Politics
From The Encyclopedia of Mormonism
See this page in the original 1992 publication.
[Included in this entry are four articles: Politics: Political History Politics: Political Teachings Politics: Political Culture Politics: Contemporary American Politics The first article traces the history of the political issues in which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been involved since the restoration of the gospel. The second article examines the official teachings of LDS scriptures and prophets on political questions. The third article examines the perception of a political subculture in the membership of the Church. The last article examines the participation of the Church and its members in contemporary politics throughout the world.
The Church has on occasion been involved in political issues. Specific political controversies can be found organized by time periods in the series of articles entitled History of the Churchand organized geographically in articles on particular communities, such as Kirtland, Ohio.
Several articles take up specific political issues. Missouri Conflictand Nauvoo Politicsdetail two major political experiences of the young LDS community that ended in forcible expulsion and loss of life and property. To see the unfolding political connection of the Mormons to the United States after the 1848 move west, read the following articles in this order: Utah Territory; Utah Expedition; Antipolygamy Legislation; Reynolds V United States; Manifesto of 1890; Utah Statehood; and the Smoot Hearings.
The extent to which the Constitution of the United States of Americawill protect distinctive religious practices is a question brought in many forms to American courts. The experience of the Church and its members in the courts is summarized in Legal and Judicial History of the Church. The efforts of the Church to gain recognition and religious freedoms through direct negotiations with governments throughout the world are described in Diplomatic Relations. The attitudes and teachings of the Church derived from its scriptures and these experiences in law and politics are described in articles on Church and State; Civil Rights; Constitutional Law; Politics: Political Teachings; and War and Peace.]
Contents |
[edit] Politics: Political History
Author: BARRUS, ROGER M.
LDS involvement in American politics began with the conflicts between Mormons and non-Mormons in the 1830s and 1840s that led to the founding of a religious and political community in the Great Basin, organized by the U.S. Congress as Utah Territory. Mormonism emerged as a national political issue in the presidential election of 1856 with the Republican platform's condemnation of the "twin relics of barbarism"-southern slavery and Mormon polygamy. Political involvement continued in the social and political order of the state of Utah where, because of the high number of Latter-day Saints, there is identification between the political community and the dominant religion.
From its inception in western New York in 1830, the LDS Church was politically controversial. The deepest cause of conflict directly or indirectly affecting political relationships between Latter-day Saints and others was the belief in continuing revelation. Non-Mormons viewed the claim of continuing revelation and the social and political forms built on that claim as threats to democratic self-government. While the Book of Mormon was being printed, a mass meeting of Palmyra residents pledged to boycott it. The Prophet Joseph Smith was arrested several times on charges brought, according to his accusers, "to open the eyes and understanding of those who blindly follow" him. When the Church was hardly large enough to "man a farm, or meet a woman with a milk-pail," recalled Sidney Rigdon, non-Mormons were already accusing them of wanting "to upset the Government" (HC 6:289).
The turmoil of the New York period was only a harbinger of intense conflicts to follow. As the practical implications of belief in new revelation and obedience to a new prophet became clear, anti-Mormon opposition intensified. For the Prophet and his followers, divine calling made possible-indeed, morally incumbent-the effort to create a just society, which the revelations called Zion. For non-Mormon neighbors, these efforts constituted challenges that they determined to resist.
Belief in continuing revelation had profound implications for the organization of political society among the Latter-day Saints. The establishment of Zion required the unity of the LDS community in righteousness. The effort brought social, economic, and political innovations, including the gathering of the Saints, consecration and stewardship, the United Order, and plural marriage. In all matters relevant to building Zion, the LDS community looked to the Prophet for guidance, concentrating power, even against his own inclinations, in his hands.
Efforts to establish Zion excited fear and animosity. Made uneasy by ever-increasing numbers of Latter-day Saints and shocked or bemused by their economic and social experiments, many non-Mormons viewed the Saints as alien and hostile, even as a threat to their freedoms as Americans. Because the Church seemed to erase the distinction between church and state-in American liberal political thought an important pillar of liberty-some felt that it portended the rise of religious despotism. The result was recurring political conflict, which time and again threatened the LDS community.
The efforts to build a New Jerusalem in America began in 1831 with the gathering to Ohio and the designation of Zion in Jackson County, Missouri. As Church members built these new communities, differences with neighbors, and resulting tensions, were immediately evident. In Ohio, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were tarred and feathered by a mob. Random acts of violence threatened the young LDS community (see Kirtland, Ohio; Ohio, LDS Communities in).
Matters were still worse in Missouri, where, in 1833, citizens of Jackson County banded together to remove the Latter-day Saints from the county, "peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must" (HC 1:374). They were justified, they claimed, because Mormonism was an evil for which the laws made no provision. Missourians saw these newcomers as "deluded fanatics" or "designing knaves" who claimed "to hold personal communication and converse face to face with the Most High God" and who threatened to take political control of the county (HC 1:375; see also History of the Church: c 1831-1844, Ohio, Missouri, and Nauvoo Periods; Missouri: LDS Communities in Jackson and Clay Counties).
