AH Challenge: More Christian western world

there haven't really been many WI's concerning attitudes and societal trends. With that in mind, I am thinking of a WI concerning the Euro-American Zeitgeist.

In OTL, the whole sordid Monica Lewinsky fiasco was a jarring shock for the Christian Right, which looked upon the bourgeoise and for the first time realized, "Their values are not our values." A great many conservatives have declared defeat in the culture war. And of course, one can turn on the TV and behold all manner of gratuitous sex and violence for the viewing pleasure of our children.

So I'm wondering if there's any way to change history over the past hundred years so that "Values of the Heartland" actually remain values of the heartland. A political change probably won't do the trick; after all, most political changes execrated by social conservatives were a result of changing attitudes, not the other way round.

Heck, I'm not even sure how Europe went from a society in which the bourgeoise were the bastion of church-going, "traditional values," to the Northern Europe of today, in which less than 1% of the people are regular church-goers and prostitution is legal in the space of less than a hundred years. Though of course, part of this is because, a lot of the moral structures never really filtered down to the peasantry, who swore, rutted, and made merry whilstworking like beasts to eke out a living.

So how could one alter the history of the past century to prevent the end of morality? Of course, the problem is, no one is really in agreement about what caused this to begin with.

I would like some input, and I've thought of one.

A massive missionary effort directed towards the proletariat by 19th century
clergy a la John Wesley. Gradually, good solid middle-class morals (yes, tongue is very firmly planted in cheek here) filter down to the hearty folk of the peasantry and urban mob. The solid member of society, OTL, could always sneak into a lower-class neighborhood to indulge whatever tastes he had outside the societal norm. If these dens of iniquity would be closed, not by the heavy handed activities of the civil magistrate, but consensually, by their operators, the world would be made safe for hypocrisy on a grand scale. After all, if your a pillar of your community, and run into they mayor on his way out of a house of ill-repute while you're on your way in, only the two of you will know, but both of your attitudes will be changed. But if you don't get such a chance....

Of course, even that might work. Is this idea even mildly feasible, or complete ASB territory?

Straha- Well, here are several ideas that could bring about a more Christian fundamentalist ATL, based on "values of the Heartland"...

A) 1835- Try to imagine Brigham Young, leader of the Mormon movement , instead of ending up in th edry desert region of "Deseret" (a.k.a. Utah) the Mormons march on towards California. There would certainly be a clash as the Mexican culture of California collides withe Mormon lifestyle. But consider the drastic changes caused by San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco becoming more like Salt Lake City.
B) 1810/1811- The Luddite Movement increases. In OTL, the Luddite movement was initiated in Great Britain with the purpose of trying to return the proletariat to the land, and with full opposition to the Industrial Revolution. This also would mean the success of such items as "Agro-Socialism", "Guild Socialism" and "Self-Contained Kibbutzes and Communes". This immediately means a more closed and divided society.
C) No Samuel Morse- Consider the idea that the telegraph helped to secure and introduce metropiltan society even in the most barren areas of the country. With the telegraph and eventually the intercontinental railroad , even the "hicks" in California and Oregon could follow what was happening in Boston and New York.

Actually, I believe it was exactly the opposite, Straha. It was the peasantry that kept a lot of the values (rather than swore, rutted, and made merry; oh, how my Socialist heart screams at the equating of the peasant to an animal), maintained staunch belief in the Church, and generally lived a "good, moral" life.

Consider:

1) For a long time (in fact, up until and including the Industrial Revolution), the peasantry and the proletariat were, for the most part, illiterate; thus, the ideas and writers who scoffed the Church and the old, "hidebound" moral system (I'd point to Voltaire, and, although not a writer, the Marquis d' Sade) were not introduced to the peasantry/proletariat at large. The noblemen, however, were the ones who DID read and, in some cases, accept these ideas.

2) I don't know how many times you've rutted and made merry, or worked as a peasant or as a proletarian in an old factory, but it isn't easy work. Rutting and making merry aren't really in the lives of the people of the lowest class (for example, the belief that "life is hard, but you'll be rewarded in the afterlife" was most popular in the lowest class, because life WAS hard). The bourgeoisie, however, were the ones known for decadence.

