The Liverpool Mormon Yankees

I awakened to a -24 degrees reading on the thermometer this morning. Seems the air is coming in the form of the Arctic Express today. Jake came with dinner last night, and he was in a rental car with bald tires. He got stuck in the road on the way out, but we were able to extract him from the snowbank and send him on his way in frigid conditions. Always good to remember that “slow is best” during the winter on the ranch road.

It’s also Martin Luther King Day in America, and the 60th inaugural of a new POTUS, this time it was Donald J. Trump. It’s January 20th, 2025. 

I drove out of here after starting a fire in the stove to warm things up. It was 50 degrees on that side of the house. I went to Heber City for breakfast and listened to much of the inaugural proceeding on the car radio.

I was asked by Melanie the other day if I had ever written about the Mormon Yankees. I remembered writing about them tangentially in previous posts, but never intentionally. So today I will tell the full story.

To appreciate the context I must first lay a foundation. President Henry D. Moyle was one of Grandfather Lee’s favorite people. He was a wealthy businessman before being called to the apostleship, and he and Grandfather became fast friends. I was privileged to be his home teacher for a season in the Federal Heights Ward where we all resided. 

President Henry D. Moyle

Because of his success in business, President Moyle was what most people today would have called a very progressive thinker. For example, he favored rapid building of Church chapels throughout Europe. In addition, he sought and found prominent buildings for the Church to purchase then convert into mission homes. He wanted the Church to establish a “presence” throughout Europe. He reasoned that if missionaries were successful and added to the ranks of the members, the resulting tithing revenues would easily accommodate his expansionist vision. He does what most people who spend first, then hope for the best, also do without having the cash in the bank.

He served eventually as a counselor to President David O. McKay, succeeding the venerable President J. Reuben Clark when he died. It was clear President Moyle would have a vigorous role to play among his brethren of the First Presidency. Eventually, there would be four counselors serving simultaneously with President McKay as he aged, and that proved to be an unprecedented development that had never been seen in Church history, nor since. Two of the counselors, Alvin R. Dyer and Thorpe B. Isaacson were not ordained apostles. 

That development ended when President McKay was succeeded by President Joseph Fielding Smith, and Harold B. Lee and N. Eldon Tanner were named as counselors.

There were signs the Church was growing, but not fast enough to keep up with all the spending. Today, we would call it “deficit spending.” President Joseph Fielding Smith, who was serving as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and Elder Harold B. Lee sought to put a damper on the profligate spending, and were aided by President N. Eldon Tanner of the First Presidency, all of whom were fiscal conservatives. Together they reined in spending and put the Church back on a sound fiscal footing. From 1970 until today, we are reaping the benefit of that conservative approach to Church finances.

T. Bowring Woodbury (l) and President McKay

That’s a quick snapshot in Church history to provide the background. President T. Bowring Woodbury at the time was serving as the president of the British Mission. He shared the expansive vision of President Moyle, and he was what we would likely call a “super salesman” in today’s world. It's not my purpose here to provide the complete litany of abuses that arose in that era. Those have been thoroughly documented elsewhere. Later, he would finish his business career as a vice-president in marketing at Zions Bank, where I knew him. (Coincidentally, President Jeffrey R. Holland and Elder Quentin L. Cook served as missionaries in the British Mission under President Woodbury). He was always a natty dresser and forever a promoter in the first rank. As a mission president he sought to put the Church “on the map” by promoting the Church in every way he knew with aggressive programs to baptize thousands where only mere hundreds had been the historical precedent. He instituted something called “baseball baptisms.”

The elders would gather at local parks throughout England and play baseball together. It was a novelty that attracted many youthful English participants. They would play with the Mormon elders, then go swimming in the nearby pools and local bathhouses where baptisms were performed. The numbers of baptisms soared, and the program was deemed a rousing success. This was way before the Osmonds made their rise to prominence to assist with marketing the Church, and the American baseball playing missionaries scored a lot of baptisms that pleased their promoters.

But there was a problem. The success was neutralized by the vast number of “converts” that were lost due to lack of follow up and fellowshipping on the part of the local members where they resided. Many of those “converts” would attest years later that they had no idea they had been baptized into the Church. The expected tithing revenues, therefore, failed to materialize, and the Church’s deficit spending caught up and threatened the Church financially during the Sixties.

That’s where I come in. I went to the North British Mission in 1967-69. One of my first assignments as a new missionary was to look up some of those ill-gotten converts. Our instructions were to seek them out, and if we could locate them ascertain their level of interest in the Church. President Spencer W. Kimball was by then supervising the work in England. My companion and I were given about 2500 names to research. If they expressed interest in the Church we were to embrace them and encourage them further. If they knew nothing about the Church and we were unable to arouse any interest we were to excommunicate them and strike their names from the records of the Church. I used to joke that I excommunicated WAY, WAY MORE than I baptized in my two years in England, and that was no joke - it was true. We failed to find most of our 2500 names.

