J.D. Williams, “The Separation of Church
and State in Mormon Theory andPractice.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon
Thought, Vol. 1 No. 2 (1966): 30–54.

Copyright © 2012 Dialogue Foundation. All Rights Reserved

THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH
AND STATE IN MORMON THEORYAND PRACTICE

J. D. Williams
Continuing Dialogue's "Assessment of Mormon Culture," this article
reviews and evaluates the history of the Church's position and practices withregard to politics. /. D. Williams, Professor of Political Science and Directorof the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah, received theB'nai B'rith Human Brotherhood Award in 1963, is a former bishop and ispresently a member of a stake high council in Salt Lake City.

When the Savior said it, it seemed simple enough — to "render
unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things
that are God's."1 But when the demands of Caesar's world encroachon the spiritual sphere, or when the oracles of God feel obliged tointervene in politics, separating church and state becomes a truly
troublesome and frustrating task.
Where do loyalty and duty lie, for example, when your Stake
President asks you as president of a Mormon Elders' Quorum to haveyour quorum distribute campaign pamphlets for a one-senatorper-county reapportionment measure — a proposal you strongly
disapprove? How should you vote in High Council meeting whenthe question is raised, "Should petitions for an anti-pornography
ordinance be available in the ward chapels for signing on the Sabbath
day?" And what should your reaction be when an Apostle of your

WILLIAMS:

Separation of Church and State/31

Church uses the pulpit at General Conference to charge the Presidentof the United States, whom you worked to elect, with unconstitutional programs which are leading the nation to socialism?
Such are the kinds of personal dilemmas which confront the lay
member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but they
pale in comparison alongside those affecting the Church as a whole.
1965-66 was a year of such dilemmas for the Church: Opposing a"miniature-bottle" liquor bill being considered in the State Legislature, the Church found itself in March, 1965, with a civil rights
picket line in front of its headquarters demanding the Church speakout for a fair housing bill before the same Legislature; and while theFirst Presidency was publicly petitioning Mormon Congressmen
during June, 1965, to protect "right-to-work" laws, the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People was resolving
to petition countries in the U. N. to deny visas to Mormon missionaries because of the Church's Negro doctrines.
In the cacaphony of these voices, one thing was certainly clear:
That the Mormon Church, in trying to administer the Kingdom of
God on Earth, was deeply immersed in the politics of the kingdomof men on Earth.
Viewed against the activities of other churches, these Mormon
forays into the arroyos of politics seem but part of an American
pattern. The National Council of Churches endorses school integration, the Salt Lake Ministerial Association declares war on Sunday
operation of grocery stores, Episcopal Bishop James Pike raises questions about a Catholic President, and Archbishop Rummel of New
Orleans bluntly tells Catholic legislators in Baton Rouge to voteagainst a bill threatening their racially-integrated parochial schools.
All of which leads one, in this day and age, to wonder what kindof a wall Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The First Amendment in the Billof Rights, he told them, had created "a wall of separation between
church and state."2 But the question arises: A wall that restricts
only what government may do to churches? Or a wall that restrains
in both directions, restricting governmental encroachments on religion and also limiting what churches may do in politics?
Our law books are filled with cases protecting churches fromgovernmental interference. But the "other side of the wall" presents
a different picture. Writers from de Tocqueville to Paul Blanshard
have raised questions about the propriety of church involvement in
1
2

New Testament, Matthew, 22:21.
Letter of January 1, 1802. Writings of Thomas Jefferson (New York, 1853), vol. 8, p. 113.

321 DIALOGUE: A Journal of Mormon

Thought

politics; but this author knows of only two actual restrictions on
church political activity in modern American history. The first was
Utah's constitutional prohibition (Art. I, Section 4) — "There shallbe no union of church and state, nor shall any church dominate thestate or interfere with its functions." The second was an ominous
warning from the Salt Lake City office of the U. S. Internal Revenue
Service in the midst of a 1954 reapportionment contest in whichsome Church leaders were heavily involved, a warning which said
that "Tax-exempt organizations cannot participate in political campaigns without losing their tax status."3
To this day, the perplexing question remains, how far may a
church and its leaders invade the political arena without seriously
breaching the separation of church and state? With that questionin mind, we shall focus here on four aspects of the problem within
the framework of Mormon experience: (a) The major constructs ofMormonism which bear on politics, (b) the struggle-for-statehood
period which shaped latter-day political thinking and practice, (c)the forms of L.D.S. Church involvement in politics, and (d) theissues and dilemmas which are posed by such involvement.
Four aspects of Mormonism seem particularly significant inunderstanding the Church's stance in regard to the political world.
The first of these is the key theological concept of continuing,
modern-day revelation. The accepted notion is that Church leaders
enjoy inspiration from God in the conduct of their religious affairs.
The political significance of the doctrine lies in the belief of many
Mormons that divine inspiration may be transferable when Church
leaders speak out on secular (including political) affairs.
The second construct consists of the strong, hierarchical lines
from general church authorities through regional leaders (stakepresidents) down to neighborhood officers of the Church (the ward
bishops). The hierarchical system provides a network which canbe used to communicate policy statements and decisions of any sort(including political) with almost no questioning in the ranks.
Third is the superb organization of the Church at the neighborhood level. Organized down to family units, with a visiting systemthat reaches every L.D.S. home at least monthly, a Mormon ward isready for united action on very short notice. As a case in point, one
bishop a few years ago was able to get over a hundred of his parishioners to the State Capitol in Salt Lake City on two hours' notice
to protest the opening of a liquor store in their neighborhood.
Fourth and most complicated is the ambivalence in Mormon
3

Deseret News (Salt Lake City), October 22, 1954.

WILLIAMS:

Separation of Church and State/33

theory and practice which permits the contemporary Church to findprecedents either for involvement or against involvement in politics.
Note on the one hand theocratic elements (which support church
political activity) : The Book of Mormon is filled with chronicles
of men who were both high priest and king (or chief judge) . The
first Church president, Joseph Smith, held three sceptres: Headof the Church, Mayor of Nauvoo, and General of the Nauvoo
Legion. In Utah's pioneer period, Brigham Young was Presidentof the Church and Territorial Governor from 1850-58. And likemost Christians, Mormons anticipate the establishment of a religious
monarchy upon the second coming of Jesus Christ: "And the government shall be upon His shoulders; and His name shall be called
Wonderful, Counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, thePrince of Peace."4
Pitted against that theocratic tradition is another one in Mormonism which supports separation of church and state, not government by church leaders. Note, for example, the powerful defenseof government by majority rule in the Book of Mormon,5 Beyond
that is the strong L. D. S. commitment to the U. S. Constitution (withits First Amendment separation of church and state) as a divinelyinspired document.6
Most impressive of all is the open and announced dedicationof the Church to separation of church and state in the 134th sectionof the Doctrine and Covenants. Written by early Church leader
Oliver Cowdery and officially ratified as doctrine by a general conference of the Church on August 17, 1835, the 134th section recognizes the necessity of government in the lives of men, holds thatgovernment must respect the free exercise of conscience, and thenmarks out the respective domains of church and state:v. 4. We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men
are amenable to Him, and to Him only, for the exercise of it,
unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon therights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that humanlaw has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship tobind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or
private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime,
but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but neversuppress the freedom of the soul.
4

