Consider two different Mormon reactions to state-sponsored repression: the anti-polygamy crusade and Mormons in East Germany.
The anti-polygamy crusades represent full throated opposition to the law. From roughly 1878 until 1890, Mormons were the subject of more or less unremitting legal pressure to abandon polygamy. For most of that period the reaction of the Mormons was frankly defiant. They hid from federal marshals, lied in court when perjury would secure and acquittal, and all else failing took their lumps and went defiantly into the penitentiary. The government ratcheted up the level of pressure and the Church finally cracked when it look like it had not choice by capitulation or annihilation. Even after 1890 there were decades of shadowy and ambiguous resistance to the law until Joseph F. Smith firmly ended mainstream Mormon polygamy in the wake of the Smoot hearings.
Mormons in East Germany, by contrast, did everything possible to avoid confrontation with the state. They had the luxury of not being specifically targeted in the way that 19th century polygamists were, but they also ran higher risks. The Stasi were considerably more brutal than the federal marshals, and the American justice system for all its faults was infinitely better than what Mormons could expect at the hands of the communists should the Saints excite their ire. Why the difference?
Well there are obviously lots and lots of reasons, but let me focus in on one: Nineteenth century Mormons had much more imminent millennial expectations than did twentieth century Mormons. I don’t want to ignore the widespread belief among twentieth century Mormons that Armageddon and the Second Coming were just around the corner, but I don’t think such beliefs oriented church policy in the same way that they did in the nineteenth century. John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff stood up to the federal government with the firm expectation that Christ’s arrival would decide the issue. It was only in the last extremity when a very old Woodruff seemed willing to allow the possibility of a much delayed millennium that the Church backed down. (And even then, there were many in the highest leadership who saw the Manifesto as a faithless disgrace.) In contrast, I don’t think that David O. McKay or Spencer W. Kimball had the same, short millennial time line in their minds as they counseled the Saints in the GDR.
If this is right, then the Mormon experience of civil disobedience was part and parcel to radical Mormon millenialism. The delay of the millennium – or at the very least the refusal of the current prophets to actively encourage belief in its immediacy – may also account for the rather more staid and patient attitude that the Church takes to offensive laws and repressive governments. The current posture lacks the legal fireworks of previous eras, but I suspect that Mormonism’s decision to wait out communism in the GDR rather than attack it in a Quixotic moment of millennial fervor represents the wiser course.
I think some political realities entered into both approaches as well. In the nineteenth century, far from Washington, D.C, the saints could realistically expect to survive despite being in open opposition to the law. Under communist rule, I don’t think anyone believed that the church could survive more than a week if it came out in open opposition to the government. The fact that the Lord ended polygamy only when this, perhaps the most permissive of governments on the earth at the time, threatened the church with real destruction, shows that the ability to “get away with it” probably played a big role, whether they believed in an imminent millenium or not.
Also, not being terribly informed with regard to the practices of the church from within the GDR, which of God’s laws were directly contradicted by GDR laws? While the church teaches honoring and sustaining of the law, that clearly does not apply when the law is in opposition to God’s commandments, thus justifying the rebellion of the church regarding polygamy. Are there comparable examples from the GDR? If not, then this is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
What happened to the first 5 or 6 comments? Was there something unseemly, or just a computer glitch?
computer glitch. We are investigating.
I really like the phrase “radical Mormon millenialism,” but it seems to be only one of many factors to explain the early Utahns’ defiance of Federal Authority, falling well on the “less important” end of the spectrum of reasons for the different approaches of early Utah saints and post WWII GDR saints to the federal authority of their respective nation states.
Besides the factors mentioned by Jonathan Stone above, the simple fact that the Mormons were a super majority in the Utah territory, and that Utah was territory disputed by Mexico when the saints first left Nauvoo both seem to be much more important factors. The ’47 Utah saints sought to establish Zion, a physical territorial nation unto themselves, while the post 1947 East German LDS understood a more spiritual concept of Zion (due in part to the early Utahns’ experiences) and were not concerned with building a separate territorial nation within the GDR borders.
Didn’t the church excommunicate a young member who opposed Hitler?
Maybe the saints were so disobediant because they expected the 2nd coming, but I would venture to speculate that they were just plain old fed up…having their leader killed, being forced from their homes into an exodus to the barren West would still have been relatively fresh in their minds. Utah, I think, or rather, Deseret, was viewed as a last stand. Witness the scorched earth policy practiced when federal troops were sent (when the late 1850s?) .
In truth, the Church had few friends when it practiced polygamy…I think years and years of opposition on so many fronts would make anyone a little defiant. It’s anecdotal, but I’ve heard that it was common in 19th century Utah to use the temple prayer circle to pray for the “destruction of the Union”. (Imagine someone doing that today…)
I would venture to say that the reason the Church vehemently opposed the US Government at that time, was because the President of the Church directed them to, while in the GDR, the President of the Church did not encourage them to rebel.
Is that simplistic? Yes. But it’s probably true.
At the same time, once the area of Utah was decidely part of the US, that could well have prompted the change in policy, because of the idea of being subject to government.
I often hear a lot of reference to the “subject to government” principle in sunday school, blogs, and other locations, but the reality is that it is a fairly minor point of doctrine, and is preempted by almost every other point of doctrine.
After all, the Founding Fathers were inspired to declare independence and establish the U.S., but didn’t doing so require the intentional violation of the law? The truth is, we believe we are subject to the government only in non-doctrinal matters. When it comes to obeying the laws of God when in conflict with the laws of man, the laws of God win out every time, whether it is freedom (in the case of the Founding Fathers), plural marriage, or prayer (Daniel and the lion’s den).
If the Lord had not withdrawn plural marriage, the church would have continued to practice it regardless of the law of the land. Sometimes God, through his prophet, will instruct the Saints as to how to act if the laws of God and laws of man ever conflict. This ties in to Michael Stone’s post above. Modern & specific revelation trumps all.