iStock-976097290-1 (1)

Ancestral Lessons in Religious Freedom

As more young people today lose an appreciation for religious freedom, it’s understandable that we point to higher principles. It might also help to direct attention back to our own family’s stories to understand why this is still so important today.

In July, we celebrate Independence Day and Pioneer Day, both milestones for groups seeking liberty. These are not just academic dates for me; my kids’ thoroughly researched family tree includes pilgrims, pioneers, and refugees, and their ancestors have fled from at least five countries on three continents in search of liberty. Traversing the tree is educational: it provides a base rate for thinking about why and how often, in the grand sweep of history, I might expect to face serious political repression. This exercise gives me a reason to share The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ concern for religious freedom.

I’ll start with my side. John Taylor (my great-cubed grandfather) has a well-known story; after a couple of peaceful international moves for religious reasons (from the UK to Canada to the U.S.), he fled from the 1838 Missouri Mormon Extermination Order, then got shot when Joseph Smith was assassinated in the custody of the State of Illinois (while Joseph was running for president, 1844). After further problems in Illinois, he left the boundaries of the U.S. for Utah and ultimately died in 1887, after two years in hiding to escape enforcement of the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act. This is sort of the standard set of church history case studies showing where inadequate religious freedom can land a true believer.

My kids’ ancestors have fled a variety of governments.

In the year he died, Taylor sent Charles Ora Card to set up a settlement in Canada, beyond the reach of American persecution—this was the era when the Republican Party was high on anti-polygamy populism. My mom’s ancestral lines subsequently ended up moving to the Canadian colonies. This may not have been entirely due to persecution; economic opportunity in the form of available farmland likely played a role. My ancestor Joseph James Taylor (John’s son) doesn’t appear to have moved north until after 1900, when my great-grandfather Walter Barton Taylor was born in the U. S. But in any case, my mom’s whole set of ancestors upped sticks, some from Utah (where they had previously moved for religious reasons) and some from Florida (where anti-Church sentiment resulted in a barn getting burned down), and left the U. S. for what began as a religious freedom colony.

Looking a little further back, there are a good handful of pilgrims on my side, and my wife also has some (they overlap with mine). If you don’t already know the story of the pilgrims, you need more help than I can give you, but in any case, that’s one more set of folks leaving a government behind for religious reasons.

It seems my dad’s ancestors largely came to the U.S. (from Norway, Sweden, southern Italy, and the U. K.) as economic migrants, and then moved on to Canada for homestead farmland. That’s the one branch of the family where I’m unaware of any major, recent political or religious drama, though obviously southern Italy has been misgoverned to a greater or lesser extent since approximately the end of the Roman Republic, and its continuing poverty is related to that fact.

More recently, my parents were both born and raised in Canada but ended up moving to the U. S. as adults, as have (independently) the majority of their siblings. The phrase “tax refugee” has been used, and I’ve heard plenty of other discontents from around the family, notably with the inanities of the Canadian medical system and the U.S. immigration system they have to deal with too. 

On my wife’s side, the legacy of getting persecuted for religious reasons goes back in her paternal line to the Waldenses, a “proto-Protestant church tradition” dating back to the 12th century and primarily based in the alps. (“For The Strength of the Hills” is actually a Waldensian hymn, and refers to their refuge in the alps, not Utah geography.) This worked out about how you might expect. In the 13th century, they were declared heretical by the Catholic Church and some were burned at the stake. In the 15th century, the ironically named Pope Innocent VIII issued a bull that resulted in a crusade against them. Some were massacred by troops of French King Francis I for “dissident religious activities” in the 16th century. And then there was a massacre by Savoyard troops in the 17th century (John Milton did not approve), followed by conflict with Louis XIV of France and his nephew the Duke of Savoy. Some Waldenses fled to Switzerland for several years before returning to their valleys.

In the 19th century, things finally quieted down for the Waldenses, and in the newfound climate of relative religious tolerance, Lorenzo Snow went to Italy to proselytize. My kids’ great-cubed grand-aunt Marie Madeleine Cardon had previously seen the missionaries in a vision, and her family subsequently joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Marie successfully confronted one mob, but the family had evidently gone out of the Waldensian frying pan and into the Latter-day Saint fire; the Cardons subsequently emigrated to Utah. Later on, during anti-polygamy persecution, they ended up in the Mexican colonies, which, like the Canadian colonies, were an 1880s John Taylor project meant to serve as a refuge. (Except that during the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920), most of the colonists ended up back in the U.S. as refugees after facing anti-American sentiment and ultimately cannons). Tired of losing yet?

