylleberg: P.C. Mønsters ansøgning om religionsfrihed 1840—baptisthistorie.dk,” . Original version in Kirkehistoriske Samlinger (1999).

[6] Kolderup-Rosenvinge, Kongelige Forordninger og Aabne Breve XXIII Deel (1839–43) (Kiøbenhavn, 1844), 650–53.

[7] J. P. Mynster, Meddelelser Om Mit Levnet (Copenhagen: Thieles Bogtrykkeri, 1854), 273.

[8] Rasmussen, Religionstolerance Og Religionsfrihed, 268; Jesper Stenholm Paulsen, De Danske Mormoners Historie (Denmark: A. Broberg, 2012), 20. “Bent Hylleberg: P.C. Mønsters ansøgning om religionsfrihed 1840—baptisthistorie.dk,” . Original version in Kirkehistoriske Samlinger (1999),

[9] “Amnesti-Plakaten,” June 26, 1848; Kolderup-Rosenving, Kongelige Forordninger og Aabne Breve, XXV Deel (1848–49) (Kiøbenhavn, 1850), 93.

[10] “Danmarks Riges Grundlov,” June 5, 1849, sec. Kapitel VII §§ 80–84.

[11] Julie K. Allen, Danish but Not Lutheran: The Impact of Mormonism on Danish Cultural Identity, 1850–1920 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2017), 64.

[12] Erastus Snow, “Erastus Snow Journal, 1847 December–1850 September,” 110–11.

[13] Erastus Snow, One Year in Scandinavia (Liverpool: F. D. Richards, 1851), 5.

[14] Snow, One Year in Scandinavia, 7.

[15] Snow, One Year in Scandinavia, 7.

[16] Allen, Danish but Not Lutheran, 66–67; Rasmussen, Religionstolerance Og Religionsfrihed, 253–56.

[17] Snow, One Year in Scandinavia, 13.

[18] Snow, One Year in Scandinavia, 13.

[19] Jonathan Fox, “What Is Religious Freedom and Who Has It?,” Social Compass 68, no. 3 (2021); Roger Finke and Dane R. Mataic, “Promises, Practices, and Consequences of Religious Freedom: A Global Overview,” University of St. Thomas Law Journal 15, no. 3 (2019): 587–606; Dane R. Mataic and Roger Finke, “Compliance Gaps and the Failed Promises of Religious Freedoms,”Religion, State & Society 47, no. 1 (2019): 124–50; Adam S. Chilton and Mila Versteeg, “Do Constitutional Rights Make a Difference?,” American Journal of Political Science 60, no. 3 (2016): 575–89; Jonathan Fox, “Out of Sync: The Disconnect between Constitutional Clauses and State Legislation on Religion,” Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne de Science Politique 44, no. 1 (2011): 59–81.

[20] Snow, One Year in Scandinavia, 7.

[21] Snow, One Year in Scandinavia, 13.

[22] Aalborg Amtstidende, December 21, 1850.

[23] Knud Banning, ed., Forsamlinger Og Mormoner: Redegørelserne fra Gejstligheden i Sjællands Stift for den gudelige Forsamlingsbevægelse og Mormonismen i Henhold Til Biskop H. L. Martensens Cirkulære af 16. Juni 1854, Kirkehistoriske Studier 11. Række, nr. 8 (Copenhagen: Gads Forlag, 1960), 72.

[24] Snow, One Year in Scandinavia, 18.

[25] “Letter from Erastus Snow to the First Presidency,” December 1851.

[26] Jørgen Würtz ��ø����Բ����, I Religionsfrihedens Skygge (Lynge, Denmark: Forlaget Moroni, 1984); Jørgen Würtz ��ø����Բ����, “Vilkaarlig Voldsomhed. Mormonforfølgelser i Danmark i 1850erne,” in Historie/Jyske Samlinger (1989), 54–71.

[27] Snow, “Erastus Snow Journal, 1847 December–1850 September,” 113.

[28] William Mulder, Homeward to Zion: The Mormon Migration from Scandinavia (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1957), 41.

[29] ��ø����Բ����, I Religionsfrihedens Skygge, 23.

[30] “Biskop Mynster,” Aalborg Amtstidende, December 14, 1850.