President Wilford H. Payne was my first mission president. He was an advocate for “legitimate” baseball among missionaries. He elevated the effort by subscribing our North British Mission team in a semi-pro baseball league (“The National League”) sponsoring teams throughout England. We were exclusively Americans back then, and we competed against other American teams mostly comprised of servicemen in the various branches of the military serving in England. It was all above board, hoping to offset what back then was a never-ending onslaught of negative press from many sources. 

I joined what we dubbed the “Liverpool Mormon Yankees,” called to play by President Payne when I had been out about four months. There was also a “London Mormon Yankees” team. We were headquartered in Liverpool and the nearby Wirral Peninsula. I took Mom there with me years later to visit my old stomping grounds, though it didn’t resemble the old days much when we were there as missionaries. The team had been playing for three years before I joined them. We did well, playing other teams within our mission boundaries, and we did well enough that we went on to play in regional tournaments, then down to Nottingham (outside our mission) to play for the national championship. Here’s the line score from my Google search:

We took home the national trophy. I have to say the competition wasn’t really that great. Baseball was in its infancy back then in England, and it has never overtaken the national pastime of football (“soccer” is what we call it here).

Truth be told, it felt like that summer was one long holiday for us. We even got in a long weekend of spectating at the British Open golf championship that happened to be played within our zone boundaries that summer. The instruction from our zone leader was to “proselyte” among the spectators. It’s in quotes because that didn’t happen at all.

President Lenard R. Robison succeeded President Payne as our new mission president in July. He came to one of our games, and he told me later it was his strong impression after witnessing it firsthand to shut it all down. His instincts were right on point. He also told me that was when he knew I would be one of his Assistants someday before I went home. 

I am so grateful to have lived long enough to witness the day when President Russell M. Nelson has put the Church unerringly on a path of single-minded discipleship to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and temple worship. May we never again return to the days I lived through in England as a baseball-playing missionary. I am simply illustrating here what the contrast has been historically.

We didn’t attract many converts because of our exploits as baseball players, I’m sure. For all the hype that went along with it there was very little substance that converted to baptisms. We attracted a lot of young English lassies, some of whom were members, most were not, but we were little more than an interesting sideshow. Parenthetically, if you do a Google search for “Mormon Yankees,” you will discover a basketball team organized in the Fifties in Australia.

Eventually there would be seven missions throughout the British Isles, including Scotland and Ireland. We were on the front end of converting districts into stakes, and that part was fulfilling and rewarding. I have written elsewhere of my interactions with Grandfather and Aunt Joan when they visited my mission during the time when I had a challenging assignment with my “greenie” Elder Shoemaker in Gateshead up in Northumberland. 

So the chapter on the Mormon Yankees ends with my affirmation that even seemingly frivolous ventures can bear long-lasting fruits. We baptized the niece of the branch president during our assignment on the Wirral Peninsula while playing baseball. That was the summer back in the day, when native branch presidents thought they were entitled to a summer vacation (not kidding here), and we took over his branch leadership responsibilities while he relaxed. She remains active in the Church today, presuming she’s still living.

I was just sitting down to write when three beautiful young women passed over my threshold - granddaughters Paden, Chloe and Aleyah Goates. They were off for the holiday, and what a delightful trio they are!

I am grateful for each of you, and pray you may all be blessed. The sky overhead is crystal blue, not a cloud in sight. I pray that it may be so for each of you today and always!

Abolish the Electoral College?

I noted an article that appeared in The Hill yesterday. Three Democrat senators have proposed a bill to abolish the Electoral College. They bring up an ongoing discussion that never seems to go away. It's the difference between a democracy and a representative republic.

Our inspired Founders as they established the Constitution of the United States sought to prevent a true democracy, fearing that a straight democracy would disenfranchise the minority if a direct election empowered a majority.

The Constitutional Convention, 1787

Instead, they opted for a form of government that instituted a representative republic with "checks and balances." It features three branches of government - the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. The elected representatives conduct the business of the people and are accountable ONLY to those whom they represent.

One fundamental principle of a constitutional republic is the protection of minority rights against the potential tyranny of the majority. This design counters direct democracy, where majority rules could potentially ride roughshod over minority interests. The U.S. Constitution outlines various checks and balances intended to prevent any single branch of government from gaining absolute power, thereby protecting individual rights from being infringed upon by majority vote.

