Freedom Monument in Riga, Latvia. 10

To Every Tongue The Church and Language in the Former Soviet Union

James A. Miller

About a month after their arrival in Latvia in 1992, the first Latter-day Saint missionaries from the Russia St. Petersburg Mission assigned to Riga set up a street display about the Church in an attempt to find potential converts. Once they put up the display, however, and began talking to Latvians passing by, a mild uproar ensued among those they contacted. The missionaries’ chosen location was the Freedom Monument, a memorial honoring Latvian independence. But the missionaries’ display and materials were in Russian, a language many Latvians considered the tongue of their country’s former occupiers. Boris Schiel, an ethnic Latvian Latter-day Saint who had returned to his native land as a senior missionary, came to the rescue and defused the situation somewhat by explaining that the young missionaries had studied Russian in America.1 However, even if the four young

James A. Miller is a Church History specialist at the Church History Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. James A. Miller

Russian-speaking missionaries had understood the national sensi- tivities beforehand, they still would only have been able to communicate in Russian. Although their leaders had sent them to Latvia, the Church had neither literature available in Latvian nor an established language-training program in Latvian for missionaries. This and other episodes from early Latter-day Saint history in the former Soviet Union illustrate the role that language plays in the Church’s efforts to fulfill its divinely appointed mission of preaching the gospel “to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people” (D&C 133:37). Indeed, since the Church’s nineteenth-century found- ing in America, reaching this intended global audience has required overcoming linguistic divisions that define the world in which we live. International Church history is replete with examples of the Church establishing a presence in previously unreached nations, initially having limited literature available in the local language and lacking personnel with needed language skills. In some regions, though, the Church has relied on the initial use of a second language commonly understood by some in the new area. Following its establishment in the area, it seeks to make its message available in other languages, meeting the needs of converts and extending its reach. Examining the Church’s beginnings in the former Soviet Union in the 1990s offers an oppor- tunity to explore how this approach affects the Church’s outreach and how it influences the spiritual lives of those who adopt the faith. Reliance on a widespread regional language, Russian, enabled the Church to establish footholds in several nations in the former Soviet Union relatively quickly, showing the effectiveness of an approach rely- ing on a second language. However, it also shows that the transition to using other local languages can require more time than initially anticipated. In the interim, the Church’s members and missionaries face limitations in learning and sharing the gospel message. The national and ethnic tensions of Eastern Europe made the situation in this region additionally complex. Thus Latter-day Saint history in the

210 The Worldwide Church former Soviet Union reveals the inherent advantages and limitations of the Church’s language procedures.

Language in the Former Soviet Union While linguistic diversity presents challenges to Church growth in many parts of the world, language in Eastern Europe—and particu- larly the former Soviet Union—presents unique concerns. The impe- rial and communist powers that ruled the region in the past often used language policy as a tool of the state to attack or subvert the identities of ethnic groups and nationalities on the periphery of their lands. The Russian Empire, for example, employed assimilation policies in its borderlands in the nineteenth century to “Russify” local elites and society. Later, under Stalin, the Soviet Union renewed and intensified Russification in some of the same areas. Fearful of perceived, foreign- backed conspiracies and nationalist movements in their borderlands, Soviet authorities also targeted various nationalities through terror, murder, and mass deportations. Ethnic Russians, by far the largest ethnic group in the Soviet Union, were also relocated to these areas to supply needed labor or to influence local political leadership.2 When the Soviet Union ended its existence in 1991, large groups of ethnic Russians suddenly found themselves minorities in newly indepen- dent states. Discriminatory policies and attitudes in state-party institutions throughout the Soviet period made Russian the language of oppor- tunity of the USSR. This trend of Russification was perhaps most successful in the urban and industrialized regions of Ukraine and Belarus, where similarities between Russian and its sister Slavic languages made it easier for the local population to adopt.3 Nonetheless, many in the non-Slavic regions still learned Russian to gain additional education, advance their careers, or even simply to interact with ethnic Russians living in their areas who did not understand

