It required pretty basic changes in government law and policy to enable the Church to proselyte even in Span and Italy, let alone in the former Warsaw Pact nations and Mongolia.

Sadly, there were also changes for the worse, when Lebanon and Iran dissolved into chaos and repressive regimes, ending Mormon missionary work in those countries.

I can’t help but think that if Romney were president, it would help overcome some of the visa problems that some European nations give to our missionaries. I remember Mike Young, when he was chairman of the US religious freedom commission, relating that he was told that a bureaucrat in Belgium was not prejudiced against Mormons, he hated all religious people equally.

The second question, it seems to me, will vary a lot by region. How the Church is supposed to operate an effective missionary program in Western or Eastern Europe is a mystery to me. My research suggested that the place where Mormons were most likely to be subject to legal harassment was in Russia. Western Europe can also be a legally hostile environment, although it is obviously far, far better than Russia. But the real problems, as you point out, are often less a matter of legal negotiation — although as an American lawyer the extent to which European legal systems are comfortable regulating public expression worries me — than cultural negotiation. My bet is that we will gradually see a certain amount of devolution and regionalization of missionary work. My bet is that it will also be slower and less radical than it probably ought to be. The real problem is that the Church institutionally is pretty uncomfortable with failure, which means we are probably too risk adverse and have too little variation and experimentation. Ideally, I’d like to see a higher tolerance for bad ideas and more variation. Then we see what works, reinforce what does and discard what doesn’t. I tend to think that we are better off fostering evolution rather than trying to plan success.

Who really knows, though?

It is certainly true that the church has been entering into a more quietist and non-confrontational mode of interacting with governments. Two remarks:

– To what extent can the fact that the majority of top church leaders are still openly affiliated with the Republican party continue to influence, in other countries, a perception of Mormon political involvement or at least of strong leanings to certain political choices with international impact? (cf. also the affiliation of Mormon members of Congress). In media abroad the church has a strong image of being part of the American Christian right: its involvement against same-sex marriage has not been helpful in that respect, particularly in countries where SSM is legal. Can we expect the church to further “back off”, confirming a continuation of the movement you analyzed?

– Because of a perceived threat of Islamization, the West (in particular Europe, but also other regions) is showing a heightened sensitivity to the detrimental effects of conversion to a foreign religion. Expansive religions have never been welcome in countries with their own culturo-religious traditions. With thousands of Mormon missionaries trying to convert people in such countries, could we expect more governmental and ecclesiastical opposition (like in Greece, Russia…)? The church has already shown it backs off in countries like Israel. At the same time Islamic sensitivity is increasing the awareness of “insult” and “blasphemy” when it comes to trying to convert others actively. These seem to be new elements to be taken into account as the church grapples with the legal diversity abroad.