View PDF

One of the greatest challenges facing the membership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the accommodation of revealed, eternal gospel principles with contemporary political and economic institutions. Accommodation can mean one or a combination of several processes—the adjustment of the gospel to or in harmony with the world, or the adjustment of politico-economic institutions to conform to the gospel principles. 

If the membership of the Church were geographically isolated from the world the problem would be relatively simple, as unique, homogeneous, and compatible politico-economic institutions could be developed consistent with the gospel principles. There would still be problems of maintaining such homogeneity as long as man retained his free agency, but the problems would be eased. Intensive Church programs to convert and maintain conversion could educate members to exercise their free agency in furthering only the kingdom. 

In the absence of geographical isolation, were the Church and its members powerful enough to determine the institutions, there might be some hope of helping to develop a politico-economic system consistent with the gospel truths. However, in the presence of free agency such consistency would be even more difficult to maintain than in the case of geographical isolation. When isolation does not exist, and where the Saints are insufficiently influential, instead of accommodating institutions to the gospel, the gospel has at times, at least in practice, been accommodated to worldly realities. 

For the first half century of the Latter-day Saint Church, it was apparently the hope that a separate and distinct Mormon culture, with internally compatible politico-economic institutions, could be established. Zion was a “place,” separate and distinct from the world, to which the Saints could gather, safeguarding themselves from the ”temptations and fleshpots of the world.” There political and economic institutions could be accommodated to gospel principles. 

Zion Thwarted at Nauvoo

The implementation of this concept of Zion appeared as a hopeful reality in 1839, when the state of Illinois granted the Saints asylum from their Missouri mobbings as well as a city charter for Nauvoo which contained almost sovereign powers of self-government. Successful missionary activity brought the skilled and diversified manpower essential to the city’s economic development, and numerous efforts were made toward the establishment of a self-sufficient city-state. However, Gentiles moved into Nauvoo, some members and Church leaders apostatized, and the “peculiar” Mormons came into continuous contact with the people of the neighboring communities. Resulting conflicts erupted in the expulsion of the Mormon people from their homes. In a day of state sovereignty, an appeal to Washington for help fell on deaf ears. Their “cause was just” but nothing could be done for them. The Saints were forced to leave behind their city-kingdom of Zion. 

Even had the political, social and religious problems been resolved, however, from the vantage point of hindsight we can see that Nauvoo would have had difficulty surviving as an economically self-sufficient city-state. In a country with rapidly expanding transportation and communication, economic isolation and self-sufficiency were to become increasingly difficult—especially for such a small area as a city-state. Nauvoo’s natural resources were limited. Sufficient diversification to provide the necessities would deny industry economies of scale, meaning relatively inefficient operation. In the meantime, outside businesses would become more and more efficient as they increased in size. In a country dedicated to freedom of internal trade, cheap “outside” goods would have flowed into the area, destroying high cost “domestic” Mormon industry. Other communitarian efforts of this period also fell before the economic onslaught of modern technology. 

Theocratic Isolation and Equalitarian Economics

While their hopes for Nauvoo were thwarted, under the leadership of Brigham Young the body of the Church removed itself far from the “Center of Zion.” They moved to a place wanted by no one else—the Rocky Mountains—where the faithful Saints could gather from all over the world in geographical isolation, free from conflict with the Gentile world. There they could develop their own peculiar social, political, economic, and religious institutions. While it was hoped to establish their own political kingdom, it was planned to do so within the United States. In an age of states rights and with a federal constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion, the hope of the Mormon people that they could develop a self-sufficient, theocratic earthly empire within the United States was not as fantastic as it might seem today. 

Brigham Young’s vision of a Rocky Mountain kingdom was a mighty one. However, if organized as a territory, Congress and the President would control the future of the Saints. Accordingly, in 1847, Brigham Young called a constitutional convention in Salt Lake City, at which time the proposal for the State of Deseret, with sovereign state powers, was drawn up. As conceived, the State was to encompass some 490,000 square miles. The proposal was sent to Washington, but once again the desire for self-determination was thwarted—the request for statehood was denied. In its place a Territory was established with much diminished boundaries, excluding claims to parts of what is now Idaho, Oregon, California, New Mexico, and Arizona. 

