After welcoming everyone with a “Happy New Year”, the Salt Lake Tribune posted a headline “LDS view on role of governing is distinct.” What caught my attention was the subheadline: “Church doctrine says it is unjust to mix religion and civil government.” As I mentioned in a previous post, even Richard Bushman has called Brigham Young’s government in Utah a theocracy, so I was curious to read the Tribune article.
Lee Davidson is talking about today’s Mormons, not Mormons in Brigham Young’s day. Davidson even asks the question of whether anyone should be afraid of Mormon beliefs. He quotes current Salt Lake City Mayor (a non-practicing Escopalian):
“I don’t think the rest of the world needs to be worried,” Becker said. “I don’t see in my experience that people of the Mormon faith are different from people of other faiths in their approach to making decisions about politics,” Becker said. “… all of us are affected by our values and principles in terms of how we look at the world.”
I agree that current Mormon attitudes are not to be feared, but I was curious to see what scriptural support Davidson had in his article.
- D&C 101:80 – [God] “established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose”
- D&C 134:1- “We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man.”
- D&C 134:9 – “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government”
It seems to me that Davidson is not quoting verse 9 in the same context as it was intended. The exact quote from Davidson is this:
No arm twisting >> Doctrine and Covenants 134 says “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government.” So the church says it does not dictate policy to its members who are politicians.
Its mormon.org website says, “The church may communicate its views to them just as it would to any other elected official, but it recognizes these men and women must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies they were elected to represent.”
While I agree with the sentiments Davidson is expressing, I think the whole verse should be quoted. Here’s the entire verse:
We do not believe it just to amingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
In a Pew Research Forum interview in 2007, Richard Bushman gives a bit better context for this scripture. In the 1830’s an 1840’s, it was legal to discriminate against Mormons, Jews, and Muslims in some states. Even though Joseph was advocating for a theocracy, Bushman says,
One of the first ordinances passed by the Nauvoo council was a toleration act specifying that all faiths were welcome in the city and listing a number of them: Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Latter-day Saints, Catholics, Jews and “Mohammedans,” as Muslims were called. There was probably not a Mohammedan within a thousand miles, but it was a gesture of openness to every religion.
Nauvoo, then, was to be a diverse city, indicating that Joseph Smith’s civic idealism went beyond his own people to envision a much more cosmopolitan society.
So, the scripture is really advocating an openness toward all religions so that none are discriminated against. It is not advocating that religion and government should never mix. Less than a decade later, Joseph would run for U.S. President, and he had no thought to abdicate his role as prophet.
So, do you agree with Davidson’s assertion that “Church doctrine says it is unjust to mix religion and civil government”, or is there a bit more nuance?
Wheat & Tares 
I think you’re right, there is definitely a bit more nuance. Personally I think that trying to nail down any Mormon doctrine to justify anything is a tenuous proposition. Plus, to deny the theocracy that governed this region for half a century approaches dishonesty. Saints in the 19th century under BY’s theocracy would be shocked to read such an article.
In addition to this, my biggest beef with Prop 8 was that the church was involving itself with what I believe is clearly a political affair. The church leaves itself an out by allowing itself to get involved in “moral” issues which I think is terribly fuzzy. IMO, the church has and continues to involve itself in politics with some regularity (see immigration laws in Utah for the latest).
OTOH, having said all this, I definitely agree with the overall point being made that Americans need not worry about a Mormon President taking orders from SLC.
I don’t think the American people think that religion and politics should be completely separate. From the poll results in Iowa today, it appears that many evangelicals are still uncomfortable with Mitt, and will even vote for a Catholic (Rick Santorum) over a Mormon purely for religious reasons. I don’t get it.
As for a theocracy, perhaps Andrew can channel his inner evangelical for me. As LDS, of course we think that at the 2nd coming, we will have a theocracy with Jesus at the head. Isn’t this the ideal form of government for evangelicals as well?
Good points.
“I definitely agree with the overall point being made that Americans need not worry about a Mormon President taking orders from SLC.”
