United States: The Mormon Quest for Zion and the Limits of Religious Toleration
1. BASIC FACTS & HISTORICAL CONTEXT
TThe conflicts involving members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS/Mormons) in the 19th century represent a critical, often overlooked, chapter in American history that tested the nation’s founding principles of religious freedom and federal authority. The movement, founded by Joseph Smith in 1830, faced immediate persecution for its unorthodox theology, its rapid economic and political cohesion, and its practice of polygamy (plural marriage), which was publicly announced in 1852 but practiced earlier.
The Missouri Mormon War (1838) was the violent culmination of years of escalating tension. Mormons, gathering in Missouri to build their Zion (a biblical name for the city of Jersualem), were viewed by Missouri “old settlers” as an abolitionist-aligned, theocratic bloc that voted in unison and threatened local political control. After skirmishes and acts of violence on both sides, Missouri Governor Lilburn W. Boggs issued the infamous Extermination Order, stating: “The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state.” This led to the massacre at Haun's Mill and the forced expulsion of thousands of LDS members into Illinois.
The Utah War (1857-58), also known as Buchanan’s Blunder, was a larger constitutional crisis. Alarmed by reports of theocratic governance and polygamy in the Utah Territory, and fearing the expansion of Mormon political power, President James Buchanan dispatched a U.S. Army expedition of 2,500 troops to install a non-Mormon governor and assert federal supremacy. The LDS leadership, under Brigham Young, saw this as a repeat of Missouri and Illinois (where Joseph Smith was murdered) and prepared for a guerilla defense. The conflict was ultimately resolved without a major battle, but it included the tragic Mountain Meadows Massacre, where local Mormon militiamen, fearing an invasion and possibly acting with distorted orders, slaughtered a California-bound emigrant wagon train.
2. PERSPECTIVES
The conflict was driven by a profound clash of worldviews, each rooted in a sense of righteousness and existential threat.
The Mormon Perspective:
For early LDS members, their story was one of a persecuted covenant people, modern-day Israelites seeking to establish Zion in the wilderness. Their gathering was a divine commandment, and their political and economic unity was essential for survival and piety. They viewed outsiders as gentiles bent on destroying the work of God. The extermination order and the sending of an army were seen not as law enforcement but as proof of a genocidal intent by the United States, justifying a defensive stance and a deep, enduring distrust of federal authority.
The Settler & Federal Perspective:
To other American settlers, the Mormons were a fanatical, seditious group. Their bloc voting undermined democratic norms, their economic cooperation was seen as monopolistic, and their practice of polygamy was viewed as a barbaric and immoral rejection of civilized society. From Washington’s view, theocracy in Utah was an affront to the principle of republican government and the authority of the Constitution. The federal government’s action was framed as a necessary, even if clumsy, effort to uphold the rule of law and national sovereignty over a rebellious territory.
The Modern Perspective:
Today, the conflicts are analyzed as a tragic failure of pluralism. The Mormons were unquestionably victims of religious persecution, their rights as American citizens violently denied. Yet, the LDS leadership also fostered a separatist, theocratic society that consciously defied federal law (particularly with regard to polygamy) and American social norms, creating a cycle of fear and retaliation. The modern LDS Church has repudiated polygamy and strives to be seen as a mainstream American institution, yet the historical memory of persecution remains a powerful part of its identity.
3.PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION & ANALYSIS
Central Question: What are the limits of religious toleration in a liberal society? At what point do the
practices of a religious community become a threat to the social contract and justify state
intervention, if at all?
This dilemma lies at the intersection of individual conscience and collective order, a tension inherent
in the American experiment.
A. Philosophical Lenses:
John Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration:
Locke, a primary philosophical influence on the First Amendment, argued for broad religious toleration. However, he explicitly excluded from this protection those who offered allegiance to a foreign authority (e.g., the Pope) or those whose beliefs led to actions “contrary to human society, or to those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society.” 19th-century Americans applied this Lockeian exception to the Mormons: their theocratic ambitions and practice of polygamy were seen as threats to the republican social order, thus placing them outside the bounds of toleration.
John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle:
Mill’s principle, that power can only be exercised over an individual to prevent harm to others, provides a different framework. Did Mormon polygamy or bloc voting actually harm non-Mormons in Missouri or Utah? Their opponents argued yes—it harmed the fabric of democracy and the status of women. The Mormons argued that their practices were matters of conscience that harmed no one, and that the true harm was the violence perpetrated against them. The conflict shows the difficulty of defining “harm” in a diverse society.
Thomas Hobbes and the Leviathan:
Hobbes argued that to avoid a “war of all against all,” individuals must cede their rights to a sovereign power that maintains order. The Utah War was a direct test of this social contract. Brigham Young acted as the de facto sovereign in Utah, challenging the federal Leviathan. President Buchanan’s dispatch of the army was the ultimate assertion of the federal monopoly on violence to reclaim its authority. The conflict was a bloody demonstration that the Union was not a voluntary compact but a sovereign entity.
B. Theological & Religious Perspectives:
Mormon Theology:
For the early LDS, the command to “gather” and build Zion was a non-negotiable religious imperative. This created a theological mandate for separation and political autonomy that was inherently at odds with the assimilative model of American democracy. Polygamy, or “plural marriage,” was not a social custom but a divine law essential for exaltation. To abandon these principles under pressure would have been a betrayal of their faith. Their resistance was thus a matter of religious duty.
Protestant Evangelical Perspective:
The dominant Protestant culture of 19th-century America viewed the United States as a new Israel with a manifest destiny to create a godly civilization. Mormonism, with its new scripture and prophetic claims, was seen as a heretical and dangerous counterfeit of Christianity. Its practice of polygamy was singled out as the ultimate proof of its decadence and threat to the Christian family. This religious antipathy provided the moral fuel for political and military action.
Historical Lessons & Modern Echoes:
The Mormon conflicts demonstrate that religious freedom is not an absolute right but is constantly negotiated at the frontier where religious practice challenges societal norms and laws. The resolution came not through war but through a slow process of assimilation and change—primarily the LDS Church’s 1890 Manifesto abandoning polygamy to achieve Utah’s statehood. This history serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of mutual demonization and the use of state power against religious minorities. It also serves as a model for how deeply entrenched conflicts can be resolved when religious groups make pragmatic adaptations to integrate into the broader political community, and when the state chooses negotiation over confrontation.
The legacy is a reminder that the promise of religious liberty is perpetually tested by the realities of pluralism and power.