While territorial status meant the appointment of principal officers by the President, and through these control by Washington, Mormon hopes for a separate kingdom were kept alive by the appointment of Brigham Young as the first governor. The Prophet’s vision could still be implemented. Statehood could come later. The Saints could bide their time—all the while preparing. Then, too, the Kingdom could transcend temporary earthly political boundaries. After all, was the Kingdom not to “fill the earth”? If a political kingdom was not possible at the moment, an economic kingdom could be achieved in preparation for that political kingdom. 

What was attempted was the establishment of a self-sufficient, highly diversified, centrally directed economy separate from that of the nation. With economic isolation, they might hope to preserve their unique culture and institutions. This Mormon economy was not based on private ownership and direction but on a combination of private, state, and Church ownership—with Church direction. The distribution of the goods produced was to be more or less on the basis of equality and need. Church funds were to be used, among other things, for the “poor and needy.” Profits, if any, were to be used to build up the Kingdom, not to enhance personal wealth. Mormon economic contact with the outside world was limited by preachment and if necessary even excommunication. There was to be no accommodation to the economic system of the world. 

Just as economic isolation and self-determination was hoped, planned, and worked for, the Saints retained their hope for political isolation and self-determination, even though it had been thwarted by territorial status. A shadow government including a military force was maintained. The Saints were not going to accommodate themselves to worldly politics and control. However, their attempt at political independence brought them into conflict with the non-Mormon federally appointed judges, who appealed to Washington for relief and protection. The result was the invasion of Johnston’s Army in 1858 to put down the so-called Mormon Rebellion. 

The approach of the army made necessary the geographical retrenchment of the Church, which recalled pioneers from the far-flung colonial outposts to help defend it. The Saints were not to return to many of those areas deserted for several generations and then under much different circumstances. However, the Church accommodated itself, permitting the army to enter the Territory. 

The Rise of Capitalism in Zion

With a shrunken Zion, Mormon political power began to be diluted. The army was now a permanent fixture. Its personnel and civilian retinue began to exercise their franchise. The discovery, under army encouragement, of rich ore bodies attracted miners by the thousands. Church members were strongly urged to avoid “mining fever,” and Gentile miners filled the mining camps. While the Utah right-of-way for the transcontinental railroad, completed in 1869, was largely Mormon built, the permanent railroad workers were usually imported and were overwhelmingly non-Mormon. In addition, Gentile tradesmen and craftsmen moved to Utah to take advantage of the high profits and wages which frequently characterized the 1860’s and 1870’s. This growing Gentile population of mining and railroad towns as well as the trade center, Salt Lake City, was augmented by the apostacy and excommunication of a considerable number of Church members and even leaders who then, as in Nauvoo, often allied themselves with the foes of the Church. By the time statehood was granted, Salt Lake City and County elections were frequently controlled by non-Mormons, as was the governorship of the state within a few years. 

Meanwhile Mormondom was also succumbing to economic conquest. By the time statehood was granted little was left of the rather imposing Mormon economic kingdom but agriculture and small shops. Attempts at establishing a number of industries had been costly and often abortive. Mormon technicians were frequently incapable of solving the highly technical engineering problems involved. Private capital accumulation from small, relatively inefficient farms was minimal. Mormon capital was insufficient to absorb the continual losses involved in industrial development. The capital requirements of an adequate transportation system were far beyond Mormon reach. Such capital requirements had been largely met in other parts of the country by capital infusions from already developed areas, and the Mormons were shy of such. Consequently, Gentile capital, manpower, and direction flowed in.

In addition, the Mormon hopes of economic isolation and self-sufficiency, again from the vantage point of hindsight, appear to have been hopeless. Regional economic specialization had been proceeding with giant steps throughout the country and, of course, with it a rapid increase in industrial efficiency. Business consolidation was proceeding at a rate never before equaled and with such came both increased efficiency and monopoly power. Regional specialization demanded trade, and railroads were criss-crossing the nation at an undreamed of pace. The possibility of economic isolation was fast dying. 

Even if the Saints had initially been satisfied with the relatively simple and poor economic life that would have been made necessary by a continued policy of economic self-sufficiency, the presence of profit making possibilities had attracted and would continue to attract “foreign” capitalists and workers. It would have probably been an impossible task to prevent the Saints from going to work for the more efficient Gentile firms (with probably higher wages) and from buying from more efficient and lower priced Gentile stores. Gentiles could not be kept out of the territory if they wanted to enter. 

Thus, by the time of statehood, 1896, economic conquest was almost complete. The Mormons had given up their United Orders, and largely their cooperatives. Land distribution and use was no longer controlled by the Church, but was almost completely private. Under competitive pressures, business conduct on the basis of brotherly love was almost extinct. Egalitarianism was dying. The capitalism of the world, with all of its accoutrements, was fast becoming king in Utah, as elsewhere in the country. 

The coup de grace to Mormon hopes of political and economic isolation and power was given by the federal officers sent into the Territory in the 1880’s to destroy that power. Church property, other than strictly religious, was confiscated. Polygamous Church leaders were imprisoned or driven into exile. Economically the Church became bankrupt and in debt. Driven to the wall, the Church backed down from its official policy of refusing to accommodate itself. Economically and politically it agreed to accommodate itself to the world. 

As a result, the long hoped for Statehood was granted in 1896. However, it was a different world into which the State of Utah was born. It was not the world of the abortive State of Deseret. There could be no return, it seems, to an earlier age. State sovereignty was dying everywhere. As the result of the Civil War and the subsequent Constitutional amendments, state goals could not for long interfere with national aspirations. Neither could the religious freedom of any people be used in such a way as to endanger national goals. It would take some years for these trends to become universal throughout the country (especially in the South), but for weakened Utah and the Mormons they became realities with the turn of the Century. 

With statehood, the Mormon people would increasingly become integrated into the national political parties, where they could exercise but little influence, certainly insufficient to materially change them. To become successful politically, Mormons would have to accommodate themselves to political realities. They could not hope to convince either political party to conform to Mormonism. Increasingly Mormons would also become an intrinsic part of American capitalism. But here again they must accommodate themselves to economic realities to be accepted and successful. They would have little power to induce the Gentile economic world to conform to egalitarian gospel principles as Mormons understood them. 

A New Concept: Zion in the World

Complete economic and political accommodation awaited another development. While non-Mormons had successfully penetrated Mormon geographical exclusiveness in Utah’s mining and urban centers, the rural areas of Utah were still predominantly Mormon. These towns, plus the Mormon agricultural towns established in surrounding states as well as in Canada and Mexico, were still isolated and with strong Mormon traditions that would not easily die. Utah was Zion—-and these were outposts, colonies. Complete political and economic integration with the world—to really be in the world—demanded a change in the concept of Zion. 

This change was to come about naturally—almost unnoticed, produced by several national and worldwide developments. With World Wars I and II, thousands of Mormon boys and girls entered the military service and became acquainted with the world. Many stayed in urban, industrial communities far from Utah. Some became permanently lost to the Church; others were lost only temporarily; still others remained with the Church. The second occurrence was the devastating agricultural depression of the 1920’s. At the beginning of that decade, Mormons were mostly farmers. Agricultural bankruptcy and economic opportunities in the cities drove and drew them, especially the young, to the Gentile cities—mainly on the West Coast. Once again, some were lost—others remained with the Church. 

While war and depression were the more spectacular events changing the geographical picture of Zion, other developments were equally effective. While Utah had developed a reasonably good public educational system, to get advanced training (especially in the professions) Mormon youth had to go into the world. Advanced education was a natural outgrowth of Mormon emphasis on developing the “intelligence.” Thus Mormon youth were impelled into the Gentile world to complete their education, many remaining—some outside the Church, but many inside it. 