Isaiah 9:6.
Book of Mormon, Mosiah 29:25-32. Some may say that majority rule would not necessarily preclude either an established church or the election of church officials to public office.
But recognition of that fact must not obscure the critical difference between majoritarian
democracy and theocracy: In the former, government rests on the consent of the governed;in theocracy, imperium in imperio ex cathedra.
6
Doctrine and Covenants, 98:5-7, 101:80.
5

34/DIALOGUE:

A Journal of Mormon Thoughtv. 5. We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold thethe respective governments in which they reside, while protectedin their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of suchgovernments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming
every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly;
and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as intheir own judgments are best calculated to secure the public
interest;1 at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedomof conscience.
v. 9. We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence withcivil government, whereby one religious society is fostered andanother proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual
rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

Despite the apparent clarity of that doctrine, the ambivalencein Church practice remains.8 The hostility of governments to the
Church and the indifference of governments to mob action against
the Church in early days in Missouri and Illinois propelled the
Church into politics for self-protection. And today, with the normal
power imperatives of any large organization with much at stake,the L.D.S. Church remains in politics.
In understanding why the Church is as involved politically as it is,
one must turn to the long struggle for Utah statehood, 1850-1896,
to see the formative influences as they began to take shape after the
migration to Utah in 1847.
POLITICAL GESTATION, 1850-1896

Three years after an ailing Brigham Young had looked downon the valley of the Great Salt Lake and proclaimed, "This is thePlace," the Mormons of Deseret had achieved territorial status under
the laws of Congress. Six attempts and forty-six years later, theirchildren and grandchildren finally achieved statehood.
Between 1850 and 1896 lay a wasteland of fear, ill-will, and conflict between "the Saints" and the federal government. On thatwasteland was fought the abortive Utah War of 1857-1858, which
led to the occupation of Deseret by a federal army under an officer
who was later to become famous in the Civil War, General Albert
Sydney Johnston. And from that wasteland were to grow the weedsof distrust that would delay statehood for almost five decades.
7(Italics added.) In the author's judgment, this key phrase of verse 5 precludes church
dictation or directives to public office holders. But the language would not seem to prohibit
the expression of church views on public questions in the manner of any other interest
group in a free society.
s
Brigham Young could say in 1844 in the face of the 134th Section, "No man candraw the dividing line between the government of God and the government of the childrenof men." Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereinafter cited as Documentary History) (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1950), vol. 6, p. 322.

WILLIAMS:

Separation of Church and State j'35

Three things in particular contributed to Congressional hostility
toward the Mormons: polygamy, theocracy (no separation of churchand state), and the absence of a normal-looking, major two-party
system.9 Congressional reaction to polygamy was especially sternand undoubtedly served as one of the most lasting influences inshaping the defensive attitude of Mormons against government.
Congress Outlaws Polygamy
The first of three anti-polygamy statutes was the Merrill Act of1862. A straight penal law, it forbade the practice of plural marriage
in the territories.10 Conviction of a group of Mormons, and theconstitutionality of the Act itself, were sustained in Reynolds v.
U. S., 1878.11
A tougher statute followed in 1882, the Edmunds Act.12 Not
only imposing five-year imprisonments on convicted polygamists,
the new law deprived them thereafter of the right to vote andhold office. The Utah Commission appointed by President Chester A.
Arthur to enforce the law's electoral provisions imposed a test oathon potential voters (to the effect that they did not practice polygamy)
and made the oath retroactive.18
Still seeking the extirpation of plural marriage, Congress
moved its attack in 1887 from the practice to the organization
behind the practice, the L.D.S. Church itself. The Edmunds-Tucker
Act of that year14 disincorporated the Corporation of the Churchof Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a legal entitity charteredunder territorial law and escheated all its properties to the federal
government which were not used for worship or cemeteries. The
act abolished the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company, which
had subsidized the immigration of Mormon converts from Europe.
The statute then annulled Utah's woman suffrage laws, abolishedthe existing apportionment of the Territorial Legislature and9Other variants of these which concerned the Congress were a Church-dominated school
system and the absence of the secret ballot in elections.
10
12 Stat. 501, July 1, 1862. It is interesting to note that the Act forbade cohabitation
among the married but not among the unmarried. Mining camps like Park City and Alta
were to have plenty of the unprohibited kind! See Orma Linford, "The Mormons and theLaw," Utah Law Review, Winter, 1964, v. 9:308-371, and Summer, 1965 v. 9:543-592.
"98 U. S. 145 (1878). Note that this decision preceded by twelve years the 1890
Manifesto of Church President Wilford Woodruff abandoning polygamy.
12
22 Stat. 30, March 22, 1882.
13
A procedure which a modern-day Supreme Court might possibly find unconstitutional(see U. S. v. Brown, 381 US 237, 456-8, 1965).""24 Stat. 635, March 3, 1887. The words of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights
should be borne in mind as one reads the provisions of this law: "Congress shall make nolaw respecting an establishment of religion or abridging the free exercise thereof."361 DIALOGUE: A Journal of Mormon

Thought(shades of Earl Warren) ordered equal representation in both chambers. The law retained the test oath for voting and the criminal
penalties of the two earlier statutes.15
With its leaders facing imprisonment (some of whom were in
hiding on "the Underground") and the Church facing bankruptcy,
Church President Wilford Woodruff announced the end of plural
marriages on September 29, 1890.16
It is not wisdom for us to go forth and carry out this principle(polygamy) against the laws of the nation. . . . The Lord has given uscommandments concerning many things and we have carried themout as far as we could; but when we cannot do it, we are justified. . . .17
To a substantial degree, the Manifesto and the L.D.S. leaders'plea for amnesty removed the obstacle of polygamy to statehood(although plural marriage — or the spectre of it — later resulted in
the unseating of one Utah Congressman, Brigham H. Roberts, andthe near expulsion of a U. S. Senator, Reed Smoot).
But the Congress still needed convincing that another face ofMormonism, Brigham Young's theocracy, had also had a face-lifting
before "those Mormons" could be admitted to the Union.
THEOCRACY AND THE PARTY SYSTEM18