211 James A. Miller the local language. The prevalence of Russian, though, led many non- Russians to resent the language as a symbol of oppression or repres- sion of their national culture.4 Following the fall of the Soviet Union, many of the former Soviet republics took active steps to decrease the role of the Russian language in society, causing backlash in areas with large ethnic Russian or Russian-speaking populations. In Estonia and Latvia, for example, government language policies promoting the use of Estonian and Latvian angered their ethnic Russian minorities (about 30 percent of the population of Estonia and 34 percent of Latvia),5 many of whom had not learned the national language. Coupled with additional deci- sions to deny most ethnic Russians citizenship, these policies marginalized Russians and fanned ethnic tensions. The expansion of the Church in the former Soviet sphere in the early 1990s, though, depended largely on the Church’s ability to communicate and provide materials in the Russian language. While problems did arise, using Russian enabled the Church to establish footholds or foundations in several countries. Russian-speaking missionaries were assigned to Ukraine beginning in October 1990, even before the fall of the Soviet Union.6 Missionaries serving in the Russia St. Petersburg Mission opened the capital cities of Latvia and Lithuania in 1992 and found converts among ethnic Russians in Estonia.7 Additionally, missionaries from the Ukraine Kyiv Mission proselytized for a time in Minsk, Belarus, in 1993 and 1994.8 In each case, the widespread understanding of Russian as a first or second language benefited the Church’s initial establishment across the region. With a few exceptions, most missionaries taught in Russian, most early converts read the Book of Mormon in Russian, and most early Church services were conducted in Russian. As membership grew and the Church sought to expand into other areas, the lack of materials in other languages began to limit the Church’s ability to edify the faithful and spread the gospel. Adopting the use of other languages,

212 The Worldwide Church however, required time and additional resources, including qualified and trained translators. A basic understanding of the Church’s translation procedures will help better examine how the Church and its members adapted and worked to overcome these challenges.

Church Translation Translation is at the core of the Church’s efforts to share the gospel globally. Without literature—especially the scriptures—in a language accessible to members and potential converts, the Church would neither grow nor help individuals internalize the gospel message. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, area leaders organized local translation projects for needed language materials. Church leaders in Salt Lake City provided some direction for translation projects, especially the Book of Mormon and other scriptures, but the Church

Building with Church offices in downtown Kyiv where the Book of Mormon was first translated into Ukrainian. (Courtesy of James A. Miller.)

213 James A. Miller lacked an organized program that could implement and coordinate translation efforts; consequentially, “considerable autonomy existed within the various language areas of the Church for the important function of translation.”9 While translation policy covers a wide range of issues—from Sunday School manuals to Church websites—focus- ing principally on scripture translation in this discussion provides sufficient examples to examine. Translations of Latter-day Saint scripture were often produced by individuals called by senior Church leaders serving abroad or vol- unteers who then donated their work to the Church. Such was the case with early Russian translations that enabled the Church’s initial growth in the former Soviet Union. While the Church eventually arranged reviews of the texts and provided some guidance, the translation process largely depended on the initiative of the translator without close oversight from Church headquarters. The first-known Russian translator in the Church was Joseph C. Littke, whose efforts produced the first Mormon missionary tract in Russian. Littke, a Russian German who joined the Church after leaving his homeland, translated the pamphlet The Prophet Joseph Smith Tells His Own Story, and it was published through a Russian printing company in San Francisco in 1936.10 He also began work on a Russian translation of the Book of Mormon. According to his personal account, Joseph Fielding Smith—then serving as Church Historian—called him to begin the translation in February 1932.11 He labored on the project over the next several years and submitted the manuscript of the translation to the Church in 1940. His work, however, was never published. During the same period, Andre Anastasion, a native-Russian speaker in England, began his own translation of the Book of Mormon after receiving an assignment from European Mission President James E. Talmage in the 1920s.12 Over the course of the next several decades, and with the assistance of other Russian immigrants in the United States,

