“The gathering, not polygamy,” wrote William Mulder, “was Mormonism’s oldest and most influential doctrine.”1 While sinful Babylon pursued a course of destruction, converted Saints in foreign lands gathered to Zion to build God’s kingdom. Here they would prepare themselves for the cataclysmic events which would usher in Christ’s coming.
The first step in the gathering process was a teaching one. Well-meaning but misguided Christians needed to be taught the restored gospel. Convinced that mankind could be saved only by accepting Mormon tenets, Church leaders sent missionaries throughout the United States and abroad.2 After 1846 the thrust of missionary activity was conducted in foreign lands. The major effort was concentrated in Europe, with England serving as headquarters and nerve center. In 1849 elders were sent to countries in Asia, Europe, and the South Pacific. In 1853 more extensive plans were effected, and 159 elders were set apart to do missionary work. All but 22 were assigned to labor in foreign lands.3 [139]
By 1856 several of these proselyting ventures had proven unsound and missionaries were withdrawn.4 In northern Europe and especially Great Britain, though, phenomenal success was enjoyed, especially in urban areas.5 In the 1840s and 1850s thousands joined the Church and migrated to Utah territory.6 While the religious doctrines and teachings were attractive to many, undoubtedly one of the factors which converts found enticing about Mormonism was the promise of a better life in a new land.7
The migrating of thousands of Saints, most of whom were poor and needed funding, was both a costly and a complicated process. In 1849 Mormon leaders set up the Perpetual Emigration Fund to hasten the operation. PEF agents were employed in England to charter ships, select and instruct the emigrants, and provide funding for those that needed it. Upon arriving in America, Mormon converts met other agents located at major ports and outfitting centers where they were prepared for the journey to Salt Lake. Once emigrants arrived in the valley they were expected to pay back their debts.8
By the 1850s, then, thousands of Latter-day Saints were strewn across the migratory path from Liverpool to New York to St. Louis. Customarily, Mormons organized branches wherever sufficient numbers [140] congregated. By the time of the Reformation numerous branches, wards, and even stakes existed both in the United States and abroad. It was Brigham’s intention that Saints in these areas participate in reformative measures and it would appear that nearly all did.
Not surprisingly, England, headquarters for the European mission, was the hub of missionary-migratory activity in the 1850s. On January 6, 1857, Orson Pratt, mission president and apostle, received a directive from Young instructing him to initiate a reformation immediately.9 Young’s letter, dated on October 30, 1856, stressed the need for an awakening and gave general advice on how the crusade should be conducted. Pratt was told that a reformation was needed in England, Scotland, and Wales. “The Saints are dead,” wrote Brigham, “and do not drink at the living fountain; the fire of the Almighty is not in them, and we made the same observation in regard to the elders who are sent to preach.”10 Pratt and his assistant, Ezra T. Benson, were told to rejuvenate themselves spiritually, then go throughout the entire mission and arouse the people. They were instructed to “trim off the dead branches, so that the tree may thrive, grow, and expand.”11 Benson, a free-wheeling, outspoken individual, was given a specific charge to “kick the scales” from the eyes of the Saints.12 Brigham concluded his correspondence with a promise that was not fulfilled, at least in an immediate sense: [141]
If you, brother Benson, and the other brethren, go forth with the spirit of reformation through England and the British Conferences, as we have suggested you will find a large increase of members, and means donated to the benefit of the work; you will find your hands untied, and be out of debt, and able to help us all that we shall require, and also be able to operate efficiently and successfully, in regard to emigration.13
Pratt acted on Young’s advice with dispatch. Waiting a few days until Benson returned form assignment, he organized a meeting for all personnel in the Liverpool office. On February 4, Pratt confessed to the assembled brethren that when he read of the daily spiritual ministrations of Nephi, Elijah, and Elisha, he realized his own spiritual barrenness. He observed that while truly remarkable external manifestations of the Most High would not transpire until the times of the Gentiles had been fulfilled, the Saints still should be exhibiting more of God’s power than was presently the case.14
Other elders in attendance were given an opportunity to express their feelings concerning the projected reform. All declared their intention to participate fully.15 Benson was especially vibrant, responding that he was ready “to cut [him]self loose.” “This letter [Brigham’s],” said Benson, “has put fire on the fire, and with the help of God, I am on hand to kick the scales from the eyes of the people.”16
It was at this meeting that Pratt charted the course the Reformation was to take in the British Isles. Mission and branch leaders were to reform first, then lay members. Those willing to [142] re-covenant to keep the commandments more diligently were eligible for rebaptism. Members reluctant to enter into this pledge were not. An especially key question had to do with tithing. The principle had been but recently introduced in England and prior to this time Saints had not been cut off for nonpayment. Pratt instructed the elders that if Church members were unwilling to covenant to pay tithing, they were not to be grafted in.17
