the mormon cases

 Reynolds v. United States

98 U.S. 145 (1878)

Mr. Chief Justice WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

[This case presents the question to the Court whether the accused should have been acquitted if he married the second time, because he believed it to be his religious duty.]

[The accused] proved that at the time of his alleged second marriage he was, and for many years before had been, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, commonly called the Mormon Church, and a believer in its doctrines; that it was an accepted doctrine of that church ‘that it was the duty of male members of said church, circumstances permitting, to practise polygamy; . . . that this duty was enjoined by different books which the members of said church believed to be of divine origin, and among others the Holy Bible, and also that the members of the church believed that the practice of polygamy was directly enjoined upon the male members thereof by the Almighty God, in a revelation to Joseph Smith, the founder and prophet of said church; that the failing or refusing to practise polygamy by such male members of said church, when circumstances would admit, would be punished, and that the penalty for such failure and refusal would be damnation in the life to come.’ He also proved . . . ‘that such marriage ceremony was performed under and pursuant to the doctrines of said church.’

Upon this proof he asked the court to instruct the jury that if they found from the evidence that he ‘was married as charged—if he was married—in pursuance of and in conformity with what he believed at the time to be a religious duty, that the verdict must be ‘not guilty.” This request was refused, and the court [charged] ‘that there must have been a criminal intent, but that if the defendant, under the influence of a religious belief that it was right, deliberately married a second time, having a first wife living, the [lack] of evil intent—the [lack] of understanding on his part that he was committing a crime—did not excuse him; but the law inexorably in such case implies the criminal intent.’

[T]he question is raised, whether religious belief can be accepted as a justification of an overt act made criminal by the law of the land. The inquiry is not as to the power of Congress to prescribe criminal laws for the Territories, but as to the guilt of one who knowingly violates a law which has been properly enacted, if he entertains a religious belief that the law is wrong.

Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the United States, so far as congressional interference is concerned. The question to be determined is, whether the law now under consideration comes within this prohibition.

The word “religion” is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted. The precise point of the inquiry is, what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed.

Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining heretical opinions. The controversy upon this general subject was animated in many of the States, but seemed at last to culminate in Virginia. In 1784, the House of Delegates of that State having under consideration ‘a bill establishing provision for teachers of the Christian religion,’ postponed it until the next session, and directed that the bill should be published and distributed, and that the people be requested ‘to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of such a bill at the next session of assembly.’

This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison prepared a ‘Memorial and Remonstrance,’ which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated ‘that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator,’ was not within the cognizance of civil government. At the next session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, ‘for establishing religious freedom,’ drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed.

In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States. Of this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the freedom of religion, but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the necessary alterations. Five of the States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments. Three—New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia—included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took occasion to say:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,—I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society.

By the statute of 1 James I., the offence, if committed in England or Wales, was made punishable in the civil courts, and the penalty was death. As this statute was limited in its operation to England and Wales, it was at a very early period re-enacted, generally with some modifications, in all the colonies. In connection with the case we are now considering, it is a significant fact that on the 8th of December, 1788, after the passage of the act establishing religious freedom, and after the convention of Virginia had recommended as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States the declaration in a bill of rights that ‘all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience,’ the legislature of that State substantially enacted the statute of James I., death penalty included, because, as recited in the preamble, ‘it hath been doubted whether bigamy or poligamy be punishable by the laws of this Commonwealth.’ From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests.

In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

A criminal intent is generally an element of crime, but every man is presumed to intend the necessary and legitimate consequences of what he knowingly does. Here the accused knew he had been once married, and that his first wife was living. He also knew that his second marriage was forbidden by law. When, therefore, he married the second time, he is presumed to have intended to break the law. And the breaking of the law is the crime. Every act necessary to constitute the crime was knowingly done, and the crime was therefore knowingly committed. Ignorance of a fact may sometimes be taken as evidence of a want of criminal intent, but not ignorance of the law. The only defence of the accused in this case is his belief that the law ought not to have been enacted. It matters not that his belief was a part of his professed religion: it was still belief, and belief only.