Finally, as Latter-day Saints rose to positions of importance in the business world, they were frequently given the opportunity to rise even further by pulling up their Utah roots and moving to other parts of the country. 

With faithful Latter-day Saints moving out into the world, the geo graphically limited concept of an isolated Zion became obsolete. Zion became looked upon as where the gospel is, wherever the faithful dwell. Zion could exist in the world. The Church officially gave recognition to this changing concept when it began once again to establish wards and stakes throughout the country in the 1920’s. Finally, after World War II, the instruction to missionaries to encourage Saints to remain in their countries of origin, the organization of Stakes of Zion throughout the world, and the worldwide construction of chapels and especially temples revealed the permanency of this expanded concept. 

Accommodating to Economic Reality

With Zion now world wide, the hopes of geographical isolation were gone. The hope of political and economic isolation from the world also appeared dead or at least dormant, though the hope for an eventual earthly kingdom might still persist. Whatever the hope, politically and economically, the Saints are in the world—they are a part of it today. As such they have had to accommodate their religion to it. This does not mean that they cannot hope to influence the world to move in the direction of gospel principles, but to survive and prosper in the world they must accommodate to reality. Nor does it mean that they have had to give up all Mormon principles—only those that are in serious conflict with the world in which they lived. 

Even a retreat to Utah after World War II could not have protected the Saints from the demands of the world, for the industrialization that had been attempted in the 1800’s now succeeded because of the giant infusions of non-Mormon capital—both private and government—into the Utah economy during the war and the years following. Utah’s urban centers grew rapidly, actually more rapidly from the migration of Church members from agricultural areas than from Gentile “invasion.” A study by Nielsen[1] in 1957 showed that the Mormon concentration in Salt Lake City had increased from 57% in 1910 to 68% in 1950. In Ogden it had grown from 41% in 1910 to 64% in 1950, while in Provo the percentage had incresed from 73% to 82% in 1950. By 1957, only about 23% of the heads of Mormon families were still in agriculture.[2] Thus, by the 1960’s the Church population in Utah had changed from a rural, agrarian base to an urban, industrial one. In addition, Mormons in ever-increasing numbers throughout expanded Zion were working for Gentile businesses. To be successful in a Gentile world, accommodation was necessary. 

Apparently Mormon business and professional people have made the accommodation with relative ease. Little seems to stand in the way of success in their endeavors, as the Gentile world has required little moral and spiritual accommodation. What has been required is economic accommodation. This development has been made possible by the acceptance into Church practice and teachings of theories of private enterprise, capitalism, and the free market—even though these did not characterize unique Mormon economic institutions and teachings of the 1800’s. Theologically this acceptance is made possible by an extension of the principle of free agency into the economic world. To independent Mormon business and professional people free agency has come to mean freedom to conduct their businesses in such a way as to produce profits. To those in managerial positions, their free agency was exercised in securing employment, though they may have to forego considerable freedom to remain and advance with an employer. Free agency to employers also means freedom to manage workers, unrestricted by worker organizations. 

In the quest for business success, religious principles are frequently accommodated to economic reality. Most Mormon cafe operators and grocers appear as willing as others to dispense alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, tea, and coffee. Mormon lawyers are hired by the distributors, Mormon or otherwise, of these products, as well as by distributors of films and magazines that at least border on the pornographic, to represent them to public law-making bodies. Mormon salesmen are about as likely to use high pressure sales methods and the “puffing of wares” as are non-Mormon salesmen. “Sharp” business practices have become so frequently practiced by Mormon businessmen that a common jibe in Utah is that the only one that can “out-jew a Jew is a Mormon.” If the economics of their business require it, Mormon business men seem little less susceptible to operating on Sunday than are Gentile businesses. Mormon employers are not known for their voluntary largesse, egalitarianism, or brotherly love in dealing with their employees. A frequently encountered attitude is that “business is business and the Church is the Church.” Few business or professional people would be willing to accept Church intervention in their business lives. 