Especially when the Mormon Senate Majority Leader clearly doesn’t take orders from SLC.
Now, THERE’S a strange mixture of religion and politics that ought to trouble the sterotypical Evangelical even more, but apparently is never seen in that context.
Personally__I really dislike it when “doctrine” is replaced by “nuance”. It just doesn’t work for me. I’d rather people just say “We have no Doctrines”.
Just popping by to note that this is a nuanced companion piece to this post:
http://www.churchhistory.org/blogs/blog/2012/01/02/the-mormon-question-in-presidential-politics/
Evangelicals certainly don’t suscribe to this same notion. They don’t even purport to. Many churches feel that politics is an extension of their worship – putting their values into action. Personally, I think that’s a huge problem. Most people who object to religion mixing in politics do so because there are fundamental differences in values. Evangelicals object to a Mormon having power because they know what they would do if they power (not necessarily what a Mormon would do).
Mormons are defensive about mixing in politics because we had so many issues with it in the early church (with others using their religious political power against us), and because there is so much fear from evangelicals that we would do the same if the tables were turned. Keeping us in check isn’t all bad IMO, although it would be nice if self-restraint worked as well as bigotry.
Hawkgirl nailed my immediate and over-riding issue with politics and religion – that it’s not mixing in and of itself to which people object but rather mixing differently than they would mix.
Evangelicals really aren’t that different than religious left-wing advocates in that way. Each doesn’t mind their own political actions being influenced by their religious beliefs, but they object to the opposite groups mixing what is seen as bastardized, heretical religious ideals with politics.
The hypocrisy gets to me occasionally – but more so the complete inability of most people to realize how hypocritical it is.
One of my favorite political quotes is: “An extreme liberal is just an extreme conservative with more friends.” The former says, “Everyone is right – unless you disagree with me about that.” The latter says, “I’m right, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.” It’s the exact same stance, but the circles of inclusion are different.
On a personal note, Bachmann and Perry share me spit-less, specifically because the mixing of their religious beliefs with politics scares me so badly. In that way, I understand why many homosexuals feel that way about Romney, in particular. It’s just as hard for them to separate him from the kicks to the head they’ve felt from the LDS Church’s involvement in Prop 8, for example, as it is for me to separate the extreme evangelical candidates from the anti-Mormon bigots I’ve encountered throughout my own life. However, having said that, the “harm” I’ve encountered is nothing like theirs, so even I don’t understand their concern completely.
I’m a little late to the party, but I feel that any discussion on this topic needs to take into account the Church’s 1907 statement “to the world” issued on the heels of the Reed Smoot hearings. (Found online here: http://www.mormonhaven.com/proc1907.htm and at Google Books here: http://books.google.com/books?id=O9gRAAAAYAAJ&dq)
This statement is significant because it was presented to the membership of the Church and adopted by a vote in General Conference, giving it the added heft of official doctrine. To my knowledge this has not been superseded or revoked by subsequent doctrine accepted by a vote of the Church.
The main takeaway for me is the following section:
“[N]o law or rule enacted, or revelation received by the Church, has been promulgated for the State. Such laws and revelations as have been given are solely for the government of the Church.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds to the doctrine of the separation of church and state; the non-interference of church authority in political matters; and the absolute freedom and independence of the individual in the performance of his political duties. If at any time there has been conduct at variance with this doctrine, it has been in violation of the well-settled principles and policy of the Church.
We declare that from principle and policy, we favor:
The absolute separation of church and state;
No domination of the state by the church;
No church interference with the functions of the state;
No state interference with the functions of the church, or with the free exercise of religion;
The absolute freedom of the individual from the domination of ecclesiastical authority in political affairs;
The equality of all churches before the law.”
This very clearly outlines the Church’s stance on State non-interference with the Church; Church non-interference with the State; individual autonomy when acting in political matters; and that the Church does not receive revelation that purports to dictate political governance.
I keep a copy of this statement in my scriptures.
Ethie, thanks for the info. Certainly this document seems to clarify how modern Mormons view separation of church and state, though it certainly is quite different from what Joseph or Brigham proposed.