The key element of this style of government is the separation of powers among branches of the government, a system meant to foster a balance of power. The legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch enforces these laws, and the judiciary interprets them. Each branch operates independently from the others to prevent any accumulation of power, adhering to the principles laid out by the framers of the Constitution.

Think of the background from which our Founders had escaped. They were subjects of the Crown of England, and they were seeking freedom from what they viewed as a despot in their King. When John Hancock, president of the Continental Congress, affixed his signature at the bottom of the Declaration of Independence he wrote it boldly and as large as he could. He quipped that he wrote it so large so that "the old fat King" would not have to use his spectacles to read his name, but that story may be fictional.

As it unfolded in the debates over the form of government Americans would adopt, the electoral process distinctly forms the basis of the U.S. as a republic. Citizens do not vote directly for laws and policies but instead elect representatives who make these decisions on their behalf. This filter theoretically places an informed decision-making body between the populace’s desire and the law, which aligns with the characteristics of a republic.

It is not surprising that in the aftermath of this most recent national election there would be some who would once again seek to blur the lines between the very issues our Founders debated. The conflation of "democracy" and "republic" in contemporary usage often obscures their distinct historical and Constitutional meanings. 

A democracy, in its purest form as practiced in ancient Athens, involves direct participation of the citizenry in legislative decisions. While democratic, this approach was deemed impractical and potentially volatile by the framers of the U.S. Constitution, leading them to form a constitutional republic. This system combines representative democracy with foundational laws that protect individual rights and minority opinions against the potential tyranny of the majority.

During recent political upheavals, some commentators and politicians have asserted that calling the United States a democracy is incorrect, preferring instead the term "republic." This assertion, seen in media portrayals and political rhetoric, often suggests that appreciating the United States as a republic exclusively helps safeguard against the flaws of a pure democracy. Senator Mike Lee’s (R-UT) comments from October 2020 exemplify this stance as he described the American system as not one of mere majorities but rather as a “constitutional republic” where majority rule is tempered by statutory and constitutional boundaries. (Congressional Record vol. 166, no. 171 [October 8, 2020], statement of Sen. Mike Lee).

Having read this far into this post, some may simply say, "So what?" Well, the answer is it DOES make a difference what form of government we choose. 

The Electoral College is the process by which Americans elect their President and Vice-President indirectly through their state's electors. Candidates must secure 270 electoral votes, a majority of the 538 at stake, to win the White House. 

Before the general election, states select slates of electors. After voters cast their ballots in November, the candidate who wins the popular vote determines which slate of electors — Republican, Democrat or a third party — will cast electoral votes in the Electoral College for the president. 

In most states, it's winner-take-all — whoever gets the most votes in the state wins all of its electoral votes. 

In Maine and Nebraska, the rules are slightly different. They have a proportional representation system in which the winner of each congressional district is awarded one electoral vote, and the winner of the statewide vote is awarded each state's remaining two electoral votes. Some Republicans were hoping to change Nebraska's rules to a winner-take-all model, since one of its electoral votes often goes to the Democrat, but the effort fell short. 

Electors meet in their respective states in mid-December to cast their votes for the president. The meeting takes place the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December, which fell on Dec. 17, 2024. 

There is no Constitutional provision or federal law that requires electors to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, though they almost always do. "Faithless electors" are rare, since the electors are selected by the parties.

There are 538 electors in total across the 50 states and Washington, D.C. 

Each state is allocated electors based on the size of its congressional delegation. Several states with the smallest populations — Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming — have three electors each, since they have one representative in the House and two senators, while California, the largest, has 54 electoral votes.  Washington, D.C., is also allocated three electors.

By spreading power and influence throughout the nation, we see the wisdom of our Founders. However, be aware that there will always and forever, it seems, be people who lose elections and seek to reverse the history of the Electoral College. They usually fly under a banner labelled "Progressives." 

Put me down as a "Traditionalist."

It's a New Year!!

We have turned the page in our calendars and we have welcomed 2025. The election results were certified by Congress this week in the Electoral College, setting up the January 20th inauguration of our 47th POTUS, Donald J. Trump. He returns after a four-year exile, and already the surge in energy politically is resounding throughout the world.

Trump is no minimalist thinker. He is proposing buying Greenland (yes, the country), taking back control of the Panama Canal from China, annexing Canada as the 51st state (yes, the whole country apparently), putting an end to the unnecessary war between Ukraine and Russia, downsizing the Washington D.C. swamp of excessive governmental agencies, and oh yes, shutting down the borders and exporting the criminals that have been allowed to enter America illegally. Did I miss anything? Probably, because no matter how you describe it "Make America Great Again" is going to involve a lot of agenda items. 

