Mormon Establishment

Four essays toward the middle of God and Country consider the question of whether Utah in the second half of the 20th century presents a case of informal (or de facto) establishment. The four authors are familiar, but the verdict is surprisingly mixed. It's fair to say that Quinn's contribution in Chapter 7 will likely get the most attention, but the other three chapters help balance out Quinn's characteristic overkill and remind the reader that religious political influence may be real but is often only apparent, even in "Mormon Utah."

In Chapter 4, "The Persistent Pattern of Establishment in Mormon Land," Jan Shipps is surprisingly open, for a Christian scholar, about "the nation's de facto Protestant establishment" and how it battled against the rival but nascent Mormon establishment during the 19th century (ARC, p. 63). In fact, she goes so far as to speculate that Mormonism, filling the unfortunate but indispensable role of the common enemy, "came along at exactly the right time to fill that need" and unite the divided Protestant denominations into an effective coalition supporting de facto Protestant establishment in the United States (p. 69). The pioneer era in Utah was a battle between rival establishments, but the 20th century saw the Protestant version go into substantial eclipse and the Mormon version reemerge to claim a tardy victory in the state.

In Chapter 5, "Toleration of Religious Sentiment: Helping It Work From the Governor's Chair," Calvin L. Rampton, three-term governor of Utah from 1964 to 1976, is skeptical: "I have heard it speculated that the [LDS] church covertly sends word out to local congregations about how its members should vote for candidates and issues that appear on the ballot. This is pure fantasy. It does not occur" (p. 89). Furthermore, he notes that when specific candidates now attempt to play the Church card in local elections, it generally backfires at the polls (p. 92-93).

In Chapter 6, "The LDS Church and Utah Politics: Five Stories and Some Observations," Rod Decker, a KUTV reporter, gives what most readers probably expect to find in a book with the subtitle "Politics in Utah": a capsule version of the stormy role of the Church in Utah political history. The five episodes he summarizes are: (1) Moses Thatcher and the "Political Manifesto" of 1896; (2) Reed Smoot and the Federal Bunch; (3) Utah's surprising role in the repeal of Prohibition; (4) David O. McKay's role in allowing defeat of legislative reapportionment favoring rural and heavily Mormon districts in the 1950s; and (5) the fight to defeat the ERA, which he called "the church's first national victory" (p. 118). I was surprised at how much of this material was new to me.

In Chapter 7, "Exporting Utah's Theocracy Since 1975: Mormon Organizational Behavior and America's Culture Wars," D. Michael Quinn unleashes 17 pages of text and 22 pages of footnotes to document the increasingly effective role of the Church and its "chain of command" in defeating first the ERA, then a series of still-ongoing state same-sex marriage initiatives. This is the chapter that will send politically conservative Mormons (whom he describes as "act[ing] like army ants when given instructions about political matters") into orbit, until they realize that what Quinn has done is to carefully document the fact that the LDS Church is now the most effective political mobilization organization in the United States. Is that good news or bad news? Political power creates political enemies, as Mormon history demonstrates, but one can only marvel at the deep historical irony of this surprising development.

Comments

[Philocrites]

I'm confused. Does Jan Shipps argue that the (national) Protestant establishment effectively eclipsed the Mormon establishment in Utah until the decline of the Protestant establishment? It seems highly counterintuitive to me to propose that the LDS Church has only recently emerged as politically powerful in Utah, but it would make sense to describe late-19th-century tensions between representatives of federal ("Protestant establishment") power in Utah and local ("Mormon establishment") power.

[clark]

I think part of the reason the church has the power it does is because it uses it so sparringly. Other than gay marriage, a few local gambling issues, and the ERA, what have they come down on in a successful fashion? (Well, MX Missiles, I suppose)

[Dave]

Philocrates, Shipps' comments concerned the struggle for political power in 19th- and early 20th-century Utah. While often described as a conflict between Mormon officials and the federal government, in fact Protestant ministers in SLC played a key role in organizing resistance to Mormon hegemony. Furthermore, the term "federal officials" makes them sound neutral or secular, which was often far from the case as they often displayed strong sympathy for the "proper" role of Protestant life in the civil life of America and the duty of government to support it.

Mormons were certainly not the only ones on the butt end of informal Protestant establishment in 19th century America--this is not a novel argument. But the Utah struggle has not generally been viewed as a struggle between "competing establishments," largely I think because scholars have rarely viewed informal Protestant establishment as an organized or effective movement.

[J. Stapley]

I would a agree with clark. My brothers thesis studied (among other things) why the Mormon church is so effective at eschewing terrorism and violence when other “NGOs” have a much less successful history. One big reason is that they stay our of politics. And while this applies mostly to the churches international stance, it seems to be mirrored by a local tendency as well.

[Dave]

J, Quinn seems to think the Church changed tack in the sixties and seventies, choosing to relabel certain political issues as "moral issues" and move decisively into the US domestic political arena. That certainly seems to describe what has happened. IMHO, LDS political activity will eventually create political enemies (or has it already?) and other difficulties.

[APJ]

Dave, in regards to your "or has it already?", I must say that undoubtedly, the Mormon church is considered an 'enemy' by several groups. Lest we forget any gay rights/feminist rights groups...I mean, come on, after ERA opposition, do you think any group whose focus is womens rights is going to NOT consider the Mormon church a political foe???? The fact that these types of groups are not all that powerful in Utah means that their conflicts aren't all that visible, but if Mormon influence spreads much more beyond the mountain west, look for more hostility from certain groups.

[J. Stapley]

I think that you're right that what the church has labeled as political is what it calls moral issues. I guess I'm contrasting it with the intense politicality of say a catholic priest who shelters zapotista rebels.