Statehood for Utah was delayed because Congress was convincedthat the Mormons had too many wives and too few political parties.
Prior to 1870, the parties were few enough, all right — just one.
Called the "People's Party," it was the political vehicle of the Mormon leaders for such tasks as electing the territorial legislature andUtah's Delegate to Congress. But this one-party system came underchallenge in 1869, when a group of Brigham Young's critics (headedby William Godbe) were excommunicated from the Church andmoved almost at once to set up a party of their own.
15
Edmunds-Tucker, undoubtedly the closest law in our history to disestablishing achurch, was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus
Christ v. U. S., 136 U. S. 1, 1890. The Court held that the plenary powers of Congress toregulate the territories were ample enough to prohibit all means of carrying on the practiceof polygamy. Even the "Establishment Clause" would not prevent the disestablishment of
the corporate arm of the Church (because the Church could carry on its legitimate religious
activities without corporate status). That same year, the Court upheld an Idaho statutewhich denied the vote to members of any church which espoused polygamy. Davis v. Beason,
133 U. S. 333, 1890.
" T h e "Manifesto" was voted upon and accepted by the General Conference of the
Church in October, 1890. It is to be found at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants.
17
General Conference remarks, as quoted in Joseph Fielding Smith, Essentials in Church
History (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1961) , pp. 608-9.
18
We are indebted to the able master's thesis of R. J. Snow, The American Party inUtah (University of Utah, 1964) for the historical tracing of the party struggle in Utahprior to statehood.

WILLIAMS:

Separation of Church and State/37

But the Godbeites were not dealing with political novices. In
calling their mass meeting of independents to order in February,
1870, they found the hall filled with infiltrators from the People's
Party who proceeded to install their own chairman and nominate
a slate of pro-Church candidates.
Later that year, the independents succeeded in forming theLiberal Party, spokesman for the Gentile (non-Mormon) segmentof the population in Utah. With the Salt Lake Tribune (foundedin 1869) as the Liberal trumpet and the Deseret News speaking for
the People's Party, the two parties went forth into a quarter-century
battle of the worst kind — political warfare fought on religious lines.
The absence of the Democratic and Republican parties on the
Utah scene puzzled many in the Congress. The presence instead ofa "Church Party" could be taken as proof that church and state had
not yet been separated. And there was not much Congressional
stomach for admitting a polygamous theocracy to the Union.
Sensing that the atypical nature of their party system was an
obstacle to statehood, some Utahns began to take steps in the 1880's
toward the establishment of Democratic and Republican Clubs. By
April of 1890, a nucleus of the Democratic Party had been formed
and, a year later, the Central Republican Club was in being.
Then came the dramatic, now humorous, sequence of events inwhich theocracy served as midwife for the birth of democracy inUtah. Sometime in 1891 (a day uncertain) at a meeting of the leaders of the People's Party (the Church party), the First Counselor in
the Church Presidency, George Q. Cannon, made an appearance.
President Cannon informed the party officials that the First Presidency of the Church wanted the existing parties scrapped and thenational parties instituted in their place. He then warned that theold religious warfare would be perpetuated under new labels if all
the People's Party became Democrats and the Liberals became
Republicans.19
So the word went forth from that meeting that Mormons should
join both national parties. And as the word moved down the hierarchy, some imaginative bishops at the ward level gave "practicaltranslation" to the advice: They stood at the head of the chapel aisle
and indicated that the Saints on one side (dare we say "right"?)should become Republicans and those on the other (left?) should
become Democrats.20
19
Gordon B. Hinckley, James Henry Moyle (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1951),
p p . 213-14.
20
Mr. Joseph Nelson, later head of the Saltair Corporation, was present when his ward
was divided politically in this fashion (as personally related years ago to Wallace F. Bennett,
later U. S. Senator, and then related to this a u t h o r ) .

381 DIALOGUE: A Journal of Mormon Thought
The People's Party disbanded in 1891 as President Cannon had
requested and the Liberal Party followed suit in December, 1893.
Ecclesiastical edict had produced a two-party system which Congress
could understand.
Statehood
Congress passed the Enabling Act in 1894, which permitted thewriting of a draft constitution. Remnants of the old Liberal Party
opposed statehood, lest a fully-empowered state legislature underthe 10th Amendment of the Federal Constitution lift the ban on
polygamy. But the proposed Constitution specifically prohibited
polygamy (Article III). And as a further persuader to Congress, thedocument also contained the prohibition (noted above) in Article
I, Section 4, against any union of church and state.
In a popular referendum, the Constitution was approved 31,305
to 7,687 opposed. On the proclamation of President Grover Cleveland, Utah entered the Union on January 4, 1896.
It had been a long struggle — a federal occupation, crushingstatutes, imprisonment of Church leaders, alteration of a Church
doctrine and marital pattern, and the reformation of a party system.
Strains and memories cast up during this gestation period were toshape for years to come the Mormon attitude toward, and posture in,politics.
FORMS OF MORMON INVOLVEMENT IN POLITICS21
Setting the Metes and Bounds of the Political Arena in Mormonism
Whenever one church claims the membership (in fact or nominally) of 72% of the people of a state, as the Mormon Church doesin Utah, its doctrines and practices are certain to have a pervasive
influence on the folkways of the state. In so doing, even if it never
took a stand on a political question, the Mormon Church would
still significantly influence the metes and bounds of the politicalstruggle in Utah.
Sale of liquor by the drink, taxation of church welfare properties(farms, clothing mills, etc.), pari-mutuel betting and legalizedgambling are all probably among the political questions which lie"beyond the pale" in Utah because of the folkways of its predominantMormon population.
21
A caveat is in order: The phrase "Church involvement in politics" is often a genericslur describing what is really only individual conduct. Both author and reader would dowell to keep the distinction in mind.

WILLIAMS:

Separation of Church and State/39

Church Leaders as Candidates and Public Officeholders
A far more visible hand in politics than setting the metes andbounds is apparent when Church leaders become candidates forelection to office or accept high-level appointive positions in government.
The practice of Church leaders' standing as candidates forpolitical office had a dramatic beginning in 1844. The Mormons
had been embittered against the Democratic Party ever since President Martin Van Buren's statement that "Your cause is just, but I
can do nothing for you" (during the Missouri travail of the Church).
Van Buren's successors, William Henry Harrison and John Tyler,
had not secured them relief, either.
As the 1844 elections neared, the L.D.S. authorities queried theannounced candidates for the Presidency as to their views on the"Mormon question."22 Highly dissatisfied with the responses, theQuorum of Twelve Apostles nominated Joseph Smith as candidate
for the Presidency of the United States on January 29, 1844.
Smith told them that every speaker in Nauvoo would have tocampaign throughout the land, advocating "the 'Mormon' religion,
purity of elections and call upon the people to stand by the law andput down mobocracy."23 Having published his views on the issuesof the day,24 Smith then explained why he had become a candidate:
The Saints had been deprived of their rights in state after state;
Presidents and Governors had turned deaf ears on their pleas. "Inview of these things, I feel it to be my right and privilege to obtainwhat influence and power I can, lawfully, in the United States, forthe protection of injured innocence. . . . "25
But Smith's martyrdom on June 27, 1844, ended his hopes ofusing a Presidential campaign as a kind of national "soap box" todramatize Mormon woes. Nevertheless, the precedent had been setof Church leaders running for political office.
The Moses Thatcher Candidacy, 1895
At the time when Church leaders were trying to "force feed"
the Republican Party,26 three General Authorities ignored orders
and campaigned strenuously for the Democratic ticket in 1892 —Elders Moses Thatcher (an Apostle), Brigham H. Roberts, and22

Documentary History, vol. 6, pp. 64-65, 187-88.
Ibid., p. 188.
** Ibid., pp. 197-209.
28
Ibid., pp. 210-11 (February 8, 1844).
** But see Wilford Woodruff's and Joseph F. Smith's published denial, Deseret News,
March 17, 1892.
23

401 DIALOGUE: A Journal of Mormon

Thought

Charles W. Penrose. The sanction of excluding them from thelong-awaited dedication of the Salt Lake Temple brought them to"repentance" and back into good graces once again.
But not for long. Elders Thatcher and Roberts ran as Democrats
in 1895 for the forthcoming U. S. Senate and House seats, respectively, anticipating Utah's entry into the Union. They lost theelection and were again rebuked by Church leaders. A "Political
Manifesto" was drafted which attested that the Church had notbeen involved in politics and required henceforth that all high officeholders in the Church should obtain prior clearance from theirecclesiastical superiors before ever running for political office.27 For
his refusal to sign, Elder Thatcher was dropped from the Quorumof the Twelve for insubordination and apostasy — a classic case in
the use of church discipline against an Apostle who violated theestablished rules.28
Frank Cannon and the "will of the Lord"
It was a time of trouble for Republican as well as Democratic
candidates as Utah entered the Union. Republican Frank Cannon,son of George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency, had been Utah's
Territorial Delegate in Congress, and became in 1896 one of thestate's first two Senators. Almost immediately, he bolted the Republican Party in the 1896 election for their national platform's
rejection of bimetallism. Having supported the local Democratic
ticket both in 1896 and 1898, he hoped the Democratic Legislature
would re-elect him as U. S. Senator early in 1899.
Finding himself opposed by another Democrat, whose candidacy
was championed by an Apostle, Heber J. Grant, Senator Cannon
rented the Salt Lake Theater and delivered a tirade against churchinterference in politics. The Senator was then called to Church
President Lorenzo Snow's home. The Prophet told the Senator that
it was the "will of the Lord" that he should step aside gracefully topermit his father, George Q. Cannon, President Snow's first counselor, and a Republican, to be elected to Cannon's seat.29 The Senatorrefused to follow the dictate; the Democratic Legislature refused to27
Thus the origin of the practice still observed by some Mormon candidates of "clearing with 47 East South Temple" before filing for public office.
28
The L.D.S. First Presidency published a "white paper" at the time of Thatcher's dismissal. The Thatcher Episode (Salt Lake City; Deseret News Publishing Co., 1896), 47 pp.
See also Stanley S. Ivins, The Moses Thatcher Case (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm, 1963?),
11 PP.
29
Frank J. Cannon, Under the Prophet in Utah (Boston: C. M. Clark Co., 1911),
pp. 230-31.

WILLIAMS:

Separation of Church and State/41

elect father or son; and Utah suffered the ignominy of being represented by only one Senator from 1899 to 1901.
Other Candidacies
Back in good graces once again, Brigham H. Roberts ran for
Congress in 1898 and won. But the House of Representatives
refused to seat this admitted polygamist, further deepening thestate's embarrassment.
The turn of the century brought the return of Apostles to thehustings. Elder Reed Smoot, complying with the 1896 Manifesto,
asked and was refused permission to stand for the Senate in 1901.
But he received Church permission two years later and was electedby the legislature.
For four years, however, from 1903 to 1907, his right to retain
his Senate seat was challenged during the long "Reed Smoot trial"
before a Senate Committee. All the old charges came back to haunt
him and his Church: church domination of politics (for here was an
Apostle elected to the Senate) and polygamy (which Elder Smoot
did not practice) . But he was cleared of the charges and went on
to become the most powerful Senator ever to represent Utah inWashington (serving from 1903 to 1933) .
At lower levels of government, the election lists in Utah are
replete with stake presidents who serve in the state legislature andon school boards.
On the appointive side, individual involvement of L.D.S. leaders
is extensive: On boards of trustees of state institutions of higher
learning (Elder Richard Evans, Alma Sonne, et al.), little Hoover
Commissions (President Thorpe B. Isaacson), and the Legislative
Reorganization Commission (President Nathan Eldon Tanner),among many others; and at the national level, one General Authority,
Elder Ezra Taft Benson, has held a Cabinet post (Agriculture
Secretary in the Eisenhower Administration, 1953-60).
Endorsement of Candidates
Nowhere does Mormon ambivalence in politics show throughmore than in a third area of "Church" involvement, the endorsementof political candidates.
The ambivalence began with Joseph Smith himself. In August,
1843, he bluntly told his parishioners:
I am not come to tell you to vote this way, that way, or the other.
In relation to national matters I want it to go abroad unto the whole421 DIALOGUE: A Journal of Mormon Thoughtworld that every man should stand on his own merits. The Lord has
not given me a revelation concerning politics — I have not asked Himfor one... .31