Upon a careful consideration of the whole case, we are satisfied that no error was committed by the court below.

Davis v. Beason

133 U.S. 333 (1890)

Mr. Justice FIELD delivered the opinion of the Court.

On this appeal our only inquiry is whether the district court of the territory had jurisdiction of the offense charged in the indictment, of which the defendant was found guilty. If it had jurisdiction, we can go no further. We cannot look into any alleged errors in its rulings, on the trial of the defendant. Nor can we inquire whether the evidence established the fact alleged, that the defendant was a member of an order or organization known as the ‘Mormon Church,’ called the ‘Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,’ or the fact that the order of organization taught and counseled its members and devotees to commit the crimes of bigamy and polygamy, as duties arising from membership therein. On this hearing we can only consider whether, these allegations being taken as true, an offense was committed of which the territorial court had jurisdiction to try the defendant. And on this point there can be no serious discussion or difference of opinion. Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind. If they are crimes, then to teach, advise, and counsel their practice is to aid in their commission, and such teaching and counseling are themselves criminal, and proper subjects of punishment, as aiding and abetting crime are in all other cases. The term ‘religion’ has reference to one’s views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will. It is often confounded with the cultus or form of worship of a particular sect, but is distinguishable from the latter. The first amendment to the constitution, in declaring that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or forbidding the free exercise thereof, was intended to allow every one under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such notions respecting his relations to his Maker and the duties they impose as may be approved by his judgment and conscience, and to exhibit his sentiments in such form of worship as he may think proper, not injurious to the equal rights of others, and to prohibit legislation for the support of any religious tenets, or the modes of worship of any sect. The oppressive measures adopted, and the cruelties and punishments inflicted, by the governments of Europe for many ages, to compel parties to conform, in their religious beliefs and modes of worship, to the views of the most numerous sect, and the folly of attempting in that way to control the mental operations of persons, and enforce an outward conformity to a prescribed standard, led to the adoption of the amendment in question. It was never intended or supposed that the amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society. With man’s relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with. However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation. There have been sects which denied as a part of their religious tenets that there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, as prompted by the passions of its members. And history discloses the fact that the necessity of human sacrifices, on special occasions, has been a tenet of many sects. Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow the carrying into effect of its doctrines, and no heed would be given to the pretense that, as religious beliefs, their supporters could be protected in their exercise by the constitution of the United States. Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance.

On this subject the observations of this court through the late Chief Justice WAITE, in Reynolds v. U. S., are pertinent.  And in Murphy v. Ramsey, referring to the act of congress excluding polygamists and bigamists from voting or holding office, the court, speaking by Mr. Justice MATTHEWS, said: ‘Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the co-ordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. And to this end no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.’ It is assumed by counsel of the petitioner that, because no mode of worship can be established, or religious tenets enforced, in this country, therefore any form of worship may be followed, and any tenets, however destructive of society, may be held and advocated, if asserted to be a part of the religious doctrines of those advocating and practicing them. But nothing is further from the truth. While legislation for the establishment of a religion is forbidden, and its free exercise permitted, it does not follow that everything which may be so called can be tolerated. Crime is not the less odious because sanctioned by what any particular sect may designate as “religion.”