It was the elimination (at least apparent elimination) of the peasantry and the proletariat that has allowed these old values to crumble. Those on the bottom now believe they are on the top, or at least the middle (something like 30% of Americans believe they are at the "top tax bracket," when actually it's something like 8%), and thus like to indulge in what they see as historical what those "of their class" do, even if they don't actively realize they're doing it. If anything, the establishment of true Communism, where everyone becomes the proletariat, would go the farthest in maintaining a very strong moral fiber.

And I won't even ASK where you developed the theory that "of course, part of this is because, a lot of the moral structures never really filtered down to the peasantry, who swore, rutted, and made merry whilstworking like beasts to eke out a living."

And I won't even ASK where you developed the theory that "of course, part of this is because, a lot of the moral structures never really filtered down to the peasantry, who swore, rutted, and made merry whilstworking like beasts to eke out a living."

Click to expand...

I guess its partly because of historical truth - the morals of the peasantry, while strict, were strict by their own standards rather than those of the church and therefore frequently in for criticism, and bad language is one of the few vices that require no free time, not much education, and no money - and partly because it is what the upper classes at all times WANTED to believe, and thus wrote.

I mean, in the middle ages the common literary image of the peasant is a belching, farting, rutting glutton. By 1800, this had refined to the point where the middle class reader felt sure that the working classes were not unredeemable, if they could only be taught some work ethic...

BTW, the Marquis de Sade was a writer - it was the only thing he could be, really, what with being imprisoned in the Bastille. He never actually DID all those things.

I think a good way to improve the appeal of Christianity is for it not to discredit itself so much. Over the past 300-odd years, the established churches (led fearlessly by the Catholic church, but the Protestant and Orthodox ones no slouches themselves) have been able to unfailingly identify ideas whose time has come, and relentlessly oppose them to the point of inanity. Anyone remember the 'Syllabus'? In case nobody was paying attention (actually, precious few people were...), until Vatican II, all Catholics were technically required to believe that democracy, republicanism, freedom of speech, a free press, socialism, and equality before the law were all bad ideas. Then there were the shameful displays of servility before the dictators of the twentieth centuries (the political position of the established churches in Germany goes back in a large part to the sweeteners Hitler threw in for their tacit support, and the Patriarch of Moscow even cosied up to Stalin). Great ideas came out of thechurches (think of Liberation Theology, church poor relief programmes, urban neighborhood development etc.) but they usually came in spite of the leadership while said leaders threw their moral credit behind Creationism, opposition to contraception, premarital sex, or socialist ideas.

In short, if the churches had been a little more ready to acceopt modernity. modernity very likely would have been a lot more willing to accept the churches. It is my firm belief that the success of popular Christianity in America is because the free churches there were better at joining the modern world (a very interesting article in last month's Prospect about the way American churches worked, as opposed to Europe's). There's no doubt people want to have spiritual guidance and faith - they're just looking for it elsewhere when the churches can't deliver. So, put in place a seriously reformist pope instead of Pius IX and we're already halfway there...

I'll gladly debate this point with you. While the bourgeois refinement was beyond the peasantry, acts of fornication were very private and done in an almost mechanical way; again, all you have to do is really work a farm for just a week. I've spent a month as a farmer in Artsakh, and the work was so backbreaking that I didn't have time to pen any of it in my notes, much less rut or make merry. It was breakfast, work, dinner, sleep. I'd point to the historic examples of witchcraft trials, carried out almost entirely by peasantry (save for a few examples), and with the chief crimes always being fornication and lewdness. Swearing is not something that is considered a focal point of today's loss of morality, and, in fact, swearing in public (and particularly cursing, or using the Lord's name in vain) was shunned; slaps in the face by shocked women were common if anyone was stupid enough to curse in public. The sexual indulgences that exist today are the calling card of the bourgeoisie, not the peasantry. That is why people in small towns used to be so incredibly shocked when they came to big cities; the smaller the town and more agricultural/industrial the life you live, the more you tend to live a moral life. Show me a single instance of someone from New York or Los Angeles going to a town of 200 and being shocked at their lack of morals.