But a paragraph later, Joseph intimated that his brother, Hyrum,
had had a political revelation ("for the people to vote for Hoge"),"and I never knew Hyrum to say he ever had a revelation and it
failed. Let God speak and all men hold their peace."31
A month afterward, Joseph endorsed a Times and Seasons(Church newspaper in Nauvoo) editorial that advocated a "reward
your friends and punish your enemies" stance for the Church innational elections: " . . . that we may fix upon the man who willbe the most likely to render us assistance in obtaining redress for ourgrievances; and not only give our own votes, but use our influence
to obtain others. . . ."32Thus the pattern was set at an early date for the Church to takecognizance of candidates. But Nauvoo "cognizance" was barely ahint of Brigham Young's practices in the theocracy of Deseret.
Consider for a moment this scene in a Church conference on Sunday,
June 19, 1853, President Brigham Young presiding:
It came into my mind when Brother Bernhisel was speaking, andthe same thing strikes me now, that is, inasmuch as he has done firstrate, as our delegate in Washington, to move that we send him again
next session; though it is the Sabbath Day, I understand these thingsand say as other people say, "We are Mormons." We do things thatare necessary to be done when the time comes for us to do them. If wewish to make political speeches, and it is necessary, for the best interestof the cause and the Kingdom of God, to make them on the Sabbath,
we do it. Now suffer not your prejudices to hurt you, do not suffer thisto try you, nor be tempted in consequence of it, nor think we are
wandering out of the way, for it is all embraced in our religion fromfirst to last.
Brother Kimball has seconded the motion that Dr. Bernhisel besent back to Washington as our Delegate. All who are in favor of it,
raise your right hand. (More than 2000 hands were at once seen above
the heads of the congregation.)
This has turned out into a caucus meeting. It is all right. I would
call for an opposite vote if I thought any person would vote. I will
try it however. (Not a single hand was raised in opposition.)88

Territorial records reveal no other public election for Delegate
being held that year.
30

Documentary History, vol. 5, p. 526. (Italics added.)
Ibid.
32
Ibid., vol. 6, p. 40.
33Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses (Liverpool: F. D. Richards, 1854), vol. 1, p. 188.

31

WILLIAMS:

Separation of Church and State J43

In later years, endorsement took somewhat less blatant form thanin cathedra elections without opposition candidates. In 1912, forexample, President Joseph F. Smith utilized the pages of the Improvement Era to eulogize William Howard Taft and urge his
re-election: "Should the people call him once again to the presidential chair, it is not likely that they will regret it, but, on thecontrary, will find their action wise, sensible, and sound."34 In thatelection, an old motto was revised to read, "As Utah goes, so goes
Vermont" — the only two states carried by Taft.
More subterranean, and less official, were the endorsement tactics
used in the heated Thomas-Bennett election for the U. S. Senate
during 1950. A "watch-and-ward society" called the Law Observanceand Enforcement Committee had become appended to the Church
hierarchy prior to this time. Its primary job was to report to the First
Presidency on violations of liquor, tobacco and prostitution laws in
Salt Lake County. But in 1950 this committee extended itself inpublishing a list of candidates who would support Church standards.
Attached to a mimeographed talk which was to be read in themonthly Fast and Testimony Meeting, the list began with thecandidates for Senator and Congressman and ran on through thirtytwo local offices. Seventeen of the thirty-four Democrats had beencrossed out; two of the thirty-four Republicans.35
Like Moses Thatcher of old, Mormon Democrats felt their
Church had betrayed them. In the ensuing crossfire, the First Presidency issued a disclaimer through the Salt Lake press declaring thatthey had neither approved a list of acceptable candidates nor directed
the circulation of such a list. But the list, and other gratuitous insults
against Thomas, had their effect. He was defeated in November by
the prominent Utah businessman-Churchman, Wallace F. Bennett.
The 1950 imbroglio led to a more cautious Church posture in
the 1952 Presidential election. In closing the October Conference,
President David O. McKay proclaimed the neutrality of the Church
in the election. He denied rumors that the General Authorities had
met and agreed on supporting one party. "The President is the
President of the Church, not favoring in this election either politicalparty." Noting membership in the Church of both Democrats andRepublicans, President McKay indicated that "Both parties will betreated impartially by the Church."36
34

Improvement Era, vol. 15, pp. 1120-21.
See Frank Jonas, "The Mormon Church and Political Dynamiting in the 1950 Election
in Utah," Proceedings of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters (1963) , vol. 40,
pp. 94-110.
38
Salt Lake Tribune, October 6, 1962, p. 1. But rents appeared in this veil of neutrality35441 DIALOGUE: A Journal of Mormon Thought
But 1952 produced an Eisenhower and an Eisenhower elevatedElder Ezra Taft Benson to Cabinet status, a position that would
transform the Apostle into an active Republican partisan for eight
years. Everyone understood that the Secretary of Agriculture had tocampaign for Republican Congressmen and Senators. But many
Mormons were mystified by Elder Benson's use of the pulpit tohelp carry out that role.
In his October 3 address to the 1954 semi-annual Church Conference, for example, Elder Benson laid down four tests by which
Mormon voters could judge political candidates and issues:(1) Is the proposal (or candidate) right as measured by theGospel?
(2) Is it constitutional?
(3) Does it have the approval of "the living oracles of God"?
(4) How will it affect the morale and character of the people?37
Having urged his Sunday audience (under the third test) tolisten to the "counsel of the living oracles of God," Apostle Benson
would then take to the political stump to lay down sound Republican
doctrine.
In the late fifties, perhaps as a counterbalance to Elder Benson's
Republican barnstorming, Elder Hugh B. Brown of the Quorum of
the Twelve was given permission by President McKay to make a
Democratic state convention appearance and some radio spots inbehalf of Democratic candidate for Congress, David King.
At lower levels of the Church, the practice of endorsing politicalcandidates also occasionally appears. The author has been present
in a ward priesthood meeting, for example, where an effort was madeto concentrate the Mormon vote on one of two Mormons running forthe school board in that area. Another form of endorsement, equallyrare, is a letter from a stake presidency to bishops within their stake
identifying a school board candidate, for example, as a devoted
Mormon committed to the protection of released time seminary
programs.38

in 1960 and 1964, when President McKay openly wished Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater,
respectively, success in their campaigns. After the 1960 comment, President McKay said
that "he was speaking as a Republican." (Deseret News, October 11, 1960.) The 1964 episodeclosed with a formal statement from the First Presidency for Mormons to support conscientious men "who are aware of the great dangers inherent in Communism and who are truly
dedicated to the Constitution in the tradition of our Founding Fathers." (Deseret News,
November 2, 1964.)
37
Salt Lake Tribune, October 4, 1954, p. 1.
38
Letter from the Granite Stake Presidency endorsing the candidacy of Neil Kooyman
for the school board, October 29, 1960 (author's files).