Actually Church teaching and practice has made little attempt to limit business activities, even though these may appear to some to be antagonistic to gospel ideals and prinpiples. One of the possible reasons little has been said or done is that there is a substantial movement of business and professional leaders into positions of Church leadership or a movement of Church leaders into business leadership. The author’s study in 1957[3] showed that about 36% of the stake presidents and 14% of the bishops held supervisory positions, compared with 13% for the heads of families of the Church as a whole. About 11% of the stake presidents and the bishops were professional men, compared with 5% for the heads of families in general. Some 25% of the stake presidents and 17% of the bishops were owners of businesses, while but 13% of the heads of families were in this category. Thus a total of 72% of the stake presidents and 42% of the bishops were in these three categories, compared with 31% of the membership of the Church. Business and professional men are typically community leaders, and if they remain at all close to the Church are naturally looked to as leaders in the Church and are given the opportunity to serve. It is felt by many a spiritually dangerous thing to attack the business practices of Church leaders. 

The Manual Worker’s Plight

Accommodation has not been as easy for manual workers—the skilled and unskilled workers. While, in 1957, 38% of the heads of families of the Church were manual workers, none of the stake presidents studied were of these occupations. Some 17% of the bishops were found to be manual workers and 15% of the most active Church members. On the other hand 45% of the completely inactive heads of Church families were in this category. Of all the occupational categories, only in the cases of the manual workers and supervisory personnel was there found to be significantly greater complete inactivity than for the heads of the Church families in general. As supervisory personnel tend more readily to move into positions of Church leadership, we can conclude that manual workers have the greatest difficulty fitting into the Church. (This tendency has been perhaps unconsciously recognized by the Church film on Home Teaching, which uses a manual worker to illustrate an inactive Elder.) 

The greater difficulty of manual workers in fitting into the Church is the product of a number of factors. First, such workers are frequently required to work Sundays, and they are thus deprived of the spiritual development that comes with Sunday worship activities. This also is true of supervisory personnel, which may account for the inactivity of a high proportion of these. Second, manual occupations are frequently “rough” in environment. Workers who are required to be away from the steadying influence of their families and Church probably find it more difficult to maintain personal standards. Even if their work is close to home, the rough environment of the shops, mills, and jobs helps to break down their standards. Members whose personal standards do not conform to those of the Church are frequently made to feel uncomfortable in Church. 

A third factor is that manual workers have less opportunity for administrative and communicative experience than other kinds of workers. Church activity usually includes Church service, which most frequently means teaching and executive positions. Those with some experience and demonstrated ability probably are more frequently given the opportunity to serve in these capacities. For the manual workers without these abilities, the construction of chapels and work on the welfare farms is the primary outlet for the use of their talents, but these do not involve spiritual activity in worship services. 

Fourth, manual workers usually have less formal education than do other workers and professions. The Church emphasis on education tends to make the lesser educated feel inadequate and inferior and can easily drive them from Church activity. The 1957 study referred to above showed that 70% of the completely inactive had no college work, while the figure for Church family heads in general was 53% and for the most active heads of families 51%. The figure for stake presidents was 32%, while that for bishops was 39%. 

A fifth factor underlying the relatively greater inactivity of manual workers is their tendency to lean toward the Democratic Party in their political beliefs. If the Church leaders were politically neutral this might not prove to be a problem. There is, however, a strong tendency for the Church leadership and most active members to be found leaning toward the Republican Party. In the 1957 study it was found that 89% of the stake presidents, 56% of the bishops, and 58% of the most active heads of Church families were Republican oriented, while only 11% of the stake presidents, 22% of the bishops, and 24% of the completely active were Democratically oriented. Statistics for the political leanings of the General Authorities are not available, but from their public pronouncements, it would seem that the overwhelming majority of them lean toward Republican Party associations. For the Church as a whole, 41% of the heads of families were Republican oriented, while 38% of them were Democratically inclined. However, of the completely inactive in the Church, 48% were Democratic oriented, while but 31% leaned toward the Republican Party. Such political imbalance could very well result from practices which drive Democrats and manual workers from Church activity. 

The Church Against Unionism

The sixth factor inhibiting the accommodation of the manual workers and the Church is the historical antagonism existing between the Church and unionism. As long as the union movement in Utah was dominated by Church members, as was true until about the 1880’s,[4] there appears to have been no serious problem. However, as Gentiles came to control industrial and urban centers, they came into control of the pioneer Mormon-dominated unions. They also established many new labor organizations. Naturally they felt ho loyalty to Church leaders and could seldom be influenced to accept Church leadership. 

In addition, the Church became a major employer and as such experienced the usual employer-employee difficulties with Mormon and non-Mormon workers alike. Then, too, Church leaders became business leaders and Mormon business leaders became Church leaders. As businessmen they came into conflict with their workers as the workers sought to improve hours, wages, and working conditions through what apparently were the only effective tools at hand—strikes, picketing, and boycotts. These activities appeared to Church leaders as rebellion against “duly constituted authority,” whether the action involved the Church directly through its business operations or a Church leader’s private business operation. 

In addition to the conflict inherent in the employee-employer relationship there came into existence a growing conflict of ideas over the propriety and need for union security or compulsory unionism. While there has been some change in Church attitude toward unions and union action over the years, the General Authorities and the Church’s Deseret News have consistently been opposed to compulsory unionism. The first president of the AFL, Samuel Gompers, too, was opposed to compulsory unionism and promoted unionism on a voluntary basis into the 1920’s. However, during that decade the so-called open shops of voluntary unionism frequently ended up as closed, non-union shops and American union ranks were almost decimated. To union workers and leaders the economic collapse of the 1930’s was caused by the weakened position of the unions, which were unable to resist snowballing reduction in wages, unemployment, and deterioration of working conditions. To the union man, voluntary unionism meant no unions and thus economic defeat. To be able to negotiate effectively with management, workers felt the need for their unions to be secure. 

The involvement of Church leaders in the contemporary debate over right-to-work laws and the repeal of Section 14b of the Taft-Hartley Act have produced a confrontation of major proportions between the Church and Mormon union members, as well as unions in general. The Church leaders are being consistent with history in challenging “compulsory unionism.” On the other hand, union leaders and members are being consistent with what they conceive as economic reality in preserving their union movement by insisting on “union security.”[5]

The conflict between unions and the Church since the 1880’s has probably resulted in some Mormons either removing themselves from unions or never joining in the first place. However, the fact that 21% of the heads of Mormon families were union members in 1957, compared with a national figure of about 25% of the labor force, would seem to indicate that Mormon workers feel the need for unionism about as much as non-Mormons. It is also possible that some Mormons have removed themselves from Church activity because of the conflict. The fact that manual workers have a much greater rate of Church inactivity would appear to support this latter possibility. 

Church Leaders Against Union Leaders

With this conflict, Mormon union leaders find themselves in a very difficult position. When worker demands come into conflict with Church leaders, even though in purely secular cases, the Mormon union leader must make a decision. If he refuses to conform to the wishes of the union members, he will lose his position of union leadership. Workers will not long support a leader who “sells out” to management. If he loses his position of leadership in the union, he also loses whatever influence for good he may have exercised. On the other hand, should he represent the workers to the point of a strike, picketing, or a boycott, he will often be looked upon by his Church leaders as an apostate challenging the authority of his spiritual leaders. His Church position may be jeopardized. In one case, with which this writer was personally acquainted, a Mormon union leader organized his bishop’s business operation—not by way of a strike but by merely convincing the workers to vote for the union. The result was that this man was removed from his position of leadership in his ward. Another union leader was told by his bishop that he could not be both a union leader and a faithful Latter day Saint. A third popular union member was advised by a Church leader not -to run for the presidency of a large local union. 

If the Church leaders were neutral in their economic philosophy there would be little problem. However, not only do the speeches of Church leaders support capitalism and free enterprise, which are acceptable to the overwhelming majority of Mormon workers, but they almost invariably support management in its conflict with workers’ unions. Thus Mormon employers, and especially Mormon employers who hold positions of Church leadership, attempt to transfer their religious authority into the field of economic activity. They assume that they have the authority to receive inspiration in their business activity which is superior to the inspiration which workers and union leaders might receive in the conduct of their affairs. When differences occur, the leaders presume and are presumed by many to be right, while the workers and their union leaders are naturally wrong. There have been cases where union members who have been Church leaders have exercised their spiritual authority to discriminate against strike breakers. However, in 1957, among stake presidents studied there were no union leaders and among bishops only one (2% of those studied) was a union leader, so that examples of this kind are rare. 

In spite of the conflict which has existed between Church leaders and unionized workers, in 1957 it was found that the most active Church members and bishops who are manual workers are more likely to be union members than are the completely inactive Church members. In addition, 17% of the bishops who were union members and 10% of the most active Church union members held an office in their union, while among the completely inactive in the manual worker groups, the figure was about 2%.

Another study[6] conducted in 1965 sheds further light. Among Utah’s union leaders it was found that 74% were members of the Church, which approximated the percent of Utah’s population who were members of the Church. Of these Mormon union leaders, 34% indicated that they held a Church position and were regular in their Church attendance. An additional 21% indicated that they either held a Church position (and were irregular in Church attendance) or they held no position but were regular in Church activity. Only 14% indicated that they were completely inactive. Those who held Church positions were found to represent almost a complete array of Church offices. Of the 206 Mor mon union leaders one was a bishop, while three had been; three were high councilors, while two others had been; three were elders presidents, while seventeen had been; four were Seventies presidents, while nine had been; one was a stake missionary, while twenty had served on missions; eight were scout leaders, while twenty-three had been; twenty were auxiliary teachers, while fifty-two had been; six were ward clerks, while ten had been. In addition to these, many other offices were represented among Utah’s union leaders belonging to the Church. 

It appears that those union leaders who are most active in Church, that is, attend regularly and hold a Church position, are a little less militant in their union activity. Some 53% of the most active have been on strike at some time, while the figure for the completely inactive is 61%. Some 43% of the most active have at some time served on a picket line, while the figure for the completely inactive is 57%. However, there is no significant difference in the percent of the two groupings who have called strikes. 

While the Church and the reality of the business world appear to have accommodated to each other, such accommodation between the reality of the world of manual workers and the Church has yet to take place. 

---

[1] Unpublished study by Howard Nielsen of Brigham Young University. Copy in author’s files.

[2] This statistic was developed from research for a doctoral dissertation in 1957. The universe for this study was the stakes of the Church in continental United States, in which lived 1,154,000 of the 1,417,000 members. A structured random sample of these was taken, with stakes in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. From these stakes a systematic sample of 54 wards and branches was taken and a list of families secured. A random sample of 1,060 of these families was taken. The bishops (including branch presidents) and the stake presidents of the units selected served as the samples for those categories. A questionnaire was distributed by personal contact with all families, bishops, and stake presidents except in New York, Texas and Washington. The latter received questionnaires by mail. A return of 71.3% of the general membership was secured, while the figures for the stake presidents and bishops were 75.7% and 66.7% respectively. See Davies, J. Kenneth, “A Study of the Labor Philosophy Developed Within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California), 1960.

[3] See Footnote 2. These statistics are reported in greater detail by J. Kenneth Davies in “The Mormon Church: Its Middle-class Propensities,” Reveiw of Religious Research, IV (Winter 1963).

[4] See author’s “Utah Labor Before Statehood,” Utah Historical Quarterly, XXXIV (Summer 1966).

[5] See J. Kenneth Davies, “Mormonism and the Closed Shop,” Labor History, III (Spring 1962).

[6] All of the unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO in the state of Utah served as the universe for this study. Each was asked to furnish a list of all leaders. From these lists were taken the names of the presidents, vice presidents, secretaries, treasurers, business agents and secretary-treasurers or their equivalent. Where unions failed to respond to letters the names of the three top leaders in the files of the Utah Industrial Commission were used. All were sent questionnaires. Of the 520 union leaders approached, 53.9%, or 280, returned completed questionnaires.