And please read up on the life of Donatien Alphonse François, Marquis d' Sade. Aside from the usual infidelities against his wife, he:

- held a prostitute named Rose Keller captive and abused her (1768).
- was considered a "mortal threat" to prostitutes and warned of to the brothels by the chief of the Paris vice squad.
- was found guilty of sexual crimes.
- seduced the younger sister of his wife, then led her into an orgy, all while she visited his military fortress.
- hired a harem of young girls as sexual slaves.

You have to be a REALLY twisted individual to have the BROTHELS shun you.

I think perhaps the identification of the peasantry's lifestyle with that of the exploited proletariat doesn't work - until laws came in during the nineteenth century, women and children regularly worked in the mines for example, and rape (of both) was common and accepted (in practice).

I think the beginning of industrialisation is what you look for in the established church really losing control - after all you had MISSIONS TO the cities poor, they were viewed as being as in need of missionaries as heathens in Africa or what-have-you were viewed. A lot of this was down to the uprooting from their previous social environment, and the establishment almost from the new of urban ones.

I can't remember why I'm saying all this now...

Grey Wolf

Witchcraft persecutions

I'd point to the historic examples of witchcraft trials, carried out almost entirely by peasantry (save for a few examples), and with the chief crimes always being fornication and lewdness.

That's not exactly true. The witchcraft persecutions certainly involved lots of peasants, but the people who sat in judgment and who handled the formal prosecution and sentencing were usually from the elites of society - the aristocracy, clergy, or wealthier townspeople.

Basically there were 2 different conceptions of "witchcraft", which overlapped but also had many differences. The popular conception was that a "witch" was a person who was able to use supernatural powers to cause harm to somebody else in the community by such means as making the person fall ill, or ruining their crops, or making their animals sick. This was hardly unique to Europe - varieties of this belief have been found in many (perhaps most) cultures in every part of the world. These witches were often associated in a general way with the devil and demons, since they were using malevolent powers to cause harm, but the official church for most of the medieval period didn't place much emphasis on looking for witches. There were law codes in a few places in medieval Europe that actually forbade persecution for witchcraft. There were probably some vigilante-style killings of people who were believed to be witches, but little official prosecution.

In the 15th century, however, some church authorities developed a more elaborate and specifically Christian idea of what constituted "witchcraft". A witch was a person who had made a specific contract or agreement with the devil in return for receiving the power to hurt or kill other people by supernatural means. The 15th century book Malleus Maleficarum ("The Hammer of Witches"), originally written by 2 Dominican friars from Germany, codified a lot of doctrine about witches - that women were far more vulnerable to Satan than men, that witches met in secret places to hold wild orgies at which Satan himself would appear, that they could fly, that they had demons assisting them who often took the form of animals, etc. Before too long the Catholic church officially endorsed these beliefs. Luther, Calvin, and other Reformation leaders also accepted most of these doctrines about witchcraft even as they rejected many other aspects of the old church. In the 16th and 17th centuries, this new, more detailed, and even more frightening picture of withcraft gained general acceptance among both the elite and the people as a whole.
In the old days, someone accused of witchcraft was only in trouble if her accuser could convince most of the village that she really had caused damage. If people thought that she had killed someone or committed another serious crime, the suspect might be killed. In the 15th through 17th century, though, an accusation of witchcraft no longer involved just the "common people". The local authorities, both church and secular, would quickly jump in with all the power of the law behind them. Torture was explicitly condoned and authorized. Now, it was assumed that witches rarely worked alone, so the suspect would be tortured until she named "accomplices". The accomplices would be arrested, and tortured in their turn. In a few cases, thousands of people, mostly women but also including quite a few men, were arrested for witchcraft - enough to largely depopulate entire rural regions or towns. Usually it didn't get that far, but to have dozens of people arrested and 8 or 10 or 12 executed was not uncommon once a persecution really got underway. It was the fact that the elites of society in many areas embraced a more elaborate and paranoid version of the witchcraft beliefs held by ordinary people that turned an ugly but very localised phenomenon into really large-scale persecution.