WILLIAMS:

Separation of Church and State\45

Advising the Electorate on Issues of Public Policy
The records of the Church and its newspaper, the Deseret News,are filled with examples of advice to the electorate on matters of
public policy:
Against the repeal of prohibition, 193339
Against communism, 1936 (reiterated many times since)
Against a peacetime draft, 1946
Against tactics of the John Birch Society, 1963
For civil rights for all people, 1963
Against the repeal of "right-to-work" laws, 1965
For tight controls on pornography, 1966
Against political extremists, 196640
While the pulpit is occasionally used by Church speakers for the
discussion of political issues, one surmises that it is less frequently
done in Mormon meetings than in gatherings of the UnitarianSociety, for example. Probably the rarity of it is the thing whichcatches Mormons by surprise when an occasional Church speaker uses
the pulpit to expound on topics like the United Nations, reapportionment of the state legislature, or the threat of socialism in the
United States.41
On occasion, more covert actions to influence the electorate aretried than front-page editorials and sermons from the pulpit. One
thinks particularly of the efforts made by key Church people in 1954
to secure a favorable referendum vote on a one-senator-per-county
reapportionment amendment.
To secure that vote in populous Salt Lake County (which would
thereby cost the county six out of its seven state senators), a politicalcommittee of the Apostles was formed under the co-chairmanship ofElders Henry D. Moyle and Harold B. Lee. They authorized Stake
President Junius Jackson to form the Salt Lake Valley Stake Presidents Committee as the campaign vehicle. Under the aegis of that39
But largely ignored by Utah voters, for Utah was the required 36th state to ratify
the 21st Amendment.
40
In the six weeks preceding the April Conference, 1966, there were abortive
efforts by the John Birch Society to obtain an implied endorsement from the Church of theiractivities. The Church News responded on March 26, 1966, with a blunt editorial on "Politics and Religion," which said in part: "We have been taught to avoid extremes and extremists, whether in the Word of Wisdom, in politics or in any other area of thought. The
Lord's work is not accomplished by immoderate measures and radical groups. . . .
"The Lord justifies us in defending our Constitution and this land for which it was
written. But He does not justify radicalism in doing so. . . .
"The Church has nothing to do with Communists, nothing to do with racists, nothing
to do with Birchers, nothing to do with any slanted group. But it does have everything to
do with the eternal salvation of human souls."
41
As a case in point, see the address of Elder Marion G. Romney to the Priesthoodsession of the April General Conference, 1966, on the problem of socialism.

461 DIALOGUE: A Journal of Mormon Thought
committee, pro-reapportionment pamphlets were prepared and thendistributed by Deseret Industry trucks, ward teachers, Beehive girls— by anyone who carried the "Church stamp" so as to convey theimpression of Church endorsement of the proposal.42
But in the end, the ground was cut from beneath the entire effort
by the release of a letter to the press which the First Presidency had
written to Professor Frank Jonas, plainly saying that "the Church
takes no position with reference to it. . . . No one is authorized toalign us with either side of the controversy."43 The effort to use
Church channels for political campaigning was thereby successfullyinterdicted and the proposed constitutional amendment went down
to defeat on election day.
Church Influence on Public Policy-Makers
Although the 134th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants
recognizes that "governments have a right to enact such laws as intheir own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest," Church leaders have not hesitated to advise governments on
their view of where the public interest might lie. And in the caseof the Grand Council of the Kingdom, the Church obviously contemplated far more than "giving advice."44 Believed to have beenorganized in March, 1844, the Grand Council (or "Council of Fifty")
was to be the government of the Kingdom of God (which Kingdom
was not the Church but the ultimate governing body for all mankind). The Council was composed of two non-Mormons and fortyeight to fifty Mormon high priests. As Brigham Young described it:
The Kingdom of God will protect every person, every sect, and all
people upon the face of the whole Earch in their legal rights; I shallnot tell you the names of the members of this kingdom; neither shallI read to you its constitution, but the constitution was given by revelation. The day will come when it will be organized in strength andpower.45
42
See Kenneth H. Mitchell, "The Struggle for Reapportionment in Utah" (unpublishedmaster's thesis, University of Utah, 1960), pp. 113-117.
43
Salt Lake Tribune, November 2, 1954.
" A member of the Council, John D. Lee, said that its full name was the "Municipal
Department of the Kingdom of God set up on Earth and from which All Emanates, for theRule, Government and Control of all Nations. . . ." Juanita Brooks and R. C. Cleland, eds.,
A Mormon Chronicle: The Diaries of John D. Lee (San Marino: Huntington Library, 1955) ,v. 1:80. Perhaps the best sources on the Grand Council are Klaus J. Hansen, Millennial
Empire: The Political Kingdom of God and the Council of Fifty in Mormon History, scheduled for 1966 publication in book form from Michigan State University Press; and James R.
Clark, "The Kingom of God, the Council of Fifty, and the State of Deseret," Utah Historical
Quarterly (1958), vol. 26, pp. 131-148.
45
Journal of Discourses, vol. 17, p. 156, as quoted in Hyrum L. Andrus, Joseph Smith andWorld Government (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1958), p. 5.

WILLIAMS:

Separation of Church and State/47

The picture is one of a secret government, responsible not to thegoverned but to ecclesiastical authority, which will provide benign
rule for all people, without election.46
One of the chief assignments of the Grand Council in the Nauvoo
period apparently was handling preparations for the westward
expansion of Mormonism.47 And the Council did come west withthe pioneers, as indicated by minutes of its meetings as late as 1880
which are still extant.48 While the laity have no sure knowledge ofits demise, one presumes that the Council, like polygamy, wasabandoned about the time of statehood as the full machinery of civil
government replaced the vestiges of theocracy.
But the practice of Church officials' making suggestions to public
administrators and law makers has never died. As a case in point, one
thinks of the Law Observance and Enforcement Committee during
the 1940's when it reported to Second Counselor David O. McKay.
Word from the Committee about a grocery store's selling cigarettes
or beer to minors would lead to a "high level" call to Public Safety
Commissioner Ben Lingenfelter, and the police would then checkout the offending grocer.
Up until recent times, there were close ties between Church
headquarters and city and county planning and zoning officers toassure the reservation of lots for new ward houses as subdivision
plats were filed. But the responsibility has now shifted to the ward
bishops to negotiate with subdividers.
In the legislative area, relations between Church officials andlawmakers are still very direct. Some are out-in-the-open for the
public to see; others are behind the scenes. Communiques to members of Congress are periodically sent by the First Presidency. Twofamous ones were the 1946 admonition to the Utah Congressionaldelegation to oppose a peacetime draft49 and the 1965 letter to all
Mormons in Congress to resist the repeal of "right-to-work" laws.50
Another technique at the state level is to call Mormons in theLegislature into Church headquarters during the biennial session
46
A reader of this manuscript observes: "The secrecy of the Council was not of its
essence; only the hostility of public opinion kept the Council underground.""Documentary History, vol. 7, pp. 213, 379.
48
Andrus, op. cit., p. 2, n. 4.
49
Reprinted in the Deseret News, January 3, 1946.
50
Deseret News, June 25, 1965. Five of the Congressmen and Senators replied sternly,"While we respect and revere the offices held by the members of the First Presidency of the
Church, we cannot yield to others our responsibilities to our constituency, nor can we delegate
our own free agency to any but ourselves." Indicating their willingness at any time to receive
the views of the First Presidency, the five forewarned that "we cannot accept them as binding
upon us." Salt Lake Tribune, July 13, 1965. President Hugh B. Brown then commented,"They have the right to tell us to jump in the lake, and they did just that." Wall Street
Journal, August 10, 1965, p. 12.