214 The Worldwide Church he revised and corrected his translation before submitting it to the Church. After under- going additional revisions, including reviews initiated by the Translation Department, Anastasion’s translation was published in 1980 and became available the next year.13 By the end of the twentieth century, however, Church translation had evolved into a more centrally controlled and organized program, moving away from decen- Russian Book of Mormon, © IRI. tralized and uncoordinated origins. Beginning with the creation of the Translation Services Department—later the Translation Department and today the Translation Division—in 1965, professional staff at Church headquarters began developing numerous translation resources and aids to improve the quality of translations.14 Church leaders and Translation Division staff established and refined policies governing the philos- ophy of scripture translation, standards for the translation process, and procedures for obtaining approval for translation projects. According to current policies, area leaders must submit official requests to Church headquarters for the Translation Division to begin translating into a needed language. They must explain the need for a new language, whether that need is current or anticipated and how materials in other languages do not sufficiently meet the needs of Church members in the area. Ecclesiastical leaders at headquarters then review their requests with input from the Translation Division.15

215 James A. Miller

The text of approved scripture projects must go through a stringent review process. Under the leadership of the Scriptures Committee, which oversees the publication of LDS scripture, the Translation Division organizes translation teams and ensures that they follow policy set forth by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve that “requires translations of the standard works to be literal translations, insofar as possible.”16 The teams—preferably composed of in-country, native-speaking Latter-day Saints—generally include translators who produce the text, content reviewers who check for meaning, and language reviewers who correct grammatical or other technical mistakes. The translation is then proofread and “undergoes an ecclesiastic review by a committee of native-speaking local leaders who provide a certification that the translation is doctrinally accurate as well as acceptable to the intended audience.” The certifications of the ecclesiastical reviewers are then submitted to the “presiding councils” in Salt Lake City who approve publication.17

Translation in Eastern Europe Not all of the current procedures described above were established as the Church began facilitating translation into the languages of the former Soviet Union. Nonetheless, the translation projects that the Church undertook in the region followed the general approval and review pro- cesses and even contributed to their further development. The task of organizing and running these projects, however, proved challenging as the Church rapidly expanded across the region and new converts repre- senting different languages adopted the faith. Finding and training translation team members presented one of the main challenges to organizing and running the projects. In late 1991 and early 1992, missionary couple Steven and Jean Struk

216 The Worldwide Church were assigned to establish a program to translate Church literature, including scripture, into the Ukrainian language. The Struks helped identify and select translation staff, including the Book of Mormon translation team.18 The initial translation work for the Book of Mormon took about nineteen months and was followed by additional years of reviews and proofreading. The first edition was published in 1997. In some situations, though, concerns about translation quality or challenges with establishing effective project teams can require additional time to resolve, extending the already lengthy translation process. The translation of the Estonian Book of Mormon, for example, required additional years of reviews and revisions before it was approved for publication. In 1953, Aimo Teemant, an Estonian woman who fled her native land with her husband in 1944 and joined the Church in 1952, began translating the book of scripture after receiving an impression in a dream. Over the next few decades, she continued translating as circumstances allowed, completing her work in December 1988, shortly before the Church was able to enter the Soviet Union.19 Later, the Estonian Latter-day Saints selected to review her work raised concerns about the quality of the translation, leading to nearly a nearly decade-long reworking of the text, which was finally published in 2000.20 In other cases, problems can lead to the temporary suspension of scripture translation projects, resulting in similar delays. In 1992 and 1993, the Church organized teams to begin translation work on the Book of Mormon in Latvian and Armenian, respectively. Disagreements between members of the translation teams, in addition to worries about translation quality, soon led the Church to cancel the projects for a time.21 In 1998, Translation Services staff organized a new translation team, which included some members of the original teams.22 Both translations were published in 2000 and distributed to Church members in early 2001.23

217 James A. Miller

Publication Year of LDS Scripture Translations

Book of Revised Book of D&C and Pearl Language Mormon Mormon of Great Price

Armenian East 2000 2006 2006

Armenian West 1937 1983 (Selections) 1941

Belarusian None None None

Estonian 2000 2011 2011

Latvian 2000 2006 2006

Lithuanian 2000 2006 2006

Russian 1981 2012 1996

Ukranian 1997 2005 2005

Challenges to Church Growth Of course, as the scripture translation process unfolded, translators and Church staff gradually produced other gospel literature in the new languages, and local leaders and members sometimes took their own initiative to meet language needs. In Estonia, for example, one individual translated the missionary discussions into Estonian before the Church released an official publication, and copies of the translation even found their way to the Provo Missionary Training Center where they circu- lated among missionaries assigned to the country.24 In 1993, the Latvia Riga Mission took the initiative to train selected Russian-speaking missionaries in the field to teach the gospel in Latvian and Lithuanian for the first time.25 Nonetheless, the delayed availability of the scriptures and other materials became a limiting factor to the Church’s development.

