The Church’s first historic site outside of monuments in western cities was the Joseph Smith birthplace near Sharon and South Royalton, Vermont. Dedicated in time for the centennial birthday of Joseph Smith, the granite shaft and the memorial cottage quickly became a destination for Mormon travelers and a focus of public attention.
Only a few weeks after the dedication, Charles J. Bell, governor of Vermont, speaking in Boston, “was not extremely friendly in his references to the Prophet Joseph’s monument … on the contrary, his remarks were rather bitter,” recorded one New York observer. But then Junius F. Wells – the man whose idea it was to build the monument and who had shepherded construction in record time – happened to meet the governor at a hotel in South Royalton, in June. He invited the governor to join him in a carriage ride to the monument. The governor was, apparently, so impressed with the quiet beauty of the monument that he soon returned with friends. “Since the visit of the governor,” the same New York reporter noted, “the visitors have increased in numbers and it is now considered ‘quite the thing’ to see the monument by all classes of travelers.”
Missionaries of the Eastern States Mission gathered there as often as possible, using Pioneer Day and other holidays as an excuse to visit. Some of the missionaries tried to minimize the effect of such absences on their missionary work by tracting in the area, and, as was common practice in so-called “country districts,” asking for meals and lodging. These activities were enthusiastically endorsed by Eastern States Mission President Ben E. Rich… at first.
Junius F. Wells quickly realized the potential for problems with such proselyting efforts, however: Imagine living near the monument and having missionary after missionary, in town for a quick visit, knocking on your door … asking for meals … asking for beds. Wells sought a “broad, liberal, non-controversial attitude” by neighbors toward the monument. “Every person should be welcomed to come and see how, as followers of the Prophet, our people honor his memory and have beautified his birth-place; that his name might be spoken there for good, by the act of all who have accepted this ministry to all the rest of mankind.”
But!
“If a too zealous missionary propaganda were carried on there,” he warned, would make of the Memorial “a center of controversy, the inevitable effect of too much missionary labor there.” Not only did he fear the effects of too much proselyting on Vermont neighbors, he thought “many people would remain away and, instead of us removing prejudice, they would be confirmed in prejudices already formed.”
Every visitor that goes there, and sees what has been done and how we take pleasure and pride I maintaining the place, comes under a certain influence that lifts the load of prejudice. They go away, even if not a word is said to them, saying, “how beautiful” and “how wonderful this place is,” having an agreeable impression, which they carry to their homes, where they are much more apt to receive the elders who call upon them, than they would be if their visit had been made memorable for an unsatisfactory discussion on religious matters.
There are various forms of testimony – the Monument is one itself. The spirit that prevails about it is felt by saints and strangers.
When Ben E. Rich passed away unexpected and was replaced by John G. McQuarrie, Wells had to persuade the new mission president that the monument and its environs should not be the target of too much blatant proselytizing … and again, when Walter P. Monson became president and had the same idea of centering missionary work there, Wells had to persuade him, too. “I hope,” Wells wrote early in 1914, “that Bro. Monson will take the view that Bro. Rich had, namely, that Windosr County would be sufficiently warned from the people living at the Cottage, without every pair of elders calling at the homes of the people distributing tracts and asking accommodation.” By that time, he said, 3,000 visitors were calling at the site every summer, and he wanted them to continue to feel the spirit of the place without being too aggressively button-holed by missionaries.
It’s always a delicate balance, making visitors to all our sites feel welcome and open to enjoy the peace and beauty and history of such spots, and taking advantage of interest to promote an introduction to the gospel. Sometimes we get it wrong, sometimes we get it right. I think it’s interesting that we’ve recognized the need for hospitality almost from the beginning.
I deleted two of my “horror stories” regarding too zealous missionary activity at historic sites, because we probably all recognize that we have sometimes missed the balance and there is really nothing to be gained by beating that dead horse. If any of you have stories of getting it RIGHT, or suggestions for how Mormon visitors can improve our manners at such sites, or other positive ideas, I’d really like to hear those.
Very interesting. Thanks, Ardis.
