“The Priesthood and the People”: Political Unity, Dissent, and the Twilight of Theocracy in Utah Territory

On the night of January 10, 1890, the Latter-day Saint People's Party held a parade President George Q. Cannon described as “the most beautiful sight I think I ever saw.”1 Thousands of Latter-day Saints marched in torchlight through four inches of snow as drum corps and marching bands, including a newly formed kazoo band, played their instruments. Meanwhile, marchers carried banners from each of Salt Lake's twenty-two wards plastered with slogans including “Here to Stay” and “Hold the Fort.”2 The display of unity was impressive, yet it belied intense internal divisions that had rocked the party in recent months and years. Just a few months earlier in General Conference, several church leaders spoke at length on the need to overcome the “sentiment of division” then afflicting the church and party. Apostle Francis M. Lyman emphasized that the Saints had few divisions over religious matters, yet still local disputes continued to “breed strife and contention. . . . in our political affairs.”3 Despite many Saints’ hopes for unity, Territorial Utah was home to a simmering tradition of weak but persistent political dissent among church members who were loyal but nevertheless opposed church leaders’ approach to politics.This kind of internal division has previously been understudied by historians of the era, though it played a pivotal role in the development of Utah's political system and Latter-day Saint political thought. Moreover, political dissent provides fascinating insight into the concerns and worldviews of Latter-day Saints during an anxiety-laden era. Political dissenters in the 1880s were typically small in numbers and varied widely in their aims and motives, variously incited to disunion by local rivalries, individual ambitions, community rifts, or ideological drives. Nevertheless, the spirit of disunion within the church necessitated a focused response from church and party leaders, who were gradually forced to secularize and reform their political rhetoric and strategy to cultivate unity and hold the fort against their besieging enemies.In a very real sense, then, the 1880s witnessed a partial secularization of Utah's politics. Secularization is a famously vexed concept, but one good definition is provided by Peter Coviello, who defines it as “religiosity's enforced compliance with the many norms . . . of liberal selfhood and sociality.”4 In the context of nineteenth-century Utah politics, this specifically refers to a decoupling of political and religious institutions and rhetoric that came as Latter-day Saints gradually came to draw a harder line between politics and religion. This secularization was not the same as the removal of religion from public political life, nor did it necessarily entail the erasure of the church's institutional power to influence politics. Instead, secularization here refers to Latter-day Saints’ increased willingness to accept the norms of American liberalism as basic principles for political engagement, especially but not exclusively the idea that religious leaders should not direct the selection of candidates for office. It also includes a rhetorical shift in which liberal values were more strongly emphasized by elites in political discourse.Studies of the changing relationship between church and state in Utah during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have generally focused on the ways that secularization resulted from outside pressure from Protestants who opposed polygamy.5 This examination of the debates and compromises of the 1880s demonstrates that this negotiation took place within the church and on a local scale as well. Latter-day Saints’ eventual compliance with American political norms was therefore not exclusively “enforced” (to use Coviello's term) by external pressure. Rather, the process of subordinating Utah's political culture to the conventions of American liberalism had a significant internal dimension often downplayed in discussions that present Latter-day Saints as a unified political whole standing in opposition to the secularizing forces of the outside world. Stated more broadly, this is a case in which the struggle to define the proper boundaries of religion in American society occurred as much within religious communities as it did between them.Both internal and external pressures to secularize politics were present on the local level in late nineteenth-century Utah. Opposition to the hegemony that church leaders held over Utah Territory's politics can be grouped into three categories, roughly corresponding to the territory's tripartite division into Gentiles, Apostates, and Mormons. The “Gentile,” or non-Mormon, threat was the most obvious and has therefore attracted the most attention among historians focused on national fights regarding polygamy and Utah statehood. Though non-Mormons were concentrated in Utah's large cities and mining areas, Saints across the territory felt the weight of this opposition intensely through the federal government's antipolygamy crusade during the 1880s. Apostasy, where individuals or groups of Saints broke with the church and challenged the ecclesiastical authority of church leaders, also presented a political threat. The apostate threat, especially in its Godbeite incarnation, provided a distinct thread of political opposition to Latter-day Saint political power that often allied with the Gentile opposition even while retaining its own distinct identity.6Most political dissent among church members, however, neither stemmed from nor led to apostasy. Unlike the Godbeites or others whose dissent accompanied separation from the church, these political dissenters had little interest in disputing religious doctrines, aside perhaps from the narrow question of whether church leaders had the right to select candidates for political office. Also unlike the “Gentile” and “Apostate” opposition, these political dissenters were highly decentralized with little real organization, often reacting to specific local concerns or disputes as much or even more than they were to broader concerns about church and state.Perhaps because of its local, disorganized nature or because of the traditional focus on Mormon-Gentile conflict, this internal thread of political opposition has been left underexamined by historians.7 Exploring this kind of internal dissent offers a new window into late nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint political thought and practice across Utah that presents a portrait of local politics far more dynamic than broad stereotypes about Mormon theocracy imply.8 As Ronald Walker argued in reference to the Godbeite movement, “by studying dissent we gain the means to view a society as the participants themselves saw it—and not necessarily as we today assume it to have been.”9 This examination of dissent proceeds by first analyzing what motivated political dissenters as well as their position in the community of Saints. Then, the focus shifts to the responses church leaders undertook to maintain political unity among church members and how these responses helped to fundamentally change Utah's political culture. This dual focus on both dissenters and church leaders reveals the wide range of attitudes held by Latter-day Saints and shows how both leaders and lay members acted as political agents struggling to balance competing identities, pressures, and ideological frameworks during a fraught decade of crisis and adaptation.Political dissent was a persistent feature of local politics in Utah Territory produced by a diverse array of intra-community fissures. This was true even before church leaders established the People's Party as the church's political organization in 1870 to oppose non-Mormons and Godbeites organizing themselves into the Liberal Party. Despite Utah Territory's largely theocratic structure, one historian notes around two dozen incidents where Saints challenged political candidates supported by church leadership between 1854 and 1882.10 In one such incident, dissatisfied members in Ogden published their own revised ballot without Apostle Franklin D. Richards, the official candidate for Probate Judge. Their alternative ballot attracted close to forty percent of the vote and sparked a long power struggle between Richards and former Stake President Lorin Farr.11In 1878, President John Taylor lamented the Saints’ “visible division of sentiments in election matters.” Church leaders did not welcome this division. “Do we not . . . have the right to vote as we please?” Taylor asked rhetorically before curtly responding: “Yes, and to to as we Despite the threat of the Saints an of unity by one Latter-day Saint that their that we have the political organization of in of . . . a to vote and the Nevertheless, as President political dissent was an feature of local politics during the much to the of Taylor and the threat dissent for the People's Party of the in the political power of church leaders, which left dissenters in a much The and from and of to the Utah with an where many of their were for and their had a many church leaders themselves with over local politics. In the first election the of the Utah Apostle Franklin D. Richards and Stake President not to with the Ogden for of the of People's Party in what they be a As a Lorin former and was to candidates in what one a President George Q. Cannon the for a threat to in Salt that “the question presented the to church that has in the . . . still be or the new who to the a new and themselves as in the of the of this Unlike in the Salt did not to a new and their own much to the who had been in a between the and the Nevertheless, the for more dissent to hold in Utah's was to threat was by the to community In first election the the People's Party two on the to a of church members led by one of the In one the was in debates over polygamy that rocked the community in the new with of the on the of the and the and the of the for the This kind of community division was by the new Utah established by the federal to in Mormon political which their hopes on the of between and Utah and the Utah . . . of though the opposition to church power to from than around local rivalries, or community divisions for political division that of ideological about the relationship between church and however, opposition within the People's Party did on a ideological In for an opposition that the broke with the People's Party they felt they of a or vote at the of . . . the People's and to their own party with a more ideological were even in of for the a at which was a candidate for on the of leaders who a more and with a by the Liberal Party and a that not to that in political by who in of the of though a church to a around As in a and few from outside the Liberal ideological dissenters an in from church members who local politics as what a for community between Saints and Gentiles, who the Saints were on their church members, their leaders’ hopes for a and saw unity as the to the federal government's antipolygamy the for party in politics, strongly in where many were to about Nevertheless, the of such shows a thread of among Latter-day Saints though loyal to their were to with their from Utah's political and religious also played an role in the of internal especially in far from in Salt members thought the divisions that had in election to be as much a of from church leaders as from local or one who had been in Salt to an from the for several that be one of the we . . . for I was more than at the present The same across in D. of to the same far and far where can I for and from over in the of on Utah's church leaders were to the same influence they to communities the The same was true of which two party in first during the in then in the election in before church leaders to the party in the influence of church leaders to local attention the of the Latter-day Saint community at local to the between the of the local community and of the community of Saints at large in a more kind of Saints argued that local were not or in the This was a in for the as in to was also at “the that our of the Territory has not been in the by the People's as from was to hold office. without a to which even who did not vote for were to within Salt divisions Saints in the that they were in local to their though the was before it to a party in the of George Q. was a for themselves as of their local in to the to the of the more community of dissenters nevertheless a place in a community of Saints with the idea of loyal leaders even that political disunion be for individuals as well as was the case Apostle Francis M. Lyman that to the People's Party a of political had left an Ogden against the for church Lyman to to in with the . . . or the which is a very be more to The Lyman between political dissent and was not or even In for a few leaders of the who also held in with to the People's Party a new candidates for office. their “by the and of continued to hold church and were even for in dissenters themselves as to local by standing from the community and the political of two political dissenters Liberal to against the People's Party one who have been by this among their The was The position dissenters held in their Latter-day Saint communities is in one of the dissenters as Though still members of Latter-day Saint political dissenters themselves as within the to with their in the for community political dissent to the People's Party in one Saint the be to the as their their was in in of our from the that is among the the of their Saints saw in their political dissenters and their as Latter-day Saints. The political dissenters of the in to the Godbeites of the to their dissent with apostasy. The for to and to in the People's presented a much threat to communities than to and even of disunion in community the in felt at and over whether the disunion have been In an with the I in the of the unity and of this I to and in who the and lamented the of and and over their to “the for the and division were to Saints’ view of as one and one and were from the for communities be in what John Taylor described as in which church members to both the and of political unity was a for church In the interest of and the to dissent from into In the same that had led to the to the Saints’ vote in the George Q. Cannon to three led by to Ogden to for and by with The Apostle John to the to a party which did over the of several The in an at the of which each of the church members to each the of dissent was their members, as Franklin D. Richards and John Taylor did in their to to the and such or as the or the Though was the was a one of and to the of the and political unity were in the of nineteenth-century church leaders who took the that As a in the in a to Taylor has as much right to direct the in as has in to that and . . . Latter-day Saint to have to that this is the for to be to be one with to the unity of the political and the was for church leaders to of the between the church's dual to theocracy and People's Party leaders a to secularize political rhetoric as much as in members of the religious in that the of the to that “the present was the first political of the of a a of the Salt and of the People's Party strongly the to the by that power was and had been in the that power was in the was for who one a in which to the Saints’ and church leaders’ influence over candidate in these same that church leaders did not with candidate that even they the of the as much right to a political they to as or or or who for what was whether the their own to to the and vote that to church leaders in political matters, the basic of to be in to maintain its as a of were the the that is far than a as they had two or John Taylor from the that is not with as it is with because not that of of themselves as the of a Latter-day Saints described themselves as the true of American In for the first in over a decade of the party a in the of American political In its the People's Party its to principles of local and of which the federal had The direct reference to the relationship between church and state was a direct of that . . . is in to the of the at the in or in official In local People's Party conventions as the party that “the . . . that the Mormon Church the of the the and of and was of and that the party for and of life, and at their Saints across the territory the rhetoric by the People's Party the focus on and a to Latter-day Saint during the the rhetoric broke from the with the federal government's on religious and of more during this and took a more view of and Though still of the on Latter-day Saint communities by the federal party leaders to the kind of they against and present a view of what the Saints This rhetorical shift had the of well to a national that had long the close relationship between church and state in Utah with while internal about with a of what Utah politics was a to how far church leaders were to to secularize politics. leaders to politics more many still held to of in which with and the this in the of theocracy and in practice it an system around “the of the to the of as by then of the People's Party a at the that church leaders did not political influence over the George Q. Cannon from as and that . . . the had a right to direct the both in and I was on as and it was a that I still therefore a more for the and of the to As a of to these theocratic from Cannon and the of John who that “the is not far the to these of leaders, and who in that we be liberal before we forced to be for of were the saw as an however, leaders were