218 The Worldwide Church

Reliance on a secondary language in which the Church already has materials translated does not eliminate all language barriers. Even as missionaries began to teach in the national languages of the Baltics, their use of the Russian translation of the Book of Mormon made it difficult for those that did not know Russian well to receive or understand the gospel message. Many Latvian members and potential converts, for example, found it difficult to read Church literature even if they could communicate with the missionaries in Latvian. One former missionary explained, “The hardest thing was when I sat in a discussion, and I asked [Latvians] to read a passage from the Book of Mormon, and they started to read it, and I could see that they couldn’t read. They could not read Russian. They could read the letters, but they didn’t understand what they were reading at all.”26 The Church’s language approach in the region also complicated its outreach to even those with whom there was no language barrier. The unwillingness of many to use Russian with missionaries, even if they understood it, complicated proselytizing. In addition to individuals refusing to respond or becoming angry with missionaries when addressed in Russian (such as at the Freedom Monument incident in July 1992), some missionaries themselves limited their own public interactions due to language concerns. Those who knew only one mission language sometimes avoided reaching out or teaching speakers of the other tongue.27 In Armenia, however, the lack of Eastern Armenian scriptures and other literature presented obstacles similar to those the Church faces in nations where it cannot initially rely on a second language. Although some Church literature was available in Western Armenian, which was spoken by Armenian Latter-day Saint converts from Turkey and Syria in the early twentieth century, few recent converts in Armenia itself, where Eastern Armenian is used, could understand it.28 Moreover, the lesser extent of Russification in Armenia meant that knowledge of Russian varied by age and locality. One of

219 James A. Miller the Church’s translators explained, “If the Church is going to spread all over Armenia in villages and in other regions, you can’t find a lot of people who speak good Russian and understand everything in Russian.”29 Some of these people, especially among the older genera- tions, had not attended schools where Russian was taught.30 In other situations, Church leaders imposed such growth limits themselves, as was the case in Ukraine. While mission leaders in the Baltic trained missionaries to teach in the national language and expanded into non-Russian speaking areas before literature was available, the Church leaders in Ukraine focused primarily on Russian-speaking regions in the country’s east and south until the mid-late 1990s.31 Western Ukraine, where Ukrainian was dominant, saw very little Church activity until the second half of the decade when Ukrainian-speaking missionaries were called and assigned to the region shortly before the release of the Ukrainian Book of Mormon.32 In the face of these challenges to Church growth and access to the gospel, members and missionaries still found ways to strengthen their faith and adapt to the circumstances. Some missionaries, though they could not always offer literature in an investigator’s preferred language, learned to use one of the national languages as well as Russian to communicate with as many people as possible.33 Latter-day Saints in Estonia turned to Church materials in Finnish, a close relative of their native language, instead of using Russian.34 As a result of such efforts, the Church was able to continue its growth despite the obstacles. Eventually, the release of the Book of Mormon and other materials in national languages of these other republics eventually helped the Church overcome some of its challenges and enter a new chapter of development. In the Baltics, members and investigators no longer needed to rely on the Russian Book of Mormon. Also, when the Book of Mormon was released in Eastern Armenian, a missionary commented, “It has opened so many doors that weren’t open before we received the Book of Mormon in Armenian. It has strengthened