     . . . In our judgment, section 501 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho territory, which provides that ‘no person under guardianship, non compos mentis, or insane, nor any person convicted of treason, felony, or bribery in this territory, or in any other state or territory in the Union, unless restored to civil rights; nor any person who is a bigamist or polygamist, or who teaches, advises, counsels, or encourages any person or persons to become bigamists or polygamists, or to commit any other crime defined by law, or to enter into what is known as plural or celestial marriage, or who is a member of any order, organization, or association which teaches, advises, counsels, or encourages its members or devotees, or any other persons, to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy, or any other crime defined by law, either as a rite or ceremony of such order, organization, or association, or otherwise, is permitted to vote at any election, or to hold any position or office of honor, trust, or profit within this territory,’—is not open to any constitutional or legal objection. With the exception of persons under guardianship or of unsound mind, it simply excludes from the privilege of voting, or of holding any office of honor, trust, or profit, those who have been convicted of certain offenses, and those who advocate a practical resistance to the laws of the territory, and justify and approve the commission of crimes forbidden by it. The second subdivision of section 504 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho, requiring every person desiring to have his name registered as a voter to take an oath that he does not belong to an order that advises a disregard of the criminal law of the territory, is not open to any valid legal objection to which out attention has been called. . . .

The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.

Late Corporation of the Church of Latter-Day Saints v. United States

136 U.S. 1 (1890)

On behalf of the Court, Mr. Justice BRADLEY stated the case as follows:

This case originated under and in pursuance of the act of congress, which was passed February 19, 1887, and became a law by not being returned by the president. This act, besides making additional provision with regard to the prosecution of polygamy in the territories, and other matters concerning the territory of Utah, provided, in the 13th, 17th, and 26th sections, as follows: ‘Sec. 13. That it shall be the duty of the attorney general of the United States to institute and prosecute proceedings to forfeit and escheat to the United States the property of corporations obtained or held in violation of section three of the act of congress approved the first day of July, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, entitled ‘And act to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the territories of the United States and other places, and disapproving and annulling certain acts of the legislative assembly of the territory of Utah,’ or in violation of section eighteen hundred and ninety of the Revised Statutes of the United States; and all such property so forfeited and escheated to the United States shall be disposed of by the secretary of the interior, and the proceeds thereof applied to the use of the use and benefit of the common schools in the territory in which such property may be: provided, that no building, or the grounds appurtenant thereto, which is held and occupied exclusively for purposes of the worship of God, or parsonage connected therewith, or burial-ground, shall be forfeited.’ That the acts of the legislative assembly of the territory of Utah incorporating, continuing, or providing for the corporation known as the ‘Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,’ and the ordinance of the so-called general assembly of the state of Deseret incorporating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, so far as the same may now have legal force and validity, are hereby disapproved and annulled, and the said corporation, in so far as it may now have, or pretend to have, any legal existence, is hereby dissolved.’

In pursuance of the thirteenth section, above recited, proceedings were instituted by information on behalf of the United States in the third district court of the territory of Utah, for the purpose of having declared forfeited and escheated to the government the real estate of the corporation called the ‘Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,’ except a certain block in Salt Lake City used exclusively for public worship.

The principal questions raised are-First, as to the power of congress to repeal the charter of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; and, secondly, as to the power of congress and the courts to seize the property of said corporation, and to hold the same for the purposes mentioned in the decree.

The power of congress over the territories of the United States is general and plenary, arising from and incidental to the right to acquire the territory itself, and from the power given by the constitution to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. It would be absurd to hold that the United States has power to acquire territory, and no power to govern it when acquired. The power to acquire territory  is derived from the treaty-making power, and the power to declare and carry on war. The incidents of these powers are those of national sovereignty, and belong to all independent governments. The power to make acquisitions of territory by conquest, by treaty, and by cession, is an incident of national sovereignty. The territory of Louisiana, when acquired from France, and the territories west of the Rocky mountains, when acquired from Mexico, became the absolute property and domain of the United States, subject to such conditions as the government, in its diplomatic negotiations, had seen fit to accept relating to the rights of the people then inhabiting those territories. Having rightfully acquired said territories, the United States government was the only one which could impose laws upon them, and its sovereignty over them was complete. No state of the Union had any such right of sovereignty over them; no other country or government had any such right. These propositions are so elementary, and so necessarily follow from the condition of things arising upon the acquisition of new territory, that they need no argument to support them. They are self-evident.

