It is true that we do have some people leave the UK. As Jonathan points out, it is as likely to be Oceania as it is America. And I have a sense that those that leave are not viewed as brave pioneers. The vast majority of UK Saints stay, and they want others to stay too.

Thanks for that very fine comment; it adds a needed element to this discussion. (Not that we haven’t thrown enough at poor Brother Bell already!). If you haven’t seen it, you might want to check out a long thread prompted by a post by Wilfried Decoo, titled “Remain in your homeland” (click here). Some of the very tensions and problems you mention are addressed there.

Ana asks how UK members feel about the departure of their fellow countrymen and women for America last century. My concern, however, is more for the continuing migration of significant numbers of the strongest, most able members to the U.S. True, there are positives, such as increased likelihood of children of migrants remaining within the fold in heavily LDS areas. But the Church in the UK continues to pay a heavy price for this in terms of loss of committed members. Does anyone know how many UK-born Mormons live in the States (or indeed, Canada). I would be surprised if the number were less than 40,000, though obviously, not all will be active. Given that at most 60,000 of the purported 180,000 members in the UK have any realistic affiliation to the Church in practice I find this a regrettable trend..though I admit to a degree of hypocrisy since I left for Australia myself (though Australia has some of the same problems with migration that bedevils the UK Church)!

How about a few more brave North American members returning the favour, by migrating to the UK to add to the stability of the Church there??

.

Great Britain was a key ally to the U.S. strategy in Iraq, something that has been politically costly for Tony Blair. How do (typical) British LDS view the War in Iraq? How do they view their ties to an “American” Church? Have missionaries (or the Church itself) experienced difficulty in reaching out to others, or suffered any “persecutions” as a result of these American ties (or, in the case of many missionaries, simply being American)? Do Brits simply see past the differences in political opinion?

Just from what you see and hear, of course … I don’t expect you to speak for an entire nation of Mormons on this.

Every parliamentary system has different rules about how elections work. Generally speaking, there are statutes–as well as party traditions and obligations–which limit to a degree the ability of a prime minister to call an election “whenever he or she wants to.” More usually, there are set term limits, and a prime minister must call an election before those limits expire, but may also call an election a while beforehand if other concerns force his or her hand (a vote of no confidence within the parliament itself, for example). Also, generally you have certain candidates nominated by their respective parties to stand for seats representing certain districts or ridings, but there are often no hard or fast rules about residency requirements or substitutions (that is, it is not uncommon for parties concerned about election results to make as certain as possible that key candidates are placed in districts where they have a greater likelihood of being elected). You also sometimes have “at large” candidates with no particular district. Overwhelmingly, in the past, parliamentary systems in Western Europe and Canda have been party-centric (that is, you voted for the party, not necessarily the candidate), but in recent years American-style “retail,” person-to-candidate politics has become more common. And yes, when an election is called, everyone comes up for election all at once–parliamentary systems, especially contemporary ones, are essentially unicameral in that sense.