[31] “General-Konference. Holdt i Kjøbenhavn Den 20de, 21de Og 22de Febr. 1852,” Skandinaviens Stjerne, March 1, 1852, 93.

[32] “Ansøgning Til Rigsdagen: Til Vort Højtærede Danske Rigsdagsmænd,” Skandinaviens Stjerne, April 1852, 1.

[33] ��ø����Բ����, I Religionsfrihedens Skygge.

[34] Andrew Jenson, ‘En Ansöning Til Rigsdagen’, in Morgenstjernen, vol. 2 (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News Company, 1883), 135.

[35] Andrew Jenson, “‘Mormonismen’ i Rigsdagen,” in Morgenstjernen, vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1883), 34.

[36] Jenson, “‘Mormonismen’ i Rigsdagen,” 34.

[37] Knud Banning, Forsamlinger Og Mormoner, 8:13.

[38] Jørgen Würtz ��ø����Բ����, “Vilkaarlig Voldsomhed. Mormonforfølgelser i Danmark i 1850erne,” in Historie/Jyske Samlinger (1989), 70.

[39] “The Editor’s Remarks,” Skandinaviens Stjerne, July 1, 1854, 3de årgang, nr. 19, 294.

[40] ��ø����Բ����, “Vilkaarlig Voldsomhed. Mormonforfølgelser i Danmark i 1850erne,” 70.

[41] ��ø����Բ����, “Vilkaarlig Voldsomhed. Mormonforfølgelser i Danmark i 1850erne,” 69.

[42] Banning, Forsamlinger Og Mormoner, 8:77.

[43] ��ø����Բ����, “Vilkaarlig Voldsomhed. Mormonforfølgelser i Danmark i 1850erne,” 69.

[44] Mulder, Homeward to Zion, 43.

[45] August Valentine, “Banishment from Denmark,” August 18, 1885.

[46] Allen, Danish but Not Lutheran, 61.

[47] Snow, One Year in Scandinavia, 20.

[48] Mulder, Homeward to Zion, 42.

[49] “Baron Rosenörn-Lehn to Secretary Evarts, January 31, 1880,” Foreign Relations, 1880.

[50] Snow, One Year in Scandinavia, 6.

[51] Snow, One Year in Scandinavia, 15.

[52] Dallin H. Oaks, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Liahona, May 2021, 105–8.

[53] Ezra Taft Benson, “The Constitution—A Glorious Standard,” Ensign, September 1987, 6–11.

[54] Marjorie Newton, “‘Almost Like Us’: The American Socialization of Australian Converts,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 24, no. 3 (1991): 10.

[55] Newton, “‘Almost Like Us,’” 10.

[56] Gerald Hansen Jr., Hans Noot, and Medlir Mema, “The Church’s Cultural Challenges in Europe,” in The Worldwide Church: Mormonism as a Global Religion, ed. Michael A. Goodman and Mauro Properzi (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2016), 315.

[57] Hansen, Noot, and Mema, “Church’s Cultural Challenges in Europe,” 315.

[58] Newton, “‘Almost Like Us,’” 14.

[59] Julie K. Allen, “Neither Fairyland nor Dystopia: Taking Western Europe Seriously in Mormon Studies,” Mormon Studies Review 6 (2019): 34.

[60] Marlin K. Jensen, “There Shall Be a Record Kept among You,” Ensign, December 2007, 31.

[61] Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days, vol. 2, No Unhallowed Hand, 1846–1893 (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2020); Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days, vol. 3, Boldly, Nobly, and Independent, 1893–1955 (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2022).

[62] Ryan W. Saltzgiver, “Growing into a Holy Temple: Insights from the Church History Department’s Global Histories Project, Forthcoming Proceedings of the Global Mormon Studies Conference,” forthcoming article in the Journal of Mormon History.

[63] Saltzgiver, “Growing into a Holy Temple.”

[64] Jensen, “There Shall Be a Record Kept among You,” 30.

[65] Lee Benson, “A Historian of Utah, Latter-Day Saints and the American West Who Knows His Roots,” Deseret News, January 2, 2021, https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/1/2/20995540/mormon-lds-historian-church-university-of-utah-knows-his-roots-american-west-professor-paul-reeve.

[66] Snow, One Year in Scandinavia, 6.