The supreme power of congress over the territories, and over the acts of the territorial legislatures established therein, is generally expressly reserved in the organic acts establishing governments in said territories. This is true of the territory of Utah. In the sixth section of the act establishing a territorial government in Utah, approved September 9, 1850, it is declared ‘that the legislative powers of said territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent with the constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act.  All the laws passed by the legislative assembly and governor shall be submitted to the congress of the United States, and, if disapproved, shall be null and of no effect.’

. . . It is distinctly stated in the pleadings and findings of fact that the property of the said corporation was held for the purpose of religious and charitable uses. But it is also stated in the findings of fact, and is a matter of public notoriety, that the religious and charitable uses intended to be subserved and promoted are the inculcation and spread of the doctrines and usages of the Mormon Church, or Church of Latter-Day Saints, one of the distinguishing features of which is the practice of polygamy,-a crime against the laws, and abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world. Notwithstanding the stringent laws which have been passed by congress,-notwithstanding all the efforts made to suppress this barbarous practice,-the sect or community composing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints perseveres, in defiance of law, in preaching, upholding, promoting, and defending it. It is a matter of public notoriety that its emissaries are engaged in many countries in propagating this nefarious doctrine, and urging its converts to join the community in Utah. The existence of such a propaganda is a blot on our civilization. The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the western world. The question, therefore, is whether the promotion of such a nefarious system and practice, so repugnant to our laws and to the principles of our civilization, is to be allowed to continue by the sanction of the government itself, and whether the funds accumulated for that purpose shall be restored to the same unlawful uses as heretofore, to the detriment of the true interests of civil society. It is unnecessary here to refer to the past history of the sect; to their defiance of the government authorities; to their attempt to establish an independent community; to their efforts to drive from the territory all who were not connected with them in communion and sympathy. The tale is one of patience on the part of the American government and people, and of contempt of authority and resistance to law on the part of the Mormons. Whatever persecutions they may have suffered in the early part of their history, in Missouri and Illinois, they have no excuse for their persistent defiance of law under the government of the United States.

One pretense for this obstinate course is that their belief in the practice of polygamy, or in the right to indulge in it, is a religious belief, and therefore under the protection of the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom. This is altogether a sophistical plea. No doubt the Thugs of India imagined that their belief in the right of assassination was a religious belief; but their thinking so did not make it so. The practice of suttee by the Hindu widows may have sprung from a supposed religious conviction. The offering of human sacrifices by our own ancestors in Britain was no doubt sanctioned by an equally conscientious impulse. But no one, on that account, would hesitate to brand these practices, now, as crimes against society, and obnoxious to condemnation and punishment by the civil authority. The state has a perfect right to prohibit polygamy, and all other open offenses against the enlightened sentiment of mankind, notwithstanding the pretense of religious conviction by which they may be advocated and practiced.  And since polygamy has been forbidden by the laws of the United States, under severe penalties, and since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has persistently used, and claimed the right to use, and the unincorporated community still claims the same right to use, the funds with which the late corporation was endowed, for the purpose of promoting and propagating the unlawful practice as an integral part of their religious usages, the question arises whether the government, finding these funds without legal ownership, has or has not the right, through its courts, and in due course of administration, to cause them to beseized and devoted to objects of undoubted charity and usefulness,-such for example, as the maintenance of schools,-for the benefit of the community whose leaders are now misusing them in the unlawful manner above described; setting apart, however, for the exclusive possession and use of the church, sufficient and suitable portions of the property for the purposes of public worship, parsonage buildings, and burying-grounds, as provided in the law.

