WI: Joseph Smith Was Never Born
- Thread starter PNWKing
- Start date
1. Utah would be an entirely different region.
TTL Colorado, Nevada, and possibly some of whatever becomes of Wyoming will likely get more land or a different border with whatever becomes of the land claimed by OTL State of Utah.
The Salt Lake City area(if there is any equivalent of it ITTL) receives whatever population pattern it gets TTL from reasons with much less pull factor to the general area than religious pilgrimage (mining will definitely be one of if not its main pull factor since beyond Mormons there were various exploitable mineral deposits (such as copper, silver, and even gold); Though much later, a minor tourist industry around Salt Lake may form from a Badlands or Smoky Mountains "American Wonder" type of appeal).
2. California would be an arguably different region.
The Mormon trail set up ofc by the Mormons as well as the well-accommodating stopping point in an expanse of sparsely inhabited country that was was Salt Lake City were vital to the massive amount of Americans who exploited the Gold Rush in California IOTL (which began only when a Mormon there discover said gold in the region); and those Americans who settled the larger region. On top of allowing Californian settlers to get from A to B, Mormons in Utah also spread valuable knowledge on how to exploit less arable land that would later be adopted in California for farmland still tended in California today. Without the knowledge and convenience provided by Mormon occupation in Utah, California would still likely be heavily populated as a product of the gold rush(which was bound to be discovered at some point even without a Mormon discovering it) and the fact that San Francisco is a naturally good place for a port on the Pacific. However, it may be ever so less populated, some towns may never be founded, and farmland in certain areas IOTL may be unexploited at least until technology and/or the common know-how in California catches up to the OTL techniques of Mormon farmers.
3. Many of those involved in Mormonism wouldn't migrate where they did, parents wouldn't meet, many people would never be born.
Mormonism had and continues to have a system of young men of the church doing missions in far away places to spread their faith. If Mormonism never forms without its prophet, people who were converted to Mormonism across the world IOTL would never be converted, and those who were converted and migrated to Utah (as many especially from Denmark did) would likely migrate other places or stay where they were.
TTL Colorado, Nevada, and possibly some of whatever becomes of Wyoming will likely get more land or a different border with whatever becomes of the land claimed by OTL State of Utah.
The Salt Lake City area(if there is any equivalent of it ITTL) receives whatever population pattern it gets TTL from reasons with much less pull factor to the general area than religious pilgrimage (mining will definitely be one of if not its main pull factor since beyond Mormons there were various exploitable mineral deposits (such as copper, silver, and even gold); Though much later, a minor tourist industry around Salt Lake may form from a Badlands or Smoky Mountains "American Wonder" type of appeal).
2. California would be an arguably different region.
The Mormon trail set up ofc by the Mormons as well as the well-accommodating stopping point in an expanse of sparsely inhabited country that was was Salt Lake City were vital to the massive amount of Americans who exploited the Gold Rush in California IOTL (which began only when a Mormon there discover said gold in the region); and those Americans who settled the larger region. On top of allowing Californian settlers to get from A to B, Mormons in Utah also spread valuable knowledge on how to exploit less arable land that would later be adopted in California for farmland still tended in California today. Without the knowledge and convenience provided by Mormon occupation in Utah, California would still likely be heavily populated as a product of the gold rush(which was bound to be discovered at some point even without a Mormon discovering it) and the fact that San Francisco is a naturally good place for a port on the Pacific. However, it may be ever so less populated, some towns may never be founded, and farmland in certain areas IOTL may be unexploited at least until technology and/or the common know-how in California catches up to the OTL techniques of Mormon farmers.
3. Many of those involved in Mormonism wouldn't migrate where they did, parents wouldn't meet, many people would never be born.
Mormonism had and continues to have a system of young men of the church doing missions in far away places to spread their faith. If Mormonism never forms without its prophet, people who were converted to Mormonism across the world IOTL would never be converted, and those who were converted and migrated to Utah (as many especially from Denmark did) would likely migrate other places or stay where they were.
Zioneer
Banned
Foushoo's take seems pretty reasonable, though I will note that it's certainly possible that a similar religion appears, if not one as esoteric and different as Mormonism. After all, in the upstate New York area known as the Burned-Over District, nearly ten different churches arose over the course of the early 1800s. Also, Joseph Smith's family was known for religious unorthodoxy even before Joseph Smith's dramatic revelations. His father, Joseph Sr, recorded strange allegedly prophetic dreams, and his mother Lucy Mack Smith was from a family of would-be religious reformers herself. And Joseph had plenty of siblings, any of whom could become interested in similar movements as Joseph did.
But assuming that no Joseph Smith means no similar religious movement arises, what Foushoo said would probably happen.
But assuming that no Joseph Smith means no similar religious movement arises, what Foushoo said would probably happen.
I still assume that due to the circumstances and the era that something vaguely similar will emerge from that nutty neck of the woods, though it obviously wouldn't have the same path to walk as the Mormons did, after all it is pretty unrealistic if you look at it from an outsider perspective.
A convicted fraudster has 'visions', gathers a following that grows despite being chased out of multiple states and proclaiming even more extreme teachings, ultimately martyring himself despite wanting to run away. Then the following instead of breaking apart into nothing holds together and flees into the desert and creates a functioning nationstate in all but name, fights the US government, then eventually moderates itself enough in order for 'their' territory to be admitted into the Union.
Its like the story of Joan of Arc, if it hadn't actually happened NO ONE would buy it as a fictional story, it's too weird and unrealistic.
I always approach these under the assumption that the religion being discussed is true.
In that case, somebody along the way - and likely in the same area - is going to be hearing all the different religious movements, all of which say they believe in the Bible, and all of which believe something different. He's going to ask God what to do and Moroni will appear.
Depending on exactly when and where that is, we would see a different Mormonism. A revelatory faith can change the rules, and God is playing a different chessboard if the restored faith begins in a different time and place.
In that case, somebody along the way - and likely in the same area - is going to be hearing all the different religious movements, all of which say they believe in the Bible, and all of which believe something different. He's going to ask God what to do and Moroni will appear.
Depending on exactly when and where that is, we would see a different Mormonism. A revelatory faith can change the rules, and God is playing a different chessboard if the restored faith begins in a different time and place.
To add on to the topic Zioneer and Shiva were generally talking about; As I understand it, though there were many religions that sprang up at the same time and often same areas that Mormonism did, I don't think Mormonism "path to walk" was inevitable to occur by some other group if not the Mormons. In particular, I think the genesis of Mormon Utah depends alot on Brigham Young being in the right place at the right time. When looking at Utah from the lense of an 1840s Mormon(or any group that replaces them), the region wasn't the most obvious choice. It was both sparsely surveyed(BY had two sources for his migration that were written only a few years earlier), rumored to be bad for agriculture and inhabited by unfreindly natives, and beyond the borders of the US. For some of these reasons, many Mormons decided to follow other Mormon leaders (such as Sydney Rigdon who led his followers back to Pennsylvania). My point is, without BY happening to have a leadership role, be given unique advantage to take advantage in a schism in the church, and have his religious group pushed far enough west to even think of a more risky and likely labor-intensive migration like Utah; would a religious pilgrimage to this scale ever be actualized and as successful as BY's Mormon colonization?