"You have to be a REALLY twisted individual to have the BROTHELS shun you."

Amen brother. Methinks that might be a good signature.

"I think the beginning of industrialisation is what you look for in the established church really losing control - after all you had MISSIONS TO the cities poor, they were viewed as being as in need of missionaries as heathens in Africa or what-have-you were viewed."

The reason there were missions to the urban poor was that their material needs suddenly needed a whole lot more looking after than before. That, plus the amount of temptation went up--there are more opportunities for vice in a city than in the countryside.

I applied for a job @ the YMCA over the summer and they had a wall with a timeline of the organization's history. They started out providing wholesome alternatives to gambling, prostitution, etc to the urban working class.

"I've spent a month as a farmer in Artsakh"

Wow, that's really interesting. Isn't Artsakh that disputed area between Azerbaijan and Armenia (or close by)? Could you tell us more about living/working there?

"Great ideas came out of thechurches (think of Liberation Theology, church poor relief programmes, urban neighborhood development etc.) but they usually came in spite of the leadership while said leaders threw their moral credit behind Creationism, opposition to contraception, premarital sex, or socialist ideas."

The poor relief programs aren't some new thing...read Acts and some of the letters of Paul. The early Christians were VERY much into looking after widows, the poor, invalids, etc. That, and evangelism (doing good for others could be considered evangelism--many people today would ask you why you care and THEN you can tell them about Christ), seems to have occupied most of their free time.

"I'd point to the historic examples of witchcraft trials, carried out almost entirely by peasantry (save for a few examples), and with the chief crimes always being fornication and lewdness"

The witch trials were about fornication and lewdness? I thought, in times of trouble, the community reacted by scapegoating old widows and the like. I never read anything about lewdness. Of course, all the accusations of having sex with demons and stuff could be considered a type of lewdness, but the fact there are demons involved seems to me to be something of a difference.

"So, put in place a seriously reformist pope instead of Pius IX and we're already halfway there..."

Was Piux IX the Pope in the late 1800s who claimed that the only moral form of government was an absolute monarchy, indulged in papal infallibility claims along the scale of Innocent, and provoked the secession of the "Old Catholics" (who I think are technically part of the Anglican Communion now)?

"Straha- Well, here are several ideas that could bring about a more Christian fundamentalist ATL, based on "values of the Heartland"..."

Since when are the "values of the heartland" some kind of "Christian fundamentalist"? The CF moniker brings up people trying to yank Harry Potter from libraries and preachers railing against dancing and that sort of thing; by the way, those things aren't even the fundamental values of Christianity at all.

In full agreement with Matt's point. The title of the thread makes no reference to Fundamentalism, which is generally only an extremist position taken by a minority (see also: Islam, Judaism).

I think what we're looking for here (correct me if I'm wrong) is a Western culture that not only readily embraced Christianity in its past, it applied its tenets and has developed a society that works within it. In such a world, you would not have stories like this: France: No Need For Christian References in EU Constitution; quite the opposite, in fact.

This is a tricky one; how far back to look for a POD? One of the abiding hindrances to Christianity in Europe has been state religion, which maligned the spiritual into the political time and again. But this was true as far back as Rome. Catholic vs. Protestant see-sawing (and elevation of the clergy to positions of nobility) gave the citizenry no clear, honest and moral leadership in things spiritual. Luther and the other reformists had the right idea, and the schism of Protestantism eliminated some of the extortionist power away from the RCC, and attempting to bring a more personal spirituality to the masses (no more indulgences, salvation by faith, not works, a God of love, not law) but it was still a period of political maneuvering, and the biggest social impact (immediately) was to give various Crowns a way to use some new leverage against a RCC that cramped their style.

It could be argued that until the Industrial Revolution, the so-called "Christian" church (all-inclusive here) was primarily a political entity. Not until monarchies were divested of power (the dissolution of "Divine Right," which kept royalty kowtowing to church whims) and imperialism began to wane did the Church seem to find its original mission -- the spiritual welfare of the public.

