Content provided in partnership with
prophet and the presidency: Mormonism and politics in Joseph Smith's 1844 Presidential campaign, The
Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, Summer 2000 by Wood, Timothy L
This principle suggests a paradox in the Mormon attitude concerning the relationship between religion and power. Within the church and the immediate community, Mormons tended to favor an authoritarian style of leadership, which enforced doctrinal conformity and defended such "peculiar" LDS social institutions as secret temple rituals and, eventually, polygamy. On the other hand, the constitutional theory articulated by Smith and his followers steadfastly advocated the principles of religious liberty and governmental noninterference with the religious lives of its citizens. Seen in that light, the Mormons demanded traits in their leaders at the state and national level that would have seemed quite distasteful to them if possessed by authority figures closer to home.
- Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »
However, the LDS historian J. Keith Melville suggested that there existed a quite logical connection between the doctrines of Mormonism and the Saints' strong advocacy of the Constitution. As that scholar contended, "the principle of free agency - so vital doctrinally to all [Mormon] people in order that they might prove their worthiness and return to God as celestial beings - is fostered by the free environment provided by the Constitution.22 Thus, implicit in LDS theology was the necessity for the religion to exist within a free society. If one was ultimately to be saved by their works in this life, one must be allowed the opportunity to perform those works. Existing alongside the church's more authoritarian tendencies, then, was also the expectation that Mormonism could only flourish in a society that was free.
The tension between those two views of authority within the Mormon church became increasingly apparent in the years between the church's organization in 1830 and Smith's assassination in 1844. In 1831, Smith moved the church en masse from Palmyra, New York to Kirtland, Ohio. After a disastrous foray into the banking business, Smith and the Mormon church again migrated to Missouri in 1838, to join an existing LDS community which had been founded there in 1831.
The years spent in Missouri were one of the bitterest chapters in Mormon history. The old, non-Mormon population resented the intrusion of this strange sect into their territory, and violence soon erupted. Both sides denounced each other from the pulpit and in print, and both sides raised unofficial armies to terrorize one another. Finally, in 1839, Smith and his associates gave up the struggle with the intensely hostile Missourians, and retreated east to the small city of Commerce, Illinois, which the Saints renamed Nauvoo.23
In relocating to Nauvoo, Smith and the Mormons enjoyed a considerable number of privileges that they would never have thought possible during their Missouri years. The Illinois state legislature issued the Saints an exceptionally generous city charter, which allowed the Mormons a large degree of self-government. Illinois granted Nauvoo the authority to "make, ordain, establish and execute all such ordinances not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States or this State."24 The city held the power to muster its own militia, known as the Nauvoo Legion, which commissioned Smith as its commander, holding the rank of lieutenant general. (The Nauvoo Legion was one of the biggest causes for alarm among the areas non-Mormon population. One worried newspaper editor inquired, "What would be thought if the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, or Episcopalians of this state had military organizations. . . ?")25 Under this charter the city flourished, until only Chicago rivaled it in population within the state of Illinois.26 Indeed, the Nauvoo charter was an instrument of government well suited to Smith's unique political philosophy. As historian Robert Bruce Flanders put it: "On its face it was just another city charter with some novel clauses; in operation it was a charter to create a Mormon kingdom in the sovereign state of Illinois. Smith conceived Nauvoo to be federated with Illinois somewhat as Illinois was federated with the United States, with strong legal and patriotic ties to be sure, but also with guaranteed immunities and rights of its own."27
Find Research Guides for:
Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »