ABSTRACT

Among the worlds most curious and fastest growing religions is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly known as ‘Mormons’, but hereafter referenced as ‘the Church’ and its members ‘Latter-day Saints’). Some people, such as Harold Bloom, argue ‘beyond reasonable dispute’ ‘there are no more patriotic Americans than the people called Mormons’ (Bloom 1991: 91). Today, Latter-Day Saints are replete in the FBI, CIA, armed forces and other US government agencies. In 2008, Mitt Romney was one of the top Republican presidential candidates, while Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat, presided as the US Senate Majority leader. A close relationship between Church and state exists in US politics because it is required by Church doctrine. However, Asia is a different political environment. To what extent is this relationship between the Church and Asian states similar as we begin the twenty-first century? Church and state relations are very different today from those during the

nineteenth century. Initially the Church was severely persecuted. The evolution of change shifted gradually. Even at the end of the twentieth century, after the Church had been in the US for 170 years, two of the religions significantly discriminated against were the atheists and Latter-day Saints (Servin-Gonzalez and Torres-Reyna 1999: 592-621). By comparison, the Church in Asia is very young. Congregations were established in Japan shortly after the Second World War, then in other places such as Hong Kong and Korea in the 1950s, Vietnam and Singapore in the 1960s, and Indonesia in the 1970s. More recently, the Church was recognized in Cambodia in 1994. Is it possible that in another 150-200 years Latter-day Saints will be as integrated in the Asian political landscape as they are in the US? The Church, ‘together with its acceptance of civil government, was, almost

from the start, involved in politics’ (O’Dea 1957: 172). Joseph Smith, the first prophet and founder of the religion, ran for President of the United States in 1844. His candidacy was cut short when a mob killed him. Other Latter-day

Saints suffered severe persecution, particularly in the State of Missouri where ‘Governor Lilbum Boggs issued an extermination order against the Latterday Saints’ (Augustine-Adams 1998-99: 570). In the midst of this persecution, ‘they repeatedly enjoined to work within the country’s legal system’, providing ‘ample testimonial to their respect for due process’ (Underwood 2000: 53-54). After repeated failed petitions to the government, they moved from the states into the western territories. Some interpret this move as an attempt ‘to become a “new nation” and create a separate social order’ (Kendall White 1978: 161-81). Those who do, fail to consider that Church courts could not supersede civil courts (Augustine-Adams 1998-99: 584). Even the first attempt to establish a communal order separate from society in 1836 was not started until they received permission from the state of Missouri (Baer 1988: 9). Cities built by Latter-day Saints followed the same charge as that given when they created Nauvoo, Illinois, ‘the city council could enact any ordinance as long as it did not conflict with federal and state laws’ (Baer 1988: 9). As Thomas F. O’Dea concluded, ‘the Saints had always recognized the legitimacy of civil government, despite the theocratic nature of the church and its totalitarian claims’ (O’Dea 1957: 167). Allegiance to the state did not result in state support. In the US, ‘it can

accurately be argued that no religious group in the United States has suffered more discrimination – often severe and deadly persecution – than the Mormons did in the nineteenth century’ (Fowler et al. 2004: 70). Opposing groups that ‘misunderstood and feared’ this new religion successfully represented the Church as a threat to ‘public’ and ‘social order’, and justified their persecution as ‘a manifestation of patriotism rather than bigotry’ (Wessinger 2000: 17-18). This allowed the Church’s antagonists to circumvent religious freedom guaranteed in the US Constitution. Even today, non-traditional religions ‘are the most likely to suffer persecution’ (Ibid.). For this persecution ‘to be culturally sanctioned’, it must take ‘the form of political rather than denominational interests’ (Huntington 2001: 57). It also allows the state to participate in the persecution. Since the victors write history, the histories of these persecutions have been

justified and reified. One scholar concluded that authors ‘accept a little too readily the self-exculpating constructions of the Saint’s antagonists’ and as a result ‘the tropes of the old anti-Mormon literatures appear in contemporary studies in only slightly revised form’ (Underwood 2000: 58). Douglas Palmer, an Asia area public affairs representative for the Church, affirmed that many people in Asia know little about the Church’s doctrines and practices, and some who profess to know about the Church merely repeat the tropes of those antagonistic to the Church (Ibid.). This was verified when I had an extended conversation with a respected and prominent Singapore religious leader at a conference. These tropes were successful historically and in many places remain successful today (Palmer 2006a). State religious persecution has repeated itself many times throughout the

world. However, are any conflicts between the Church and states the result of

Kings,

Church doctrine and practice, or a political manifestation of religious persecution? For example, the Church entered Singapore in May 1968 when they sent four missionaries to the new country. In 1968, approximately forty people joined the church and 242 in 1969 (Servin-Gonzalez and Torres-Reyna 1999). There appears to be no record of how many additional people were investigating the Church. In February 1970, the Singapore Inter-Religious Organization ‘harshly denounced’ the Church for creating ‘friction and ill-feeling’, and the Singapore government expelled the missionaries (Yeong 1981: 34). This is not a singular event in history, but a single history that repeats itself. Similar patterns can be seen more recently in Ghana (Ibid.: 34-35) and the Ukraine (Meyer 1998: 15-37). Typically, the persecution leads to observation, observation leads to acceptance, and acceptance leads to collaboration. Persecution eased two years after Latter-day Saints fled the states and

entered the western territories. President James Polk wanted five hundred Latter-day Saint men to fight in the Mexican-American War. The new leader of the Church, Brigham Young, encouraged Latter-day Saints to respond to their country’s call and 541 enlisted and made one of the longest infantry march in history: 2,030 miles. The Church had been literally driven out of the United States. Nevertheless, they responded to their country’s request because they still considered themselves subjects of the United States. President James Buchanan returned to state-sponsored persecution in the ‘Utah War’. This ‘war’ was called ‘Buchanan’s Blunder’ after everyone learned that Latter-day Saints were not ‘in a state of substantial rebellion’ (Wanner 2004: 732-55). While numerous articles and books have been written about the Church and US state relations, there is very little written about the Church in Asia and other non-Western environments. Latter-day Saints use the same Bible as Protestant sects, but also follow

additional scripture: the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Like the Catholics, they have a central religious leader, which they call president and prophet. The president has two councillors; together they comprise the First Presidency. They also have and follow twelve living apostles. To understand the Church’s history and current activities in Asia, one needs to understand the teaching from these sources and how Latter-day Saints live them, especially in an Asian context. Among its most fundamental beliefs influencing its relationships with gov-

ernments are two ‘Articles of Faith’. From one I borrow the title, ‘We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the laws of the land’ (Poll and Hansen 1961: 121). In many instances, the term subjects is used to describe people under the jurisdiction or control of others by force, but in this case it is voluntary. The list of rulers is not comprehensive, but representative. Marion G. Romney, while serving in the First Presidency of the Church, stated, ‘“The law of Christ” is all-inclusive. It concerns not only rules that shall govern beyond the grave, but also the law of nature here and now – local, national, and international.

Latter-day Saints should strictly obey the laws of the government in which they live’ (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1989c). Romney then continued: