Church, State, and Sacred Secrets

One of the finest examples of patriotism in our history is in the publication of the Nauvoo Expositor. I stumbled on the story researching genealogy and found it truly moving.

In short, a group of Mormons within the original church at Nauvoo grew concerned about a number of things after Joseph Smith announced his candidacy for president in 1844. Secretly practising polygamy, he denied it publicly. He abused his power as mayor of the city, to avoid extradition, and secretly taught about a Theocracy, with himself as President/ King.

After attempting to resolve these issues privately, the group published their concerns in the Nauvoo Expositor. They declared their loyalty to tenants of Mormonism and the U.S. constitution. They complained that Smith wielded "ecclesiastical control over civil and business affairs." They risked their personal safety to reveal those secrets, but as Americans felt obliged to reveal a politician who was on a path to usurp separation of church and state.

The Nauvoo writers, though obviously unprofessional, made strong points about their desire to honor the constitution of the United States, to differentiate themselves from Joseph Smith's desire to blend church and state, and to worship in a solidly Mormon way with no secrecy attached. I would encourage any Mormon to read the document for themself, not an interpretation, but the real deal. Those writers outlined the tenents of their faith as Mormons, and to me, at least, they seemed to cover the full range apart from then practiced, also then secret, polygamy.

Their side lost.

Their publication was legally declared a "public nuisance," the press officially ordered burned by Joseph Smith. Those printers were labeled apostates, still called "heretics" and “schizmatics” by the Mormon church. This was an example, in my mind, again, as an outsider, of the power of freedom of the press and the right to free speech being denied. That incident demonstrates to me the reason the writers of our first consitutional ammendment, designed for a free and democratic society, held free speech as something essential and, as such, guaranteed it for all of us. The writers of our first amendment held free speech as essential because free speech can check corruption.To burn a printing press, that's a huge thing. Our founding fathers, what would their response have been?

I believe that paper and the surrounding incidents have a powerful place in American history, but probably quite a different one than most Mormons do. I believe the burning of the Nauvoo Expositor to be an example of the power of free speech.

For Mormons, though, the man who ordered the press burned was their hero, the same man who saw himself as head of church and country at the same time. Joseph Smith is a "prophet turned martyr."

I come from a tradition that celebrates questioning, that of the Episcopal faith. Apparently Mormonism does not. This is the way it seems to me.

My daughter knows many more Mormons than I do, and tells me they are not all the same. So tell me, what is the range of Mormon political views? We on the outside wonder if there is difference among you or if, similar to the Prop 8 in California, you will vote and campaign. because your elders tell you it's good for your salvation, regardless of whether it is "from the pulpit" or not. We will watch for softer directives made manifest in funds.

How does this presidential election play out with you? Do you all vote the same? And where are your printing presses these days? To me, press today seems to be the internet, and not so easily burned. But Mormon internet presence, in my experience, often minimizes reader participation. Facebook Mormon pages, the official ones anyway, and Youtube as well, have comments blocked.

150 years after Nauvoo a Mormon runs for President, while you talk of the church's sphere of influence shrinking. Perhaps, but to an outsider this is even more confusing. Often I fear Mormons do the opposite of what they announce. We only have your actions (PACs and campaign funds) to look at, but we are watching.

UPDATE, from OPENSECRETS.org, Center for Responsive Politics: Federal Election Commission regulations only require disclosure of funds bundled by registered lobbyists. In 2008, both Barack Obama and John McCain agreed to disclose any bundlers who raised over $50,000 for their campaigns. Obama's re-election campaign is again disclosing those bundlers for the 2012 election. No 2012 Republican presidential candidates have agreed to voluntarily disclose their entire bundlers lists. As such, the only bundlers listed for Republican candidates are registered lobbyists.