481 DIALOGUE: A Journal of Mormon

Thought

for briefings on bills of concern to the Church (e.g., proposed changes
in liquor laws).51 Moreover, individual General Authorities do nothesitate to telephone or write their views to state legislators.
CHURCH INTERFERENCE IN POLITICS: ISSUES AND DILEMMASAt least seven major issues are raised by the kinds of religiopolitical activities just described. They concern the felt need of any
church to deal with real life, temporal problems, the rights of church
and citizens in a democracy, schisms within the church, and theimpact upon democracy itself when churches intervene in politics.
Issue No. 1: Must Not the Church Be in the World to
Change the World?
Communities would lose a vital, energizing force-for-good if akind of "Hatch Act" were imposed on religionists, barring themfrom politics.
Visualize the Catholic priest that led the successful reform movement against a corrupt Democratic machine in Flushing, Ohio; orthe courage of Archbishop Francis Rummel of New Orleans inpioneering school integration in Louisiana; or the Protestant minister in Colorado sermonizing on the need for a school bond issue; ora phalanx of clergy from all faiths marching shoulder to shoulder
for civil rights in Selma, Alabama. Religious leaders may be among
the most sensitive of all observers and among the most courageousof all spokesmen on community affairs. Can one see a Martin LutherKing excommunicated from politics?
Beyond the possible benefits to the community, the Church itself
has great reason for concerning itself with public issues. As a number of Mormon Prophets have taught, a religion that cannot savepeople in this life cannot save them in the next. Churches cannot
ignore temporal problems, many of which lie in the domain of public
policy, and, therefore, by our definition, in the domain of politics.
Such questions include racial discrimination (violating Christ's Second Commandment), pornography, governmental corruption, andfactors contributing to divorce and juvenile delinquency, among
others.52
01
Confidentail interviews with some of those who have attended these briefings indicate
the omnipresence of pressure but the absence of arm-twisting.
52
As Elder Benson said in his own defense against critics of his speaking out firmly onpolitical issues: "I . . . believe that the institutions of church and state should be separated,
but I also do not agree that spiritual leaders cannot comment on basic issues which involve
the very foundation of American liberty.
"In fact, if this were true, we would have to throw away a substantial part of the
Bible. Speaking out against immoral or unjust actions of political leaders has been the

WILLIAMS:

Separation of Church and State/49

Issue No. 2: The Right of the Church to Protect Itself
From Hostile State Action
As the historical record of Mormonism so clearly attests, the wallof separation between church and state does not always protect
churches from hostile government action. Somewhere in natural law
there is the principle of the inherent right of self-protection.
If the Mormon Church sees a tax measure coming which would
greatly hamper its welfare farms, or bills that represent frontal
assaults on its doctrines (e.g., sale of liquor by the drink), may it
not plainly tell legislators and the public how it feels? Inherent rightand the First Amendment would strongly suggest that it may speak,that it may "petition the government."
Issue No. 3: Do Church Leaders Abdicate Their Rights as
Citizens on Assuming Church Office?
When the religionist dons the vestments of high church office,must he put aside the tunic of citizenship? We have no Hatch Act
that says so. But some would argue that separation of church andstate requires church officials to stay out of politics. Such a proscription ends up depriving churchmen of their rights as citizens. We
expect civil servants to make such a sacrifice (which this author
deplores) ; should we expect it of our religious servants as well?
Issue No. 4: Schism Within the Church
One of the undeniable victims of heavy church involvement inpolitics is "unity of the faith." During the 1930's when many of theleaders of the Mormon Church became outspokenly Republican, apolitical fissure appeared in the foundation of the Church. That it
has now reached serious proportions is indicated in part by the
cutting quality of recent Mormon humor:"I thought I saw Brother Williams in the Temple last week.""Why that's impossible. He's a Democrat, you know."or"Brother Williams, you pray just like a Republicanl"
Stripped of any humor, the sentiment is plain and simple: "J. D.,
you can't be a Democrat and a Mormon!"burden of prophets and disciples of God from time immemorial. It was for this very
reason that many of them were imprisoned. Nevertheless, it was their God-given task, aswatchmen on the towers, to speak up." "Stand Up for Freedom" (Salt Lake City, Utah
Forum for the American Idea, February, 1966, mimeo), p. 6.

50/DIALOGUE:

A Journal of Mormon Thought

The schismatic threat to the Church probably reached its
twentieth century apogee during the months of February-April,
1966. The rental of the Assembly Hall in February to a Birch Society
front group for five lectures (with paid admissions); Elder Benson's
keynote speech in that series, defending the Birch Society in its fightagainst Communism; a "Dear Brethren" letter during March to
L.D.S. bishops from the Utah coordinator of the Birch Society
inviting them to hear Birch head, Robert Welch, during the weekof April General Conference; and the last-minute substitution of
President J. Reuben Clark's picture for that of President David O.
McKay on the April cover of the Birch Society magazine, American
Opinion, all created a climate of fear that the Church was on theverge of officially endorsing the Birch Society.53 That the Church
stepped back from the abyss is to the credit of some courageous andfar-sighted General Authorities.
In assaying the tensions and conflicts that are created when politics
rears its head in a religious setting, one wonders if political admonitions by leaders of the Church are even worth the price. The sadcommentary is that alienation of some groups within the Church may
be occasioned by counsel on political matters that may not even be
central to their spiritual welfare, and matters on which the "lawand the prophets" have provided no authoritative guidance.54
Issue No. 5: Threat to Democracy From Church Interference
The paradox is that, while communities may benefit from thechurchman in politics, citizens may be harmed. The danger is that,in a system which hopes for self-governing individuals, those individuals may simply go to sleep when religious guardians do theircitizen's work for them.
The threat is especially great in Mormondom, with its belief incontinuing, modern-day revelation. Mormons believe that their
spiritual leaders have inspiration from on high in their church
roles. Some Mormons assume that the same inspiration carries over
into the secular, political activities of those leaders. "If Nixon isgood enough for President McKay, he's good enough for me." Thatsentiment is the breeding ground of theocracy and the burying
ground of democracy.
5S

Reflections of the problem in the April Conference sessions can be seen in the April 9,
1966, sermon of Elder Harold B. Lee, the sermon that same night of Elder Marion G. Romney
to the General Priesthood meeting, and the addendum to President McKay's remarks before
the same gathering.
54
As Elder Harold B. Lee has tellingly warned, "If our brethren who engage in politicalmatters, politics, or partisan politics, on issues where the Lord or His prophets have notWILLIAMS:

Separation of Church and State pi

As President Brigham Young warned a long time ago:
I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in theirleaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they
are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind selfsecurity, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaderswith a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposesof God in their salvation and weaken that influence they could give
their leaders if they would know for themselves by the revelations ofJesus that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman
know by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves whether
their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates or not.55

Indeed, a central precept in the revealed word of Mormonism
is that God has not commanded in all things:
Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause,and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass muchrighteousness; for the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto
themselves.56

That principle, taken together with the church-state boundaries
laid out in the 134th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants, strongly
suggests that politics is one of those areas which the Lord has left,largely untrammeled, in mortal hands."
Issue No. 6: Doctrinal Restraint on Church Interference in Politics
It should be remembered that all the forms of L.D.S. Church
involvement in politics take place on a stage whose backdrop is the134th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants.
To repeat, that great charter marks out "Caesar's world" and"God's world." It would leave to government the definition of the
public interest (verse 5). And in the plainest language it says: "We
do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government. . . " (verse 9) .58 Reviewing the entirety of our history, one
wonders if those proscriptions perhaps have been honored more in
the breach than in the observance.
spoken, they are almost certain to draw fire from those of contrary minds." B. Y. U. address,"Be Ye Not Deceived," May 4, 1965.
55
Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, as edited by John A. Widtsoe (Salt
Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1925), p. 209.
56
Doctrine and Covenants, 58:26-28.
6T
One additional anti-democratic effect of the use of the pulpit for advice on politics is
the inability of dissenters to challenge the speaker and "present the other side." Democracy
does not thrive on one-way communication to captive audiences.
58
A policy strongly reiterated by the First Presidency in their "Address to the World,"
April, 1907; reprinted in Brigham H. Roberts, ed., A Comprehensive History of the Church(Salt Lake City; Deseret News Press, 1930), vol. 6, p. 436.

521 DIALOGUE: A Journal of Mormon

Thought

Issue No. 7: The Constitutional Prohibition in Utah
As plain as the language in the 134th Section of the Doctrine andCovenants is the prohibition in Section 4 of Article I of the Utah
Constitution: "There shall be no union of church and state, nor shallany church dominate the state or interfere with its functions."
Church directives to police chiefs, pressure on governing boards andplanning officials, and some forms of lobbying with legislators raisequestions of compliance with that constitutional mandate.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In the face of some doctrinal and constitutional restraints on
Church involvement in politics, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints or its individual leaders have never been able to ignore
Caesar's world for very long. Caesar has not always been kind toMormons, and Mormons have consequently sought to have Caesar
with them rather than against them. In taking political stances
down through the years, the Church has reflected the freedom andthe pluralism of America: The right of men to organize and assemble,
to speak and publish, and to petition the government.
The Church's record in politics has been highly pragmatic —ranging from near-theocracy in Nauvoo and early Utah days when
threats to the Church's existence were especially great on to somewhat less involvement in politics in the late nineteenth century
when such a course might hasten statehood.
The diversity of means used to cast a religious influence on thepolitical scene has been striking — ranging from pulpit admonitions to editorials in Church publications to the endorsement ofcandidates for public office and the candidacy, on occasion, of General
Authorities, among other techniques.
Through it all are interspersed unusually difficult dilemmas as
to the propriety and the consequences of the Church and its leaders
taking any active part in political matters. What courses of politicalaction would be appropriate for laity and leadership in Mormonism
to consider for the future?
First, the membership of the Church must understand that
responsibility for good government rests primarily on their shoulders,
not on their Church officials.
Second, direct Church action would seem to be clearly justified
in two political areas: whenever the rights of the Church might beendangered by government or pressure groups; and whenever Church
doctrines are frontally threatened by political developments. In
either of those two instances, the First Presidency should declare
the position of the Church in bold terms.

WILLIAMS:

Separation of Church and State/53

Beyond those two areas, optional courses of action are open to
us: wide participation in politics by many Mormons, high andlow, with a diversity of viewpoints as the safeguard against any
image of "Church commitment" to one point of view; or a selfrestraining policy where the top leadership of the Church essentially
eschew politics.
As to the option of unrestrained involvement in politics, two
principles call for recognition: that chapels and worship services
should be off-limits to all of us in treating political questions; secondly, that the disclaimer be regularly entered (and more clearly
understood by the Church membership) that Mormon spokesmen
speak for themselves and not for the Church when they deal withpartisan questions. The benefits of such an open-participation policy
would be to assure Church leaders their rights as citizens to speak
out without committing the Church, and to stimulate individual
members to think for themselves as they see Church leaders arrayedon various sides of political issues.
But on the other hand, a policy of non-involvement of top Church
leaders in political matters also has something to be said for it. The
avoidance of unnecessary schisms within the Church would be aprime consideration. Secondly, there is the hope that the pure wordof God, without detours into politics, is all that men really need tofind the good life. Elder Harold B. Lee reminded the Church in
April Conference, 1966, of Paul's counsel to the Corinthians:
And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellencyof speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For
I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and
Him crucified. — That your faith should not stand in the wisdom ofmen, but in the power of God.59"I would," Elder Lee added, "that all who are called to highplaces in the Church would determine as did this Apostle to the
Gentiles to know and to preach nothing save Jesus Christ and Him
crucified."60 In similar fashion, the Book of Mormon prophet, Alma,
had commanded his disciples "that they should preach nothing saveit were repentance and faith on the Lord, who had redeemed His
people."81
Finally, it may be argued that the Church should remain aloof
from politics simply because the spiritual welfare of the people is afull-time calling. As the Prophet Joseph Smith once put it: "I" I Corinthians 2:1-5.
60
Sermon reprinted in the Church News, April 16, 1966, pp. 13-14.
Book of Mormon, Mosiah 18:20.

61

541 DIALOGUE: A Journal of Mormon

Thought

think it would be well for politicians to regulate their own affairs.
I wish to be let alone that I may attend strictly to the spiritual welfareof the Church."62
Perhaps the appropriate course was really set out long before by
the Book of Mormon leader, Alma the Younger, who effected aclassical separation of church and state in his own ministry. It was
this civil-religious leader who relinquished the civil sceptre toanother man while retaining to himself the spiritual one, "that hemight preach the word of God unto (his people). . ., seeing no waythat he might reclaim them save it were in bearing down in puretestimony against them."64
62
63

Documentary History, vol. 5, p. 259.
Book of Mormon, Alma 4:19.

Some persons, by hating vices too much, come to love men too little.
Edmund Burke