Knight Of Armenia said:

I'll gladly debate this point with you. While the bourgeois refinement was beyond the peasantry, acts of fornication were very private and done in an almost mechanical way; again, all you have to do is really work a farm for just a week. I've spent a month as a farmer in Artsakh, and the work was so backbreaking that I didn't have time to pen any of it in my notes, much less rut or make merry. It was breakfast, work, dinner, sleep.

Click to expand...

I'll point out that 'rut' is not a word I'd use for people. However, my point is not that peasants were tireless fornicators. I've done farm work (though only as a matter of three days) and I know it's tiring even with modern machines. However, there are holidays. At least for Germany (and I'd be surprised not tio find it elsewhere) we have evidence for widespread premarital sex among the farming population from the 15th century onwards.
This was mostly confined to young people who were going toget married, but it was widely considered normal and many brides went to the altar (or rather, the church door atthat time) pregnant. Nobody thought ill of this. Widows and widowers, too, apparently often had sex outside of marriage. This is, of course, because marriage always affects property and family relationships and thus could be avoided for good reasons. However, whenever an authority writes on this you can almost feel the palpable outrage. I suspect this is not so much at the practice but at the lack of guilt felt over it (a bourgeois fornicator feels properly guilty. In fact, guilt is part of the /frisson/ of sin. It wouldn't be half as much fun if it were permitted) As I said - strict moral codes, but their own.

I'd point to the historic examples of witchcraft trials, carried out almost entirely by peasantry (save for a few examples), and with the chief crimes always being fornication and lewdness.

Click to expand...

from all studies I looked at, the charges brought against witches by their accusers were almost invariably hostile magic - creating illness, stealing produce, causing bad weather etc. The great German persecution wave of the 1620s and 1630s frequently refers back to the harsh winters and famines of 1614 (IIRC - around that date, anyway). Shakespeare's witches also don't go around cavorting with devils (though admittedly English law had a different take on witches). I suspect much of the sexual aspect was brought in by the clerical 'experts' in whose writings it first occurs and who are by far the more likely suspects. After all, the intial charges of immorality were identical to those raised against the Cathars, Waldensians and Brethren of the Free Spirit, and these persecutions certainly did not originate with the common people.

Swearing is not something that is considered a focal point of today's loss of morality, and, in fact, swearing in public (and particularly cursing, or using the Lord's name in vain) was shunned; slaps in the face by shocked women were common if anyone was stupid enough to curse in public.

Click to expand...

I guess that depends on who you talk to. My grandparents were quite shocked when I came back from Dublin with a significantly expanded vocabulary
But again, the few sources we have for NW Europe are pretty clear that bad language was a common complaint of the more sensitive. It seems to have transcended class, though - in fact, some German petit bourgeois families in the 1760s familiarly used vocabulary that today earns children a sharp rebuke in their letters (and, we expect, conversation). The frequency with which verbal attacks play a role in surviving court cases from the village milieu also makes me suspect that the peasantry were as foul-mouthed as the next man. Not that I buy Norbert Elias' argument about how the bourgeoisie civilised Europe, but I doubt there was ever a widespread, effective prohibition in force anywhere.
BTB, to this day rural and urban people in Germany swear differently (at least the older generation - young kids from the farm all say 'fuck' like their urban counterparts). That may be behind the common literary stereotype of the peasant as foul-mouthed.

The sexual indulgences that exist today are the calling card of the bourgeoisie, not the peasantry. That is why people in small towns used to be so incredibly shocked when they came to big cities; the smaller the town and more agricultural/industrial the life you live, the more you tend to live a moral life. Show me a single instance of someone from New York or Los Angeles going to a town of 200 and being shocked at their lack of morals.

Click to expand...

That I will not doubt. Today's "collapse of morals" is a very different thing from the alleged "immorality" of the peasantry. After all, our modern sexual sins are either of the commercial type (pornography, prostitution) - which is arguably the most bourgeois kind of immorality imaginable since they so neatly fit into every aspect of the market ideology - or irreligiously libertine. Neither is at all typical of small communities which, after all, tend to be religious, close-knit, and tending to a rather different type of transgression pattern. However, I have met many people coming from villages whjo ended up astonished how little different the city really was - more open and with a lot of vulgar display of sex, but not really any more immoral. I'm not sure if I can beluieve their accounts of whatgoes on under wraps in their home communities, but if it is true they're certainly interesting enough places to live.