In my wife’s Chinese maternal line, her Great-Grandpa Lau was killed by the communists around 1950, but Grandpa Lau made it safely to British-ruled Hong Kong. When Hong Kong’s eventual reversion to Chinese rule was becoming clear, he (correctly) expected it was only a matter of time before Communist tyranny overtook it too, so he moved again to the U. S. It sounds like he was mostly trying to not get killed by Maoists, but fortunately, one consequence was that his kids ended up having religious freedom. 

So my kids’ ancestors have fled a variety of governments, ranging from poor to outright tyrannical, in many cases to be able to practice their religion without interference. What should they learn from this? My kids should be attentive to religious freedom. Their ancestors have fled jurisdictions with established religion (Waldenses, pilgrims), established atheism (China), and established anti-Mormonism (1830s Missouri, 1840s Illinois, 1880s U. S.). The 13th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 19th, and 20th centuries all had some trouble for my people. Hopefully, the 21st century goes just fine, but a degree of vigilance is in order. Like any other “this time is different” argument, “no need to worry about religious freedom in our day and age” deserves some knee-jerk skepticism.

Remembering these troubles, my kids should have some sympathy for refugees, victims of persecution, and economic migrants. All of their ancestral lines have been through at least one of these categories of duress within the last couple of centuries. 

My kids should also be skeptical of government power. Their ancestors haven’t had to flee recurring oppression caused by non-governmental organizations, or the big economic interests of the day, or non-established religions; it always seems to be the government. And even with the government, the problem never seems to be bread-and-butter government work like contract enforcement or punishment of violent crime. It always seems to be some kind of ideological overreach backed by the state’s monopoly on violence.

So, attempts to enshrine religion or some kind of other ideology in law likewise deserve my kids’ skepticism. Established religion is now widely recognized as problematic, but it is just a special case of the tendency for any established ideology to metastasize, taking an inappropriate and growing hold over citizens’ lives and resources. The besetting problem of our time is not government establishing a religion—it is government becoming the religion. Neither the Cult of Divus Trump nor its competitor Woke Orthodoxy (with their respective creeds, rituals, and priests) should have power over vast swathes of economic and cultural activity; I’d rather have them playing for the table stakes of a small government. Only a limited government, committed to a parsimonious ideology like American constitutionalism, can at least semi-reliably stand aside, stave off metastasis, and leave room for oddballs like my ancestors.

“Culture war” issues are all fun and games until one side is under enough pressure to start leaving the country.

My kids should remember that a major American political party once sought votes by demonizing their ancestors’ beliefs about marriage, and that situation deteriorated far enough that ancestors (on both sides of the family!) ended up leaving the United States entirely— fleeing in both directions. “Culture war” issues are all fun and games until one side is under enough pressure to start leaving the country. A variety of responses to this could make sense, but a cavalier attitude towards social policy impinging on religion does not.

They should also recognize that they literally would not exist in their current form if one of their ancestors had not been fervently anti-Communist from up-close experience.  

These items do not a complete political philosophy make, with the specifics tied to my own family. And they form just one of many arguments for paying attention to religious freedom, which can also be defended on purely utilitarian grounds or from philosophical first principles. But they certainly highlight the rarity and importance of various types of liberty, religious liberty foremost among them. 

Through centuries of trial and error, my kids’ ancestors made the decisions to land us here in the United States, a place with a great deal of liberty. This Fourth of July and Pioneer Day, my kids should be grateful for this: grateful that they are American citizens, grateful that they have religious liberty, and grateful for those who came before them. We have a rare gift; may it last. 

Read more from Tom at his blog, tomnysetvold.com.

About the author

Tom Nysetvold

Tom Nysetvold and his wife have four children. He enjoys hiking with them, reading, and writing. He directs the Mormon Texts Project and works as an engineer and manager in the oil refining industry.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Resilience, Family, and Identity with Jenet Erickson

The Raising Family Podcast: “Resilience, Family, and Identity with Jenet Erickson” This enlightening episode welcomes guest Jenet Erickson, a Fellow at the Wheatley Institute and Associate Professor of Religious Education at BYU. Jenet’s research specializes in maternal and child wellbeing, and in this discussion, she illuminates the sacred roles of both mothers and fathers in child development. She explores how children’s emotional and physical growth is deeply influenced by bonding with both parents and delves into the development of identity within these familial bonds. Jenet also touches on the concept of resilience in children and how it can be both a strength and a challenge. The episode concludes with insights on finding joy and happiness in life by nurturing strong relationships within families and society.

A Call For Countercultural Christianity

In an age where Christians (and everyone else) tend to flow with the cultural current, the remarks of President Dallin H. Oaks on Friday at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville were striking in their departure from popular rhetorical trends.

