This is the Place, but What If...
By Davis Bitton

When it became obvious that the Latter-day Saints would have to remove themselves from Illinois, several different places were proposed as the new place of gathering. In the confusion of the time and in the view of advocates for different locations, it was an open question.

Partly because they did not trust their enemies to leave them alone, and partly because they were still gathering information, Brigham Young and the apostles did not mind leaving an impression of vagueness.

One apostle, Lyman Wight, insisted that Texas was the place. At least he had been instructed by Joseph Smith to check it out, and, not feeling the same loyalty toward Brigham Young, he persisted in his colonization scheme. With less than 200 followers, he traveled southward, established a settlement in central Texas, relocated and established three other settlements, noticed the diminution of his group's size, and finally died in 1858. His followers scattered, some remaining in Texas, others moving to Missouri or Illinois, and others going west to join the main body of the Saints.

The arid Great Basin was not the most inviting place in the West. But it was Mexican territory when possible destinations were being considered. Vancouver Island received a lot of attention. Even if the main body of refugees did not go there, it might become a place of gathering for British Latter-day Saints.

To some degree, the talk of Vancouver Island may have been intended to keep the critics guessing.
Oregon was frequently mentioned as a possible place for settling. In the Nauvoo newspaper, accounts describing the fertile soil and pleasant climate of Oregon were published on several occasions during 1845.

Another possibility was California. Samuel Brannan engaged the ship Brooklyn and advertised for passengers. Instead of an overland journey, they would travel by sea for five months. Finally arriving in what we call San Francisco Bay, they established a settlement, and Brannan sought to entice the other Saints to join them rather than settling in arid Utah. Even when Brigham Young rejected the idea, California continued to be an attraction.

On the other coast of the United States, a serious proposal came from General Duff Green in Washington, D.C. He tried to persuade the Saints to settle on the island of Santo Domingo (Hispaniola, now jointly occupied by Haiti and the Dominican Republic). The soil was fertile. It was on the main sea route from Europe to the Gulf of Mexico.

"Here," said Green, "they may raise their standard and invite all nations to unite with them in building up the Messiah's Kingdom. Is not this of God?" It just so happened that Green had obtained control over a large tract of land there and was hoping to negotiate a contract for settling it.

How would the Saints decide between these and other alternatives? Joseph Smith's predictions that they would go to the Rocky Mountains were a point of departure, but that was not the end of the matter. Information was gathered about the West. Lansford Hasting's Emigrant Guide to Oregon and California, for example, and John C. Fremont's reports, with accompanying maps, were examined.

John Taylor wrote a hymn about "Upper California — that's the place for me," a designation that then included the Great Basin of the Rocky Mountains.

"The Mormons firmly believed that God was directing and guiding their plans for the exodus," writes Lewis A.Christian. "Yet, in addition to divine direction, they continued to study and gain all the knowledge they could. [They] believed that only after they had made a thorough search and study of possible settlement sites would God lend his hand by either confirming or rejecting their decision." Maybe they had even read section 9 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

What if the different proposals had been taken up one by one in a selection committee? What if proponents and opponents had testified on each possible site? What if environmental impact studies had been required? Or detailed studies of water supply, minerals, and soil fertility?

Finally, what if the top choice or the first and second choices of the selection committee had then been presented in general conference, once again with passionate speeches pro and con, and the decision made by a majority vote? What if, in the absence of consensus, the people had scattered to go their separate ways?

Some might argue that such a "democratic" procedure would be preferable. Organizations run by parliamentary procedure, with resolutions from the floor of conferences, follow that model of governance. But the Latter-day Saints followed a different model.

When Joseph Smith specified the Rocky Mountains as the place of gathering, when the apostles gathered the information they could find about the Great Basin, and finally when Brigham Young, emerging from Emigration Canyon, said "This is the place" (or, more precisely, "This is the right place"), the discussion was over. People could grumble. They could leave on their own and go wherever they wished. But the vast majority sustained their leader, thanking God for a prophet to guide them in these latter days.

What if ... We cannot know exactly how, but it seems evident that had any of the other proposed locations been accepted, the subsequent history of the Church may well have been significantly different.