Problems With Mormonthink'S Views Of Church Politics

[Bob Crockett]

The mormonthink.com site is inaccurate in the way it portrays Church involvement in politics and the way it suggests that Romney, as a "high priest", will need Church approval and get his direction from Church leaders. The Church does not require such approval from its regular members.

I'm a second cousin, once removed, of Mitt Romney, but I will most likely be voting for Barack Obama. I've supported the Democratic Party most of my life and don't intend to change now. But, Mr. Tweede has only a superficial understanding of the Church's involvement in politics to suggest that a conspiracy is afoot to thwart opposition to Mitt Romney.

The Church's position is that it has the right to speak out on political issues, although it will do so only rarely. Examples of involvement that come to mind include active local lobbying to oppose passage of the Twenty-First Amendment (repeal of Prohibition). When Utah became the state which was the last state necessary to ensure the Amendment’s passage, the First Presidency issued an editorial condemning Utah’s role in its passage.

In my lifetime, the Church was intimately involved opposing the Reagan-era MX Missile. That project was widely popular in most Republican Utah circles. It would bring jobs and prosperity to an impoverished section of Utah. It was proposed as a second-strike missile defense. ICBM missiles would be transported on rail in large circles in Southern Utah deserts. One voice in Salt Lake City stood out against it, University of Utah Law School’s Ed Firmage. When President Kimball came out against the MX Missile with a carefully-prepared statement, the statement used much of the very same language that Firmage had been using, and I suspect that he was used to draft the statement.

Also in President Kimball’s administration, the Church opposed the pending ERA Amendment. Washington State hosted in the International Year of the Woman conference in central Washington. Local LDS Church groups got their Relief Society sisters out to the conference to vote down proposed planks for women’s equality. That event led to very hard feelings amongst business and legal leaders in Seattle, such all major law firms stopped recruiting at the J. Reuben Clark Law School. A notorious flap occurred around 1980 when a senior partner at Bogle & Gates (the Gates being Bill Gate’s father) told a J. Reuben Clark law student about that agreement among local firms. (This would be repeated on a larger scale after Proposition 8.)

As to the Church’s influence in the election of particular individuals, the Church has been studiously neutral. Key exceptions to this neutrality can be seen in the Missouri and Nauvoo periods, when the Church members were asked to vote in bloc for particular candidates. In those days, elections were not secret ballot affairs. Voters would be given the day off of work. Voting would occur in the town square and was lubricated with lots of grog. Joseph Smith, and the later Brigham Young in the Nauvoo period, would pledge the Church bloc to whomever would appear to be the least likely to afflict the Church.

This sort of Church voting came to an end in the territorial period where federal officials were appointees. Instead, the Church relied upon political lobbyists in Washington to influence legislation and presidential relations, to the extent possible. Early Church lobbyists included Dr. John Milton Berhnisel (also a territorial representative to the House), Thomas L. Kane and Almon Babbitt. (Judge W.W. Drummond told the Attorney General that Babbitt had been murdered on the high plains on the orders of Brigham Young as Babbitt was returning from Washington City. Will Bagley's book Blood of the Prophets repeats such nonsense as fact but the only evidence is that the Indians killed Babbitt. However, Young often disagreed with Babbitt.)

Church relations with Washington City politicians were rocky during the Brigham Young period. President Young condemned James Buchanan to hell. (Buchanan was the only life-long bachelor to hold the position His enemies would call him "Mary" and accuse him of cross-dressing.) The Republican Party declared as one of its national planks the abolition of polygamy (the “twin pillars of barbarism”). After Brigham Young, the Republican Party took up the cudgel against the Saints, sponsoring several pieces of legislation against the Church. One of the Supreme Court justices in the Reynolds case, Justice William Strong, was the President of the American Tract Society, the American Sunday-School Union (ardent anti-Mormons) and also of a group promoting a constitutional amendment to declare the United States a Christian nation which would have excluded the Mormon faith.

It is well-known that Joseph Smith campaigned as an independent for the office of President for the 1844 election, in which Democratic candidate James K. Polk beat Whig nominee Henry Clay. Joseph Smith’s key planks included selling public lands to raise money to free the slaves; he proposed decreasing the size and salary of Congress; he proposed the annexation of Texas, Oregon and parts of Canada; he proposed a number of free-trade items and the re-establishment of the national bank (thus, aligning himself somewhat with the Whigs).

Around 1890, as part of its forced settlement with the U.S. Government (after almost all of the Church’s assets were forfeited and its members required to submit to a test oath), the Church instructed its members to disband the Peoples Party (basically, an anti-government party) and to align themselves with the national parties. Because most members wanted to align themselves with the Democrats due to decades of Republican persecution, the Church had to assign some members to join the Republican Party.

The next major Church authority to run for office was Apostle Moses Thatcher. He accepted Utah’s Democratic Party’s nomination as a candidate for the Senate. He was already somewhat out of harmony with the Twelve. His nomination led to the Twelve’s creation of a political manifesto which would declare Church neutrality in politics as well as permission from the Twelve before a member of its body could run for public office. Thatcher refused to sign. He was eventually dropped from the Quorum and then excommunicated, but his problems were much deeper than that of disharmony with the Twelve as he became caught up with the national craze known as “Spiritualism.”

B.H. Roberts also refused to sign the Twelve’s political manifesto of 1895 and found himself somewhat more out of harmony with the presiding Quorum of the Twelve as he accused them of trying to influence the election. Apparently, Roberts temporarily lost his ecclesiastical position in the Seventy until he capitulated and apologized. Thereafter, Roberts was elected to the House of Representatives but that body refused to seat him because he was a polygamist.