Mother Figurine Holding a Baby | Public Square Magazine | Meaning of the Lyrics Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Men

Now is the Time for Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Men

You’ve heard it before: “Peace on earth, goodwill to men.” Whether viewed as prophecy for a hopeful future, as rebuke to a fallen world, or as the deep aspiration of many human hearts, these words invoke wonder still today, especially at a time like 2020. I believe these words point towards legitimate reasons for great hope in humanity’s future, even in the midst of our current distress. A closer look at their meaning provides a glimpse into bright possibilities. The modern-day enshrinement of these words was penned by the hand of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow during a time of deep personal sadness and grief in his 1863 poem “Christmas Bells.” Subsequently, these words have been sung by millions as the hymn “I Heard The Bells On Christmas Day.” Sadly, few choirs will sing this popular carol during the Christmas season this year as many of our most cherished traditions are disrupted by the continuing, unprecedented epidemic.  Notwithstanding the familiarity of these words in the modern context, their first recorded rendering came anciently in a most unusual setting. It was one of the few instances in all of secular or religious writings where an entire host of heavenly beings—angels—came to deliver a message to a few lucky ones on earth. Their entire message as recorded in Luke 2:14 of the New Testament was “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” If there was more to the message or not, we don’t know. But this was the message that was recorded and handed down over thousands of years since that momentous event.  It was this short heavenly song of praise that Longfellow was referring to when he lamented that “hate is strong and mocks the song of peace on earth goodwill to men.” Then as now, we join Longfellow in observing a world stricken with contention, tragic death, and human suffering with no clear end in sight. As a bold counterpoint, however, his poem and the hymn conclude with a resounding proclamation of hope that indeed there will be yet “peace on earth and goodwill to men.” Is it possible to find for ourselves this same hope of which Longfellow wrote so long ago?    Some might assume that the author had somehow arrived at more pleasant circumstances and material conditions. Yet in describing his world that Christmas morning in 1863, Longfellow was feeling the weight of personal tragedy in the death of his wife and the strife of a hot civil war spreading devastating carnage across the land. In such a heavy time, he couldn’t help but underscore how much the surrounding hate he saw in the world seemed to mock the idea of peace and goodwill – a word that suggests to “tease or laugh at in a scornful or contemptuous manner.” The hate he was referring to, and which has the power to infect us in our own day, was between groups of people and between individuals who looked at each other with scorn and contempt. In an environment that fosters hate, any suggestion that feelings of scorn and contempt might be replaced with feelings of peace and goodwill can seem to be almost laughable (another reason it’s powerful to have a heavenly host delivering this message to the world).   We sometimes think of peace and goodwill as synonyms. They are not. In fact, they represent very different human conditions – either one by itself being incomplete. But together they weave a social fabric of heavenly dimensions. There are many examples of one without the other, but relatively few of both existing and being sustained for any great length of time.  In its simplest form, peace could be defined as the absence of conflict. When this kind of peace is voluntary, due to an underlying feeling of goodwill toward all, it is a wonderfully satisfying human condition.  However, a “peaceful” absence of conflict can also be achieved through coercion, even in the notable absence of goodwill. In that case, it comes at the obvious, and dear price of freedom and liberty and represents a most cruel form of the human condition. Coerced peace is usually a political construct as it requires overwhelming use of force to constrain human behaviors. There have been modern examples of peace without goodwill in the recent past. One can reflect on Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, and other nations. For example, Yugoslavia was created after World War II as a federation of six different ethnic regions. A strong central governing party ensured that conflicts were resolved emphatically and quickly. There was “peace,” but without the underlying goodwill among the different ethnic groups. Under Josip Broz Tito the country experienced an extended period of prosperity characterized by enforced peaceful interaction among the various ethnic groups. In many ways, it was considered a model of economic success.  But after Tito died in 1980, the ability to continue the peaceful climate through coercive means declined, and the unresolved conflicts among the different ethnic groups emerged with frightening consequences in human suffering for the whole country and region. In a relatively few years, the region completely lost both its peace and prosperity.  Similar events have unfolded in other countries where peace was enforced despite the absence of “goodwill toward men.” As the power to enforce coercive peace diminishes, people are subsequently often subjected to tragic suffering that can take decades and even generations to overcome to a point of regaining a semblance of stability. In short, peace without goodwill has a terrible historical record for producing great human suffering in the end.  Unlike “peaceful” conflict suppression, goodwill to men cannot be coerced. It is almost by definition an innate feeling of each individual human heart. It can be contagious, and it often seems to be either in large supply or in short supply in a particular family, community, or nation. It would seem that goodwill to other human beings is something that would be a universal good. However, once again we find that

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!