Pratt observed that the principle of rebaptism would act as a needed sifter. Those that refused the ordinance were dead branches that needed to be removed so that the tree might remain healthy. “If one-third would be cut off, and the rest remain united,” Pratt wrote, “it will be one of the greatest works that was ever accomplished in this land.”18
The following day, February 5, Pratt, Benson, and other Liverpool elders met according to appointment at a local bathhouse to be rebaptized. Pratt and Benson baptized each other and then baptized the rest of the brethren.19 Charles Dana, president of the Manchester Conference, recorded that he had never had a more enjoyable evening in his life. “I almost envied the Elders the blessing of laboring in those lands now,” observed Dana, “for in the last three years, if an Elder should reach out or strike ahead, there was someone to pull him back by the coattail, or in some other way.”20 [143]
Following the baptismal service, Pratt commented on how the upcoming reform movement fit into the eternal scheme of things. He reasoned that something of great magnitude was near at hand. “It may be,” Orson speculated, “that the Lord intends this purification to prepare the Saints for entering into the Temple, in which we expect such manifestations and blessings to be given as the Church have never had.”21 Whatever the specific purpose, Pratt concluded that the Lord was preparing the Saints to be nearer his presence.22
Indications are that the reform was carried out according to Pratt’s instructions. Expectedly, proselyting elders quickly recovenanted to keep the commandments and were rebaptized. Once they had completed the procedure, efforts were concentrated on urging members in local branches to follow suit. It would appear that other missionary activities were temporarily curtailed until this process had been carried out. This effort commenced in late February of 1857 and continued until early fall, but the bulk of it was completed before the end of June.23
The reform effort extended beyond Great Britain throughout European nations where a comparatively large number of Saints resided. Although there is a paucity of historical sources, it appears that [144] other European countries followed much the same reformation pattern as did England. Ezra T. Benson introduced the Reformation in Wales on March 12, 1857,24 and apparently James Ure instigated the movement in Scotland about this time.25 In Scandinavia on February 20, 1857, Hector Haight called his presiding elders together in Copenhagen to “lay before them the council and instructions given by President Pratt that the Elders and saints renew their covenants by baptism.”26 More so than in England, members in the Scandinavian branches confessed their transgressions publicly before being rebaptized.27
Ezra Taft Benson, the fiery counselor to Orson Pratt, became the prime articulator of Reformation principles in the European mission. In an effort to reform those worth reforming and to “cleanse the British Mission from every kind of rubbish,”28 Benson traveled to as many branches as possible, holding both elders conferences and general meetings.29 English convert Elijah Larkin noted that Benson was successful “in kicking the scales from off the eyes of the old [145] Saints and the young.”30 Matthias Cowley, a missionary from Utah, recorded that Elder Benson went about “like a two-edged sword, cutting on all sides everything that [was] impure.” “He is in this country,” said Cowley, “as Jedediah was in that, in bringing about the Reformation.”31
While Benson provided enthusiasm and spark in his public addresses, local elders bore the responsibility of carrying the Reformation to individual branches. They methodically called on individual branch members, patiently urging them to confess their sins, renew their covenants, and agree to rebaptism. They were not always successful, as many Saints were reluctant to recommit themselves. Missionary John Freckleton noted that some Scotchmen could not see any need for a reformation.32 Freckleton became president of the Dysart branch when his predecessor refused to be rebaptized.33 Elder William Jefferies, like Freckleton, soon learned that many Saints saw little need of a reformation. On May 8, 1857, Jefferies visited for a second time with Brother Rawlings and his family, “trying to induce them to renew their covenants.”34 Shortly afterward he labored with the Ware family—unsuccessfully, as it turned out.35 In June Jefferies visited a sister and “found her with but little of gospel life.” “I preached reformation to her,” recorded Jefferies, “and endeavored to create faith enough in her to cause her to renew her covenant.”36 Still later, Jefferies visited [146] with William Davis. “I labored hard to induce him to pay his tithing,” he noted, “but could not get him even to promise to do so.”37 Davis was later suspended from fellowship.38
Exactly what criteria British members had to meet before they were either suspended or rebaptized is difficult to determine. A catechism was never sent overseas, leaving local leaders the responsibility of formulating guidelines. Pratt was concerned with too much cooking and feasting on the Sabbath and too little attendance at meetings and it is likely that these items were emphasized.39 Surprisingly, Word of Wisdom observance, never stressed by Church leaders during this era in Utah, was emphasized a good deal, especially by Benson.40 The European Saints were also criticized for their casual approach toward emigration and a general lack of concern with their temporal salvation.41 Certainly the law of tithing was a [147] major concern. Apparently those unwilling to commit to at least try to observe this practice were cut off from the Church.42
Cutting off lukewarm Saints was, of course, one objective of the Reformation, both in Zion and abroad. Young had instructed Pratt to cut off dead branches and Orson had mentioned at the outset of the Reformation in England that the Church would be more prosperous if one-third could be cut off.43 Asa Calkin, Pratt’s successor as mission president, shared his mentor’s optimism that pruning the lukewarm members would strengthen the Church. Calkin, in fact, viewed the Reformation in watershed terms, believing it to be the beginning of a new era in the history of the Church in England. He noted that real Saints took hold of reform but that bogus ones shunned it, claiming that “Mormonism isn’t what it used to be.”44 That was fine, according to Calkin, for it was better for them to “apostatize here than after they go to the valley.”45 Elder Matthias [148] Cowley noted that “basswood Mormons are obliged to kick out and none but the hickory Saints stand.”46
It soon became disconcertingly apparent, however, that there would be an alarmingly high number of “bogus” or “bass-wood” Saints. Indeed, when Pratt realized how many Saints refused to renew their covenants, he must have wondered if his missionaries had been too efficient in carrying out the sifting process. Missionary Jesse Hobson lamented that in one branch only six or seven members out of a membership of sixty had chosen to be rebaptized.47 By May 1857, enough had severed relationships with the Church that Pratt predicted in a letter to Brigham Young that “when the branches are all trimmed and set in order, the Saints in these lands will not number more than about one half as many as . . . in 1850.”48 Four weeks later Pratt reported to Young that “many of those claiming to be Latter-day Saints, and of long standing, do not drink deep into the Spirit of the Reformation.” “They cannot receive the law of Tithing,” wrote Pratt, “and Mormonism as it was in the days of Joseph is good enough [149] for them.”49 Pratt further speculated that the Saints in the British Isles numbered no more than twenty thousand.50
As the Reformation progressed, Pratt soon realized that he had underestimated the numbers of apostates. At the end of July, 1857, he noted that “in some Conferences not more than half of the Old Members have been rebaptized,” and that the total number of Saints in the British Isles was less than seventeen thousand.51 A month later Pratt, now somewhat sombered by the reduction in membership, summarized the effect of the Reformation:
The reformation has greatly reduced the numbers of Saints; still those that are left are faithful, but poor and can do but little after paying their Tithing. They are anxious to emigrate but can do little towards it. Almost universally those persons who have any means other than their Daily wages, have neglected to renew their covenants or pay Tithing.52
The rather severe reduction in Church membership in the British Isles makes one wonder if a few of the missionaries were as interested in reclaiming souls as they were in trimming off dead wood. There is evidence that some were not. Some four years later, when Thomas Evans Jeremy was appointed to preside over the Welsh mission, he was instructed to make himself familiar with the circumstances of [150] the Saints and see to it that “they are not oppressed by the collection of tithing or donations.”53 Jeremy was told that no one was to be cut off from the Church without his permission.54 In a letter to Brigham Young, Jeremy noted that several Saints had been excommunicated “for merely asking a question and they were not allowed to speak or defend themselves in a council.”55 Jeremy related that excommunicated Saints would come to him in tears, and when asked why they had been cut off from the Church, they responded that they were unable to meet the fiscal demands imposed on them by local presidents.56
Whether or not the problems Jeremy faced were due to excessive rigidity and intransigence during Reformation times is open to conjecture. In all likelihood they were. These unfortunate occurrences, however, were infrequent rather than commonplace, and should not be considered as characteristic of the reform impulse in England. Certainly, there was much of a positive nature that was accomplished. In their correspondence both Pratt and Benson noted the vastly improved spiritual tone of Saints in the British Isles, and James Ure [151] commented favorably on the effect of the Reformation in Scotland.57 Elder William Budge claimed that the Reformation had “caused a new spirit to take hold of the people.” “The Saints are more diligent than heretofore,” wrote Budge, “and understand that working is required as well as talking.”58 Asa Calkin, though concerned for a time with the improper use of the gift of tongues in meetings, observed in January, 1858, that “there has never been a better feeling among the saints in this country.”59 There had been, he added, a significant increase in faith, love, union, peace, and zeal.60 Overall, it would appear that the Reformation in Europe wrought more good than harm.