And please read up on the life of Donatien Alphonse François, Marquis d' Sade. Aside from the usual infidelities against his wife, he:

- held a prostitute named Rose Keller captive and abused her (1768).
- was considered a "mortal threat" to prostitutes and warned of to the brothels by the chief of the Paris vice squad.
- was found guilty of sexual crimes.
- seduced the younger sister of his wife, then led her into an orgy, all while she visited his military fortress.
- hired a harem of young girls as sexual slaves.

You have to be a REALLY twisted individual to have the BROTHELS shun you.

Click to expand...

The 'Keller' affair I will concede. De Sade certainly was no angel, and this one (as well as the 'poisoning' case) got him in trouble with the law. Beyond that, however, from what I've read his actual exploits have been massively overblown. Having sex with prostitutes, being unfaithful to one's wife, using aphrodisiacs, and indulging in kinky sex (including orgies and power games) was hardly uncommon in his circles at the time. What made him different from others were his writings. I'm not at all surprised that he was considered a moral threat to brothel inmates - he was an avowed libertine with very disturbing fantasies, and the government's concern for the souls and faith of prostitutes was more pronounced than that for their physical wellbeing back then. If he had been into straightforward rape I'm sure this would have been more readily overlooked.

Matt Quinn said:

The poor relief programs aren't some new thing...read Acts and some of the letters of Paul. The early Christians were VERY much into looking after widows, the poor, invalids, etc. That, and evangelism (doing good for others could be considered evangelism--many people today would ask you why you care and THEN you can tell them about Christ), seems to have occupied most of their free time.

Click to expand...

Indeed, charity is one of oldest and best Christian traditions. which is why I think it's so sad that so many churches tend to forget about it in favour of other issues.

I mean, wouldn't it be great if we could get the same amount of passion, energy, media coverage and funding devoted to, say, health care for the poor or education for the handicappede and disadvntaged that many church organisations devote to fighting Darwinism, abortion, contraception, pornography, gay marriage or Sunday work?

"So, put in place a seriously reformist pope instead of Pius IX and we're already halfway there..."

Was Pius IX the Pope in the late 1800s who claimed that the only moral form of government was an absolute monarchy, indulged in papal infallibility claims along the scale of Innocent, and provoked the secession of the "Old Catholics" (who I think are technically part of the Anglican Communion now)?

Click to expand...

The same. Thanks to him we have the syllabus, the updated Index, the doctrine of papal infallibility (which until the 1870s actually was mooted, but never codified and widely opposed in the church) and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, along with the foundations for an unhealthy fascination on the part of the hierarchy with sexual immorality, the virtue of political obedience, and the evils of anything smacking of Socialism.

Imagine for a second someone like John XXIII, or the widely reviled, but actually quite moderate 'Paul of the Pill'. Or even John Paul II, for all of his faults. What a difference to the late 19th century that could make. I mean, the Vatican OTL got so awful at one point that they managed to seriously piss off Bismarck. Can you think of a more natural ally in defense of traditional values? That would be the equivalent of being called 'right-wing nuts' by Jesse Helms (OK, John Ashcroft. bad enough, eh?)

"I mean, the Vatican OTL got so awful at one point that they managed to seriously piss off Bismarck."

Is that where the kulturkampf came from? Did Bismarck and the Emperor think that the Pope was trying to take control of Germany or something to that effect?

Matt Quinn said:

"I mean, the Vatican OTL got so awful at one point that they managed to seriously piss off Bismarck."

Is that where the kulturkampf came from? Did Bismarck and the Emperor think that the Pope was trying to take control of Germany or something to that effect?

Click to expand...

It was a lot more complex in the details, but basically, yes. The German government wasvery worried about the influence of the Catholic church (especially in the south) and wanted to roll it back, but unlike France, they couldn't negotiate a concordate to suit them because of the federalised, very loose structure of Germany at the time. Things got pretty messy from that point.