By late fall of 1833, the Latter-day Saints had been driven from Jackson County. Most found temporary refuge in Clay County, where they were at first kindly received. Eventually, however, antagonisms developed there as well when it became apparent that Saints would not be going back to their homes and lands in Jackson County. Before violence erupted, Church members abandoned Clay County in 1836 for the newly organized Caldwell County, created by the legislature specifically as a home for Mormons (see Missouri: LDS Communities in Caldwell and Daviess Counties).
By the summer of 1838, trouble had erupted again. In Kirtland, economic failure associated with the Panic of 1837 contributed to dissent. Some criticized Joseph Smith's exercise of authority and charged him with "Popery," or the combining of spiritual authority and temporal power. As tensions escalated, Joseph Smith and most of the faithful left Ohio for Missouri. In Caldwell County, critics within the Church also soon took up the cry, creating such profound consternation that the community forced them out. Dissenters then stirred up non-Mormons who were already fearful of growing LDS strength. In this situation of rising tensions, Sidney Rigdon defiantly declared independence from mob depredations and vowed that the Saints would meet future force with force. All that was required for a violent conflagration was a tiny spark.
Not surprisingly, political rivalry provided the spark. On August 6, 1838, non-Mormons in Daviess County, into which the rapidly increasing LDS population had spilled, attempted to prevent Latter-day Saints from voting at Gallatin, Missouri. A brawl resulted, and exaggerated accounts of the incident soon mobilized armed bands on both sides. After several skirmishes, a pitched battle occurred, with both sides suffering casualties. Following exaggerated reports of this battle, Governor Lilburn Boggs ordered the state militia to treat the Mormons as enemies to be exterminated or driven from the state (see Extermination Order; Missouri Conflict). After Joseph Smith and other leaders were imprisoned, the Latter-day Saints were disarmed and then were forced from Missouri. After months of imprisonment, jailed Church leaders eventually escaped or were released.
Moving to Illinois, the Latter-day Saints built a new city, Nauvoo, along the banks of the Mississippi River. Apparently convinced that there would be no peace as long as Church members were politically at the mercy of non-Mormons, Joseph Smith sought and obtained political power for the new city. In the Nauvoo charter, the Illinois legislature empowered the city to make any ordinances not prohibited by the Constitution of the united states or that of Illinois and to organize a militia with power to execute said laws.
While Nauvoo flourished under the protection of the new city government and its own militia, the Nauvoo Legion, trouble soon developed. Non-Mormons resented Nauvoo's political power, which was based on increasing LDS numbers and on their willingness to vote as a bloc to reward political friends and punish political enemies (see Nauvoo Politics). Bloc voting was both a reflection of the social unity of the LDS community and a defensive reaction to the abuses suffered in Missouri. Yet critics condemned the Saints for "yielding implicit obedience" to a "pretended prophet of the Lord" who, they charged, was a dangerous character entertaining "the most absolute contempt for the laws of man" (HC 6:4-5).
Even within the Church there was again restiveness, for the private introduction of plural marriage and Joseph Smith's increasing political power contributed to dissent. Dissidents established a newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor, and attacked Joseph Smith for supposed moral imperfections and poor leadership. Declaring the Expositor a public nuisance, the Nauvoo City Council authorized Mayor Joseph Smith to order city police to destroy its press. In the resulting furor, the anti-Mormon Warsaw Signal called on the citizens of Illinois to take direct military action against the Prophet. Others spoke of extermination. With violence clearly a possibility, Joseph Smith allowed himself to be arrested on charges stemming from the Expositor incident and was imprisoned in Carthage, the county seat, where on June 27, 1844, he was murdered by a mob (see Carthage Jail; Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith).
The Prophet's death brought a lull in hostilities, which provided time to complete the Nauvoo Temple and to make preparations to move to a new home in the West. When conflict broke out again in September 1845, Church leaders announced their intention to leave Illinois in the spring. By the summer of 1846, most Latter-day Saints had departed. Those remaining were forced out by an anti-Mormon attack on the city in September 1846.
The Missouri and Illinois cataclysms convinced Brigham Young and other Church leaders that the Latter-day Saints needed not just political power but political autonomy. According to the prevailing constitutional interpretation of states' rights, the federal government was largely prohibited from interfering with a state's domestic institutions (slavery, for example). To obtain such autonomy, Latter-day Saints did not necessarily have to remove themselves from the boundaries of the United States but only from existing states and territories. As the first settlers in a new area, they could possibly obtain the political autonomy necessary for protection within the federal Union.
As the Latter-day Saints embarked on their westward migration, some dreamed of an independent LDS nation, while others envisioned the establishment of a territory or state within the United States. When Church leaders selected the Great Basin as their probable destination, it was legally a remote part of Mexico. The Mormon Battalion contributed, at least marginally, to the effort by which the United States obtained title to the Southwest, including the Great Basin.