220 The Worldwide Church people’s testimonies in the Church and has helped new converts become a lot stronger.”35

One Faith, Different Languages The Church’s efforts to make the gospel message available and publish scriptures in the national languages of the former Soviet republics, however, did not represent a complete transition away from the use of Russian. The Church could not ignore the language needs and preferences of its ethnic Russian and Russian-speaking members even as it worked to meet the needs and preferences of other groups. This challenge, though, not only affected translation and public outreach, but also the spiritual health and unity of the Church’s members. In Ukraine, Ukrainians’ bilingualism generally rendered the language question a non-issue, and the Church now uses both Ukrainian and Russian without much incident. Latter-day Saints in Ukraine tend to use the most dominant language of the region in their Church meetings, whether it be Ukrainian or Russian. In the center of the country, where both languages are regularly used, leaders usually conduct in Ukrainian and Church members use whichever language they prefer in sermons, prayers, and lessons.36 Language differences among members in the Baltics, however, led the Church to adopt a different approach. Most early Church meetings were held in Russian to accommodate ethnic Russian converts, some of whom did not understand the national language well and felt marginalized by their governments’ language policies. As the other converts began to use their native languages in Church meetings, however, some Russian members became discontent because they could not understand what was being said.37 Church leaders attempted to resolve the issue by creating separate branches for speakers of the different languages. Instead of attend- ing weekly worship services based on geographic location, members

221 James A. Miller could attend branch meetings in the language of their preference. The practice of creating branches and wards for speakers of a given language can be traced back to efforts to proselytize and engage speakers of minority languages in North America in the mid-twentieth century.38 Church leaders did not intentionally aim to divide Latter-day Saints along ethnic lines, rather they wished to accommodate Latter- day Saints with differing language needs and backgrounds.39 While perhaps solving the logistical issues surrounding multilingual Church meetings and engaging members and investigators in their preferred language, this approach did not resolve all tensions between Latter-day Saints. In some instances, it may have rein- forced previously present divisions between some Church members. Language already presented a barrier between members and offered an excuse for some not to interact with the other groups.40 When they began meeting separately, though, their interaction with each other decreased further. In Riga, some did not want to participate in activities held jointly by the Latvian and Russian branches due to language concerns.41 The divisions between ethnic groups, though, extended beyond language barriers. On one occasion, animosity erupted between the Estonian and Russian branches in Tallinn over disagreements about the distribution of humanitarian aid between the two groups of members.42 Although the Church’s approach to the language differences between members did not directly cause such disunity, it may have made it simpler for the ethnic tensions present in society to manifest themselves in a similar fashion among Latter- day Saints. Still, language was not a point of contention for all Latter-day Saints in the Baltics. In the early Vilnius Branch in Lithuania, missionaries and local members prized relations between speakers of different languages. A former sister missionary explained, “In Lithuania we had one combined branch, but they had a rule in the branch to speak their own language.”43 A local woman shared her own concern

222 The Worldwide Church regarding the division of the branch: “We all were very worried when they divided us by nationality because one of the most important aspects in the Church is that it is not a national Church.”44

Addressing Future Language Issues To a certain degree, the experiences of Latter-day Saints in the former Soviet Union are unique; but in other ways, they are typical of what thousands of other Latter-day Saints have experienced across the world. As in other regions, the Church in the former Soviet Union could not fully meet the needs of many faithful members and grow to reach more souls without adopting the other languages. Eventually, Church literature—especially the scriptures—became available, improving the spiritual lives of members and enabling greater outreach. If the Church could somehow make its literature available quicker in new languages, or better anticipate emerging needs, it could mitigate some of the challenges it faces in the interim. With limited resources, of course, it is not feasible to address every language need as quickly or efficiently as some might hope. The history of the Church’s translation program shows how it has already greatly improved since its beginnings, and modern technology has enhanced the process. Opening up the translation process of at least nonscripture publications for wider, volunteer-based participation with oversight from professional staff could further improve the Church’s translation capacity. In recent years, crowdsourcing translation has enabled many organizations and websites to make products available in many languages. More volunteer translation work could allow the Church to reallocate some resources to priority projects, produce translations quicker, and translate into a wider range of languages, including some that may not be immediate priorities. The Church in the early 2010s experimented with crowdsourcing translation on its website The Vineyard. However, as of August 2015, the