A current report from my son recently returned from the Cleveland, Ohio mission- While Kirtland and its associated Mormon History sites are a separate, visitors center mission, the President of the Cleveland Mission encourages his missionaries to visit Kirtland with the people they teach at every opportunity saying, “Kirtland is the best missionary in the mission.” It seemed to help investigators and new converts. I suppose an invited visit accompanied by missionaries and members is different than the drop-in tourist. But my boy said it was very helpful.
Speaking as a non-Mormon who spent a summer touring Mormon sites, part of what made me uncomfortable with the proselytizing is that it is done in a way that feels very insider-ish. By that I mean that it didn’t connect with my experiences, beliefs, or vocabulary as a non-Mormon. I came away thinking the missionaries were probably doing a good job at strengthening member testimonies (and that is certainly worthwhile!) but if their goal was to also reach people like me, they needed to rewrite the script. (Now I’m not likely to convert any time soon so this may be moot, but I think my point stands on its own.)
Great insights. The balance is very tricky.
Years ago we lived outside of Rochester, NY. The Hill Cumorah Pageant was a bit event that drew mixed feelings from the people of Palmyra and occasionally from local church members. The push to take friends to the pageant and help at the pageant every night was sometimes difficult, since every day life didn’t stop.
One of the problems that was a concern was the lack of places to buy food in Palmyra, especially for the size crowds who came. It only took one tour bus to overwhelm the local McDonalds, and there were usually multiple tour buses. I admit that I was afraid our leaders would decide it was a Relief Society duty. As a mother of several small children, I couldn’t see how I could make that work.
Instead, local church leaders when to the service clubs of Palmyra and asked if they would like to take over food service for the Pageant. The rotary club, lions club, etc were interested and asked how much of a cut of the profits the church would require. They were told that they could keep their entire profits, but with the stipulation that the money stayed in Palmyra and wasn’t sent to the national organizations.
This wound up being a very positive change. Food tents sprang up serving the masses. Everybody in Palmyra spent a night or two at the Pageant helping with food. Everything in Palmyra, from the Girl Scouts to the Little League was funded by those food sales. Over the next couple of years we noticed that the local people started referring to it as the “Palmyra Pageant” since they helped put it on and considered it their own.
We moved away a long time ago, but I assume they are still doing the food service. This was clearly a wise way to solve a local problem.
There are a few sites I’ve been to repeatedly over the years. I grew up in Illinois and have done Nauvoo and Carthage dozens of times starting in the 60s when I was but a boy. The style of the tours has changed over the years. They used to be much more focused on the history. Now the history is very light, and the docents testify at every site. For my taste I prefer the older Nauvoo Restoration style.
I’ve also done the Beehive house over the years, though not as often. The older tours were far superior to what you get today, which is almost nothing: here’s a parlor, this was Brigham’s bedroom, here’s his wife’s bedroom, etc.
I understand there is a bit of tension between the Missionary Department and the Chuech History Department over the tours at the historic sights. The sites are cared for by one and the tours conducted by the other. Naturally the history people feel that the history itself is a testimony and will touch many. Right now a more direct approach is favored. It may work with some but others will consider it a bait and switch. I’ll repeat a history tour because each time I can learn something new. I have no reason to ever repeat a current tour. The dialogue doesn’t change tour to tour and almost site to site.
My family and I go almost every year to Cove Fort days, and the 150 year celebration was this past Friday and Saturday. There were 100s of people there in the 3 hours we were there and that is the only difference between this year and other years; advertising got the crowds out. Each of the rooms in the fort have a missionary telling about the room’s purpose and furnishings. The young missionaries from the Central Utah area were there serving ice cream, water, orange punch, and freshly grilled hot dogs. There were pioneer games and craftsmen (my daughter tooled a piece of leather with designs and her initials; she also loved the free packet of hollyhock seeds). There were covered wagon, buckboard wagon, and stage coach rides. These weren’t run by missionaries. It was all free and not once did anyone mention any faith-promoting story or spiritual experience, or ask for a referral; it was all history. It was a great time.