The first LDS pioneers entered the valley of the Great Salt Lake in July 1847. Until late 1848, when the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles established themselves in the valley, the settlement was governed by the Salt Lake Stake presidency and high council. President Brigham Young charged these local officials to "observe those principles which have been instituted in the Stakes of Zion for the government of the Church, and to pass such laws and ordinances as shall be necessary for the peace and prosperity of the city for the time being" (Morgan, p. 69). In December 1848, Church leaders petitioned Congress for a territorial organization. Later, they drafted a Constitution for a proposed state of Deseret, with a bill of rights containing a strongly worded guarantee of religious liberty, and applied for admission to the Union. Brigham Young was elected governor of the would-be state.
In Congress, this hoped-for admission became enmeshed in the political maelstrom over slavery in U.S. territories raised by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In the Compromise of 1850, Congress organized the Latter-day Saints as the Territory of Utah. The compromise, adopting the principle of popular sovereignty, allowed settlers in the newly acquired territories to decide whether they would have slavery. Utah, attempting to remain aloof from the dispute over slavery, offended both anti- and proslavery congressmen by ignoring the matter in its Constitution.
From the beginning of Utah's territorial period, relations between the LDS community and the federal government were tense. The first non-Mormon territorial officials became embroiled in controversy within days of their arrival and soon returned to the East, spreading inflammatory reports that deeply influenced congressional and public opinion. Later federal appointees were also critical. And the Church deeply agitated public opinion when it officially avowed plural marriage in 1852.
In the presidential election of 1856, the Republican party used public antipolygamy feeling to attack the Democratic party for its stand on slavery in the territories. Democrats in Congress had passed the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, which, by repealing the Missouri Compromise, removed the last legal restraints on the spread of slavery to U.S. territories and established popular sovereignty as the political principle governing slavery in the territories. The Republican party, intent on restoring the Missouri Compromise by repudiating popular sovereignty, inserted the "twin relics" plank in the 1856 Republican platform in an effort to tar the Democratic party with Mormon polygamy. The point was that if the Democrats truly believed that the citizens of the territories alone had the power to legislate on slavery, logically they must also accept that the citizens of the territories should have the sole power to legislate on matrimony. Polygamy and slavery, according to the author of the "twin relics" plank, "rested precisely on the same Constitutional basis," and so "to make war upon polygamy, and at the same time strengthen the case against slavery as much as possible," he linked them together (Poll, p. 127).
The Republican strategy succeeded. Democratic party leaders concluded that to protect popular sovereignty as it related to slavery, they had to take a firm stand against polygamy. Senator Stephen Douglas, popular sovereignty's chief patron, attacked the Mormons as subversive aliens who recognized the authority of Brigham Young "and the government of which he is the head" above that of the United States. He accused Latter-day Saints of prosecuting "a system of robbery and murders upon American citizens" (see Danites) and called for the application of "the knife" to "this pestiferous, disgusting cancer" of Mormonism, "which is gnawing at the very vitals of the body politic" (CHC 4:221-22). It is possible that embarrassment over the linkage of polygamy and popular sovereignty contributed to U.S. President James Buchanan's decision, on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated reports, to take the extraordinary step of sending an army to Utah in 1857 to enforce federal law (see Utah Expedition). The ostensible purpose of the army was to ensure that the territory accepted the replacement of Brigham Young as governor, but it had also been suggested to Buchanan that he might be able to upstage the commotion over slavery in the territories with the excitement of an anti-Mormon crusade.
A Republican-controlled Congress passed the first antipolygamy legislation in 1862. The Morrill Act outlawed polygamy and overturned certain acts of the Utah legislature, including one incorporating the Church, which shielded the practice of polygamy. The Civil War delayed enforcement, and when the federal government returned to the Utah situation after the war, it found that the act was unenforceable because territorial courts were in LDS hands. To remedy this situation, Congress passed the Poland Act of 1874, transferring control over criminal proceedings-including cases involving polygamy-from local courts to federally appointed officials. This act marked the transformation of the confrontation over plural marriage into a struggle over political power in Utah. The 1882 Edmunds Act prohibited polygamists (including virtually all Church leaders) from voting or holding office. It also established a federally appointed commission to control territorial elections, including voter registration. Utah women were among the first in the nation to vote, and woman suffrage was now also under attack. The most sweeping legislation, the 1887 Edmunds-Tucker Act, required an antipolygamy test oath for voting and holding office, disfranchised women, disbanded the territorial militia, took control of public schools, abolished the Church's perpetual emigrating fund, dissolved the Church as a legal entity, and seized much of its property. In the late 1880s, demands were made in Congress for even more stringent measures.
Latter-day Saints vigorously protested that this legislation violated their constitutionally protected right of the free exercise of religion, and in a series of cases, they challenged the antipolygamy legislation in the courts. Reynolds V. United States was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1879. The appeal attacked the Morrill Act for failing to acknowledge the religious motivation behind plural marriage. A unanimous Court held, however, that to allow Latter-day Saints' religious beliefs to excuse them from obeying the law would be to "make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself" (98 U.S. [1879]). The Reynolds decision distinguished between religious opinions and religious practices, leaving the former free while allowing for government regulation of the latter (see Civil Rights; Legal and Judicial History of the Church).
Decisions in later polygamy cases undermined that distinction, allowing for the direct or indirect regulation of religious opinion. The Court upheld the disfranchisement provisions of the Edmunds Act in Murphy V. Ramsey. Congress, according to the Court, was responsible for preparing the territories for statehood and self-government. In Utah this required curbing the political power of polygamists because nothing was more important in the founding of a self-governing commonwealth than "the idea of family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony" (114 U.S. 15 [1885]). The Court in Davis V. Beason upheld an Idaho test oath that disfranchised any member of any organization that taught its members "to commit the crime" of polygamy. According to the Court, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment did not protect individuals in advocating "any form of worship" and "any tenets, however destructive of society," merely by asserting them to be a part of their religious beliefs (133 U.S. 333 [1890]). In The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints V. United States, the Supreme Court sustained the disincorporation and escheat provisions of the Edmunds-Tucker Act. The opinion described the Church corporation as a contumacious organization that, in defiance of the authority of the government, continued to encourage polygamy, "a crime against the laws, and abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world" (136 U.S. 1 [1890]). With plenary authority over the political affairs of territories, Congress had the power to abolish the Church corporation and the government could dispose of its property.
The Poland, Edmunds, and Edmunds-Tucker laws curtailed LDS political power. An all-out attack on plural marriage came in the late 1880s, in what Latter-day Saints called "the Raid." The thrust against the Church struck deeper than the practice of polygamy, however: it struck at the heart of the LDS community and threatened its survival in a world that, since the 1830s, had shown itself hostile. The deeper threat was reflected in the massive economic, social, and political dislocations occasioned by the Raid. Finally, facing even the loss of its temples, in 1890 Church President Wilford Woodruff concluded that "for the temporal salvation of the church" it was necessary to end the practice of plural marriage. In his manifesto of 1890, he announced his intention to submit to the antipolygamy laws and to use his influence to induce Church members to do the same.
The Manifesto was only the beginning of the changes introduced by Church leaders in the 1890s to accommodate the Latter-day Saint community to the social, economic, and political forms of the larger society. They dissolved the local People's party, which had dominated electoral politics in Utah from its organization in the early 1870s, and encouraged members to affiliate with the Republican and Democratic national parties. They supported the development of a public school system. Finally, leaders reduced direct Church involvement in the economic life of the territory by selling off most business interests (see Economic History of the Church; Pioneer Economy). The reward for their willingness to accommodate themselves to the forms of American liberalism came in 1896 with Utah statehood. Latter-day Saints relinquished important elements of the social, economic, and political order that they had established in the Great Basin in exchange for a measure of the political power and autonomy that decades of confrontation and conflict had demonstrated were necessary for their survival as a community.
The modus vivendi that Church leaders worked out with the American political community as the prerequisite for statehood reduced, but by no means ended, direct Church involvement in politics. In the first years after statehood, Church leaders quietly supported and participated in a system of power sharing between Mormons and non-Mormons, Democrats and Republicans. For example, the state's two seats in the U.S. Senate were divided between Latter-day Saints and non-Mormons until the election of 1916, when the Seventeenth Amendment (ratified 1913), providing for direct popular election of senators, removed the matter from the control of party or Church leaders.
Church leaders signaled their intention to curb their own political activity in the so-called Political Manifesto of 1896, which emphasized the importance of the religious duties of Church officers and required them to obtain approval of ecclesiastical superiors before seeking public office. This rule was applied more stringently for Democratic- than Republican-inclined Church officials. Church authorities in the 1890s encouraged the development of the Republican party among Church members, many of whom had avoided the party because of its harsh opposition to plural marriage.
Church leaders since 1896, with only a few exceptions, have avoided taking stands that by either identifying the Church with, or casting the Church in opposition to, either major political party would encourage a religious polarization of the parties. But they have been willing to take an official stand on such issues as public Welfare and the repeal of prohibition in the 1930s, Sunday closing laws in the 1950s, right-to-work laws and liquor by the drink in the 1960s, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the 1970s, and abortion in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. While the Church by no means inevitably has its way in Utah politics, it is a pervasive influence in the state. Latter-day Saints help shape the political agenda of Utah, in large part determining the issues that are or are not live, and dictating the terms in which issues accepted as live are debated. Generally, the overwhelming majority of all officeholders, both Republican and Democratic, are LDS.
What the Latter-day Saints relinquished in order to secure statehood for Utah indicates what was really at stake in the nineteenth-century political conflicts. Both sides were well aware that the struggle was over more than a "peculiar institution." For Latter-day Saints, plural marriage symbolized obedience to the will of God revealed through latter-day prophets. For anti-Mormons, polygamy symbolized the potential for theocratic control, rooted in the religion's belief in continuing revelation. Territorial governor Caleb West told the Mormons in 1888 that the cause of their woes was their belief that "God governs them immediately, not alone in faith and morals, but in all affairs and relations of life, and that the counsel of the priesthood is the Supreme Voice of God and must be obeyed" (governor to Territorial Assembly, Jan. 9, 1888). The tenet of continuing revelation, an issue since the beginning, largely accounted for the struggles between the Latter-day Saints and the federal government over political power in early Utah. It generated continuing tensions in the politics of Utah, and containing them required the exercise of prudent statesmanship by leaders of both church and state. At the same time, the vitality of Utah as a democratic political community in the early twentieth century was the foundation for the relative peace that Latter-day Saints have enjoyed since then. That such peace remained somewhat precarious was evident when well-organized LDS lobbying efforts in several states against the ERA in the 1970s threatened to reawaken major apprehensions of priesthood influence on LDS voters.