The effects of the Reformation in other foreign countries is less easy to discern. While the most intense missionary efforts of the 1850s were concentrated in Europe, Latter-day Saint elders had been sent to several other countries. Hawaii, Australia, and New Zealand were among the areas first visited by Mormon missionaries.61 Elders had been in Hawaii since 1850, and by 1853 Church membership [152] in the islands totaled four thousand.62 Church growth was less spectacular in New Zealand and Australia, two countries that were included in the Austra-Asian mission. Reformational influences, though minimal, are discernible in both the Hawaiian and Austra-Asian missions, though Brigham never formally instructed local leaders to instigate a reform.
In all probability, Brigham Young never instructed Mormon leaders in Australia to initiate reform because the total number of Saints was small. Some members in Australia were rebaptized when local elders learned of the Reformation in the valley through correspondence.63 One such elder in Australia, Amasa Potter, urged members in Sydney to renew their covenants through rebaptism and apparently most Saints complied with the request.64
The reason for not making a concerted effort to bring about reform in Hawaii was quite different. Nearly all Mormon leaders in cities or areas with a comparatively large Church population were notified by Brigham Young in letters in October and November of 1858 to commence reform in their locales. This is not true with Hawaii, even though thousands of Church members lived in the Islands. Young did write letters to Hawaiian mission leader Silas Smith in October and November, 1856, but although he described the course of reform in [153] the valley, he made no implication concerning the pursuance of a similar course of action in Hawaii.65
Brigham Young did chart a general reform course for Hawaiians to follow in a letter written to Smith in December, 1856. He indicated that it was “high time that the natives begin to comprehend that they are literal descendants of Abraham,” and that the time had come for them “to throw off their stupor and blindness and learn to magnify the Priesthood and stand alone.”66 “They must learn,” wrote Brigham, “to live their religion, and in so doing advance their own and the redemption of others, instead of operating measurably as a weight upon our progress.” “In these days of reformation,” Young added, “it is expected that the Elders will duly appreciate and promptly carry out these counsels, and that the natives will see the necessity thereof and cheerfully cooperate therein.”67
Young’s assertions concerning the collective spiritual numbness of the Hawaiians were based in large part on letters from missionaries in Hawaii which described the lethargy and superstition of native Saints.68 Some elders wrote that it was unprofitable [154] to work with a people so prone to spiritual aberrations and Young believed them. This belief accounted for the difference in both tone and content in the directives to Orson Pratt and Silas Smith. In Europe Young wanted the elders to preach reform with vigor, but he was confident that many Saints would heed the clarion call. In Hawaii the spiritual tone was so low that Young, though advocating that the elders do what they could, assumed that the instigation of organized reform measures would be an exercise in futility.