forced to more compromises with a of Ogden as even in a Liberal In a of Latter-day Saint to their own and the Saints’ to the a few on the Despite simmering rivalries, helped a in Ogden that have the party of the one for and in a community by political to over candidate selection by with the dissenters was a however, and one and Apostle Franklin D. Richards the party unified to their own candidates with the internal dissent in the had and the candidate in what one a In Salt that same leaders were forced to on as leaders in Ogden had four and candidates had been were to they to the The that church leaders held on politics was and to the decade church leaders were forced to even in to one for political by that was of politics, and not to with the by a but to the Saints continued as a unified In President of that the Saints had been without a in the Church to in political lamented “the of the Party in the of from which was and though loyal to church and the new of politics that had in the in one that for their and than . . . by torchlight as the had been in Nevertheless, supported the over the and local elites even did two Though church leaders and in the political their role as they their to the of unity and the of that the Saints’ political unity to and more however, they to the line between unity and On the People's Party held a at the in Salt draw of from who had to with a view to these of . . . dissatisfied church members about members and in politics to George Q. who the was the that many of their were in and that their were of most in the then party was in because of the of the the and had a Cannon in the that held in the and that the should be these political As the of the the over the they came to a more in the of People's Party to be in each Salt a good to at the to and This idea was not party had long been a feature of American politics, to the of the new and a few months a of church members in had even a People's Party focused on political The the same more including political to and local but not by church leaders and largely in Utah's were a of how party leaders’ to the of American politics had Utah's political culture. As a from party leaders, the new Salt were by their on unity far more than the earlier had John that the were because “the has . . . to the the party the for organization at the party to on the of unity, a a the first was in the the unity among the Saints in Salt is an On the one the provided church leaders with a new to Latter-day Saints on political and helped to for the an the a few months though dissent in the the it did in the of many of the for a more process and increased for were also the in the party church leadership to they on the but long over the leaders to the in the of the to the and not to Moreover, most Saints that the political in Salt had far to a as was a that the People's Party in they the Cannon and leaders that were unity as and local church leaders took a role in politics in their while who continued to a political role themselves on leaders’ the had been established with an political they in the party institutions led by in with by published in a that be to each political far the leaders The had the of decoupling politics from the church church leaders from political even the party into the the of have been the most change in Utah politics the of the two around these had the to in Salt Lake's political culture before the People's Party was by church leaders to theocratic rhetoric and direct to maintain political early members of the of the the of for unity in these they John against political for of division. In George Q. Cannon that though political . . . not with and still I is . . . Church leaders had gradually and politics the People's Party came to a American party in many and Utah politics took on the of to American politics Utah's theocratic was a of by by leaders to unity and unity, however, was not to the party from political The of Utah's cities to in and leaders’ political as they were forced to not between theocratic and political unity, but between political unity and maintain a influence on they to Salt and from into the of non-Mormons and national their willingness to with the of the both of which the of the People's Party and of new of with church leaders in early to the People's first in Ogden and then in the of the political one from church leaders, the of the People's Party the of the Saints’ political unity as church leaders Saints to both the and in Just one Apostle lamented that have the that one can from few was from the of the debates about the proper of church leaders’ political The disunion that the of the People's in and more discussions about church and ideological debates over the political role of church leaders that had political dissent over the decade were not but and as church leaders and how to political influence in a new political over politics to division among church members though the of the 1880s were by the and the idea of division not with dissent from church leaders’ political but with the of politics into religion that accompanied such the secularization of Utah politics that had in the 1880s as a response to external pressure and internal dissent had to even as over whether the church as an ever from politics political dissenters much more than a few local Nevertheless, their persistent during the 1880s forced church leaders to both the and of Utah's political Though the of of and a the threat by dissenters during a of the and of that In the the dissenters the varied and attitudes both lay members and leaders across Utah had the relationship between and politics, the for the political to Utah politics even The debates about church and state in Utah that the People's and continued in one or over the of the be from the over the decade by internal dissenters and church leaders who Utah's theocratic society into one of such