The property in question has been dedicated to public and charitable uses. It matters not whether it is the product of private contributions, made during the course of half a century, or of taxes imposed upon the people, or of gains arising from fortunate operations in business or appreciation in values, the charitable uses for which it is held are stamped upon it by charter, by ordinance, by regulation, and by usage, in such an indelible manner that there can be no mistake as to their character, purpose, or object. The principles of the law of charities are not confined to a particular people or nation, but prevail in all civilized countries pervaded by the spirit of Christianity. They are found imbedded in the civil law of Rome, in the laws of European nations, and especially in the laws of that nation from which our institutions are derived. A leading and prominent principle prevailing in them all is that property devoted to a charitable and worthy object, promotive of the public good, shall be applied to the purposes of its dedication, and protected from spoliation and from diversion to other objects. Though devoted to a particular use, it is considered as given to the public, and is therefore taken under the guardianship of the laws. If it cannot be applied to the particular use for which it was intended, either because the objects to be subserved have failed, or because they have become unlawful and repugnant to the public policy of the state, it will be applied to some object of kindred character, so as to fulfill in substance, if not in manner and form, the purpose of its consecration.

Then, looking at the case as the finding of facts presents it, we have before us-congress had before it-a contumacious organization, wielding by its resources an immense power in the territory of Utah, and employing those resources and that power in constantly attempting to oppose, thwart, and subvert the legislation of congress, and the will of the government of the United States. Under these circumstances, we have no doubt of the power of congress to do as it did. It is not our province to pass judgment upon the necessity or expediency of the act of February 19, 1887, under which this proceeding was taken. The only question we have to consider in this regard is as to the constitutional power of congress to pass it. Nor are we now called upon to declare what disposition ought to make of the property of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

As to the constitutional question, we see nothing in the act which, in our judgment, transcends the power of congress over the subject. We have already considered the question of its power to repeal the charter of the corporation. It certainly also had power to direct proceedings to be instituted for the forfeiture and escheat of the real estate of the corporation; and, if a judgment should be rendered in favor of the government in these proceedings, the power to dispose of the proceeds of the lands thus forfeited and escheated, for the use and benefit of common schools in the territory, is beyond dispute. It would probably have power to make such a disposition of the proceeds if the question were merely one of charitable uses, and not of forfeiture. Schools and education were regarded by the congress of the Confederation as the most natural and obvious appliances for the promotion of religion and morality. In the ordinance of 1787, passed for the government of the territory northwest of the Ohio, it is declared: ‘Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.’ Mr. Dane, who is reputed to have drafted the said ordinance, speaking of some of the statutory provisions of the English law regarding charities as inapplicable to America, says: ‘But, in construing these laws, rules have been laid down which are valuable in every state; as that the erection of schools and the relief of the poor are always right, and the law will deny the application of private property only as to uses the nation deems superstitious.’

The Integrity of Survival

Frederick Gedicks 

42 DePaul L. Rev. 167 (1992)

Most of you are probably familiar with the nineteenth-century confrontation between Mormons and the federal government, and I will not relate the chapter and verse on that. It lasted nearly fifty years, and was largely about the practice of polygamy or, as the Mormons preferred to call it, “plural marriage.” By 1890, it had become clear that the Mormons would lose this confrontation. The church was bankrupt; its assets were in the hands of a federal receiver; its leadership was in prison or in hiding; and legislation that would have disenfranchised Mormons simply by virtue of their membership in the church had been introduced in Congress and seemed likely to pass. On September 25, 1890, Wilford Woodruff, then the president and prophet of the Mormon church, issued a declaration which Mormons know as the Manifesto. The Manifesto proclaimed that the church would immediately cease all belief in and practice of plural marriage. Woodruff made it clear that he had seen a prophetic vision in which it was revealed to him that the Mormon Church would be utterly destroyed unless it abandoned polygamy: “I have arrived at a point in the History of my life as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints where I am under the necessity of acting for the Temporal Salvation of the Church. The United States Government has taken a Stand & passed Laws to destroy the Latter day Saints upon the Subject of polygamy or Patriarchal order of Marriage. And after Praying to the Lord & feeling inspired by his spirit, I have issued the following Proclamation [i.e., the Manifesto].”