"A) 1835- Try to imagine Brigham Young, leader of the Mormon movement , instead of ending up in th edry desert region of "Deseret" (a.k.a. Utah) the Mormons march on towards California. There would certainly be a clash as the Mexican culture of California collides withe Mormon lifestyle. But consider the drastic changes caused by San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco becoming more like Salt Lake City."

That's a good idea. However, when the Mormons settled in the Salt Lake area (and established their own State), the Mexican government didn't really care b/c they were out in the Middle of Nowhere. Now, in more populous and better-governed California, the Mormons are going to have to put themselves under Mexican political authority or fight a full-blown war.

Perhaps we should discuss this matter further. We might be able to wring a TL out of it.

Oh, and Matt, I spent about 5 weeks, from April 9th to May 15th, in the Hayrenik, or Fatherland. Specifically, I spent about three and a half weeks in Artsakh, including a two week stop with a family in what is known as Hartayin Artsakh, or, roughly translated, "smooth" Artsakh, which is the non-mountains regions to the south of the official borders of the NKR. I helped an Armenian family with chores and farming, as well as shepherding (a popular joke among my friends for years has been "if all else fails, I'll become a hoviv (shepherd) and raise goats in Artsakh"... and I actually did! )

I also helped in the construction of the North-South Highway that is being built to connect the various regions of Artsakh together (save Shahumian, which is, at the moment, occupied).

It was interesting... And I gained a newfound respect for my countrymen who actually stay and carry the fight, while I'm here in the US (incidentally, I'm returning on 6/16/04, this time for a 2 month hitch).

In 1896 Charles M. Shelton published a novel titled "In His Steps". It was the story of several socially prominent, wealthy Christians who decided to spend a year not taking any action in their private lives or business ventures without first asking themselves "If Jesus were in this situation, what would He do?"

In OTL the idea didn't catch on back then, as Shelton hoped it would. Within the past five years or so, a "What Would Jesus Do?" movement actually has started. I don't know how much effect it has had so far.

But suppose it had gotten underway a hundred years ago? WI Christians all over the United States, and later other countries, because of that book, had stuck to the idea of a more spiritual way of life, instead of letting morals gradually decay throughout the twentieth century?

If you're interested "In His Steps" is in the public domain, still in print, and widely available. There are at least two modern versions, I believe - "What Would Jesus Do?" and "In His Steps Today".

"A) 1835- Try to imagine Brigham Young, leader of the Mormon movement , instead of ending up in th edry desert region of "Deseret" (a.k.a. Utah) the Mormons march on towards California. There would certainly be a clash as the Mexican culture of California collides withe Mormon lifestyle. But consider the drastic changes caused by San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco becoming more like Salt Lake City."

Actually, the Mormon Brigade from the Mexican-American War went to southern California after the war and were the ones that developed much of the infrastructure around San Diego and Los Angeles at the time. Their families were waiting for them in Nebraska at the time, I believe, the Brigade having volunteered when they were trekking from Missouri towards Utah.

I suppose all you need for a POD is for the Mormons to decide that sparsely populated southern California, which they pretty much built with their own hands, is rightfully their homeland and that you can't get further away from Washington, DC than the opposite coast. Los Angeles becomes Los Santos? City of Angels to City of Saints? Considering Los Angeles was only a village at the time, perhaps most of the Mexicans would convert or be pressured to leave by a large immigration of Mormons.

I suppose all you need for a POD is for the Mormons to decide that sparsely populated southern California, which they pretty much built with their own hands, is rightfully their homeland and that you can't get further away from Washington, DC than the opposite coast. Los Angeles becomes Los Santos? City of Angels to City of Saints? Considering Los Angeles was only a village at the time, perhaps most of the Mexicans would convert or be pressured to leave by a large immigration of Mormons.

That seems quite plausible, although the members of the Mormon Brigade would have had to convince Brigham Young and the main Mormon leadership at the time that southern California was the ideal place to settle and build a community. Presumably, Utah would be settled somewhat later and by non-Mormons.

You might get a situation where southern California today is a pretty straight-laced, Mormon-dominated area, while Utah is more like OTL Nevada.