Outside the United States, LDS efforts for legal recognition and freedom of operation under restrictive regimes were remarkably successful by 1990, precisely because Church leaders convinced government leaders that priesthood directives would not promote political activity that confronted constituted authority-would not, in fact, promote political activity in any particular direction. The fact that LDS political behavior both in Utah and in U.S. government service was observably stable and responsible was thus significant for the functioning and expansion of the Church in an international setting.
[edit] Bibliography
Alexander, Thomas G. Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 1890 -1930. Urbana and Chicago, 1986.
Firmage, Edwin Brown, and Richard Collin Mangrum. Zion in the Courts: A Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830 -1900. Urbana and Chicago, 1988.
Hill, Marvin S. Quest for Refuge: The Mormon Flight from American Pluralism. Salt Lake City, 1989.
Lyman, Edward Leo. Political Deliverance: The Mormon Quest for Utah Statehood. Urbana and Chicago, 1986.
Morgan, Dale L. "The State of Deseret." Utah Historical Quarterly 8 (Apr., July, Oct. 1940):65-239.
Poll, Richard D. "The Mormon Question Enters National Politics, 1850-1856." Utah Historical Quarterly 25 (1957):117-31.
ROGER M. BARRUS
[edit] Politics: Political Teachings
Author: BRYNER, GARY C.
Concerning the general duties of government and citizen, latter-day scriptures and the prophets of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach that governments should protect freedoms and provide for the public interest and that citizens should honor and uphold laws and governments. LDS theology endorses aspects of both individualism and communitarianism, and harmonizes these conflicting ideas by teaching that community members can share and promote ideals and principles but should never use force to achieve such conditions. Church leaders encourage members to be participants in public affairs even as they emphasize the separation of the management of church and state. The Church rarely gives official counsel to its members regarding political issues. As with other religions, various opinions exist among Latter-day Saints as to how political teachings and principles should be applied.
Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants is a useful starting point for examining the major beliefs of members of the LDS Church concerning politics and government. In an 1835 meeting to discuss plans for publishing the Doctrine and Covenants, Church leaders prepared a declaration to the world concerning "earthly governments and law." Some members of the Church had been accused of being opposed to law and order, and were subsequently victimized by mobbings and violence. The declaration provided guidelines for the Saints in rebutting the charges of their enemies. Penned by Oliver Cowdery, with the possible participation of W. W. Phelps, this is one of the few sections of the Doctrine and Covenants not given by revelation to Joseph Smith.
Two central themes run throughout this section and related passages. First, the duty of government is to provide for the public interest in general and to protect freedom of conscience and religious belief in particular. Governments "were instituted of God for the benefit of man." Laws are to be enacted "for the good and safety of society" and to "secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life." Government officials are to make laws that are "best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience" (D&C 134:1-2, 5). The separation of church and state is imperative: it is not "just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges" (D&C 134:9). Governments do not have the right "to interfere in prescribing rules of worship, to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion." They "should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul." Governments have an affirmative duty to protect citizens "in the free exercise of their religious belief," but they do not have the right to "deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions," as long as such citizens do not promote sedition (D&C 134:4-7).
Second, the duty of citizens is to honor and sustain laws and governments. All people are "bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights." Governments are responsible "for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty"; citizens are to "step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment" (D&C 134:5-6, 8).
Other passages in LDS scripture reflect these themes of governmental and citizenship duties. Members of the Church are to befriend the "constitutional law of the land" that supports the "principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges" (D&C 98:5-6). Church leaders have regularly indicated their belief that the Constitution of the United States of America is an inspired document. Citizens are to seek and uphold honest, wise, and good government leaders (D&C 98:10). Book of Mormon writers emphasize that every person is to enjoy "rights and privileges alike" and that political decisions are to be made "by the voice of the people" (Mosiah 29:25-27, 32).
New Testament admonitions to "render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" (Matt. 22:21), to "be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates" (Titus 3:1), and to "submit yourselves to every ordinance of man" (1 Pet. 2:13) also provide guidance to members of the Church concerning their obligations as citizens. In all nations, Latter-day Saints are encouraged to support their lawful governments; to participate actively in politics, civic affairs, and public service; and to support and promote just and righteous causes.
Because of its emphasis on free agency, individual accountability, and freedom of belief and conscience, LDS theology is quite compatible with Western traditions of liberal democracy that champion individual and minority rights, personal freedom, and religious pluralism. Laws are to ensure "the rights and protection of all" so that every person "May act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which [God has] given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment" (D&C 101:77-78).