Local elders did make sporadic attempts to initiate reform. In May, 1857, Silas Smith wrote that “we the elders are striving to the best of our ability to disseminate the principles of reformation and reform among the saints on the Islands.”69 Smith hoped to see the day when the natives would shake off their shackles of darkness and “lay hold of the principles of eternal truth.”70
Smith’s hope was not fulfilled, at least not in any immediate sense. Henry Bigler arrived in Hawaii in September, 1857, and promptly noticed that missionary work had been ineffectual.71 That same month Brigham Young wrote Smith and his counselors and suggested that “since the majority of the Saints on these Islands have either [155] been dead or are dying spiritually,” it would be wise “for all Elders with one or two exceptions to come home.”72
Before Young’s letter arrived, however, some reform had been initiated, largely due to the efforts of Elder John Woodbury. Woodbury participated in the Reformation in Salt Lake before being called during April conference in 1857 to serve a second mission to the Islands. After arriving in Hawaii in September, he spoke of the progress in knowledge and righteousness that had been made by Saints in Utah who took part in the Reformation.73 It was likely Woodbury’s favorable report that led mission leaders to make a resolution during a conference meeting held on October 4, 1857, to “endeavor to introduce the spirit of the reformation among the native saints on these Islands and rebaptize those who shall come forward, confessing their sins with a determination to live nearer as becometh Saints of God.”74
The resolution reached by mission leaders was soon circulated to the branches in outlying islands. On October 22, Elder Brown of the Holo Conference received instructions to initiate reform in his [156] area. “After fasting and prayer before the Lord, we catechised each other,” said Brown, and “then . . . were rebaptized for the remission of our sins.”75 Afterwards, he added, “we went forth and taught it to the people, baptizing all who manifested a meek and contrite spirit.”76
But reforming the natives proved to be too formidable a task. As Elder Woodbury began to labor among the natives he quickly concluded that most of the Saints were “like dead or withered branches.”77 Despite their seemingly hopeless condition, Woodbury prayed unceasingly that God might “cause the spirit of reformation to take hold of the people.”78 On October 25, 1857, Woodbury met with six other elders in a prayer and testimony meeting in an attempt to obtain an increase of the spirit of reformation in ourselves and try through the blessing of God to light the fire of reformation among the people.”79 Notwithstanding the fervent efforts of Woodbury and the other elders, there is no evidence that more than a few natives chose to be rebaptized.80
In the meantime, Brigham’s letter advising the elders to leave the Islands had arrived and was being circulated. In view of the lack of success the elders had enjoyed, this proposal was probably received [157] with hearty approbation. Interestingly, it appears that even though the missionaries were aware that they would be leaving Hawaii, plans were made and disseminated to the local branches relative to the future course that was to be taken regarding the Reformation in the Hawaiian Islands.81
Brigham Young was probably not surprised by the ineffectual course of reformation in Hawaii. Obviously most Hawaiians had little understanding of or concern about the kingdom-building role of the Church. The fact that Young gave but half-hearted and somewhat vague directives to Smith to initiate reform indicated that he expected little in the way of success.
In other mission areas and emigrant centers, especially in the United States, Brigham expected the Saints to respond more favorably to reform efforts. By and large they did. In 1857 “centers” were located at New York City; St. Louis, Missouri; Florence, Nebraska; San Bernardino, California; and Carson City, Nevada. Since there was a nucleus of Church members wherever an emigrant center was located, Brigham directed the leaders of the respective areas to instigate reform.
New York City was the principal port of entry for Latter-day Saints emigrating from Europe and the headquarters of the Eastern States Mission. On October 30, 1856, Young wrote to John Taylor, president of the mission, advising him to commence a reformation in New York. Taylor was told to “ordain Elders and send them out into [158] every ward of the City, unto every nook and corner thereof, to humble himself before the Lord and see that all Saints do likewise.”82
Interestingly, there is some evidence that Taylor had been encouraging Church members to renew their covenants before Young’s correspondence arrived. In a letter written to Young on February 24, 1857, Taylor indicated that he had for some time noticed the spiritual dullness of the Saints and counseled them to renew their covenants.83 William Appleby, a missionary serving in the eastern states, noted in the fall of 1856 that many Saints in both the New York and Philadelphia areas were renewing their covenants.84
Whatever the intensity of earlier reform efforts, Young’s directive certainly caused Taylor to pursue reformation with renewed vigor. He organized the city into wards with a president for each ward who reported on weekly activities. In addition, teachers were assigned to visit every member on a weekly basis. Re-covenanting became a requirement for fellowship. Those that chose not to were not to be considered members of the Church.85 [159]
Exactly what was included under “re-covenanting” is difficult to say. Certainly Church members were required to express a willingness to live all the commandments. Taylor did not require them to pay tithing though they were urged to do so. “Were it not for the obligations resting upon us to publish the paper [The Mormon],” wrote Taylor, “I should long ere this have put every person under the law of tithing.” “I have not put that law in force,” he added, “but where I have seen the opportunity of establishing it, I have not failed to urge it.”86