223 James A. Miller translation section of the site had been removed, leaving the future of crowdsourcing translation in the Church unclear.45 The challenge of preserving unity among a multilingual membership in a divided society also remains. In later years, Church leaders repeatedly combined, divided, and again recombined language branches in Tallinn, Riga, and Vilnius, but it is unclear from cur- rently available records how this affected relations between Church members. The history of these branches’ creation in the early 1990s, though, suggests that Church leaders should not expect to resolve ethnic or national prejudices by organizing separate groups to address language differences. Within the larger context of Mormonism’s global expansion, the history of how the Church approached these linguistic challenges offers relevant insight into role of language in the Church’s development. While in some nations, the Church begins with almost noth- ing in the primary local language, elsewhere it can rely upon another language to take advantage of growth opportunities. Still, the limited availability of the gospel message in the nation’s primary language holds the Church back for a time. In some situations, language can present additional obstacles to unity among the Church membership. Overcoming some of these challenges is a matter of time and resources, but by drawing upon these and similar experiences from international Church history, Latter-day Saints and their leaders will better understand both the positive and the negative aspects of the Church’s efforts to share the gospel message with them.

Notes

1. Boris Schiel, Latvia Church History, ca. 2002, 5, MS 18634, Church History Library, Salt Lake City. Boris and Liselotte Schiel interview, March–April 1996, interviewed by Matthew K. Heiss, Orem, Utah, typescript, 17, James Moyle Oral History Program, Church History Library.

224 The Worldwide Church

2. For an overview of Soviet class and ethnic policies in the western regions of the USSR, see Timothy Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin (New York: Basic Books, 2010), 21–154. 3. The language situation in Belarus provides one of the most dramatic examples of Russification. By 1999, only 36.7 percent of Belarusians used Belarusian in their homes. 1999 Belarus Census data, National Statistics Committee of the Republic of Belarus, 2014, http://belstat.gov.by/perepis-naseleniya/perepis -naseleniya-1999-goda/tablichnye-dannye/raspredelenie-naseleniya-respub liki-belarus-po-natsionalnostyam-i-yazykam-v-1999-godu/. The translation of the title of the table is “Distribution of the population of the Republic of Belarus on nationality and language in 1999.” 4. As evidenced by the response elicited by the Russian-speaking missionaries’ street display in Riga, Latvia, in July 1992. See Schiel, Latvia Church history, 5. 5. “1989 All-Union Census: National Composition of Population of USSR by Republic,” Demoskop Weekly, online application (in Russian) by Institute of Demography, Higher School of Economics, http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp /sng_nac_89.php?reg=15. 6. Howard L. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks: Stories of Conversion and Faith in the Former Soviet Union (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1996), 38. 7. Kahlile B. Mehr, Mormon Missionaries Enter Eastern Europe (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 2002), 231–35. 8. Mehr, Mormon Missionaries Enter Eastern Europe, 228. 9. John E. Carr, “For in That Day—”: A History of Translation and Distribution, 1965–1980,” 1985, 41, MS 258 C311f, Church History Library. 10. See The Prophet Joseph Smith Tells His Own Story (San Francisco: Russian News Life Publishing, 1936), trans. Andre K. Anastasion, MS270.2 S653pRUS, Church History Library. 11. Joseph C. Littke, History of the Translation of the Book of Mormon into the Russian Languague [sic], 1933, 2, MS 4353, Church History Library. 12. Andre K. Anastasion to Missionary Executive Committee, December 22, 1965, in Andrew K. Anastasion articles, circa 1965–1970, MS 4646 2, Church History Library.