There are razor-thin majorities in both the House and the Senate this year, and it appears that majority is ready to take on the world at the jump when Trump officially is sworn in. No matter whether you believe the MAGA hype or not, it has the feel of a BIG DEAL about to be unleashed. If even a small percentage of his agenda gets enacted it will no doubt affect the lives of Americans here at home and potentially the lives of nations elsewhere.

The gloating over the election victory is getting a little tiresome, if you ask me. I am weary to the point of exhaustion over all the hyperbole on display. The partisanship is frankly disturbing. It has extended in the extremity to Trump roundly and squarely placing ALL the blame on Governor Newsom (D-CA) for the raging wildfires exploding in Los Angeles County. Trump says he warned Newsom repeatedly about his ill-conceived policies that shrunk the water supplies, and now California is suffering because of the unheeded cautions Trump raised. Politicizing EVERYTHING must end, I pray.

It appears Trump has selected a team of cabinet members from among the ranks of the best and brightest to kick off his last hurrah. This slate of party faithful will be turned loose to tackle some big issues, and one can only hope they will be successful, regardless of your leanings politically. Can we really unite behind this new leader? He is signaling early his proclivity to speak his mind. He has no further political aspirations - this is his final shot to fulfill his MAGA promise, and so far he is withholding nothing in his verbal arsenal. He's already held more news conferences than his predecessor did for four years. My counsel to my family recently was "Buckle Up." Change is coming.

I was reminded the other day about something Joseph Smith said. Lorenzo Snow reported a day when someone came and asked Joseph Smith, “Who are you?” To which he replied, “Noah came before the flood. I have come before the fire.” (See this report of President Snow under entry of January 1, 1892, in diary of Abraham H. Cannon, vol. 16, p. 30). What could he have meant by that answer? 

Truman Madsen offers this: 

That leads to a probing question: How much did Joseph Smith know about himself and his own calling? Clearly his knowledge grew and expanded from the initial encounters of the Sacred Grove. But what really was implicated in that tantalizing phrase picked up by enemies and friends, “You do not know me”? Or, in his turning to people on the stand (this happened at least three times in Nauvoo) and saying, “If I revealed all that has been made known to me, scarcely a man on this stand would stay with me”? (“The Prophet said to me [Brigham Young] about sixteen years ago [at Kirtland], ‘If I was to show the Latter-day Saints all the revelations that the Lord has shown unto me, there is scarce a man that would stay with me, they could not bear it’” (MS 13 [September 1, 1851]: 257). 

In another case he said, “If the Church knew all the commandments, one-half they would condemn through prejudice and ignorance.” (HC 2:477. Compare George Q. Cannon, in Conference Report, April 6, 1900, p. 57).

Some readers of this page may not know about Joseph Smith. Search deeper into this blog and others to resolve your curiosity. Suffice it to say he opened this last dispensation of the fulness of times. He sought guidance from his Father in Heaven in a humble prayer in the spring of 1820, and was answered in a glorious vision from both the Father and the Beloved Son Jesus Christ. He organized The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on April 6, 1830, in Palmyra, New York. I revere him as a mighty prophet of God, who was followed in succession until the 17th President Russell M. Nelson, who now presides in his 101st year in mortality.

We have seen "the fire" now in Los Angeles County with no end in sight. Legion are the Biblical prophecies about fire in the latter days that will threaten to consume the whole earth before the Second Coming of our Lord. 

We will yet see many horrific scenes before that day comes, and we can do all that we can do to forestall it through all the political machinations the mind of man can conceive. However, the building of modern-day temples will predominate our work as Latter-day Saints to ensure the gathering of Israel on both sides of the veil. Those sacred ordinances performed within the temples will seal our progenitors to their families as fervently as we know how to do that work. 

I was asked recently what I do when my loneliness overtakes me from time to time since the death of my beloved wife Patsy. My simple response was, "I don't stay at home; instead I go to a nearby temple and perform an ordinance." It's never been easier to do temple work than it is right now, and I pray I may be independent enough to go and accomplish that angelic mission for as along as I am able.

I look forward with great anticipation for the events of 2025 yet to unfold. I am a born optimist by nature. In saying that, I recognize the gravity of the Machiavellian contrivances in which the world finds itself today. Those who seek for power to work their plots through subtlety and deception always seem to come to a deadly end, however. Eventually the truth will out.

So what is my prediction for 2025? That the day will come in the not too distant future when Joseph Smith and his successors will yet shine forth when all other solutions fail on the grand stage of political intrigues. President Russell M. Nelson has unleashed an era of temple building worldwide that will continue to accelerate around the world. That eternal work of providing ordinances to our kindred dead who now reside in the spirit world will go forward without ceasing from this year onward.

I claim no special gift of prophecy here, but that's about as safe a bet on the future as I can conceive of making. 

Oh, and I AM NOT given to hyperbole.