Taylor never specifically indicated how many Saints participated in the reform, but the positive tone in his letters suggests that most members recommitted themselves. John Druce, a member living in New York, noted that Taylor told the Saints that those who renewed their covenants by baptism would see the sick among them healed. If true, this would have provided added incentive for Church members to be rebaptized.87
By April, 1857, the results of the brief reform were noticeable. The spiritual climate had markedly improved. “I have never seen,” said Taylor, “a better spirit nor more energy displayed abroad than there is here at the present time.”88 Recently held conferences [160] at New York and Philadelphia reflected the renewed spirit. “The spirit of God was powerfully in our midst,” Taylor wrote, “and the utmost unanimity and harmony prevailed.”89
St. Louis had been a major emigrant center throughout the early 1850s, and by 1854 there were sufficient numbers of Saints in the area to warrant a stake organization. Church leaders appointed Apostle Erastus Snow to organize the stake, direct emigration, and supervise Church activities.90 By 1856 emigrants were being re-routed to Iowa City but a large body of Saints remained in St. Louis for some time.91
On February 5, 1857, Erastus Snow learned of Brigham Young’s desire to commence a reformation in his region.92 Like other area or mission leaders had been instructed, Snow was to begin the sanctification process with himself, then his associates, and then go forth and arouse the Saints. “One half, if not more of the Saints,” Snow was told, “need converting over again.”93 Like Pratt and Taylor, Snow was apparently in accordance with his leader’s wishes and noted that [161] he felt the counsel was timely and that he would respond to it with all his heart.94
Snow commenced the reformation immediately. On February 7, he and other Church leaders and some traveling elders entered the newly constructed water tank and rebaptized each other.95 The next morning the bishop and high council participated in the rite and throughout the rest of the week “others, both in the Church and out,” did likewise.96 Snow reported that the “Lord seems to accept our offerings and to renew the Holy Spirit before us.”97
For the next month Snow performed a herculean labor in the branches located throughout his mission.98 On February 15, three meetings were held at an unknown location at which reformation was preached. Many Saints confessed their faults and began to repent while numerous others were cut off.99 In some instances all the officers of a particular branch were dismissed and reorganized anew.100 Snow observed that some were so spiritually numb, “it was like raising [162] them from the dead,” but through persistence and prayer much good was done.101
Reformation labors continued through the month of April, 1857. During this time Snow was able to visit outlying branches, or at least appoint others to visit them.102 Snow found that the small branches around St. Louis were more spiritually attuned than those in the city.103 In fact, he found it was necessary to withhold the sacrament from those in St. Louis.104 He also observed that many were willing to be rebaptized, but without proper repentance. “I was constrained to guard the font as with a flaming sword to keep out the dogs and swine who came with the sheep,” Snow wrote to Brigham Young.105 “I have therefore . . . shut down the gate,” he added, “until we had a more general and satisfactory evidence of repentance and reformation of life.”106
In early summer Snow left for Salt Lake and was replaced by Horace Eldridge. Though Snow had completed his task of trimming the dead wood and revitalizing the repentant, Young gave Eldridge further instructions regarding reform efforts. “The constant labors of a faithful priesthood,” Eldridge was told, “will be necessary to purify your flock, and measurably improve the atmosphere in which they [163] live.”107 Eldridge was also encouraged to urge the Saints to move from St. Louis as it “was an unhealthy place, morally and physically.”108
Five hundred miles due west of St. Louis was the town of Florence, Nebraska. Hundreds of Mormons lived here between 1846 and 1848 before being compelled to move by Indian agents.109 In 1856, however, settlers moved back with the intention of building the area into a great commercial center.110 Until 1863 the city remained a regular rest and recuperation stop for Mormon wagon trains and handcart companies.111
Though there was a comparatively small number of Mormons located at Florence in 1856–57, there was apparently enough that Brigham Young decided a reformation would be beneficial. Andrew Cunningham, who presided over the Florence branch, was with Erastus Snow when Snow instigated the reformation in St. Louis.112 After being rebaptized by Snow, Cunningham left for Florence on February 14, 1857.113 Whether or not Cunningham instituted the reformation immediately upon return is not clear. He received rather vague instructions [164] from Young, probably in early March, to stir up reform, but he might well have begun it before Young’s correspondence arrived.114
In any event, Cunningham required all individuals in the Florence branch to be rebaptized. Days were appointed for the performance of the ordinance, and those who wished to maintain good standing met at a site along the Missouri river and were rebaptized.115
Not all Mormon emigrant sites were located east of Salt Lake City. There were significant numbers of Church members in gathering places west of the Great Basin. In California there were several Mormon congregations, the largest two by a considerable margin being located at San Bernardino and San Francisco.