225 James A. Miller

13. Gary Browning, Russia and the Restored Gospel (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 13–14. 14. Justus Ernst describes some of the early translation aids that the department developed in “Every Man . . . in His Own Language,” Ensign, July 1974, 23–27. See also Joseph G. Stringham, “The Church and Translation,”BYU Studies 21, no. 1 (Winter 1981): 69–90. 15. Tod R. Harris (manager of scriptures translation) interview, January 13, 2014, interview by the author, Salt Lake City. Recording in author’s possession. 16. Tod R. Harris, “Translation in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” BYU Studies 50, no. 4 (2011): 55–56. This two-page article was written in response to Van C. Gessel, “Coming to Terms: Creating Christian Vocabulary in a Non-Christian Land,” BYU Studies 50, no. 4 (2011): 33–59. 17. Harris, “Translation in The Church,” 55–56. Harris’s response to Gessel’s article was published with Gessel’s article. See the citation above. 18. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks, 77. 19. Paul V. Johnson, “Out of the Dust,” Religious Educator 6, no. 3 (2005): 25–26. 20. David Stewart, “Book of Mormon Assists Work in Estonia,” Church News, November 4, 2000, 4. 21. Hasvira V. Minasaryan interview, September 22, 1997, interviewed by Matthew K. Heiss, Yerevan, Armenia, typescript, 29, OH 1708, James Moyle Oral History Program, Church History Library; and Viesturs Y. Tivums interview, April 26, 1996, interviewed by Matthew K. Heiss, Salt Lake City, typescript, 8–9, James Moyle Oral History Program, OH 1440, Church History Library. 22. The translation of the Book of Mormon into Latvian began anew in 1998 and concluded in 2000. See Schiel, Latvia Church history, 49, 55–56. 23. Johnson, “Out of the Dust,” 26; and “Open Houses Introduce Eastern Armenian Book of Mormon,” Ensign, October 2001, 77. 24. Missionary discussion in Estonian, circa 1993, MS 15024, Church History Library. See also Steven S. Potter interview, June 1, 1996, interviewed by Matthew K. Heiss, Tallinn, Estonia, typescript, 3, James Moyle Oral History Program, OH 1502, Church History Library.

226 The Worldwide Church

25. See Marvin and Ruth Folsom interview, March 12, 1996, interviewed by Matthew K. Heiss, Provo, Utah, typescript, 13–14, James Moyle Oral History Program, OH 1431, Church History Library. 26. Amy M. Searle in Amy M. Searle and Jennifer Rebecca Turner interview, March 23, 1995, interview by Matthew K. Heiss, Provo, UT, typescript, 13, James Moyle Oral History Program, OH 1422, Church History Library. 27. Potter interview, 10. 28. Minasaryan interview, 30. 29. Minasaryan interview, 29. 30. Narine Sarkissian in Sergey Hamayaki, Susanna Sergeyi, and Narine Sergeyi Srkissian, interview, March 23, 1995, interviewed by Matthew K. Heiss, Provo Utah, typescript, 25, James Moyle Oral History Program, OH 2163, Church History Library. 31. Biddulph, The Morning Breaks, 62–65. 32. John Moroz Smith, “He Has Witnessed the Fulfillment of Prophecy in Ukraine,” Church News, October 2, 2010, 6, 13. 33. Alexander O. Bazarski interview, May 30, 1996, interviewed by Matthew K. Heiss, Vilnius, Lithuania, typescript, 19–20, James Moyle Oral History Program, OH 1515, Church History Library. 34. Erki Koiv interview, June 2, 1996, interviewed by Matthew K. Heiss, Tallinn, Estonia, typescript, 9, James Moyle Oral History Program, OH 1504, Church History Library. 35. “News of the Church: Open Houses Introduce Eastern Armenian Book of Mormon,” in Ensign, October 2001, 77. 36. Based on the personal experiences of the author in Ukraine (2008–14). 37. Searle and Turner, interview, 8. 38. For a review of the development of Spanish-speaking LDS congregations in the United States, see Jessie L. Embry, in “In His Own Language”: Mormon Spanish Speaking Congregations in the United States (Provo, UT: The Charles Redd Center for Western Studies, Brigham Young University, 1997), 13–34. 39. For an overview of the Church leaders’ position towards “ethnic congregations,” see Jessie L. Embry, Asian American Mormons: Bridging Cultures (Provo, UT:

227 James A. Miller

Charles Redd Center for Western Studies, Brigham Young University, 1999), 66–68. 40. Koiv interview, 8–9; and Katherine Michele Secrist and Nicole Curtis interview, May 24, 2001, interview by Matthew K. Heiss, Riga, Latvia, typescript, 9, James Moyle Oral History Program, OH 1509, Church History Library. 41. Searle and Turner interview, 7–8. 42. Koiv interview, 8–9. 43. Amy Searle in Searle and Turner interview, 8. 44. Tatyana A. Grishkovskaya interview, May 30, 1996, interview by Matthew K. Heiss, Vilnius, Lithuania, typescript, 6, James Moyle Oral History Program, OH 1488, Church History Library. Translation from Russian by the author. 45. See “LDS Community Translation,” The Vineyard, vineyard.lds.org.

228