Reed Smoot was in his 30s when he served as Provo’s mayor and was thereafter elected as a Republican to the U.S. Senate in 1902. He was swept out of office in 1932 with the Roosevelt revolution. He, too, had his moments with the leadership of the Twelve as they originally opposed an Apostle’s full-time participation in politics. They eventually relented. The Church was then forced into responding to subpoenas when the Republican Party (principally, Senator William Borah of Idaho) challenged the right of Smoot to be seated. At that time, President Joseph F. Smith determined to do what it took to support Smoot in Senator Borah’s hearings, leading to the ouster of two members of the Twelve who either refused to respond to the subpoenas or evaded them.

No ranking General Authority thereafter sought elected public office, although a number of them have served as appointed political officers, including Elder Ezra Taft Benson (Eisenhower administration) and Elder Steven E. Snow (Obama administration). Although in modern history members of the Church have gravitated to the Republican Party, due in part to Reed Smoot’s influence as well as platform planks more consistent with the Church’s moral position, many prominent members of the Church have been Democrats. These include past First Presidency member James E. Faust, current Church Historian Steven E. Snow, and past Church Historian Marlin K. Jensen.

But, the Church as an institution since Reed Smoot (and all the Church did there was to try and help keep him in office once elected) has remained steadfast for over a hundred years that it will not support a particular candidate. It does, however, encourage participation in the political process and urges its members to vote for good men and women. The Church does involve itself in political issues, including such matters as immigration, marriage and family rights, liquor-by-the-drink legislation and, as mentioned above, the MX missile. It has never pretended to be neutral as to political issues. When the Church says that it is "neutral" it means only that it is neutral with respect to political candidates, a position founded in the 1895 Political Manifesto. Most major Church organizations in the United States have political views and lobbyists in Washington, including the Catholic Church which pressures Catholic politicians to oppose death penalty legislation, even to the point of threatening excommunication.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[urroner]

Handbook 2 (Selected Church Policies): Administering the Church

Political and Civic Activity

As citizens, Church members are encouraged to participate in political and governmental affairs, including involvement in the political party of their choice. Members are also urged to be actively engaged in worthy causes to improve their communities and make them wholesome places in which to live and rear families.

In accordance with the laws of their respective governments, members are encouraged to register to vote, to study issues and candidates carefully, and to vote for individuals whom they believe will act with integrity and sound judgment. Latter-day Saints have a special obligation to seek out, vote for, and uphold leaders who are honest, good, and wise (see D&C 98:10).

While affirming the right of expression on political and social issues, the Church is neutral regarding political parties, political platforms, and candidates for political office. The Church does not endorse any political party or candidate. Nor does it advise members how to vote. However, in some exceptional instances the Church will take a position on specific legislation, particularly when it concludes that moral issues are involved. Only the First Presidency can speak for the Church or commit the Church to support or oppose specific legislation or to seek to intervene in judicial matters. Otherwise, stake presidents and other local leaders should not organize members to participate in political matters or attempt to influence how they participate.

Church members are encouraged to consider serving in elected or appointed public offices in local and national government. Candidates for public office should not imply that their candidacy is endorsed by the Church or its leaders. Church leaders and members should also avoid statements or conduct that might be interpreted as Church endorsement of any political party, platform, policy, or candidate.

Members are encouraged to support measures that strengthen the moral fabric of society, particularly those designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

Church records, directories, and similar materials may not be used for political purposes.

Church facilities may not be used for political purposes. However, facilities may be used for voter registration or polling where there is not a reasonable alternative (see 21.2).

[canard78]

Thanks Bob for a very thorough and well researched post.

Mormonthink is a nasty piece of work. It pretends to be 'an objective look' - but is clearly a long, long way from this. I'd call it a wolf in sheeps clothing, but the fleece is badly fitting and the tail and fangs are hanging out.

I'd welcome a website that fully engages with both sides of the argument and gave equal opportunity for both critics and apologists to explore the issues. Unfortunately, when it comes to mormonism, no one is objective so any website is always going to have an agenda one way or another.

[urroner]

I'd welcome a website that fully engages with both sides of the argument and gave equal opportunity for both critics and apologists to explore the issues. Unfortunately, when it comes to mormonism, no one is objective so any website is always going to have an agenda one way or another.

I work with a large diverse bunch of people. Most of us are conservatives, but the branch manager and several others are liberals and there's a sprinkling of libertarians. When it comes to religion, since I live in the South, there are more EVers than any other single group, but there are plenty of other Protestants groups represented with some Jews, some agnostics, one who claims to be atheist, and one sad looking Mormon.

An unwritten/unsaid agreement among all of us is that we will not talk about politics nor religion at work, unless we poking good, clean fun of it. Both religion and politics are based on emotions a lot and since I work with a bunch of engineers, we don't talk emotional stuff very well and we found out a long time ago that when we are poking holes in the logic of emotional arguments, it don't work none too good.

I remember some time ago a person who was visiting our office area was going off on Mormons and how terrible we were. I wandered into the cubicle and started agreeing with him how terrible those polygamous pagans were and how they were all going to Hell and I would rejoice when those Satan worshipers were there. The dude thought he was making headway, but he couldn't understand why everybody in the area all had a huge smiles on their faces. One of them finally told him that I was one of those polygamous, Satan worshiping pagans. That kind of ended the conversation right then and there.

Most of the people in the area were very uncomfortable with what the guy was saying and wanted to stop him, but I intervened before they did and they enjoyed my approach better. One of them mentioned that I was more of a Christian then they thought I was, He mentioned Matt 5:25 "Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him..."