San Bernardino had been an important site since 1851. Brigham Young felt the site would serve as an important refurbishing center for emigrating Saints as well as providing a suitable location for Saints coming from the Pacific.116 Despite promising beginnings the settlement was beset by apostate discontent, debt, and Mormon-Gentile tensions. By the end of 1855, Brigham was seriously questioning the value of retaining the site.117 In spite of the difficulties, the colonists stayed on until Young ordered them home in November, 1857.118 [165]
San Bernardino Saints probably knew of the Reformation before colony leaders Amasa Lyman and Charles C. Rich introduced it.119 Before the middle of November, 1856, Church members were reading of the reform in the valley in old issues of the Deseret News, and by the end of the month disaffected Saints from southern Utah settlements had arrived with their tales of harassment and woe.120 On November 16, the high council in San Bernardino met to find ways to improve moral conditions.121 Later, new teachers were called, prayer meetings instituted, and home missionaries selected to visit homes of Church members.122
Probably as much as any other Mormon emigrant center, San Bernardino needed reform. Disenchanted members were spreading discontent and Church leaders were disconcerted by the quarrelsome nature of some of the malcontents.123 Surrounded by turmoil, Lyman and Rich, upon learning of Brigham’s desires, set about to reform wayward Church [166] members. Meetings were held on almost a daily basis with various groups of Saints throughout December and early January.124
As in other “centers,” just what local Saints had to promise to observe in order to be rebaptized is not clear, but apparently many members were serious in their resolves to do better. Elder D. M. Thomas reported that there was a great change among the Saints, one that he hoped would have permanent significance.125 In early February, 1857, Lyman wrote to Young that nearly five hundred had been rebaptized.126
While the reform did increase the unity among those who were willing to participate, it apparently heightened the tension between the participants and those who remained oblivious to reform efforts. Amasa Lyman, in a letter to Young on April 4, noted that the Saints were doing well but that apostates were threatening their lives.127 Such threats probably influenced Young’s decision to recall both Lyman and Rich in the spring of 1857 and send the remaining settlers home in November.128 It seems safe to assert that of those that did return (approximately 50 percent did not), a majority had been rebaptized. [167]
While the heaviest concentration of west coast Mormons resided in San Bernardino, there were several pockets in and around the city of San Francisco. A good many of these were holdovers from the ship Brooklyn and the Mormon Battalion.129 In 1857 there were at least 177 members included on northern California membership rolls. Thirty-three of these resided in San Francisco, and sixty more were located throughout the gold fields.130 It would appear that the majority of these were made aware of the Reformation and exercised an option whether or not to participate in it.
Apostle George Q. Cannon presided over Church affairs in northern California, Oregon, and Washington. He had been called to San Francisco in 1855 to supervise Church affairs, print the Book of Mormon in Hawaiian, and establish a newspaper, The Western Standard.131 Like Orson Pratt in England and John Taylor in New York, Cannon used his newspaper to advantage in advocating reform measures.
Cannon and his associates were aware of the Reformation by November, 1857. Letters form Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, and Samuel Richards written in the first week of October had arrived, each of them describing the Reformation in positive terms.132 Woodruff [168] wrote that a “fire of . . . universal reformation . . . had been lit and will continue to burn until a permanent foundation for good works has been laid in our midst.”133
Undoubtedly impressed by the reports of improvement, Cannon set about to instill similar measures among Mormons in his jurisdiction. “Judging by the tone of the letters we have received and the mission reports in the Deseret News,” Cannon surmised in the Standard, “the spirit of the Lord is being poured out in greater abundance than it ever has been since the organization of the Church.”134 Church members were warned to keep pace with the onward march of Mormonism and to commence living their religion more closely than they had been in the habit of doing.135
While all of the apostles presiding over major Church locations took Young’s admonitions to instigate reform seriously, few were as deeply affected on a personal basis as was Cannon. Writing to Young in early January, he indicated that he had been getting careless and that he had been overly concerned about business affairs.136 Six weeks later he wrote of being in a “dreadful condition when . . . your voices began to arouse in me a disposition to humble myself.” “I can [169] now realize,” wrote Cannon, “that at the rate I was progressing . . . I never could have entered into the Celestial Kingdom of our Father.”137 Thanking the Lord for restoring his spiritual sensitivity, Cannon vowed to “shake off every fetter,” and prepare himself “for the great things which await us.”138
Not surprisingly, Cannon was unable to transmit his fervor to all Church members. Elder Matthew Wilkie, one of the few proselyting elders in northern California, observed that it was “hard to make anything” of some of the old members who had been in the Church between ten and twenty years.139 Apparently obdurate Saints were in the minority, however. At the annual mission conference held on April 6, 1857, the San Francisco branch reported that twenty-seven of its thirty-three members had been rebaptized.140 The remaining four branch presidents did not list the number of re-covenanters in their areas.141
It would appear that though Cannon emphasized the payment of tithing as an essential gospel principle, he did not require members to regard it as an automatic qualification for rebaptism.142 It [170] was, however, the only specific Church doctrine emphasized during the reform. Cannon maintained that the Saints in California had “in too many instances entirely neglected the law of tithing.”143 Cannon also required all members who were not members of any particular branch to report to the mission presidency.144 Those who did not or those who did but lived in violation of “God’s laws” were presumably cut off.
