Political Manifesto (Comprehensive History)

Political Manifesto (Comprehensive History of the Church)

Italics and asterisks are Roberts'. Roberts refers to the Proceedings of the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections by various names. They all refer to the Proceedings.

	[330] The Charge of Church Influence Made	Comprehensive History of the Church, 6:330–336
	In this 1895 campaign and election, as in the preceding one, the charge of ecclesiastical interference on the side favorable to Republican interests was freely made, and largely diverted the discussion of the campaign from national questions to local ones. Also for a time threatened to endanger the harmonious working of all the people of the state for the admission of Utah into the Union. The issue arose in this manner:
Thatcher and Roberts Democratic candidates	Running on the Democratic ticket for the place of United States senator and representative in congress, respectively, were two of the general officers of the Church of the Latter-day Saints, Moses Thatcher, of the quorum of the apostles, and B. H. Roberts of the first council of the seventy.
October 7, 1895, Joseph F. Smith hints they are out of harmony	In a special priesthood meeting held at Salt Lake City on the seventh of October, the political canvass then being at its height, Joseph F. Smith of the first presidency of the church, indirectly referred to these Democratic candidates and churchmen as having accepted nominations which, if followed by election, would take them from their official church duties, and this without consultation had or arrangements made for their absence with their ecclesiastical superiors; and in this had failed to show due respect for church authority, and were acting contrary to church rule, as President Smith understood it, and in a manner to discredit the church [331] authority and lower its dignity.	On "respect" and following two paragraphs, see B. H. Roberts to Moses Thatcher
President Smith was right	Undoubtedly President Smith was right in reproving these brethren for their dereliction of duty in the respect named; for the right he claimed for the church authorities to be consulted under such circumstances, and by men holding such relationship to the organization as did the two candidates criticized, was reasonable.
Thatcher and Roberts misunderstood	The dereliction of the two brethren undoubtedly arose, however, not through wanton disregard of their superior officers or disrespect for the church, but to the confusion which at the time prevailed in regard to what was to be the attitude of high ecclesiastics of the church respecting political office holding.
Church leaders allowed to be run for office	At first, when statehood was imminent, it was thought best, and so decided, that brethren holding prominent positions in the church should not become candidates for public office; but afterwards it was seen that this would deprive the state of the services of many very capable men, and especially from among the "Mormon" people, and therefore it was decided to permit church officials to accept political preferment; and under this arrangement the two brethren named had both accepted nominations, and had been elected members of the state's constitutional convention, together with many other high church officials, both Republicans and Democrats—bishops, presidents of stakes and patriarchs. The president of the convention, Mr. John Henry Smith, was one of the twelve apostles of the church.	BHR [for public office]: Indeed as early as October, 1892, it was decided that it would be best for certain high officers of the church not to actively engage in political campaign speaking, as will be seen from the following excerpt from President Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Ms., "Oct. 4th, (1892): … Met with the quorum of the twelve. Partook of the sacrament together. Talked over our political situation and expressed our feelings frankly. The general opinion was for none of the presidency, twelve, or the presidents of seventy to take the stump to make political speeches." Subsequently came the understanding respecting office-holding and political activity mentioned in the text.
Thatcher and Roberts accepted nominations without consulting superiors, violating rule	After the close of the constitutional convention, the election for state officers taking place in the autumn following, and under the apprehension that the last ruling in respect of high churchmen being permitted to accept nomination and election to office warranted such action, as the two brethren, [332] Thatcher and Roberts, had taken in accepting nominations for the senate and house respectively, without further consultation had or arrangement made with their ecclesiastical superiors respecting the possible interruption of their official services to the church during a possible tenure of political office.	BHR [for the senate]: The Democratic party in Utah favored election of United States senators by direct vote of the people, and in order to approach that method of choosing United States senators as nearly as possible, the party convention of 1895 nominated the men to be elected by the legislature should it be Democratic. Hence Mr. Thatcher went before the people in the campaign as the nominee of his party for United States senator. The other nominee for senator was Joseph L. Rawlins. BHR [political office]: See statement of the case by Mr. Roberts in the Salt Lake Tribune of Oct. 14th, 1895; also Salt Lake Herald of same date. The statement is in the form of a signed interview. It will also be found in the Smoot Case Hearings, vol. i. pp. 751-760.
	THE USE MADE OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL CENSURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES
Republicans used censure	The censure of these brethren was seized upon by the opposing party as indicating that they were out of favor with the church authorities and that their political defeat was desirable.	BHR: Testimony in the Smoot Hearing, vol. i, pp. 757-8; also pp. 813-816.
Danger of abuse of church rule	Of course, as was pointed out at the time, whether or not this church rule would become a means of influencing and even controlling elections, and become an instrument of ecclesiastic interference in political affairs, depends wholly upon the integrity of the church authorities. It might be urged, and it was so urged during this controversy, that the church authorities could consent for one of their number to participate in political activities—if on the side they might be supposed to favor—and refuse it on the other, and thus control political results. Or the people of their church might interpret their willingness to excuse one officer from church duties to mean that they favored both his nomination and his election; or withholding consent from another to accept nomination, might be interpreted to mean that they were not only against his nomination but against the party cause for which he desired to stand, and thus bring ecclesiastical influence to bear upon the political affairs of the [333] state.	BHR: See interviews and discussion of these questions in the Salt Lake newspapers current at the time, Oct. and Nov., 1895; collected and published also in the Smoot Investigation before the senate committee on privileges and elections, and hence now government documents. (Proceedings in the Smoot Case, testimony of Judge O. W. Powers, vol. i, pp. 808-888).
Purpose to protect efficiency of church service	If, however, the rule is invoked to protect the efficiency of the church service, and has that only in view, nothing can be more reasonable or more necessary to preserve church efficiency and discipline among its general officers. And this is the purpose for which it was invoked in this year 1895, according to a signed statement by President Wilford Woodruff and Deseret News editorial comment. Referring to the meeting at which President Smith censured the brethren, referred to above, President Woodruff said:
	PURPOSE OF THE POLITICAL RULE
Woodruff's editorial	"There was not, according to my recollection one word said about Democrats or politics. * * * When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, it was with the holy priesthood in its various orders and quorums. And when a man was appointed to the apostleship, or presidency, or in any office, as a teacher of the people, it placed on him a very grave responsibility; and no man was counted at liberty, from the organization of the church, to engage in any branch of business, politics, or anything else to take him entirely away from his calling, business, duty or responsibility for a length of time, without first counseling with the presidency of the church, or with his quorum, on its propriety, and getting permission to do so. This order has rested upon us all alike. This has been my position for sixty years of my life, and that, too, without interfering with my manhood. And this course does not require a man to give up his position in the Democratic party or in the Republican. Every man has his own free agency. He has the right to withdraw from his quorum, or the church, if he wishes. But while he remains in his quorum, or in the church, we think he should be subject to the same rules that we ourselves are. But that duty does not require any man to withdraw from the Democratic or Republican party, or give up his political principles.	BHR: Deseret News, weekly, of Oct. 19th, 1895, p. 553. The editorial of the News referred to is to be found in the same issue and page. *** are Roberts'.
	[Signed] "WILFORD WOODRUFF."
Political manifesto produced after election	Later, after the canvass and the election were closed, and in order that there might be a perfect understanding in the matter, and uniformity of sentiment and action, the general authorities of the church fn formulated in writing and signed [334] this rule of the church, usually referred to in both Latter-day Saint and anti-"Mormon" literature as "The Political Manifesto." The rule itself is preceded by a full explanation of the circumstances which called it forth. The salient points in the document, however, are in these excerpts:	BHR [authorities of the church]: Viz., the first presidency, the twelve apostles, the presiding patriarch of the church, the first council of the seventy, and the presiding bishopric.
The rule (political manifesto)	The Political Rule of the Church To the Officers and Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in General Conference Assembled
	"We unanimously agree to, and promulgate as a rule, that should always be observed in the church and by every leading official thereof, that before accepting any position, political or otherwise, which would interfere with the proper and complete discharge of his ecclesiastical duties, and before accepting a nomination or entering into engagements to perform new duties, said official should apply to the proper authorities and learn from them whether he can, consistently with the obligations already entered into with the church upon assuming his office, take upon himself the added duties and labors and responsibilities of the new position. To maintain proper discipline and order in the church, we deem this absolutely necessary; and in asserting this rule, we do not consider that we are infringing in the least degree upon the individual rights of the citizen.	Italics are Roberts'.
	We declare that in making these requirements of ourselves and our brethren in the ministry, we do not in the least desire to dictate to them concerning their duties as American citizens, or to interfere with the affairs of the state; neither do we consider that in the remotest degree we are seeking the union of church and state."	BHR: Minutes of the General Conference of the Church, published in Deseret News, weekly, of April 11th, 1896, pp. 532-4. See also Smoot Case Hearings, vol. i, p. 168.
Presented at conference	This document signed by all the general authorities of the church excepting two of the apostles, was presented to the conference of the church on the 6th of April and sustained by vote as the rule and understanding of the church on the matters of which it treats.	BHR: Ibid, pp. 531-2.
Thatcher refused to sign	The two apostles who did not sign this manifesto were Anthon H. Lund, absent, presiding over the European Mission; and Moses Thatcher, who refused to sign it, on the ground that unless more strictly defined it would lead to ecclesiastical interference with the [335] political affairs of the state, and nullify previous declarations of the general authorities as to the political independence and freedom of the individual, and the freedom of the state from ecclesiastical dominance.	BHR: See Thatcher's testimony in the Smoot Case, vol. i, p. 1037. See also account of the Charges, Findings and Decisions in the Thatcher Trial before the Salt Lake Stake High Council, Ibid, pp. 563–573. The case of Moses Thatcher enters very fully into the record of the Smoot Hearings before the senate committee on privileges and elections, both in the form of his own testimony, vol. i, pp. 936 to 947; and from pp. 937 to 1036. This last citation is the Calvin Reasoner pamphlet, The Late Manifesto in Politics—Practical Working of Counsel in Relation to Civil and Religious Liberty in Utah. It covers 90 pages of the Smoot Record. Also "The Thatcher Episode," Ibid, pp. 247-286. This is a criticism of Mr. Thatcher's position by Professor N. L. Nelson of the Brigham Young University at Provo, and represents the church side of the controversy.
	CHURCH ACTION IN THE THATCHER CASE
Thatcher's name not presented at October conference	For failing to join with the general authorities in signing this document, the name of Moses Thatcher was not presented at the April conference, 1896; nor again at the October conference of the same year.
Thatcher's ill health	Elder Thatcher during this period was in poor health, and therefore no positive action was taken respecting his recalcitrance, except that at the October conference referred to each of his fellow apostles referred to his contumacy, and warned the saints not to be over-sympathetic with him pending a settlement of his case.
Dropped from the Twelve, stripped of priesthood offices	Elder Thatcher was finally summoned before the council of the apostles for a settlement of his differences with them and the other general authorities of the church, and not appearing in answer to that summons he was, on the 19th of November, 1896, "severed from the council of the twelve apostles" and "deprived of his apostleship and other offices in the priesthood."	BHR: The document in full is published in Deseret News, weekly, of Nov. 28th, 1896, p. 742; a number of letters passing between Lorenzo Snow the president of the council, and the deposed apostle, is published in the News, of Dec. 5th, 1896, pp. 747-776. A fuller collection of letters and other documents will be found in the Calvin Reasoner pamphlet, in the Smoot Hearings, vol. i, pp. 960-967. At p. 967 of this record is the announced decision of the apostles in this case.
Unchristian-like conduct charge High council investigation	Within a year further action was determined upon, going to Mr. Thatcher's standing as a member of the church. [336] Under date of July 30, 1897, three of the apostles made charges of unchristian-like conduct against him, covering largely these same difficulties arising from politics. The charges were investigated by the Salt Lake stake high council, and were sustained.
Confession statement	The decision was that in order to "retain his standing and fellowship in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Moses Thatcher must publish a statement to the satisfaction and approval of the presidency of this stake of Zion, fully covering the following points, viz:
Violated previous pledges	"That in taking the position that the authorities of the church, by issuing the declaration of principles on April 6, 1896, acted in violation of pledges previously given and contrary to what they had published in the Deseret News and given to the Salt Lake Times, he was in error and in the dark.
Political manifesto not contrary to previous church position	"That he now sees there is no conflict between that declaration and their former utterances in reference to political affairs.
Authorities did not intend to unite church and state	"That he was mistaken in conveying the idea that the church authorities desired and intended to unite church and state to exercise undue influence in political affairs."
Without qualification or mental reservation	These conditions and others enumerated in the decision, but which are mere details and addenda of the above main propositions, Moses Thatcher accepted by endorsing the decision, saying: "Without qualification or mental reservation I accept this decision in full."—[Signed] "Moses Thatcher."	Italics are Roberts'.
Authorization to publish Accepted	This acceptance was accompanied by an explanatory note attached to the decision authorizing the publication of it as a settlement of his acceptance of, and compliance with, the decision of the high council. It was so accepted by the presidency of the stake in which the issue was tried.	BHR: The case is reported at length in the Deseret News, daily, of Aug. 14th, 1897; also in Smoot Case Hearings, vol. i, pp. 564-573.