Following issuance of the Manifesto, federal persecution ended in short order.

Mormonism is a religion that is centered to a significant degree on action and works. It is not true, as some conservative Protestants maintain, that Mormons believe they can earn their way to salvation by doing good works. But I think it is a fair observation that the connection between salvation and works in Mormonism is closer than it is in Protestantism. The Book of Mormon states: “We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.”  So it is not enough for Mormons simply to be faithful to the end. The way we live our religion is by doing everything we possibly can to be faithful to God. In a conflict between faith and survival, our beliefs require that we do all we can to stave off the end. That is exactly what the church did in its confrontation with the federal government over plural marriage. The church engaged lobbyists, retained the best lawyers it could find, repeatedly petitioned Congress and the presidents, politically organized, and sponsored economic boycotts. When these legal means failed, the church employed illegal means to combat the government, going underground and engaging in civil disobedience in an attempt to thwart federal enforcement efforts. If there had been any other course that showed any chance of success, the church certainly would have tried it. When all its efforts failed, the church came face to face with one of the most serious crises of religious conscience: the choice between faithfulness and survival. Just as Wilford Woodruff had made it clear that the survival of the Mormon church depended on its abandoning plural marriage, he had also made it clear that this abandonment was the will of God. He maintained that he had received direct revelation that God no longer required the church to practice polygamy. In my religion, God does not always demand faithfulness over survival.  As Woodruff stated in the aftermath of the Manifesto: “The Lord has given us commandments concerning many things, and we have carried them out as far as we could; but when we cannot do it, we are justified. The Lord does not require at our hands things we cannot do.”

In some respects, this is comforting because one knows that at some point, God may release the believer from obligations of faith that require too much suffering and pain and that are, frankly, impossible to accomplish. But this possibility also is a heavy burden of faith, because one can never be sure that she has done enough to be in the moral and religious position to ask God for release from an obligation of faith. At any rate, while there were obvious costs to what Wilford Woodruff did on behalf of the Mormon Church, it does not seem to me that he erred in compromising to preserve the church. Mormons understand their church to exist in the world to do God’s work, and the church clearly cannot do God’s work unless it exists in the world. For Mormons, then, there is religious integrity even in compromise and survival. From the perspective of the nineteenth-century church, there were aspects of Mormonism which were more important than plural marriage, and it became clear to the leaders of the church at that time that it was necessary to choose between them. They chose, with God's help, the religious practices and principles that they felt were more important than plural marriage. The tragedy, of course, is that they were forced to this choice at all. [I believe] that one must do all in her power to avoid the choice between faithfulness and survival, [but] sometimes survival is more important than faithfulness when a choice between the two is unavoidable.

For me, religious freedom is deadly serious. It is serious because my church almost disappeared for lack of this freedom. Indeed, in a certain way, the church did disappear. The Mormon church was transformed by the Manifesto, and the church of today is very different from the church of 1890.  Is the church today better off than it would have been had it chosen faithfulness over survival? I do not even know how to think about this question, about whether it was better for the church to have compromised and survived than to have been absolutely faithful and disappeared. I do not know how to think about that at all. I only know that there is integrity in survival, and that faithfulness is not the only religious value. Faithfulness is not the only Christian value and, from my standpoint, it surely is not the only Mormon value. I can only trust that Wilford Woodruff made a choice approved by God. I will close by stating the obvious: The Mormons of the nineteenth century would have preferred, I would prefer, and most religious people would prefer, never to face the choice between faithfulness and survival. One of the ways we can avoid this choice is by working for something called freedom of religion. I am not so naive as to think that working within as well as against the state to carve out a space for the free exercise of religion does not undermine the principles of one's faith. For me, as a Mormon, almost anything is worth avoiding the choice between faithfulness and survival. It is an agonizing choice, a terrible choice, a frightening choice. It is, truly, Hobson’s choice. We must do what we can to save ourselves from it.