While Cannon concentrated his reform efforts in northern California, there were a small number of Saints in the Northwest that participated in the Reformation. In June, 1857, David Stuart was appointed mission president in Oregon and Washington.145 One month prior to the appointment Stuart commenced proselyting in that territory.146 In Clark County, Washington, Stuart found a branch that once had fourteen members but had not met for over a year because of Indian wars. After Daniel W. Gardner, the branch president, had gathered the members together, Stuart talked to them about the nature of the Reformation. At a later meeting Stuart told the assembled members that it was a special commandment for all Saints to renew their covenants, but his arguments were unconvincing to all but four. Nonetheless, these four loyalists were reorganized into a branch.147 [171] Stuart and his group also uncovered some “ancient Mormons” near Cottage Grove, Oregon Territory. The missionaries encouraged them to renew their covenants, but the end result of their endeavor was not given.148
Another pocket of Mormons west of the valley resided in Carson County, Nevada. Mormons had traveled through Carson Valley since 1847, but were never a potent force in the area until Brigham Young sent 250 individuals there in June, 1856. Apparently Young felt a settlement in that region would serve as a subsidiary gathering place for Saints traveling from California to Utah.149 While the colony was beset by Mormon-Gentile friction, and to a lesser extent, internal dissension, it probably would have continued to survive had not the exigencies of the Utah War resulted in a call home.150
Mormon residents at Carson learned of the Reformation through correspondence from Brigham Young and by reading accounts of reform activities in the Deseret News and the Western Standard.151 Desiring “to take hold of the spirit and feelings of our brethren and fathers in Great Salt Lake County,” mission leaders “designed that the whole [172] mission . . . be rebaptized before spring Conference.”152 President William Nixon reported that Carson Valley Saints had a great desire “to keep pace with the onward progress of the kingdom.”153 To help maintain a proper spiritual keel to each of the three branches located, they agreed to interchange missionaries that they might keep abreast of each other’s welfare.154
While mission leaders were unsuccessful at getting everyone to be rebaptized, many members did renew their covenants. Of the reported 287 members in the mission, 148 had been rebaptized by spring conference held on April 6, 1857.155 As late as July, 1857, high council leader Chester Loveland indicated to Brigham Young that the Saints at Carson desired to live their religion. However, because of the approaching U.S. army, the colony was told in November, 1857, to return to the valley.156
Two other settlements that saw limited Reformation activity were Fort Limhi and Las Vegas. These were but two of several Indian [173] missions that Brigham Young established in 1855, all of which proved to be unsuccessful.157 Because of the comparatively small number of Saints in these areas, the reform emphasis was not nearly so pronounced as it had been in other more significant locations. Samuel Thompson at Las Vegas was told to “trim up the tree and cut off the dead branches,” while Thomas Smith at Limhi was requested to “stir up one another to awake, confess your sins, forsake them and make restitution and reform.”158 The meager sources available suggest that Young’s desires were carried out.159
The fact that Brigham’s wishes were effected at Limhi and Las Vegas as well as in England, New York, and elsewhere had important consequences for the Church. It ensured that most who migrated to Zion were motivated by religious considerations. In a time when economic discontent was common, it seems likely that large numbers of converts were journeying to Utah for material betterment rather than religious refinement. Never converted to some of Mormonism’s basic tenets, they tended to “dance to their own fiddler,” paying homage only to those doctrines which suited them. At a time when unity was considered paramount, they were thorns in the flesh, hampering the progress of God’s kingdom. To Brigham, cutting off the tentacles [174] before they poisoned the main body was a prudent and necessary action. [175]