From a broader view of politics, however, Latter-day Saints have much greater expectations for collective action. Their theology includes a strong commitment to achieve a unified, cooperative society, characterized by spiritual convictions, strong social bonds, collective responsibilities, and material equality. Joseph Smith taught that "the greatest temporal and spiritual blessings which always come from faithfulness and concerted effort, never attended individual exertion or enterprise" (TPJS, p. 183). Unity and cooperation in temporal affairs are preconditions for spiritual progress: "If ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27); "If ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things" (D&C 78:6; see also Zion).
Respect for individual rights and a strong commitment to collective action come together in the belief that communities can be built on shared principles and ideals, but force can never be employed to achieve those ends. Unity and cooperation cannot be attained by coercion, but only through love: power is to be exercised by "persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned" (D&C 121:41). The goals of individual righteousness and community are well captured in this description of the city of Enoch from the Pearl of Great Price: "And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them" (Moses 7:18).
While Latter-day Saints aspire to such a community of the faithful, they have been encouraged throughout their history to participate in public affairs even under other conditions. "It is our duty," said Joseph Smith, "to concentrate all our influence to make popular that which is sound and good, and unpopular that which is unsound. 'Tis right, politically, for a man who has influence to use it" (HC 5:286). Brigham Young charged members of the Church, "Let every man and woman be industrious, prudent, and economical in their acts and feelings, and while gathering to themselves, let each one strive to identify his or her interests with the interests of this community, with those of their neighbor and neighborhood, let them seek their happiness and Welfare in that of all" (JD 3:330).
In 1903 the First Presidency of the Church issued a statement emphasizing the separation of religious and political activity: The Church…instructs in things temporal as well as things spiritual…. But it does not infringe upon…the domain of the state…. Every member of the organization in every place is absolutely free as a citizen…. In proclaiming "the kingdom of heaven's at hand," we have the most intense and fervent conviction of our mission and calling…. But we do not and will not attempt to force them upon others, or to control or dominate any of their affairs, individual or national [MFP 4:79, 82].
In 1968, the First Presidency issued a statement concerning the obligations of citizenship: We urge our members to do their civic duty and to assume their responsibilities as individual citizens in seeking solutions to the problems which beset our cities and communities.
With our wide ranging mission, so far as mankind is concerned, Church members cannot ignore the many practical problems that require solution if our families are to live in an environment conducive to spirituality….
Individual Church members cannot, of course, represent or commit the Church, but should, nevertheless, be "anxiously engaged" in good causes, using the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as their constant guide [see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency"].
There are differing views among Church members concerning how to put these principles into practice. From one view, government intervention ought to be minimal in order to encourage volunteerism, freedom of choice, and individual responsibility. Others believe governments should pursue a wide range of collective purposes and promote shared values. There are also differences concerning the role of religious ideas in political discourse. Some believe, much like those in other churches who have not hesitated to mix politics and religion in issues such as civil rights, abortion, and environmental pollution (see Earth), that religious principles having corresponding secular purposes should be part of public debate and be enacted into law if they can gain sufficient support in the political system. Others favor a more distinct separation between religious belief and public discourse, where public debate is limited to issues and values that can be defended on "rational" grounds, so that religious beliefs do not influence the making of laws (see PoliticsPolitics: Political Culture).
Brigham Young stated clearly the LDS commitment to a broad conception of collective effort in working toward a vision of a celestial community, while expressing ambivalence about earthly politics: "As for politics, we care nothing about them one way or the other, although we are a political people…. It is the Kingdom of God or nothing with us" (Millennial Star 31 [1869]:573).
[edit] Bibliography
Cannon, Donald Q. "Church and State." In Insights into the Doctrine and Covenants: The Capstone of our Religion, ed. R. Millet and L. Dahl, pp. 183-96. Salt Lake City, 1989.
Firmage, Edwin Brown. "Eternal Principles of Government: A Theological Approach." Ensign 6 (June 1976):11-16.
Nibley, Hugh. "Beyond Politics." In Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless: Classic Essays of Hugh W. Nibley, ed. T. Madsen, pp. 279-305. Provo, Utah, 1978.
GARY C. BRYNER
[edit] Politics: Political Culture
Author: KIMBALL, WM. CLAYTON
Contrary to some popular characterizations, Latter-day Saints do not all think or vote alike on political matters and do not share a distinctive political subculture. American Latter-day Saints tend to be slightly more pragmatic, less cynical, more optimistic, and less alienated than the average American citizen, but only in minor variations from the broad national political culture. The earliest Latter-day Saints were Americans before they became Latter-day Saints. If Latter-day Saints as a group were markedly less or more optimistic or less or more cynical than the average U.S. citizen, that might indicate the presence of a distinctive political subculture, but there is no evidence for this.
A political culture is generally understood to be a patterned set of ways of thinking about how politics and governing ought to be carried out, and a subculture is a somewhat differing view peculiar to a smaller area or group. During the nineteenth century, when Latter-day Saints "gathered" together in well-structured communities throughout the intermountain West, there was a distinctive Mormon political subculture. It was based on a model of consensus politics and a deference to ecclesiastical authority, which set it apart from the dominant American political culture of the time. This subculture slowly dissipated as the intermountain LDS commonwealth was integrated into the larger political and economic patterns of the United States, despite the continued majority status of Latter-day Saints in many communities.
In a strict sense, there is no such thing today as "a Mormon political culture." The mark of such a subculture is the frequency and likelihood of certain political behaviors observable over time and in well-defined situations, not the source of the ideas that it expresses. While various tenets of their faith may predispose many Latter-day Saints to one side of some political disputes in the United States, such a predisposition is not sufficient to indicate the presence of a unique political subculture.
In the late twentieth century, Latter-day Saints are found in many different countries, living under many different political systems. That which ties them together is a set of religious beliefs, not an identifiable set of habits of thinking or acting about politics. Were a cross-polity survey to be taken, the empirical beliefs, likes and dislikes, values, and priorities of Latter-day Saints in political matters would be polity-specific. German Latter-day Saints, for example, would resemble other Germans more than they would Mexican, French, or Samoan Latter-day Saints.
Some maintain, nonetheless, that there is an identifiable LDS political subculture in America, or at least in Utah. This perspective may confuse a regional pattern of attitudes and behaviors with a religious one. It also reflects the ubiquitous disagreements between minorities and the majority in any population. Latter-day Saints in Utah (the only state where they constitute a majority of the population) are no more sensitive to the feelings of alienation and oppression perceived by members of other denominations than are other religious or cultural majorities in other parts of the world.
Since statehood in 1896, Utah has been in the mainstream of American politics. In the twenty-two presidential elections between 1904 and 1988, Utah gave its electoral (and majority) votes to the national winner all but three times. The partisan preferences of Utah voters are essentially the same as those of other intermountain and western voters in presidential and congressional elections. Divisions between voters are essentially partisan, not ecclesiastical, even in strongly LDS areas.
Belief in the LDS worldview does not produce predictable or demonstrable similarities in political habits of thought and expectations, regardless of geographical, economic, or social differences. The often fervent divisions among LDS voters over political issues and candidates cast serious doubt on the existence of any unifying, religiously determined political behaviors.
Latter-day Saints' attitudinal orientations are generally intensifications of typically American attitudes. For example, the idea of political efficacy-the feeling citizens have that they can influence what the government does and the belief that government listens to what ordinary citizens say-is a key indicator of the type of political culture a country has. In all cross-polity surveys, U.S. citizens demonstrate significantly higher levels of political efficacy than citizens of any other country. Perhaps because of the stress in LDS theology on the value of individual effort and the right of individual agency, Latter-day Saints demonstrate higher levels of efficacy than most other groups in American political life. How directly related to religious beliefs such attitudes may be is difficult to establish empirically. However, there may be some overlap or holdover from earlier times.
Latter-day Saints also ascribe a higher level of legitimacy to political leaders, possibly a holdover from the mingling of ecclesiastical and political authority in nineteenth-century Utah. Finally, voting participation statistics indicate that the growing political alienation in America has made few inroads in strongly LDS areas.
A crucial determinant of a community's or a nation's political stability and governmental effectiveness is the extent to which its citizens give their primary political loyalties to it rather than to a particular region, tribe, or religion. Although Latter-day Saints are deeply attached to their religion, for this attachment to affect their political behavior has been the exception rather than the rule. For example, during the 1930s and 1940s the President of the Church and at least one of his counselors were implacably opposed to the policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and expressed their views publicly and privately. Nevertheless, Utah voters joined decisively with national majorities voting for the Democratic candidates from 1932 through 1948. In the ten presidential elections since 1952, only in 1964 did Utah vote Democratic, again joining an overwhelming national majority. This Republican hegemony is found not only in LDS areas but also nearly all the western states.
There is no detectable pattern or set of political behaviors common to Latter-day Saints. Appearances of a unique LDS political homogeneity disappear when regional and national trends are taken into account. No institutional or doctrinal mechanism exists for passing on a political culture, especially in light of the high percentage of converts. The growing international character of the Church and its membership will no doubt produce even greater political heterogeneity among Latter-day Saints in the future.
[edit] Bibliography
Poll, Richard D., et al. Utah's History, pp. 97-112, 153-73, 243-74, 387-404, 409-428, 481-96, 515-30, 669-80. Provo, Utah, 1978.
WM. CLAYTON KIMBALL
[edit] Politics: Contemporary American Politics
Author: MAGLEBY, DAVID B.
Latter-day Saints are an integral part of the politics of the intermountain West of the United States. They play important roles in U.S. politics and government, and members have held high positions in all three branches of the federal government and in many state and local governments. The Church encourages its members throughout the world to be involved in government and civic affairs (see Civic Duties). Official Church statements on such matters as the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and the MX missile have been important in the politics of these issues.
On most issues and in most elections, the Church has remained neutral, admonishing its members to study the issues and vote according to their conscience. A member of the First Presidency said in 1951: The Church, while reserving the right to advocate principles of good government underlying equity, justice, and liberty, the political integrity of officials, and the active participation of its members, and the fulfillment of their obligations in civic affairs, exercises no constraint on the freedom of individuals to make their own choices and affiliations…. Any man who makes representation to the contrary does so without authority and justification in fact [Richards, p. 878].
The Church encourages individual choice in elections, although through the 1960 election Church leaders often publicly endorsed or indicated their personal preference for U.S. presidential candidates (Jonas, p. 335). Despite any corporate interest it may have in Utah (see Business: Church Participation in Business), the Church has not become directly involved in elections in those jurisdictions for many years.
While many non-LDS candidates have been elected to public office in Utah, Church membership and affiliation do appear to be important to political success in Utah, as well as in some surrounding areas of the intermountain West with large LDS populations. Candidates for office sometimes advertise their Church affiliation, Church leadership positions, and family size as part of their political campaigns. Local Church officials sometimes become involved in politics either as candidates or as supporters of candidates. Some voters incorrectly infer an implicit Church endorsement of candidates or issues in these situations.
While the Church rarely takes an official stand on candidates or issues, it does possess substantial political power. Its membership constitutes an overwhelming majority (70 percent) in the state of Utah and significant portions of the population in Idaho, Arizona, and Nevada. It also exercises political influence through its corporate and business interests. The Church's business interests and its print and broadcast media (Bonneville International) give it a means to participate in politics. Editorials from these media are often considered to reflect the views of the Church.
Church members in the late twentieth century are generally Republicans, often strong Republicans, though in earlier generations Democratic influence prevailed. Data on Utah indicate that 69 percent of the Latter-day Saints are Republicans, a figure higher than the 57 percent of Utahans who are Republicans and the 47 percent of western Americans who are Republicans. Increased Church activity is even more strongly correlated to Republican partisan identification. This relationship between Church activity and attachment to the Republican party is also related to age; younger, very active Latter-day Saints are most likely to classify themselves Republicans. Party identification among members of the Church has the same behavioral consequences as it does among non-Mormons nationwide. Most members of the Church are politically conservative, both by self-classification and in attitudes toward economic, social, and lifestyle issues. The conservatism of many Church members reinforces their partisan preferences, especially with regard to the national political parties. Little is known about the partisan or ideological predispositions of LDS members outside the United States.
Recent nationally prominent LDS political figures also tend to be disproportionately Republican, although for all of U.S. history, LDS congressmen and senators have been only about 50 percent Republican. LDS congressmen tend to come from Utah and surrounding states, but include several California members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Utah, Idaho, Michigan, and Arizona have all had LDS governors. LDS-elected gubernatorial officials and national legislators represent an even partisan balance.
Several Latter-day Saints have played key roles in recent Republican administrations. President Eisenhower's cabinet included apostle and later President of the Church Ezra Taft Benson as secretary of agriculture. President Nixon's cabinet included David M. Kennedy as secretary of the treasury, and George Romney as secretary of housing and urban development. The Ford, Reagan, and Bush administrations also had several members of the Church as key staff. Church members played a generally less visible role in the Democratic administrations of Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter.
Church members have been important participants in the judicial branch as well. While no member of the Church has been appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, several Latter-day Saints have served as court of appeals, district court, and state supreme court judges.
The Church has been most visible politically in discussion of moral issues. In 1976, after years of silence on political issues, the Church issued a statement opposing the ERA: "We recognize men and women as equally important before the Lord, but with differences biologically, emotionally, and in other ways. ERA, we believe, does not recognize these differences. There are better means for giving women, and men, the rights they deserve" ("First Presidency Issues Statement Opposing Equal Rights Amendment," Ensign 6 [Dec. 1976]:79). This formal institutional opposition sparked significant local organizing by private Church members acting on their own accord against the amendment in Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, and Virginia. Not all Church members opposed the amendment. Some had spoken publicly in support of the amendment before the Church position was announced.
During the early 1980s the Church took a position on the MX missile controversy. Many Church leaders had long been critical of war and armaments. But others were in favor of preparations for defense. Thus, elected officials could find Church authorities either favoring or opposing defense spending, new weapons systems, and foreign military activities. Utah representatives in Washington tend to promote defense spending, and Utah has a large defense industry.
In 1981, Church President Spencer W. Kimball and his counselors issued a strongly worded letter opposing the deployment of the MX missile in the desert of western Utah and neighboring eastern Nevada. The statement criticized not only the MX missile but also the form of warfare it exemplified: "With the most serious concern over the pressing moral question of possible nuclear conflict, we plead with our national leaders to marshal the genius of the nation to find viable alternatives which will secure at an earlier date and with fewer hazards the protection from possible enemy aggression, which is our common concern" ("First Presidency Statement on Basing of MX Missile," Ensign 11 [June 1981]:76).
The Church has also opposed legalized gambling, including state-run lotteries ("Church Opposes Government-Sponsored Gambling," Ensign 16 [Nov. 1986]:104-105), and has made moral arguments against liberalizing access to alcoholic beverages.
[edit] Bibliography
Arrington, Leonard J., and Davis Bitton. The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints, pp. 243-307. New York, 1979.
Jonas, Frank. "Utah: The Different State." In Politics in the American West, ed. F. Jonas. Salt Lake City, 1969.
Richards, Stephen L. "Awake, Ye Defenders of Zion." IE 54 (Dec. 1951):877-80.
DAVID B. MAGLEBY
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z
